This campaign finance ruling coming before the SC...

[WCGreen]

At first blush I was angry that the conservative judges would suddenly become activists justices who are willing to rewrite laws based on president set by the SC in the first place.

I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

But then I read the article in the NYT about the arguments given and the questions asked.

One question by Justice Ginsberg told why this case is more complicated than I believe the cabal of Roberts and Alitio would have us believe.


Much of the extraordinary 90-minute argument was taken up by discussions of whether the speech of corporations may be treated differently than that of individuals. Mr. Olson and Justice Antonin Scalia noted that most corporations are quite small, with limited assets and often owned by a single shareholder. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked about “mega-corporations” with foreign investors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10scotus.html?hp


Since foreign activity is explicitly illegal and given that many of the corporations who would love to have more influence over the domestic political discourse in this country are owned by people scattered all over the world, how can they possibly separate the interests of shareholders who are citizens of other countries with those who live here in the Bestest most goodest country in the whole damn world?

Just a little food for thought.

[valerief]

1. Why does corporate personhood exist at all? nt

[WCGreen]

2. From my understanding, they were granted that back when the trusts were

being busted...

[valerief]

3. Well, we've got "too big to fail" monopolies now, so I guess it's time to rid us of corp personhood.