Why not? A corporation is fundamentally a group of people who have assembled together for a common cause. Freedom of assembly. And why would individuals suddenly lose their freedom of speech just because they decide to get together and pool their resources? John Roberts summed it up when he observed that freedom of speech does not only apply to the man on the soapbox. Furthermore, if the first amendment doesn't extend to unions and corporations, then logically the US government could shut down the New York Times tomorrow since it is a corporation. Pretty much. Sharron Angle, the bat**** insane Tea Party witch spent and got a lot of money trying to unseat Reid. Didn't happen. Carly Fiornia. Steve Forbes. Heck, Ron Paul raised quite a bit of money, from a large number of people. Didn't help them at all.
It's mind boggling how conservatives somehow equate "the more money you have the more influence you have" to "free speech". This way, when any sane person attacks the first notion, they automatically are blasted for attacking free speech. Eerily similar to how conservatives equated "being against the Iraq War" to "not supporting our troops".
And as I have pointed out multiple times, the Supreme Court has agreed that spending money to influence elections constitutes free speech for the past forty years.
And those that spent the money had to account for the spending and disclose donors. That seems to be the difference. No one had a problem with that. Surly you see the difference Kojirou.
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. The Obama campaign is clearly freaking out over these Super PAC ads. Right after Rove puts out a good one they complain to Politico and out pops a story.
If you don't think Super PACs should be allowed to produce ads, you're effectively restricting speech. The fact that the speech is influential doesn't give you any moral license to prohibit it. I love all this uncontrolled speech and how it freaks people out that they can't control it or use the force of law to limit its influence. It's only the left advocating restrictions on political speech (with the noblest of intentions of course, we can't let people have too much influence). Like I said, very telling.
I have an issue with the ideal that you can have as much free speech as you can afford. Making money the primary driving force as to how much speech and influence one has . . . .means that those with money are inherently 'more equal' than those with out. The issue in our society is money makes right too too often. Rocket River He who has the gold . . makes the rules.
No one is advocating restricting "free Speech". Only that they be accountable. So you agree that these PACS should be required to disclose donors?
That's an interesting question. As a private citizen, who I contribute to should ibe no one else's business, in theory. It could lead to repercussions in other aspects of one's private life, or work, or whatever. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/akfvbyLoq1c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> But without disclosure you could have contributions from foreign governments or non-citizens. That I'm less comfortable with and don't really have a good answer.
Obama has himself to blame. He decided to take the cowardly path of quantitative easing instead of actually reducing the budget deficit (which he promised to do, remember!). The result is a weak US dollar and high commodities prices. Now the energy industry leaders are funding his defeat fund with their fat wallets that resulted. OOPSIE
Look, I agree with you. Free Speech is critical. How else are we going to get our money back from China unless they inject it into a SuperPac and spend it on advertising. Just think, a trillion dollars! I wonder who China will pick to be our gov't. Probably the weakest leader it can think of. Oh, no wonder Romney has 2 billion dollars in contributions already.
QE is the result of parliamentary paralysis. Ask that Republican "shill" chairman sitting aboard the Fed for proof. I know politics 101 isn't the same as making shiz load of monies, but Congress handles the budget, not the president.
What is even more threatening for democracy is that normally the rich and corporate elite, Wall Street etc. spend most of their money on the front runner. Obama is still the front runner. Wait till you have a corporate shill who is the front runner running against a progressive who is the underdog. Then you will have the pro-GOP pacs outspending 10 or 20 to one and you will still have the same naive folks simplitically blathering about how limiting corporate spending is just prohibiting speech and no threat to democracy and one person one vote.
That have always been the way through out the times, the rich and powerful have more say than the little people. They will exert their influence as they please and we the little people will just have to hope the powerful people at the top are smart and do things that are good for the nation for the most part. If the Rich and powerful accumulate too much wealth and power, there will be some kind of a revolution (armed or vote). They will be replaced by a new group of rich and powerful people, and the cycle will repeat.
This is actually a fair point that I'll concede. We should revisit SuperPAC figures after the election.
Helped by a Super PAC that was allowed by Citizen's United, Beto O'Rourke defeated eight-term incumbent Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic primary for Congress in El Paso. O'Rourke's major issue is mar1juana legalization. http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/30/aided-by-super-pac-pot-legalizer-defeats
