Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SCOTUS: Corporations=People, Spending=Speech

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:37 AM
Original message
SCOTUS: Corporations=People, Spending=Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today on Citizens United vs. FEC.

Live blog: http://www.scotusblog.com

Decision: PDF.

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS CONDEMN SUPREME COURT'S RULING ON CORPORATE MONEY IN ELECTIONS, CALL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO OVERTURN COURT DECISION

"Free Speech Rights Are For People, Not Corporations"

WASHINGTON, DC – A coalition of public interest organizations strongly condemned today's ruling by the US Supreme Court allowing unlimited corporate money in US elections and announced that it is launching a campaign to amend the United States Constitution to overturn the ruling. The groups, Voter Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance, say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. They aim, through their constitutional amendment campaign, to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades. Immediately following the Court's ruling, the groups unveiled a new website – http://www.freespeechforpeople.org – devoted to this campaign.

"Free speech rights are for people, not corporations," says John Bonifaz, Voter Action's legal director. "In wrongly assigning First Amendment protections to corporations, the Supreme Court has now unleashed a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in US history. This campaign to amend the Constitution will seek to restore the First Amendment to its original purpose."

The public interest groups say that, since the late 1970s, a divided Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade democratic control and sidestep sound public welfare measures. For the first two centuries of the American republic, the groups argue, corporations did not have First Amendment rights to limit the reach of democratically-enacted regulations.

"The corporate rights movement has reached its extreme conclusion in today's Supreme Court ruling," says Jeffrey Clements, general counsel to www.freespeechforpeople.org and a consultant to Voter Action. "In recent years, corporations have misused the First Amendment to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms, from elections to healthcare, from financial reform to climate change and environmental protection, and more. Today's ruling, reversing longstanding precedent which prohibits corporate expenditures in elections, now requires a constitutional amendment response to protect our democracy."

In support of their new campaign, the groups point to prior amendments to the US Constitution which were enacted to correct egregiously wrong decisions of the US Supreme Court directly impacting the democratic process, including the 15th Amendment prohibiting discrimination in voting based on race and the 19th Amendment, prohibiting discrimination in voting based on gender.

"The Court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth," says Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. "There is surely no originalist interpretation to support this outcome, since the Court created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line. Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment."

"With this decision, the Court has abandoned its usual practice of adjudicating non-constitutional claims before constitutional ones, a radical departure that indicates how far the Roberts Court may be willing to go in order to serve the powerful 'business civil liberties' agenda," says Charlie Cray, director of the Center for Corporate Policy. "While the immediate effect is likely to be a surge in corporate cash in election campaigns, this could also signal the beginning of a sustained attack on the rights and ability of everyday people to govern the behavior of corporations, which, if successful, could effectively eviscerate what's left of American democracy."

“American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, states imposing poll taxes on voters, or the opponents of woman suffrage,” says Jamin Raskin, professor of constitutional law and the First Amendment at American University’s Washington College of Law. “Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States."

For more information on the constitutional amendment campaign, see
http://www.freespeechforpeople.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. I don't mind corporate personhood.
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 10:47 AM by OneTenthofOnePercent
but that's only because per the 1932 NFA and 1986 FOPA I find myself personally unable to own machineguns. My Cheif of Police (or other local officials) will not sign the required paperwork. However, by forming a corporation with myself as the head, I can establish the corporation's idividual rights where my corporation can own machineguns and silencers. Just like buying regular firearms except you write down the corporate information on all the application forms.

My corporation owns them and therefore my corporation's executives (me) can posses and use them.
If a corporate or legal entity owns the firearms no local official's signature is required on the paperwork.
Obviously, a background check or photographs or fingerprints can't be taken of a corporation.

See, Corporate Personhood and legal entities have loads of uses for everybody.
Although I'm not so sure I like the $$$ = Free speech concept. Just a way to buy elections, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yankee2 Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
22. You MURDER Democracy!
Right. You support this finding, so YOU can own machine guns? You would cut off Democracy at the knees, for that??? You are such a fool! This finding is very much like saying "a corporation has as many "votes" (i.e. as much power) as it needs to sabotage the democratic process." THAT is the most anti-democratic, inhuman thing I have ever heard in my LIFE! Anyone who supports this finding is a traitor to everything America (is supposed to) stand for! Under this finding, Democracy is worse than a sham, it is DEAD! And people like YOU are its murderers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
43. I think he was joking and illustrating how bad this decision is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #43
56. LOL... no, he wasn't (pics)
1911 w/ YHM Cobra M2
Glock 19 w/ Gemtech
Mac 11 w/ Lage accessories
Ruger .22 w/ SWR Warlock
Ruger LCP (not a silencer or machinegun, but fun anyways)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
55. Ha! Remember when Franken did the bit about incorporating himself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. agreed. this is horrendous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. Will the corporation advertise what politicians they have bought
I can see the add now Wal-Mart, Proud sponsors of Senator Doh, Doh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. Someone suggested our politicians wear jumpsuits similar to NASCAR,
decorated with their corporate sponsors logos. I think it's a great idea!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Damn fine idea. And without a logo, average Americans it would seem deserve no representation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Whoa! What a great flag!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. That was me, and I wish it was federal law.
Some other nice DUer made a photos hoped image of Chuck Grassley in a NASCAR uniform :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #21
73. Supreme Court justices, too.
Calling all Photoshoppers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying Dream Blues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #21
83. Robin Williams. Too real to be funny on that one! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. Oh. So, THAT is what "We the People" means.
All this time, I thought it meant individual citizens. Silly me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Roberts & Alito....
...both Bush appointees, and it was a 5-4 vote. Another catastrophic result of hard-core liberals voting for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore back in 2000.

When one reaches too high, they often fall further back. Folks, please think about this the next time you're tempted to "dig in your heels" because a Democrat isn't being progressive "enough."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Al Gore won the popular vote and FL. Bush was installed by SCOTUS. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Nader Made the Difference
Nader won 97,000+ votes in Florida. Bush "won" by 537 votes. Had those Nader supporters voted for Gore, the election wouldn't have been so close and Republicans would not have had the opportunity to steal the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
36. Nader was right. It's Dems responsibility to win those votes, make it not so close
If you don't see that today, you gotcher head in the sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. If Gore had run on Nader's platform.....
...he would have not only lost Florida, but the other 49 states, also. If you still don't realize that it is you who has your head in the sand. Democrats have to appeal to both LOSING 1,000 INDEPENDENT VOTERS in the process?

Inflexible left-wingers who supported Nader a decade ago have to take a lot of blame for today's devastating Supreme Court decision. Al Gore would have continued Clinton's successful policies, and we'd be in a lot better shape than we are today.

It's better to have half the pie than nothing at all, folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Sorry that is just bullshit logic. As usual. Who said anything about
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 02:41 PM by omega minimo
"If Gore had run on Nader's platform....." :freak:

DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW CLOSE THAT ELECTION WAS. Deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Yes, Gore ran a weak campaign....
...BUT NADER'S CANDIDACY MADE THE DIFFERENCE AT THE END.

I've been dealing with the disastrous consequences of the Bush Presidency for the last decade, buddy. Inane stubborness on the part of left-wingers is what caused the catastrophic era which was the last decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. No it didn't.
There were many other ILLEGAL electoral factors and a SCOTUS decision that "MADE THE DIFFERENCE AT THE END."

It's just too convenient for you to hang onto your scapegoat, eh? Those other pesky details aren't worth mentioning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #49
58. Here are the Facts, Omega....
FLORIDA'S Official Election Results (2000)

Bush, George W. 2,912,790
Gore, Al 2,912,253
Nader, Ralph 97,488


NEW HAMPSHIRE'S Official Election Results (2000)

Bush, George W. 273,559
Gore, Al 266,348
Nader, Ralph 22,198

As for Gore not "earning" enough votes on his own, you should be reminded that he won (what was at the time) the HIGHEST NUMBER of popular votes in any election in U.S. History. Not too shabby of a performance, huh?

Unfortunately, the electoral college is where the winner is determined.

If Gore had won EITHER ONE of the two states mentioned above, he would have won the election, the Bush/Cheney years would never have happened, and the world would be a much better place today.

If you are still going to stand here and argue that liberals who voted for Ralph Nader did not ultimately cause Gore's defeat in the end, then there's no point in my trying to convince you otherwise. You and all the others on the far left can keep living in la-la land, and keep getting screwed to hell by conservative Republicans.

The point I'm trying to make is this....liberals only represent about 21% of the U.S. population (conservatives are approx. 34%). Therefore, it is imperative that we get a HUGE chunk of independent voters to support Democrats. You can't win them over by embracing far-left positions such as those advocated by Ralph Nader.

We need to be pragmatic in our pursuit of progressive goals. The best way to bring about positive, lasting change is by doing it incrementally, not in one fell-swoop.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. Why are you bringing up Nader? Your post is full of lies and spin.
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 11:57 PM by Mithreal
Self identified liberals, sure. The problem with your argument is the people when polled want the ideas presented by liberals and that includes people from the right all the way to the left.

I am too angry to even think straight at the moment, but anyone who brings this all up right now I look upon with suspicion and you are so spinning out of control you should be ashamed. Silver tongued propagandist is all I see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. Agreed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #61
71. Just the FACTS
There are more conservatives than liberals in our country. If Democrats don't appeal beyond the liberal base they cannot win elections. It's simple math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #71
79. Your facts contain grain enough of truth to try and make them palatable. Snake oil centrism.
The people have been sold the word liberal is bad but their actual wants and needs are for progressive solutions. You have no response to that, do you?

Stand for nothing and you will fall for anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #58
66. It's the Right leaning Democrats fault that vote was ANYWHERE near close. Deal with it. "Man up"
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 01:10 AM by omega minimo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
76. more anti-nader idiocy.
if only we could have al law against the free speech of the terminally stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. Or perhaps it is a reason not to take liberals for granted. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
59. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #16
64. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prairierose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. Votes for Nader had nothing to do with the stolen election of 2000...
Gore won the election and won FL but the Supreme Court appointed Bush when they stopped the vote counting. Catch up to reality.

This SC decision is another knife to the heart of democracy in what used to be the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. Keep thinking that way....
...and we'll just keep on losing elections.

Have you forgotten that Nader also tipped New Hampshire into Bush's column? That state would have put Gore over 270 electoral votes as well.

For Democrats to win, they must appeal to both liberals AND independents. That's how we won in '92, '96, and '08. Appealing only to the liberal base results in HUGE defeats every time over the last 40 years.

1972--Lost 49 states
1980--Lost 45(?) states'
1984--Lost 49 states
1988--Lost 40 states
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. The Democrats have never "appealed only to the liberal base" in the past 30 years.
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 04:17 PM by omega minimo
You keep thinking that a shift further to the right IF THAT'S POSSIBLE is the way to go,



on the very day the Bush SCOTUS has made corporate fascism the law of the land and you WILL keep losing elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Maybe you should read....
...the book, "Take It Back" by Jim Carville & Paul Begala. It's a great narrative on how to appeal to independent voters WITHOUT totally sacrificing our progressive goals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #57
68. What you call "Independent" is Republican Lite. Dems have been catering to that since Reagan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #57
69. Carville is a slick tongued fool and a betrayer
Oops, was my bias showing?

"WITHOUT totally" my ass. "our"? you have to be kidding me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #69
80. Ignore me at your own peril....
...the Democrats cannot win by appealing soley to the liberal base. It's mathematically impossible.

As for your attacks on Carville, yeah, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger...that's a great strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. Ignore who he is and you won't see the bigger picture
Believe me when I say I am not ignoring the ideas you present. Your math is old and weak. You took home the wrong lesson, I really am sorry you cannot see.

Sometimes the messenger is worthy, sometimes not. In general I agree that shooting the messenger is a logical fallacy, however, there are exceptions to every rule.

What you fail to see is that you cannot reach across the aisle to a party that says NO every time. You cannot expect compromise from conservatives. There was a mandate for liberal solutions even if you might be afraid of that word. And again I will add that you ignore my argument that the majority of people from right to left want and need progressive solutions.

Reach across the aisle to shake a hand or give a hug but don't sell out the American people or democracy while you are at it. Bipartisanship is how we must see the sharing of ideas, not governing.

Ignore progressive solutions at our country's peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #31
63. Seems awfully concerned about spinning us to the right, that one does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #31
65. And any who say it does, at best expose their ignorance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillbillyBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
41. That old dead whore again.
The truth is Gore DID WIN, scotus with its corporate lawyers selected dimples.
What I saw on the night of the election with my own eyes was our ballots being taken from our district/precinct and dumped into truck mounted shredders by what I realize now were Blackwater uniformed guys.

I know I saw correctly since I was threatened and had my home invaded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #41
52. Come on HB
your posts are so great. could you drop the offensive language?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
62. If Democrats had not abandoned their working class base
in favor of corporate friendly policies like NAFTA, this would never have been an issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. JUST when you think it couldn't get any worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. And it needs to be done quickly. This has a chance of passing. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
45. Don't be so sure....
...that the Dems will rush to pass a law about this. After all, this ruling is also a big boost to Unions' power and they do have a pretty strong grip on the party, just as corporations have on the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Unions don't want this, either. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueDemKev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Why wouldn't they?
It increases their influence, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #47
54. It increases their influence at the cost of increasing their biggest enemies' influence. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #47
82. The unions cannot compete with the money that will be flowing
from megacorporations. The unions, since Reagan are being snuffed out by those same corporations that want even more rights over labor. And since labor cannot compete on an even playing field with corporations--corporations could buy enough politicians to kill the unions, kill labor and kill any safety regulation, basically killing us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. We have seen the enemy..and they are us.
:puke: :puke: :cry: :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. While DU bickers over a Senate seat our Democracy is undone
this is a MASSIVE issue. If we don't raise Holy hell about this the great American experiment is OVER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
10. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blurp Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. People don't lose their rights just because they work together

I have to agree with this ruling. Sometimes people have to be able to pool their resources to speak -- to make a television commercial, for example and they don't lose their speech right just because they work together in a legally formalized group.

The AARP, NEA, AFL/CIO are all examples of corporations that try to use the contributions of members to speak for them in ways that are impossible for individuals by themselves. Should they lose their rights?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. Then you clearly acknowledge only one side of the argument
and ignore the Constitution and warnings about unchecked power of multinational corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
12. Out of all the shit that has gone down since reagan started systematically killing America--
illegal wars invasions, occupations, concentration of wealth, deregulation, environmental destruction, corruption, all that shit--this is by far the worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
14. I perused the official synopsis...
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 11:42 AM by Deep13
...It is absolutely twisted in its reasoning. The people = corporate overlords. Money = speech. It absolutely fails to recognize that this essentially silences hundreds of millions of people who do not own media companies or are rich enough to buy their content. Corporations not only have no limits on their ability to program the population to oppose their own interests, no limits can ever be allowed. This decision is right up there with Lochner and Dred Scott in its anti-democratic and anti-republican effect. I can only hope democracy will survive long enough for us to rue this decision like we now rue Lochner and Dred Scott.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. SUPREME COURT ENDS DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS
Not to worry...




:sarcasm: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
15. So do ALL the amendments apply to corporate peoplehood?
Because, you know, this could get interesting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Meany Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Yeah, corporations can be drafted and sent to war...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyBoots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
37. You mean the wars we fight FOR the corporations? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Meany Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
18. Is political assasination also protected speech? n/t
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 11:44 AM by Blue Meany
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
19. The damage done by Neocons
will continue long after they are gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
23. So that must mean no individual limits either...
...since regular people are persons too, and under the Equal Protection Clause they cannot have limits where corporate persons do not. Also, unions are corporations too, so they cannot have any limits applied either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
60. That is why the AFL-CIO supported the decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
24. Please let this week end!
< /despair>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
25. Wow! A coup in 2000 and now the final barrier to naked fascism is gone.
Good Luck, we're gonna need it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madamesilverspurs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
26. The neocon coup continues.
This is why Roberts was installed as Chief Justice.

---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
30. This will make thoughts run toward violence.
I espouse peace, love, compassion, justice and mercy. I am not, nor have ever been violent.

But I can't help but think many do not share my views and will be more furious than I am. I can only hope "our" government imagines the consequences of the damage it is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
33. Corporate Personhood was the Death Knell of our Democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
34. There will never be a constitutional amendment, and thus there will never be a fair system
"could effectively eviscerate what's left of American democracy."

I hate to break it to the author, but American Democracy was eviscerated long before now. But this could "eviscerate" the false belief, in the minds of those who consistently buy corporate propaganda, that we have any Democracy left to speak of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #34
84. Best post in this thread.
The decision is simply a revelation of the facade we've been calling democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
38. Thanks for digging in your heels on Roberts & Alito, Dems!
...Not. :argh:

Final. Nail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
48. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
50. EXACTLY!! Huge K&R.

I'm SO pissed about this, even though it was fully expected. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
53. sorry, I cannot help but find this ironic
""Free speech rights are for people, not corporations," says John Bonifaz"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
70. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
72. We let Money vote.
Money voted itself into office, then appointed supporters of its own agenda who have now enshrined this practice in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
74. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
75. Conservatives ran the country into the ground and it's going from ruining to ruined. n/t
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 08:48 AM by deacon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
77. The end of grass/netroots
How soon will the Big Money buy total control of the Internet? The people have been silenced.
On the upside: We can expect a drop in correspondence begging for our money from politicians and parties who say they need it to protect us from the moneyed interests.
If the Democrats had any political savvy they'd go after the corporate money and give them everything they want (the Senate Democrats already do that). Then take all their money and use it against them.
This obscene decision is the icing on the cake the Supreme Court baked when they imposed the Bush cartel on us in Bush v. Gore.
They have made a calculated effort to eviscerate the Constitution they have sworn under oath to uphold and defend. Impeachment is not only an option; it has become a necessity. The problem is Democratic leadership has no compass and no moral fortitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
h9socialist Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
78. The last scintilla of real democracy in the U.S. died yesterday . . .
We are now "de jure" a "Democracy of Dollars." The Constitution is 200 years out-of-date as is. It's either our initiative or the teabaggers' to radically change it. The shit has hit the fan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
igfoth Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-22-10 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
85. If Corporation are now Persons
Then Corporations should have to pay taxes at the individual rate.

Why should Corporations, the new American Person, get the free speech but not hove to pay the same taxes as every other person in America?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC