I like to think that this is the Supreme Court's sneaky way of forcing Congress to completely rewrite the campaign finance laws from scratch. That's what helps me sleep at night.

I'm so glad someone else knew corporations were defined as people a very long time ago. Still, the SC had ruled over and over to keep them in check in certain ways... until NOW. This is a DISASTER. Just wait and see. *heavy sigh*

:mad:

"Was that a gunshot?"

What he said!


Well, maybe they're just trying to even out the balance of trade figures. Gotta get some kind of money coming in.

Stand by for third party attack ads. "Candidate Smith denied any knowledge of the ads which portrayed Jones as a lying cheating pedophile communist atheist...."


Planetologists talk of "crater saturation". The moon, for example, is so pitted with craters that any more impacts don't make a noticable scar; it is crater saturated. The only positive thought I have is that maybe Washington is already slush-money saturated. While not good, this might not make much difference.

Good luck guys.

My only question is if you buy a politician and use a credit card, is it %1 OR %5 cash back?

Another 5-4 decision in favor of corporate 'rights'. GWB's appointments will be the gift that keeps on giving for the next 20-30 years.

Corporation are 'fictitious persons'. They can't be put in jail. They don't need or use public services unless they are programmed to 'care' or in those rare instances when they actually engage in long term thinking. So they don't go to PTA meetings or volunteer for the fire department.

The only way corporations can be punished is by government regulators or by courts awarding punitive damages. Depending on the administration, government oversight can be spotty and with the move towards tort reform, any caps in place might weaken the last inhibitor of corporate misbehavior.

We may be seeing memos like the infamous Ford Pinto memo.

It ended up costing Ford a lot more than that in reputation alone.

That is the bottom line. Freedom of Speech is an individual right designed for human beings. We must find a way to eliminate organizations from the equation. No PACS, Corporations, or Unions just individual contributions with full disclosure.

Right, union leadership doesn't speak for all the members. Corporate heads don't speak for all the stockholders. But by controlling the money & microphone, they would have the combined power.

I think it's awesome how an issue that is about money can be spun as an issue of Free Speech.

Nothing matters in the world except money. I repeat, *nothing* matters in the world except money. Not human life, not national boundaries, not spiritual beliefs, morality...nothing.

Sex? ;)

I think for me the biggest issue is that it's relatively easy to create a corporation. It's much harder to create a new person and then obscure the fact that you're giving them money to give to someone.

It seems like this just opened a huge loophole. If you have a for-profit religious group, can you donate to political causes? Or do you just have to go through whoever already happens to own a business?


I'm curious, though, about the "spending is a protected form of expression" concept. It seems as though that would invalidate, or raise amusing counterarguments, against prohibited forms of commerce. Suddenly complicating those situations where something is legal to own and legal to produce, but not legal to buy or sell, by making the transaction a first amendment issue. "I'm sorry officer, I was just exercising my right to financially express my support of drug dealers."


Also, from the "maybe there's a silver lining" dept.: we live in a very, very media-saturated world. This is a recent change (100 years or so? exponentially since radio.). Saying "corporate-backed advertising will control the country" is predicated on people staying as media-literate as we are today: being consistently passive and fairly trusting. This is probably not true, and in fact maybe a huge influx of corporate-backed politicking will form the impetus for us to become critical of advertising.

The funny thing is, I believe that there was a law passed (by Republican Congress) that restricted a Union's right to use members money for political ads without their express permission.

I think that something similar is being proposed for corporations, but I think with what's in place right now, the unions are more constrained than corporations.

This is just a guess. I'm too tired to fact check right now.

BTW, what's really annoying is how states race to the bottom in providing 'corporate friendly' laws and use the commerce clause to force someone in Idaho who gets screwed to sue the company in Delaware. The reason that there is no limit on credit card interest rates is due to a combination of the Supreme Court and the state of South Dakota.

That's a good point! I was thinking that a corporation that pissed people off with political shenanigans, would face backlash in the marketplace. But one guy with a couple of bucks, and a lawyer, can form a corporation in a heartbeat. Plus I think if it's privately held, only minimal information about who owns it, who's part of it, income sources & expenditures, have to be disclosed.


Yes, they can't use regular dues, only money donated by members that's specificaly earmarked for political use.

I can't see this ever being reversed anyhow anyway. And unless it happens soon I'm out.

From the Washington Post of 13 March 2010 is what is now legal - as long as the corporation's officers are old enough: How old does a corporation need be to register to vote. And when the spread sheets spin off bad debts into private companies, can those SIV shell companies also vote?

We could Incorporate names and "Domain squat" them for 20 years, then sell them to people that want to start a company that can run right away.