Roberts Court Overturns Yet Another Precedent in Favor of Corporate Campaign Cash

Just to add another point why Republicans shouldn't be happy with this ruling. Not all corporations support Republican or conservative issues. Imagine now you have Google and Goldman Sachs being able to spend unlimited amounts of money anytime to try to sway an election. For those of you complaining about the bailouts from the Libertarian side this just guarentees that corporations will be getting more benefits from the government.

 

Court Decision Creates 'Huge Opening' For Foreign Companies To Sway Elections

 

As Sam Fisher noted at corporations are artificial entities that states can revoke their charter for all sorts of reasons. You can't do that to a person.

 

i would also add that there is a fundamental difference b/t buying add time on tv and having a youtube channel that people can visit on the internet.

in one case you are trying to buy time on something people are already watching. you are imposing yourself upon the viewers.

in the other case people have to come to your youtube channel to see your add. its there, but you are not imposing yourself upon anyone.

i hadnt really thought of it, but i dont necessarily have a problem w/ corporations having their own youtube channel as long as the comments sections are open for people to respond to them.

 

You know? I've been rethinking this whole situation. Maybe this is a good thing?

I mean, we all know there are a lot more socialist then there are capitalist around the world. Once these countries start influencing our elections and politicians, we'll have universal healthcare in no time. And forget about a big ole' military. That'd be the first thing to go!

this might not be a bad thing afterall

 

I haven't followed this thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned:

This isn't just about a bank like Goldman Sachs protecting the banking industry, now they can make short-term bets and hedge if they fund a politician over information that the candidate may favor a certain commodity. Goldman screwed over the country with oil prices, they wouldn't mind paying a bad candidate if it meant large short-term gains.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qItugh-fFgg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qItugh-fFgg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Nobody is advocating not allowing corporations to put forth whatever message they want. What is at stake here is corporations forking over millions of dollars to legislators in order to buy votes and essentially dictate policy.

Learn what the actual issue is before you opine.

 

Wow!

:grin:

 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to B-Bob again."

 

You are a Democrat.

 

that's actually *not* the issue. the case was not about direct contributions (ie, forking over millions of dollars to legislators). it's about the ability of corps. to run ads.

 

why not, foreign terrorists apparently have miranda rights.

and way to drop the H bomb.

 

Who knew ShovelFace was in favor of European companies having sway in US elections? I would have thought he would have been against that.

 

It's the government's fault that people don't know how to spend money wisely anymore?

 

How is this related to the the thread?

 

my cats breath smells like cat food.

 

This is GREAT.

 

It's the government's base that all your money are be spent to us?

 

Yes, learn the issue, Refman.

This ruling said corporations can spend unlimited money on ads. They still cannot "fork over millions of dollars to legilsators."

Here is an interesting article in the Times looking at the question of corruption:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html