Maybe your messiah should nationalize these bad, bad corporations. Just like he has started to do with GM, GMAC, etc....

You wanna vote to restrict the amount of space/time that a newspaper or other news outlet can dedicate to swaying public opinion, too, Frank?

could someone PLEASE list some of these evil corporations with with OBSCENE PROFITS?

my 401K has really taken a shit :(

"Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights."

Just can't see how anyone can disagree with that. RAtionalizations can be made to justify any wrong and those who benefit by pretending corporations are persons have the money to pay people to come up with the spin but it's still doublespeak.

RAtionalizations can be made to justify any wrong and those who benefit by pretending corporations are persons have the money to pay people to come up with the spin but it's still doublespeak.
#4 | Posted by danni

The law according to danni is one which only she agrees with.If it gets in the way of her entitlements and government dole paid for by other people its wrong.
The democrats started the ball rolling with this decision because they are so short sighted.

#3 | Posted by markh

Corporations with the Left's seal of approval:

Sachs
GE
Federal Reserve
Climate Change (aka. Global Warming)
Google
Bank of America
Citi Group
State Farm
Berkshire Hathaway
Soros Fund Management

"Not surprisingly, some of the formerly privileged groups are reacting angrily to the court's blow for free speech. The New York Times, for example, promptly excoriated what it termed a "disastrous" decision, declaring that it that will "thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century" by freeing corporations to deploy "their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding."

In truth, the decision simply extends to all corporations the same First Amendment freedoms that media corporations -- such as The New York Times Co. -- take for granted. For-profit corporations that happen to be in the business of publishing or broadcasting are free to spend money supporting or opposing political candidates. Why shouldn't corporations in every other industry be equally free? "

"Such unhinged reactions to a ruling that extends free speech rights to all is a sad reminder of how far the left has moved from the First Amendment tradition of the 20th century's great liberals."

"Federal Reserve
Climate Change (aka. Global Warming)"

These are corporations? Interesting dictionary you have there.

+++++

"In truth, the decision simply extends to all corporations the same First Amendment freedoms that media corporations -- such as The New York Times Co. -- take for granted. For-profit corporations that happen to be in the business of publishing or broadcasting are free to spend money supporting or opposing political candidates. Why shouldn't corporations in every other industry be equally free? "

Who is this Jeff Jacoby guy? Apparently, he doesn't understand that publishing an op-ed or issuing an endorsement is not the same as contributing to a campaign. Under the previous ruling/reality, I don't believe any corporation was prevented from endorsing whomever they wanted to endorse; they were prevented from contributing to campaign coffers. It's an important distinction.

"Such unhinged reactions to a ruling that extends free speech rights to all is a sad reminder of how far the left has moved from the First Amendment tradition of the 20th century's great liberals."

Which all became so relevant when personhood was errored into being in the late 1800's...

From Wiki:

In 2008, Blackwater sued the City of San Diego to force the city to issue them a certificate of occupancy for its training facility in Otay Mesa before the plan went through the city's public review process. "U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff ruled in Blackwater's favor. Blackwater is a person and has a right to due process under the law and would suffer significant damage due to not being able to start on its $400 million Navy contract."

Danni is free to stand on a picnic table in the city park and screech her political views. That's free.

Of course, Danni would be approached, found to be carrying pot and arrested. Then her son would have to bail her out.

Danni and her pals have no grasp of this. They hear the word 'corporation' and all they can imagine is a room full of old white men in expensive suits, drinking wine glasses full of blood and laughing as they send American jobs to China.

Every legit non-profit across the spectrum is also a 'corporation.' Are they entitled to free speech?

The SCOTUS ruling recognizes the reality that making your voice heard costs money. And people organized as a corporation are still people with a common interest.

McCain-Feingold was grossly unconstitutional in many way. Bush cynically signed it, expecting SCOTUS to eventually overturn it.

"Danni is free to stand on a picnic table in the city park and screech her political views. That's free."

And so are every single CEO of every major corporation. They don't want freedom of speech, they want dominant freedom where their words are echoed millions of times. Where they can lie because the shell corporation they set up to do the lying has not assets to go after. Where foreigners can do the lying. But still, the same empty minds will cheer on the power of the corporations, all hail the corporate take over. FAscism forever.
Y'all could do me one favor though, at least call a spade a spade and a fascist a fascist.

"Every legit non-profit across the spectrum is also a 'corporation.' Are they entitled to free speech?"

No. The individuals within are, but the corporation doesn't need to be.

And of course, your premise is that money is speech, and I'm not sure I agree that it is.

They don't want freedom of speech, they want dominant freedom where their words are echoed millions of times.
Where they can lie because the shell corporation they set up to do the lying has not assets to go after.
Where foreigners can do the lying. But still, the same empty minds will cheer on the power of the corporations, all hail the corporate take over. FAscism forever.

Y'all could do me one favor though, at least call a spade a spade and a fascist a fascist.

#11 | Posted by danni

Firmly establish that money is not speech...

True that money isn't speech... but what you do with your money MAY be.

...and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

While I firmly believe that it was the intention of the founding fathers that corporations not be given those rights, the fact is that corporate personhood was established as precedent well over 100 years ago.

I can see amending the Constitution to revoke this precedent, but anything that stifles the way you choose to speak with your money I would have to be against.

Free speech is never limited to just speech you agree with, and having the ability to exercise your free speech doesn't guarantee you an equal audience or venue to other speakers. It would be dangerous to everyone's freedoms to try and make it that way.

I agree, Moonman. There's not enough corporate money influencing politicians today....

A Petition to Amend.......

I love the premise.

Seriously.

This ruling was constitutionally sound.

If the constitution, as its currently written, creates a circumstance or set of circumstances that are harmful then ammend it. That is precisely why the founders put that mechanism into place.

Good thread, Frank.

Idiots gone wild

I agree, Moonman. There's not enough corporate money influencing politicians today....

Boyd, you have given everyone here a serious "WTF?!?!" moment.

What does your reply have to do with what I said? Were you posting drunk or something?

In case you were just confused, and not just suffering from a terminal case of stupidity: I don't like the idea of corporations influencing politicians. How you got that idea is beyond me.

Maybe you were just confused and didn't get the idea that I dealt with two different concepts:

1. money
2. those that spend the money

To repeat the concept I put forward earlier, money isn't free speech, but the way you use it can be. Amending the Constitution to limit how you may use it in this instance would be (in my opinion) an abridgment of free speech.

As a separate issue, I feel that amending the Constitution to remove corporate personhood would not only be desirable as a solution, but would fit more with what the founding fathers envisioned. In fact an amendment would be NECESSARY to remove corporate personhood since it was first established in 1886 in the USSC case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394.

Amending the Constitution to remove corporate personhood would be messy, and would have wide ranging effects both positive and negative, however I still think it should be done.

The suggestion that I actually am for corporate money influencing our political system is not only a wrong assertion given my first post, it is TRAGICALLY and RIDICULOUSLY wrong.

In case you were just confused, and not just suffering from a terminal case of stupidity:

In boyd's case, it's the latter

I don't like the idea of corporations influencing politicians. How you got that idea is beyond me... The suggestion that I actually am for corporate money influencing our political system is not only a wrong assertion given my first post, it is TRAGICALLY and RIDICULOUSLY wrong.

Assigning false positions is as much of boyd's schtick as cutesy-speak is of dethspud's.

Heya Goatman. Wish I had been able to get ahold of you a couple of weeks ago. I was down in Kerrville for about 3 days.

Wish I had been able to get ahold of you a couple of weeks ago.

I wish you had, too. I live not far from Kerrville. If there again, let me know.

I wish you had, too. I live not far from Kerrville. If there again, let me know.

I surely will. Beautiful country down that way and really enjoyed my stay. Unfortunately the trip was planned last minute and much more rushed than I would have liked. Hopefully next time I have a little more advance notice.

As for Boyd's idiocy... you are correct, Sir.

"Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights."

That would put an end to not-for-profit corporations like National Action, the ACLU and Greenpeace filing nuisance lawsuits. They would have no rights as corporations and hence no standing.

your premise is that money is speech, and I'm not sure I agree that it is.

#12 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-01-24 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

OK, express your opinion without money...

Does anyone hear you?

Does anyone react, or care?

Can you make a difference without money?