If according to the SCOTUS corporations = people, they too should be subject to the $2400

[mzmolly]

maximum campaign contribution.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

In addition, political ads purchased by anyone but a candidate or a political party, should be re-classified as a "campaign contribution" subjecting them to the financial limits on said contributions.

What says youz? ;) Would legislating something like this be possible?

:shrug:

[Puzzler]

1. I'm anti-death penalty, but hey...

... if it applies to people, why should we exclude corporations that (sorry "who") have caused the deaths of thousands? Dow Chemical comes to mind. Anyone remember Bhopal?

[wtbymark]

2. they ruled that corporations don't have a mouth

so there's no limit to money

[mzmolly]

3. Did they rule on limitations?

Seriously?

[FreakinDJ]

4. No limit to Free Speech

The Court's ruling dealt with Free Speech and campaign contributions / election reform laws don't apply

[mzmolly]

5. So there is no limit on individual contributions?

If the SCOTUS is going to deem corporate spending = speech, than my ability to spend in a limitless fashion should be considered as such.

[FreakinDJ]

8. You don't have to donate = run your own add denouncing whom ever

Hell the Corporations won't even need to use Lobbyist Money any more. They'll just run all the "Touchy Feely" adds they want on any candidate / proposal they want

[TheWebHead]

6. doesn't seem likely

using your own money for speech shouldn't be subject to dollar limitations. Giving money to a candidate for them to use as they choose wouldn't be subject to 1st amendment protections. I'm not sure how this is a lot different than funneling money thru PACs, and as long as there's disclosure and transparency, a company's large donations to a candidate could be used as a political weapon against them.

[mzmolly]

7. But it is, as it's considered a campaign contribution. I think political ads should be classified

as a campaign contribution.