"A Threat to Fair Elections" - A possible Corporate takeover could be allowed by the USSC.

[madinmaryland]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/opinion/08tue1.html?ref=opinion


The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections. If the floodgates open, money from big business could overwhelm the electoral process, as well as the making of laws on issues like tax policy and bank regulation.

The court, which is scheduled to hear arguments on this issue on Wednesday, is rushing to decide a monumental question at breakneck speed and seems willing to throw established precedents and judicial modesty out the window.

Corporations and unions have been prohibited from spending their money on federal campaigns since 1947, and corporate contributions have been barred since 1907. States have barred corporate expenditures since the late 1800s. These laws are very much needed today. In the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 100 companies alone had combined revenues of $13.1 trillion and profits of $605 billion. That dwarfs the $1.5 billion that Federal Election Commission-registered political parties spent during the same election period, or the $1.2 billion spent by federal political action committees.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the limitations on corporate campaign expenditures. In 1990, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and again in 2003, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, it made clear that Congress was acting within its authority and that the restrictions are consistent with the First Amendment.

..snip

Corporations would have an enormous say in who wins federal elections. They would be able to use this influence to obtain subsidies, stimulus money and tax loopholes and to undo protections for investors, workers and consumers. It would take an extraordinarily brave member of Congress to stand up to agents of big business who then could say, quite credibly, that they would spend whatever it takes in the next election to defeat him or her.

..snip

Given the amount of time (rightly) being given to the health care reform debate, this is flying under everyone's radar. This could radically change the direction of this country, giving the corporation unlimited ability to control the government and its policies.

Be afraid. :scared:

[orpupilofnature57]

1. This is the Crux of our dilemma ,good post.

[madinmaryland]

4. What is scary, is that we think corporations have taken over now.

If this USSC rules for the corporations, we will truly be a government of, by, and for the corporations. Forget any rights for people. Gone.

Scary thought.

[librechik]

7. yeah--their influence is toxic already! Do something about that, SCOTUS!

sorry--someting wrong with my keyboard!

[Democracyinkind]

2. But but... but.. Corporations are so American....

Daddy said it's the corporations that built this shining city on the hill.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. I can only hope this forces real campaign finance reform to occur

we have been talking about it for years but the majority of Americans either don't understand how much influence corporations already have or are actually in favor of human beings being reduced to second class citizens

[madinmaryland]

5. "human beings being reduced to second class citizens". That is truly

what will happen. I would be interested in hearing Thom Hartmann's thoughts on this. He has been vociferous in his opposition to corporate personhood.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. We need a Constitutional Amendment

doing away with the concept of Corporate Personhood. It's that simple.