If the Supreme court considers corporations just like individuals don't all the stock holders have

[Maraya1969]

to be US citizens for them to have this privilege. I mean a group from Dubai can't start a corporation in the US and then donate money to a political candidate right? I don't see how a non-US citizen should have any vote and if the whole corp. is the citizen all their part should be US citizen.

Or have I missed something.

[ShadowLiberal]

1. That's just the problem, there's too much gray area in what's a 'foreign' corporation

[Ozymanithrax]

2. What this stupid ruling recongizes is that Corporations exist apart from their owners.

and investors. This is done to protect people who own a corporation. It is a stupid idea. But, in the U.S., Corporations are by Constitutional decree separate entities from those people who own them.

The real questions, are Corporations slaves? They are owned by individuals or groups of individuals. They have no say in their ownership and can not enjoy other rights of citizens. That makes Corporations slaves. I think we should right to free Slave Corporations from their owners and investors.

[naaman fletcher]

3. No. People, please get your facts straight.

This ruling does not allow corporations to donate money to political candidates. It is still a bad decision, but there is no hope of having an effective political voice if people can't take 15 seconds to actually know what they are talking about.

[sharesunited]

4. It does amount to a distinction without a difference though

if they can, using broadcast advertising, throw stones at candidates they don't like and lay rose petals at feet of those they do like.

[Igel]

7. No, it doesn't.

It's the difference between Obama hiring somebody to film him and then broadcast his infomercial and having AT&T hire an actor to say good things about Obama or say what Obama said.

Moreover, even when the issue add is paid for by the campaign it usually has more an an impact: This ad is paid for by the Re-Elect Obama Campaign vs This ad is paid for by McDonald's.

Of course, it does allow for more negative ads. Obama may *want* to run a negative ad but wouldn't because he's Mr. Uniter. So he lets Microsoft run it for him.

Interestingly, negative ads usually have more information in the long run. They can be nasty, but they usually raise points that the candidates would never raise and which often should be raised. It also makes them lose control of their narrative, which I think is always amusing--even if I'm for a candidate. After all, he's not going to self-define forever, he's not going to stay wrapped up all nice and pretty, why buy him wrapped up all nice and pretty?

[ctaylors6]

5. I second this. This decision was about independent expenditures, not contributions

That's a huge distinction that people need to understand. There are many valid reasons to criticize the CU decision, but saying that corporations can contribute with no limits to campaigns/candidates is simply 100% wrong. Corporations still cannot contribute anything directly to campaigns. Corporations still cannot donate to PACs. Corporations can form PACs and individuals can donate to the PACS. Individual limits on contributions to campaigns, parties, and PACs were not affected at all by the Citizens United decision.

What has changed is this: A corporation can now use money from its generals funds and use it for independent political expenditures, for example, newspaper ads advocating for a candidate. As long as the corporation does not coordinate with the campaign, that is now okay. It was not before this decision. So in CU, SCOTUS basically said money = speech, and political speech should be free of any restrictions no matter the source of the speech, an individual or a corporation.

[Statistical]

6. No,

Constitutional protections are not limited to citizens.

If they were then only citizens would be given trials. Non citizens would have no right to religion or free speech. No right to legal counsel. Non-citizens could be forced to testify against themselves. etc.

Long time ago SCOTUS ruled that Constitutional protections apply to citizen and non-citizen alike.