Legalized buying of candidates?

[dnf777]

So what do the more learned legal scholars think of the SCOTUS ruling today regarding corporations and the First Amendment?

It sounds like to me, that the working class, be they republican or democrat, just took a huge shaft today. Whether you send $10 or $20 or $500 to Scott Brown or Barak Obama, your measly little voice just got trumped by corporate billions. Am I wrong? Or does this rub others here the wrong way too? I'm not a legal eagle, but it sounds like even foreign-based corporations that have operations of offices in the US will be allowed to buy and sell our campaigns??
For once, I hope Hew or someone can prove me wrong on this.

[huntinman]

So what do the more learned legal scholars think of the SCOTUS ruling today regarding corporations and the First Amendment?

It sounds like to me, that the working class, be they republican or democrat, just took a huge shaft today. Whether you send $10 or $20 or $500 to Scott Brown or Barak Obama, your measly little voice just got trumped by corporate billions. Am I wrong? Or does this rub others here the wrong way too? I'm not a legal eagle, but it sounds like even foreign-based corporations that have operations of offices in the US will be allowed to buy and sell our campaigns??
For once, I hope Hew or someone can prove me wrong on this.

Free speech is bad?

[brandywinelabs]

It's legally correct. But, not good for the political process.

[dnf777]

Free speech is bad?

Not at all, but does it apply to foreign corporations or even domestic companies who have vastly different interests than American citizens? That's my question. The "voice of the people" will be essentially squelched by corporate wealth. That wasn't my understanding of free speech.

[brandywinelabs]

Just as in many cities, you can demonstrate and have your say over there and only in that area. So we need to say you can do your political advertising with your big bucks on TV and radio between 2AM and 4 AM. And only put up billboards on roads with dirt as their primary surface and not within 1 mile of a paved road and no bigger than 8' x 16'. Yeah, see how well that will go over.

[YardleyLabs]

I have not read the decision. Personally, I do not believe that corporations deserve the privileges afforded to "people" unless they also accept full personal responsibility for actions taken. Practically, we are creating a situation where it is cheaper to buy the government and use its power for corporate purposes than it is to buy another competing company.

[BonMallari]

SCOTUS just made what George Soros was doing legal...McCain - Feingold was a joke..until more of the legal American public exercises their right to vote, those of us that actually vote and care about what is happening to this country may not be able to offset the influence that the corporate world can buy

[K G]

Free speech is bad?

Unlimited corporate contributions to candidates = "free speech"? That's a new one....for "issue" advertising, yes...for candidates, paybacks will be expected. Money changes everything. Look for union advertising to dominate the airwaves in states where they are strong.

k g

[huntinman]

[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;554776]I have not read the decision. Personally, I do not believe that corporations deserve the privileges afforded to "people" unless they also accept full personal responsibility for actions taken. QUOTE]

No, but you do believe that we should afford the rights of Americans to terrorists captured while trying to kill Americans. Right?

[huntinman]

Unlimited corporate contributions to candidates = "free speech"? That's a new one....for "issue" advertising, yes...for candidates, paybacks will be expected. Money changes everything. Look for union advertising to dominate the airwaves in states where they are strong.

k g

You guys on the right are missing the point. The libs had unlimited "free speech" in the MSM. Especially during elections. They also had the unions, Acorn and every other type left wing group out there. This just evens the playing field a little. Why should someone lose their free speech rights, because of who they are or how much (or little) money they have? Money already controls the process, lets just open it up to both sides of the aisle.