The best government money can buy has become even more corrupt.

Awesome.

Where are all the rightists on the DR telling us what a great thing this is for our country, and that we are just too stupid to understand its importance and benefits? After all, that's what they voted for---big business.

This actually is a huge ruling. In the long run, it may end up being the biggest political development of 2010. This fundamentally will change the way campaigns are marketed to the public, and the players involved with that marketing process. The Big Purses just won an open invitation to The Table.

The Big Purses just won an open invitation to The Table.

#4 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-01-21 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you are saying prior to this ruling, "The Big Purses" were not at the table?

ROTFLMAO.

Change the title to something having to do with the actual nature of the ruling and put this on the Front Page.

#5 | Posted by midtowncowboy

I guess 450M to dems does not qualify as "Big Purse".

450M by the unions to the dems

Major win for George Soros, Big Unions, and ACORN. Don't blame the "righties," the Dem's get as much or more from corporations. Of course with Obama crying about every little corporation or insurance company, while handing out billions to those same companies, who knows what will happen.

It's called free speech--political ads--and congress shall not prohibit free speech.

They need to take off the limits for individuals too.

No foreign money though..

"It's called free speech--political ads--and congress shall not prohibit free speech.

They need to take off the limits for individuals too.

No foreign money though..
#10 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-01-21 10:06 PM"

Free speech for PEOPLE. Corporations are NOT "people".

I'm surprised the Contitutional Constructionists are not more up-in-arms about this.

BTW, if you think corporations don't involve "foreign money", you are woefully mistaken/dreaming...

Don't blame the "righties,"

#9 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-01-21 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

It wasn't liberals who changed the law---it was the Activist conservative judges on the Supreme Court. The liberals voted against this travesty. Pay attention for once.

Corporations are NOT "people".

I was listening to the radio on the way home from work last night. Newt Gingrich was being asked about this ruling and boy howdy was he happy.

He started prattling on about free speech and giving the people a voice and how this will open the election process up by allowing money to go where people really want it.

"But Corporations aren't people." was the reaction I had, too. I just don't understand it. How any person with a fucking brain can look at this objectively and decide that massive corporations with basically bottomless pits of cash can now throw that money behind one guy, effectively buying his election.

Dumb asses.

The Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individualsIndeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate. - Scalia

He is absolutely correct. McCain/Feingold censored political speech.

The Court, led by Justice Kennedy, held that the First Amendment stands against attempts to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. In so doing, the Court declared that the government cannot impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers such as corporations.

The Court also found that free speech rights under the First Amendment do not depend on a speaker's financial ability to engage in public discussion the fact that some speakers may have more wealth than others does not diminish their First Amendment rights.

Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, the basis for upholding other campaign finance restrictions. Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy and the means to hold officials accountable to the people. As such, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it.

"He is absolutely correct. McCain/Feingold censored political speech.
#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-01-22 07:15 AM"

Sorry, but Justice Scalia is absolutely incorrect.

To put forth the idea that this is a free speech issue is (at best) a canard. NO ONE was denying ANYONE their free speech rights. To claim otherwise is a Strawman Argument. After all, who would dare be against free speech? The point is NO ONE is. However, that is NOT the issue. At what time were the INDIVIDUALS in the corporations prohibited from exercising their free speech rights? Answer: NEVER.

While it's true that some individuals have more resources than others, that is hardly equivalent to affording an entire corporation with the same rights as an individual. Ours is a capitalist society and we reap the benefits (and problems) of that system. However, it never was the intent of our society (or Founding Fathers!) to grant corporations the rights enjoyed by our individuals. Again, where are all the Constitution Constructionists??? How does it feel to have a Liberal remind you how to support/defend the Constitution?

One last point (before I step down from the soapbox): IF we as a sociey are enamored with the idea of granting corporations the rights that belong to an individual, how about posting the SAME LIMIT on a corporation that is placed on an individual? There should be no problem with that, unless of course, a coporation is 'MORE EQUAL' than others!

Now the select few really do get to vote twice.

Once with the obscene amount of money they can put into a campaign and once to vote for the guy that used their money to buy his way in.

Hoooray America.

At what time were the INDIVIDUALS in the corporations prohibited from exercising their free speech rights? Answer: NEVER.

The moment their government prohibited their employer from the expression of political opinion.

The moment their government prohibited their employer from the expression of political opinion.

That's bullshit and you know it.

#4 | Posted by moder8

FF

"Once with the obscene amount of money they can put into a campaign and once to vote for the guy that used their money to buy his way in."
#17 | Posted by Axiom

Can you say "George Soros"?

At what time were the INDIVIDUALS in the corporations prohibited from exercising their free speech rights? Answer: NEVER.

The moment their government prohibited their employer from the expression of political opinion.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-01-22 09:48 AM | Reply | Flag

Prove how the government limiting WalMart's ability to influence an election through funding of a candidate is limiting Wendy the cashiers ability to speak freely.

So now Walmart speaks for Wendy? What if Wendy does not agree with what Walmart is saying? Do you honestly believe that Wendy the cashier has the authority to direct the "free speech" of Walmart?

I said this in another thread yesterday - make it a crime for politicians to propose or vote on laws that would directly benefit anyone who has given them money, and corporations etc. will have no reason to give millions to politicians because they will see no benefit from it. Regardless of whether you agree with the court's ruling that money = speech, the real solution to this problem is to criminalize the behavior that harms society. The acts of politicians after they receive money is what makes pay-to-play politics harmful to society.

#23 | Posted by JOE

I love that idea. But I think you have to do it on a state level making it a state crime for any and all politicians to do this. Say my Senator did this it would be up to the state to file charges.