to them.
Check out Bill MOyer's Journal from last Friday.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/profile.html IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERSTATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT.
IF you thought the eight lonnnnnnngg years of fascist totalitarian government under the Scalia selected Cheney Regime
was hell, YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET. You think the corporations run the government NOW?!? IF THE ROBERTS COURT GETS IT'S WAY, YOU CAN KISS YOUR DEMOCRACY GOOD-FUCKING BYE! The Roberts court wants to allow UNLIMITED CAMPAIGN SPENDING BY CORPORATIONS. This quite simply would mean the end of democracy in America.
September 4, 2009
The Supreme Court is returning early from its summer recess to consider a potential watermark case that could overturn a century of campaign finance restrictions and clear the way for unregulated spending by corporations on political campaigns. The case, Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission, has grown from a limited question about a political documentary to a broad challenge to the government's right to restrict corporations from spending money to support or oppose political candidates.
~~
~~
Citizens United v. FEC
At the center of this case is a 2008 political documentary, HILLARY: THE MOVIE, which sought to portray then presidential contender Hillary Clinton as a dangerous threat to the United States. The Federal Election Commission considered it an electioneering communication, funded by a corporation, and therefore subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions.
When the case appeared before the Supreme Court last session, in early 2009, the question was only whether HILLARY: THE MOVIE was an electioneering communication, but the case has grown in the re-argument. According to the NEW YORK TIMES' Adam Liptik, "some of the broader issues implicated by the case were only glancingly discussed in the first round of briefs, and some justices may have felt reluctant to take a major step without fuller consideration." The court asked for a re-argument, specifically as to whether the court should overrule two previous decisions that upheld the government's right to limit certain types of corporate political advocacy — the 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, which upheld a Michigan state law, and the 2003 decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld McCain-Feingold.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/profile.html
THis is a MUST SEE MOYER'S JOURNAL. SERIOUSLY, OUR DEMOCRACY DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THE ROBERTS COURT GETS THEIR WAY ON THIS.
They want to give corporations the right of freedom of speech like citizens have. This is bullshit. They also keep talking like a corporation and a union are the same. bullshit. A union has a governing board elected on a one man one vote principal. A corporate board of directors is controlled by the largest shareholders. IT is NOT based upon each shareholder haveing an equal vote. A corporation is an economic artifice given certain rights (e.g. to form contracts, and to file suits in court) of individuals FOR PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. That does NOT mean they really are people, with inalienable rights recognized by the Constitution. They are economic machines. Machines do not have rights!
If managers, business owners want to form an organization of businessmen they can (and do) and they can engage in campaigning for candidates and issues just as unions can. That does not mean a corporation should be treated like an organization of people or like a person. A corporation is an economic machine. Arguing it has a right to free speech is bullshit. 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
