Screw it all!! Get your Golden Calf © here and start worshipping

[ddeclue]

Now that we've all been declared corporate serfs by the Supreme Court...

:eyes:

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Corporate Slaves R Us

Hi ho hi ho It's off to work we go....

[leftstreet]

2. You're not praying hard enough

[MercutioATC]

3. The SCOTUS has done no such thing.

It's made the valid legal interpretation that corporate personhood conveys many of the same benefits as actual personhood.

All it did was put corporations and private persons on equal legal footing...and only in regard to political campaign contributions.

[ddeclue]

4. It's STILL a preposterous ruling based on another preposterous ruling..

how long until General Electric runs for President? I don't mean the CEO, I mean the corporate entity.. after all GE is a "person", it's more than 35 years old and was "born" in the USA.. if we are to take today's ruling at face value, it seems a logical extrapolation that General Electric can become President.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. I guarantee, nobody has framed the argument that way to the Supremes.

It seems that would end the question right there.

Corporations are NOT persons. Corporations do NOT have the rights of individuals. They are distinctly different entities with their own set of rights and responsibilities. To ever decide otherwise is a travesty.

[ddeclue]

14. Sorry but you're wrong.. their argument is based on the equal protection granted "persons"

under the 14th Amendment and it is based solely on the legal notion that corporations are "persons"

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. I'm agreeing, not arguing.

The notion that corporations are 'persons' IS absurd - they are entities that are anything but persons - and as you said, the way to make that clear is declare that one of them is running for office.

Obviously, they can't. Therefore, that is grounds for overturning the ruling of corporate personhood.

It is a travesty. My grandfather's shoe store is not a person - and filing papers of incorporation does not make it a person. It is ridiculous, and common sense says so.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Alan Grayson does not agree with you and Antonin

"This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case. It leads us all down the road to serfdom."

What is it you do for a living, what is your standing on this issue? Where is your bread buttered? Like most Democrats, Alan Grayson has more pull with me than some persistently righty poster on a website. And by persistently righty I mean consistently wrong.

[leftstreet]

8. But listen to what he's saying...

It leads us all down the road to serfdom

This ruling essentially says that corporations can advertise for/against politicians without having to give said politicians money.

So who's the "us all" on the road to "serfdom" he's talking about?

:shrug:

[ddeclue]

10. ordinary American citizens who don't have millions of dollars in cash..

this ruling even makes a guy like Alan Grayson who is worth about $31 million dollars vulnerable to corporations with billions.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. First I'd like my questions answered by the poster I addressed

Which seem to have sent him running. To you I say unless you are a multi billion dollar corp. 'us all' means you and the rest of us. All of us is fairly clear, don't you think? Mr Grayson is worth tens of millions, and he is including himself in that serf class, and he is right to do so.
Why don't you simply say what you mean, rather than ask question about what 'all' and 'us' mean. You know exactly what he means, you just do not like it. Why not say so, rather than play around with emoticons? Do words fail you?

[leftstreet]

16. Oh please

Are seriously asking members of the working classes to IDENTIFY with a politician worth tens of millions?

Give me a fucking break

:nopity:

[MercutioATC]

18. I'm an air traffic controller.

I stand neither to gain or lose from this decision.

...and I'm not making a values judgment, I'm stating a legal point.

[rucky]

6. Are we allowed to give unlimited campaign contributions?

[ddeclue]

9. I'm assuming that's the upshot of this court case as I understand it

(though I'm not a lawyer)... I would assume that all campaign finance laws - local state and federal - just went out the window and we're back to the pre-Watergate days when Howard Hughes was giving the Committee to Re Elect the President (Nixon) aka CREEP a hundred thousand dollars in cash in a briefcase with nobody knowing anything about it.

On the other hand I only know maybe 3 people personally who can afford to give above the now wiped out Federal limits to a campaign. I personally have given to the limit on several FLORIDA state campaigns ($500) but not in the last few years with the bad economy and I've NEVER been able to do the $1000, $2000 dinners or the $2400 Federal limits.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Not to individuals, but to campaigns, yes. The difference is,

unlike corporations which can register their profits and losses in the billions, virtually NONE of us HAVE unlimited funds.

Corporate money is NOT individual money. Corporate money is aggregate money which comes from thousands, millions of real people, many of whom are opposed to the candidates and issues the corporations support - and of course, when I say 'corporations support' I am talking about the corporate LEADERS, the PEOPLE who guide and shape corporate policy, who are using the fiction of corporate personhood to fund candidates and issues THEY, the REAL people, are enjoined by law from making excessive contributions to.

Corporate funding is nothing more than a device for the PEOPLE who run the corporations to fund elections with other peoples' money.

[MercutioATC]

19. No, and neither are corporations.

ALL legal persons, however (private entities and corporations alike), are now permitted to do such things as publicly campaign for and/or against a candidate.

[Hannah Bell]

12. lol. "all it did..."

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. All it did was put corporations and private persons on equal legal footing...and only in regard . .

"All it did"?! Yes, I am happy to know that I am on an equal footing with Phizer in my ability to make unlimited campaign contributions. Do you see how bizarre that sounds? Can you not see and feel the inequality jumping off the page? I certainly don't have enough money to sway a candidate or run ads against one who may be detrimental to my bottom line, but Phizer sure does.

It's not that hard to get. I can still participate in the sham election where my supposed candidate says all the right things to win my actual vote, but then actually legislates with those he has side deals with.

Yeah, great decision.

[MercutioATC]

20. If you don't like the law, get it changed.

The SCOTUS doesn't write the law, it interprets it.

This is a valid legal interpretation.