Does the Tea Party side with the Republicans on the Supreme Court Ruling for Corporations?

[jsamuel]

Really. The Tea Party has been somewhat outspoken about corporate influence and special interests influence on the political process. Here we have a perfect example in the Supreme Court ruling of the superiority of corporations above normal citizens. Yet I haven't heard a peep yet from the Tea Party groups about this. The Republicans like Mitch McConnel have given their view on this:

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/critics-destructive-supreme-court-decision-empowers-corruption/

McConnell, a longtime foe of federal law establishing rules on campaign spending, welcomed the court's decision this morning allowing corporations and organized labor to more freely make independent expenditures in elections.

“For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day," McConnell said in a statement.

By "some in this country", the Republican Senate Majority Leader is referring to corporations. Do the Tea Party groups stand behind the Republicans and the conservative court ruling or do they really believe in limiting special interest involvement in elections? Are they just a tool of the Republican Party or are they truthful in their professions to represent individual citizens?

[FarPoint]

1. Teabaggers have no insight

into what they stand for...not a clue.

[jsamuel]

2. this issue could drive a wedge between them and Republicans if it is hit with the right hammer

[Capers]

3. They will side with the corps but will have no explanation.

If the Dems want to tag them as corporate shills and bury them with John Birch, this will the the best opportunity.

[MrsCorleone]

4. This is a very good question. I, too, would like to know.

Anybody have links to teabagger (astroturfed) and tea party (grassroots?) forums? Please post them here. Thanks!

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Yes I think they would

They love to defend capitalism. At one of their rallies, I saw this sign:

THOSE 'EVIL' INSURANCE COMPANIES EMPLOY A LOT OF PEOPLE

[jsamuel]

7. true

but they simultaneously attack the inability for individual citizens to be heard above special interests. There is a big contradiction there.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. One of many contradictions

They are truly out of their minds insane and painfully ignorant.

[lob1]

10. Dealing crack employs a lot of people, too.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. That would turn out to be a dictionary definition of cognitive dissonance.

if the tea-baggers had any real idea what they truly stood for.
I think if any one of them actually came up with an idea, it would die of loneliness.

definition...Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.

[G_j]

8. what happens when they figure out Chavez/CITCO (for example)

can now influence American elections?

[jsamuel]

9. exactly, I forgot to talk about that in the op

foreign countries can now spend freely in US Elections

[MrsCorleone]

11. Here's a link to a rightwing forum, though there are plenty of

teabaggers of the astro-turfed variety participating. Not sure whether there are any "grassroots" folks onboard (if they even exist).

The owner of this blog (Karl or "Genesis") is a proud two time Bush supporter. He's also one of two 2009 recipients of the Conservative Political Action Conference's (CPAC) Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award.

Probably safe to assume he's bought & paid for. Either that or he's still woefully naive. My money is on the former.

Here are his thoughts on the SC Ruling:

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1888-Freedom-Of-Speech-How-Quaint.html

Here's his forum members' reaction to his SC ruling opinion:

http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=125556

There are a lot of hardcore Limbaugh/Beck types over there, but at least some members are smart enough to see the broad implications of the ruling.

[jsamuel]

13. I think the first link is broken

here is the fixed one:
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1888-Freedom-Of-Speech-How-Quaint.html

[MrsCorleone]

16. Thank you! I fixed my bad link on edit, as well.

[B Calm]

12. Limbaugh has been brain washing them for years, calling it free speech.

[doc03]

15. I don't think anyone has told them what to think

yet. If they aren't just total bullshit hypocrites they have to be opposed to it. I think somehow they will find a way to justify it though.

[glinda]

17. That is right. They have no thinking through process.