| Yesterday's Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate campaign contributions is the end of American democracy. |
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by dauguy  United States |
|
About
In nature, the Great Pyrenees is confident, gentle, and affectionate. While territorial and protective of flock or family when necessary, the general demeanor is one of quiet composure, both patient and tolerant. The Great Pyrenees is strong willed, independent and somewhat reserved, yet attentive, fearless and loyal to flock and family.
|
7 Points
|
Saying it's the end of democracy is an exaggeration, but it does represent another piece of its erosion.
Hmmmm....How much do you think ARMACO can contribute? Think they might have something to say about our policies in the Middle East? Don't know who ARAMCO is? It's the Saudi oil corp's American unit.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
So freedom of speech is the end of democracy. Huh?!!
No PERSON was granted freedom of speech. A LEGAL CONSTRUCT was granted freedom of speech.
So freedom of speech for individuals is good and freedom of speech for groups is bad?!!
CORPORATIONS ARE LEGAL FICTIONS. Should Frodo have rights as well?
I'm sure you wish with all your heart that that was true. But Corporations are legal facts. You can legitimately argue that they are obscene, but they are legal fact.
No, they are fictions. The very word means 'to put into a body.' Which fiction--since corporations do NOT have a single, living body--is accepted by law. The are UNDER THE LAW, created, fictional entities.
It was said yesterday, individuals vote, corporations don't vote. Therefore they should not be able to buy the offices in our govt.
What representative will ever be elected who hears the voice of his constituents over the voice of his purchasers?
This is one of the worst Supreme Court rulings ever.
Next we will be granting corporations citizenship... or has that already happened.
Here's one to give you nightmares: A logical extension of this ruling, and one corps have been angling for for some time: Fifth Amendment protection. They won't have to surrender documents showing illegal actions as they would be incriminating themselves. Or how about the current practice of allowing potential polluters to test their own effects on air and water, and then notify the EPA (which is too underfunded to run the tests)? If their tests show they are violating the law, and they have Fifth Amendment protection, then they won't have to release the results.
Making immortal, wealthy fictional entities the same as actual living, breathing humans under the law will only destroy the humans.
Smart lawyers will be more in demand than ever, but to finance the litigation there will have to be a lot more class action suits if the peasants (like us) are to have any hope of recovering damages owed them.
What representative will ever be elected who hears the voice of his constituents over the voice of his purchasers?
It will be either a boon to media income, or a death to their ratings.
I, for one, usually change the channel/stop listening when political ads come on, and a good way to get me to side with your opposition is to purchase a never ending series of ads.
This is what happens when lower, politically-motivated courts abuse their power and twist Supreme Court Decisions such as the McCain-Feingold Act. Such action provided the offended party the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the previous ruling. The act was well intentioned, but it didn't halt the illegal funding of the Obama campaign.
Oh, well then, it's OK if the rest of the future is screwed, as long as you get to bitch about Obama.
Who, BTW, got most of HIS money from small contributors.
But then, truth isn't in the conservative lexicon, except in the same sense as 'Pravda,' is it?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
You mean all those undocumented and mysterious "small contributors" -- another broken Obama campaign promise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86RAp_iuhOQ
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyCorporations still have rights that people don't.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyLOL
I was thinking more along the lines of having police club protestors. Apparently, the corp's right to not be bothered is greater than the right to assemble.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThere are 9 people on the Supreme Court. Legally there can be 12. Wonder if Obama will be able to appoint 3 more judges over the next 7 years. Hope so. Don't know why it has been held to 9 all this time anyway.
Why should corporations be any different than foreign nationals who make campaign contributions ?
They shouldn't although the legal reasons might be different. For example, foreign nationals should not be allowed to have their say in our elections because they are not citizens. Corporations should not because they are neither citizens nor persons, the classes that the Constitution deals with.