The Supreme Court Just Gave Big Business Even More Power In The US Government

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Jan 21, 2010 9:45 PM GMT
    Court eases business, union election spending rule


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_campaign_finance

    -----------------------------

    Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Finance Restrictions

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227.html

    --------------------------------------



    You can send a form email to Speaker Pelosi here:
    http://www.calpirg.org/action/democracy/citizens-united?id4=ES

    California residents can write your own letter to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi here: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html

    Non-California residents can write your own letter to Speaker Pelosi here:
    http://www.speaker.gov/contact
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2010 10:29 PM GMT
    is this... surprising?
  • jrs1

    Posts: 4388

    Jan 21, 2010 10:59 PM GMT

    I have the distinct feeling this shall not work ...

    2647811967_a26b1c1f81.jpg

    hm. something doesn't feel right about it ... I wonder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2010 11:02 PM GMT
    I think this is awful, but expected it with this court. I'm really interested in what guys are thinking about this. Thanks for putting it up!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2010 11:02 PM GMT
    Hmmm...Manchurian Candidate anyone?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2010 11:03 PM GMT
    Will the senator from Walmart please relinquish the floor, the senator from Target has the next 3 minutes to advertize, er, speak.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2010 11:14 PM GMT
    Separation of church and state is really not so important anymore.

    what we need is a separation of business and state.
  • jrs1

    Posts: 4388

    Jan 21, 2010 11:23 PM GMT
    bernd saidSeparation of church and state is really not so important anymore.

    what we need is a separation of business and state.


    I don't agree. separation of church, business, and ideology in the state.

    what does that leave? logic.

    thanks for playing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2010 11:23 PM GMT
    At least there were 4 that dissented, Sotomayor included, that understands how the crooks abuse the political system. The only hope would be that the American people wise up and tune out the banter that will be heaped on us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 1:00 AM GMT
    Or raise all mighty hell until those asshats in DC are forced to actually get something done.

    Oh wait. That might get in the way of American Idol. My bad.
  • TexanMan82

    Posts: 893

    Jan 22, 2010 1:11 AM GMT
    Why do y'all hate the 1st Amendment?
  • TexanMan82

    Posts: 893

    Jan 22, 2010 1:25 AM GMT
    Where in the Constitution did the Founders intend for women to have the right to abortion?

    It isn't there. A lot of the Constitution is up to interpretation. I think that's what the Founders wanted. That's also why some didn't even want a Bill of Rights.

    How can you possibly be for the government censoring free speech. That's basically what this ruling ended.

    You may not like this ruling, or how much power corporations have in this country, but on strictly Constitutional grounds, it's a good ruling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 1:35 AM GMT
    jrs1 said
    bernd saidSeparation of church and state is really not so important anymore.

    what we need is a separation of business and state.


    I don't agree. separation of church, business, and ideology in the state.

    what does that leave? logic.

    thanks for playing.
    You're no fun - pout

    Now that the Executives can run the Legislatives it won't be long until they pocket the Judicatives as well. And then we'll be the C.S.A or the C.S.M or the C.S.C.L.D.S











    Corporate States of America
    Corporate States of Microsoft
    Corporate States of the Church of Latter-day Saints.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 1:39 AM GMT
    I wonder if the Court's interest in the Constitution will carry over to the Equal Protection clause and have them rule in favor of gay marriage.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Jan 22, 2010 1:40 AM GMT
    Strongly dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
    ==

    This has nothing to do with free speech, and even if it did, free speech was never without limits. It is about allowing businesses to buy elections, even further degrading American politics and sacrificing us all to the interests of big business. This Supreme Court is just revolting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 1:41 AM GMT
    Please note that the ruling also applies to politcal speech by labor unions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 1:42 AM GMT
    1st amendment was meant for people, not huge institutions that are intended to bring mega wealth to a few.

    This also frees up union spending, but in no way will a union ever have as much money as a corporation.

    Sad day for the little guy trying to make it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 2:03 AM GMT
    TexanMan82 saidA lot of the Constitution is up to interpretation. I think that's what the Founders wanted.That's also why some didn't even want a Bill of Rights.

    Jefferson and other Founders opposed the Bill of Rights (what became the first 10 Amendments) because they felt they weren't needed. The Constitution said the people already had all rights, and so enumerating rights wasn't necessary. Instead, a Bill of Rights might give the idea that it was the state, through the Constitution, that GRANTED rights, something Jefferson believed the people already possessed.

    The original Constitution described merely how the government was to operate, and limited its powers versus the people, from whom its authority derived. Yet coming from their history as British colonies, the reality soon developed that people were being denied their rights, because various authorities still operated under the British model of rights coming from the Crown. Unless a right was defined, it could be denied in their way of thinking.

    So the Founders had to add amendments that more clearly spelled out the rights of the people, but always in terms of what the government could not do in the exercise of its duties. To this day the US Constitution still does not "grant" rights, but rather limits the denial of the rights of citizens by the government.

    It also prohibits what citizens cannot do, but because it does not grant rights, whatever the Constitution does not prohibit, is by default allowed.

    This distinction is not well understood by US citizens, and indeed not even by some Supreme Court Justices sitting today, and certainly not by those in the previous Bush Administration who preached some neo-con theory of a "unitary Presidency."
  • TexanMan82

    Posts: 893

    Jan 22, 2010 2:05 AM GMT
    Parkour, you bring up good points. I'm going out for the night. I'll have to think about this some more.

    Night, y'all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 2:33 AM GMT
    Thanks to Parkour for posting both the logic and the relevant links.

    My impression is that the difference between the de-facto influence that big corporations wield in government and this brave new world will become quickly apparent.

    The midterm election cycle is now a radically different proposition. Without limits on corporate "speech" where does anyone believe that money is going to go?

    For example, which corporate interest is going to support health-care reform? How much money will industry spend to influence legislation now that they needn't bother with the appearance of propriety?

    The reductio ad absurdum would be that we have transformed our bi-cameral legislature and the Presidency into an entity that is equivalent to the NASDAQ. It will obey the rules of the marketplace, period.

    The next few years are sure to be an interesting ride.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 3:06 AM GMT


    Hum....Old Times are back?

    I recall a young Congressman coming through those double doors of the board room begging money for his fledgling PAC. Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd) perhaps might be the argument of some who see this as government interest going to the highest bidder. But we have an example of Reductio ad absurdum today: Health Care Reform.

    The argument goes like this: you must accept health care reform becuase the alternative is untenable. Oddly, there are many folks who se paying for it as untenable. Perhaps our President's PAC composed of a few is skating on thin ice: He has been outbid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 3:08 AM GMT
    Let the New Gilded Age begin!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 3:12 AM GMT
    Beyond what others have said, another unfortunate implication of this ruling is that, where businesses have conflicting interests, they will find themselves constrained to outspend each other’s lobbying efforts. I’m sure they’ll make up the wasted money by lobbying to wrest rents from politically disorganized groups like consumers – increasing this ruling’s economic inefficiency in a second way. The inefficiency belies the conservative Justices’ putative commitment to efficiency that they’ve espoused in other areas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 3:24 AM GMT
    This country is on the fast track to ruin. Wait and see. Big business now has the power to buy whomever they want, thanks to this ruling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 4:00 AM GMT
    ParkourPumpLet me give you an analogy to illustrate my point so you can see I don't support censoring so much as not giving rights to something asinine as a corporation.

    Would you give political rights to a lamp or a chair? Why shouldn't they also have the right to speak out on matters of political concern? What, they can't speak because they are inanimate objects? Well, a corporation is a legal fiction and cannot logically speak for itself either. So why not allow owners of the lamps and chairs to speak on behalf of their lamps and chairs? Or why not extend political rights to our pets? Shouldn't they also have a say in the way our government is run?



    I think I kinda know where you're going with this, but that analogy is just ill-suited and poorly executed in your text. A lamp/chair is an inanimate object that has no legal duties and rights under the law. A corporation, on the other hand, is an entity that has recognizable legal rights and duties. You can't be seriously making a comparison between a chair and a corporation; that's just crazy and you don't seem to be that. The chair cannot contract with entities or third parties to build/create/sell anything. A chair is merely a thing, whereas a corporation is an organization treated like a person in many respects. Chair=corporation, or chair 'is like' corporation is just a horrible way to illustrate whatever point you're trying to make.


    ParkourPumpAgain, corporations are a legal fiction, they exist only as a contract. I have NO problem giving the board members, shareholders, and officers full and unlimited political rights, but to use their corporations to advance a political agenda is as asinine as a pet owner using Fluffy to advance their political agenda.

    This was about campaign contributions, not actual speech. If you think that corporations (immortal legal constructs that have no existence in reality as flesh and blood persons) should have the same rights and privileges as other flesh and blood persons, then let's follow that analogy, shall we?

    Can a corporation go to jail? Can a corporation be executed? Can a corporation even vote?



    Well, of course. Humans can get killed and a corporation can be terminated. It's called DISSOLUTION. A corporation can be "killed" for many reasons, including engaging in criminal activity. A corporation can get its charter suspended for not-paying taxes, which means it can no longer do business. A corporation can also commit "suicide" (voluntary dissolution), and it can also be "killed" (involuntary dissolution).