Supreme Court Upholds Corporate Personhood

[Arainach]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247/ns/politics-supreme_court/

WASHINGTON - A major ruling Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court could change how advertisements for presidential and congressional elections are funded, possibly opening the floodgates of money from corporations, unions and other groups.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

(original sources continues)Well, that settles it. We're officially now run by corporations instead of republican democracy. Aweeeeeeesome.

[Killer_Man_]

Yes, let only the man who can rangle up the most donations from people win the election.

[Gio Takahashi]

WElcome to Corporation State of America(tm), How can we help you?

[chefTENGU]

What surprised me the most about this is how this decision completely reverses two previous Supreme Court decisions on this same issue.

[Seegtease]

Just to be the devil's advocate (and the optimist), perhaps this could allow more candidates outside the two parties to have a better shot at being known.

Unless the restriction only applied to Republicans and Democrats to begin with, in which case it sucks overall.

[chefTENGU]

I think the potential risk of corporations simply buying the elections for their favored candidates far outweighs that benefit.

One person commenting about it on the news put it something like this:

Right now, if a candidate can raise $1M at a fundraiser, he's a HUGE deal. However, to a big corporation, $1M is just chump change. All this decision is going to do is muck up the political process even further.

[Gio Takahashi]

I think the potential risk of corporations simply buying the elections for their favored candidates far outweighs that benefit.

One person commenting about it on the news put it something like this:

Right now, if a candidate can raise $1M at a fundraiser, he's a HUGE deal. However, to a big corporation, $1M is just chump change. All this decision is going to do is muck up the political process even further.

This. It sucks because it'll give corporations good reason to buy the candidate who'd benefit them the most, with this in mind, they are far more likely to benefit generally the republicans, since they tend to appease moreso to the corporations and rich folks, that's why it's pretty bullshit.

Now, companies like Comcast and Verizon gets to win because of this.

Unless the said candidates outside of the republican/democrats system give the corporations reason to 'sponsor' their election, I doubt this will help them at all. If anything, it could hurt their chance of winning the election even more so.

[Bloodcinder]

There are plenty of people who want to give a shitload of money to the Libertarian party but haven't been able to do so due to McCain-Feingold.

[Seegtease]

It would kind of give a little different approach to trying to get a name known.

You want a certain candidate to become more popular? Write Bill Gates!

[deathofcheese]

This seems to me to be another nail in the lid of the declining power of personal voting. Why vote? Politicians' pockets get filled anyways.

[Killer_Man_]

Yes and think of all those cities that get their pockets lined because the next 'president' may visit there and rally people.

Every election I always roll my eyes, my Dad asks me why?

I told him, I don't donate to a cause such as this because the money is either A: Mishandled or B: Gets spent for bullshit such as when Obama was out having pancakes with the 'common folk.'

I told him, all you are doing is supporting an image and you hope to god that image that you support will do the right thing.

Plus when I saw this article the first time, I just kinda giggled and thought, "Perhaps we'll have a muselim president now because of oil companies and now he'll drive prices sky high.
Mind you, I was as well talking to my Dad about this and he said, well even if they did or did not allow this. A lot of big corporations would make smaller chains of themselves or a a new company so they can donate. Or get someone esle to do it. Such as your workers donating the money for you.(Like oging up to Jimmy and telling him please donate this 50k for the cause I want)

[Bloodcinder]

I'm having trouble seeing the disaster here, but maybe that's because I'm a libertarian.

Have you folks forgotten that... the candidates still need to be elected?

[deathofcheese]

Why bother electing them when they just get bought out to only do favorable things to a corporate interest?

[deathofcheese]

I think I need to expand.

Although it's not new and it's certainly not unique, the controversy pointed out in this small article (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/22/chertoff-needs-to-ge.html) is the root of the issue. (Read it, barely even a full paragraph.) I understand that this is an appointed position and not an elected one, but it's still applicable.

Corporations throw obscene amounts of money at whoever gets elected and those politicians turn around and vote for and appoint people who simply exist to push their previous companies or products or are little more than cronies who think of nothing but corporate interests. Now that the Supreme Court, a body which is appointed, not elected, has decided that this behavior is in the spirit of the Constitution, it's not even worth it to vote anymore. The elected politicians are the easiest to corrupt, and they spread it by appointing already corrupt officers. There is no fighting it. Even if a significant number of Libertarian or Independent or what-have-you politicians are elected, even, say, enough to wrest a majority, it wouldn't be nearly enough to undo even a modicum of the damage done by this, and all the events and precedents that have come before this.

[Killer_Man_]

Canada anyone? Hurk hurk hurk.

[chefTENGU]

I'm saving that in case Sarah Palin gets elected president.

[Tiger]

Well, that settles it. We're officially now run by corporations instead of republican democracy. Aweeeeeeesome.

Weren't we an Electoral Democracy?

[deathofcheese]

Weren't we an Electoral Democracy?Supposedly. "Republic-" should be thrown in there somewhere, since the voice of the government isn't directly the voice of the people. (Which is what I think Arainach did there; "republican" as in "republic-like", not "of Republicans of the GOP".)

---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:38 ----------

I'm saving that in case Sarah Palin gets elected president.TRUTH, although, she might try to annex BC and maybe Yukon so she has a straight shot to drive home to Alaska.

[Arainach]

Supposedly. "Republic-" should be thrown in there somewhere, since the voice of the government isn't directly the voice of the people. (Which is what I think Arainach did there; "republican" as in "republic-like", not "of Republicans of the GOP".)Exactly. Our government is a republic. If I had meant the GOP, I'd likely have capitalized the R in Republican.