On the heels of the upset in Massachusetts, Corporations can now spend freely on political campaigns according to a 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling today. You can guess how they voted. The Christian Science Monitor wrote:
“This is the most radical and destructive campaign-finance decision in the history of the Supreme Court,” said Fred Worthheimer, president of Democracy 21. “Today’s decision is the Super Bowl of really bad decisions. It returns us to the days of the robber barons,” said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause. Among political leaders, Democrats attacked the decision and Republicans praised it.
Can it get much worse for folks like us that want clean campaigns? And, since when does a Corporation have a right to free speech? What a stretch. The dissent:
In a 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens denounced the majority opinion as a dangerous rejection of common sense. “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” he wrote.
“The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,” he said.
13 comments:
Repeal of SB216, here we come...
Yes we only like the offshore bundled packages fom nameless and faceless donors.
this has scalia schmeered all over it.
also today, air-america lib talk radia goes bankrupt.
some days are better than others
...on the basis of Freedom of Speech, right?
I may have freedom of speech, but I have no voice.
I've got to go....off to look for my brick of tea.
Now the rest of the country will be like Miami-Dade County. The best government that money can buy.
Disgusting
Look at who we have as President now-Obama, the best, or should I say the worst, money could buy...
No, that was Cheney.
It wasn't what it cost to get him there, it was what it cost us all afterward to have him in office.
Thats a joke right Jill. When Obama gets through in 2012, our debt is gonna be unrepayable, is that a word?
Let's see, a billion dollars a week we have been hemorrhaging into Iraq for the last nine years adds up a a pretty handy sum for a disaster which will give us absolutely nothing in return for the effort, not to mentions lives lost and bodies maimed. Except maybe a notch or two on GW's belt.
The country had a surplus when GW took office, and he left office with the country in financial ruin.
At least the programs Obama is trying to institute will benefit Americans.
Too bad we will never know what his approval rating would be today if he had started out his term with a surplus and in peace.
From the Huffington post 1/22:
The Court's decision not only gives corporations "speech" through their contributions but also a megaphone for that speech that few individuals can match. Who of us can afford a $1 million dollar television or radio buy or $120,000 for a one-page ad in the New York Times or even the modest rates of even the smaller media?
And when it comes to election, let us not be deceived about the power of the Internet. It is fractionalized, far less than the television and radio networks and billboards, which can reach millions of people daily. It is no match for the deep pockets of corporations. Rupert Murdock and Goldman Sachs have more "speech" than you, me, or even most Members of Congress do.
Strangely, I am delighted with the Court's decision, not because I agree, which I strongly don't, but because it is so blatantly anti-democratic. It may finally make Americans mad enough that they won't take it any more. Hopefully, they will demand that Congress and the states amend the Constitution so Congress can set enforceable limits on campaign financing.
I'm not that appalled with it, few people pay attention to politics anyway corporations will figure there throwing good money after bad sooner or later.
If they limited the size and scope of government (like it was intended in the constitution), NONE OF THIS WOULD MATTER.
Corruption cannot get any higher than the Supreme Court. We are in big trouble America, WAKE UP!!!
You know, these firms like GS get money from outside the country...so essentially, people outside the country can have more to say about our elections than the common people can. Hmmm.
Post a Comment