1 I hope Halliburton shovels truckloads of money into every conservative candidate up for election.

2

First Amendment?

Never heard of it.

3 I'm more surprised they didn't blast Clarence Thomas instead of Roberts, as Thomas is the perpetual target of the left and his concurrence pushed the idea of making political donations secret, most likely a direct reference to the intimidation tactics used against Prop 8 supporters.

4
Of course they're freaking out about it, it levels the playing field so to speak. Corporations tend to give more money to conservative causes, but charitable organizations and unions tend to give more money to liberal causes. Anything that doesnt tilt the field almost in a vertical angle in their favor is an outrage.

5 Drew, Drew, Drew, you're using Earth logic again you white male oppressor you. 

Seriously, the reaction to this is hilarious and terrifying at the same time.  Helllllloooo Fairness Doctrine!

Though if it's brought back I am seriously going to petition to have my own 24/7 show to balance out CNN. 

6
I'm sure Olberdouche gets his panties in a twist when NBC runs their Green Week programing to promote GE's bottom line.

7 ...in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than "Dred Scott v Sandford

F'king seriously!?! I'm sure the justice brothers will be protesting another instance of liberal racism shortly.

8

1 - maddogg - Speaking of shovels, an observation after Barry attacks the industry that must loan money to get the economy going again;

I think Barry is starting to see America as just one big shovel ready project.  He plans to bury it.

Just sayin'

9 Political speech and the First Amendment rights of corporations were recognized by the Supreme Court in 1st National Bank of Boston vs Bellotti.  McCain-Feingold stomped that decision; yesterday the Supremes said " FIFY, now siddown and shuddup."

10 Soap box and ballot box, so far, thank goodness confirmed in the past few days.

Cartridge box full and hanging by the door near the rifle in green baize.

So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf and dumb,
Seeing visions "over yonder" of the war I know must come.
In the corner - not a vision - but a sign for coming days
Stand a box of ammunition and a rifle in green baize.
And in this, the living present, let the word go through the land,
Every tradesman, clerk and peasant should have these two things at hand.

No - no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or fuss -
In the future, still unheeded, shall the spirit come to us!
Without feathers, drum or riot on the day that is to be,
We shall march down, very quiet, to our stations by the sea.
While the bitter parties stifle every voice that warns of war,
Every man should own a rifle and have cartridges in store!

~ by Henry Lawson, 1907 ~

11 Kinda on the fence with this one, the application of Contract Clause in Dartmouth College v. Woodward College extended rights to corporations but..

12

...in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than "Dred Scott v Sandford




Is there anything these people cant equivocate with slavery or the holocaust ?

13 "The LeftÂ’s Freaked Out Reaction To Citizens United v. FEC"

That's all the dipping I can stands. I can't stands no more!

14 Yeah. Like I don't exist.

15 Democrat modus operandi : Railing against those big bad corporations in public, taking millions of dollars in contributions from those big bad corporations in private. And every Democrat knows this of course, they're just dishonest asswipes.

16 It's interesting that the Left's argument is that corporations are some sort of new life form, independent of humans.  As opposed to a voluntary association of actual human people for mutual economic benefit, say.

17 The left made a fundamental error by not attacking the second amendment before the first amendment.

18 Either way, the heart of the leftÂ’s critique of the decision seems to be that corporations arenÂ’t people and therefore they donÂ’t t have the same rights as individuals.

The trolls on Hotair have been running with this theme. I find it pretty funny, since paper and ink aren't people, either, but liberals interpret physical writing as individual speech ... when convenient. Liberals are arbitrary scale-shifters in legal arguments. It's a childish techniqque.

Of course, trying to hold a rational discussion with a liberal about anything ends up always being either comical, pathetic, or downright scary.

19

In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886.

AFFECT?  Really, O Sanctimonious Proclaimer of Superior Intellect?  Guess that's one error Spell Check doesn't catch.

This guy is such a stupid douche it's painful.

20 When has the left ever supported freedom of speech as anything other then a means anyway?

Ironically though, this probably helps them. It will, be easier for corporations to fund lefties now when the lefties shake them down.

My guess is that much like the Kelo decision, the left will whine a bit, realize that this is a net positive for them, and shut up about it. 

21 Is there anything these people cant equivocate with slavery or the holocaust ?

Nope, everthing that happens that doesn't conform to their ever changing standards is the worst thing to happen since Hitler.

22
Yes lefties - corporations aren't run by people- they are run by robots and aliens.

23 It's interesting that the Left's argument is that corporations are some sort of new life form, independent of humans.  As opposed to a voluntary association of actual human people for mutual economic benefit, say.

Posted by: stuiec at January 22, 2010 12:06 PM (7AOgy)

Corporations are bad, unions are good, m'kay?

24 Balderdash! The freedom of the "press" as the Founders clearly intended, applies only to those publications which are produced by the arrangement of movable type which is inked and then PRESSED onto a blank sheet of parchment. Obviously, the Framers did not intend to allow electronic media such as this "television". Remove this Keith Olbermann person's bleatings from the ether immediately.

25 Is there anything these people cant equivocate with slavery or the holocaust ?

You say that like those analogies were inaccurate.

26
Let's not forget that Obama was the king of corporate cash in 2008.

27 I say we ram it down their throats.

28 It is almost like they had their talking points written before the opinion was released.

29 Yes lefties - corporations aren't run by people- they are run by robots and aliens.

Posted by: pre paid sex monster at January 22, 2010 12:08 PM (0fzsA)

And lizard people.

30 Now that the Google founders can buy all the media they want for Barbara Boxer, you'd think the leftists would be dancing in the streets.

31 If individuals have free speech then the companies they own have free speech as well. A corporation is property just like a house is property.

32 The left reacts to this case like it's a muzzle on tenured academics.

33 Does GE paying Olby count as political adverting? Or is paying a partisan hack to tow the lefty line somehow different?

34 You know what's really funny?  The ACLU submitted an amicus curiae brief in the case that urged the Court to rule exactly as it did. HowÂ’s that for irony – the lefties get their way and then have the audacity to complain about it!

35 This is it. From here on out when I am dipping with the intent to choke the life out of these progressives.

36 I have an infallible litmus test to decide what side of any issue I'm on: If Olberdickless is for it, I'm again it...

37 I thought corporations were run by the government.  I must be getting reality mixed up with Pelosi's Utopia.

38 "It is almost like they had their talking points written before the opinion was released." Olbermann is becoming a parody of his own talking points. He's some kind of Mobius Strip of neverending stupidity.

39 I think Tim Robbins explained the functions of corporations quite eloquently in Team America: World Police "Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money."

40 Not to get all tin-foily, but might Air America folding have been an "inside job" as a pretense to justify Mark Lloyd's Venezuelan fantasy?

41
I feel sorry for that chicken.

42 My take is not so much free speech for corporations but having all arguments available to the voters who are deciding a ballot issue. I agree with this decision.

Take the current environment, the only sources of information are the government and the press. Since the MSM have decided to side with the government only one side of any issue is presented.

Corporations provide the necessary aggregation of people to fund an alternative source of information on issues.

43 The SCOTUS is nothing but a bunch of irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporters of violence against woman and against people with whom they disagree...   ...oh...and sexist too

44 You say that like those analogies were inaccurate.

Posted by: WTFCI at January 22, 2010 12:08 PM (GtYrq)

You mean like this ?

Typical liberal:

This decision is just like the Germans breaking the Treaty Of Versailles and moving into the Rhineland in 1936 !!111!!!!11!!eleventy

45 They picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.

46

Can't left wing organizations think 2 seconds about Justice Steven's attempt to deny that organizations have freedom of speech?

What distinction can they make between an oil company and Greenpeace? That oil companies dictate their official company line from the top? Um, so does Greenpeace.

47 All the SC said was, "Hey, Congress: if you want to change the meaning of the Constitution, then amend the freaking Constitution! Don't try to change it by fiat!" The reasoning (correct, in my view) is that "corporations" are not soulless entities that exist in some superposed state -- they are composed of people, and are thus in the same rough category as other groups of people: churches, unions, clubs, PACs, secret societies, etc. And when speaking of "freedom of the press", I think it was Scalia (natch) who made the salient point that it is not the phsyical printing press that is free; it is the person operating the press. Freedom of the press is not granted by membership in a guild or company; it is an innate right of every citizen or group thereof.

48
Corporations are bad, man.

49

They're freaking out because there's going to be a thermonuclear ad campaign this fall exposing their Marxist ways.  And it won't be pretty.

50 #4 Blazer,
I was going to make the same point about Unions, they're effectively the same thing wrt political speech, but is it really true that corporations spend more money toward conservative causes, or at least much more?  I thought these days it's actually pretty close between con/lib spending.  The conservatives might free them up and the liberals can stifle their competition with regulations (plus the fear of not "getting on board").  So they spread it around much more evenly than in the past.

51

Last time I checked MSDNC was a part of a corporation called General Electric.  A corporation that has access and control of a complete broadcast network that prosteltyzes about global warming to pump windmill sales.  A corporation that refuses to end deals with enemy of the State Iran.   They don't make the connection that thier corporation has an unrestricted voice.

 

52

I hate to interrupt KO's epileptic fit, but the reason for this was that corporations (which were still pretty rare in 1886) could be criminally prosecuted. This was a populist response to Standard Oil's activities in brutally squelching their competitors.

Obviously, in order to be effective against intrenched incumbents or the Pravda-like MSM, collections of individuals have to be organized.

Free Speech is always a bitch to communists. It is the most important right of all Americans, and those who try to deny it should be punished.

McCain is no American hero, but merely a fucking Statist, trying to destroy our constitutional rights just to protect his cushy job.

53 What a bunch of dummies. There's more of a check on corporations than there is on unions. The shareholders can at least keep corporate executives in line if they don't like who they're giving money to. But if you're forced to join a union, you have no say at all in how your dues are spent. But lefties think this is fair, right? Currently, in Ohio, there is no law in place to prohibit public employee unions from (1) gaining access to funds through automatic deductions from government employees' paychecks; and (2) using those funds for political purposes. Fortunately, things are changing. The United States Supreme Court has just upheld an Idaho law banning deductions from state employees' paychecks for the political purposes of their unions. Although Ohio once implemented an identical protection, an Ohio appellate court struck it down on First Amendment grounds in 1998.

54

Typical liberal:

This decision is just like the Germans breaking the Treaty Of Versailles and moving into the Rhineland in 1936 !!111!!!!11!!eleventy

I think it's more like when Zero's uncle/whatever liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka single handedly in WWII.

55 A corporation is property just like a house is property. Which is to say, not at all. A house is an asset. Corporations own assets, which could include a house. A house cannot own anything, unless you formed a corporation whose only asset was a house, and then you acquired another asset. But you would still have a corporation whose assets include a house. I hope that clears it up.

56 Now guys, you're missing the point.  We only want "free speech" that we agree with, and a free hand to suppress your racist sexist homophobic slave-owning trans-fat-selling gaia-destroying tobacco-smoking pickup-truck-driving teabagger propaganda.  Why is that so hard to understand?

57
Does GE paying Olby count as political adverting? Or is paying a partisan hack to tow the lefty line somehow different?

Posted by: taylork at January 22, 2010 12:11 PM (4jZ56)

No different than any Dem politician going to any church and doing a political speech, or say a Church like the Rev. Wrights where politics rule the day. If the shoe was on the other foot the entire left and every newspaper in the country would be screaming for that church to lose its tax-exempt status.

58

That was good, Drew.

You guys see Shumah's reaction?  What a nasty old bastard.  I swear, some of these guys think we have a parliamentary system, and that the Constitution and the two other branches don't matter.

I'd like to see Shumah lose his seat.  Can't stand the extreme bile he spouts and that permanent I-smell-excrement look. 

If they ever re-make The Ten Commandments, he'd be great in Edward G. Robinson's hate-worthy role:   "Hey, Moses, whaddaya gonna do now?  Whaddaya gonna do now, Moses?  Whaddaya gonna do?  Hey, Moses, whaddaya gonna do now?  Whaddaya gonna do, Moses?"

59 50 All the SC said was, "Hey, Congress: if you want to change the meaning of the Constitution, then amend the freaking Constitution! Don't try to change it by fiat!"

Posted by: Monty at January 22, 2010 12:14 PM (4Pleu)

Tom Harkin is going to be so disappointed. He had just announced, in his pre-Brown glee about killing the US with the health care monstrosity, that Congress "has moved health care from being a privelege to being a right". The dems actually believe that they can do that. THey are proud to announce it out loud ... and Harkin got away with it, too. I haven't seen anyone take him apart.

60 The ACLU submitted an amicus curiae brief in the case that urged the Court to rule exactly as it did.

Maybe progressives should boycott donating to the ACLU  ;->

61 #4 Blazer,
I was going to make the same point about Unions, they're effectively the same thing wrt political speech, but is it really true that corporations spend more money toward conservative causes, or at least much more?  I thought these days it's actually pretty close between con/lib spending.  The conservatives might free them up and the liberals can stifle their competition with regulations (plus the fear of not "getting on board").  So they spread it around much more evenly than in the past.

Posted by: whatever at January 22, 2010 12:16 PM (rGla2)

That was what Rush said yesterday on his show when he brought up the SCOTUS decision.

62 Hey Olby, free speech didn't come around in 1791 because of some amendment. The liberty to speak one's mind is something humans enjoy as an endowment from God Himself. The same goes for the freedom of association. Its a bedrock principle of our nation in case you didn't know.

63 I feel sorry for that chicken.


We can always supply my democrat friends with more chickens to fuck.

64 It occurs to me that I can't get a website out without using a corporation's servers or a corporation's bandwidth or more unlikely some corporation's dyndns service.

If "corporations" don't have the right to free speech, I'm unsure at what point I have a right to have a weblog.

65 I'd like to see Shumah lose his seat.  Can't stand the extreme bile he spouts and that permanent I-smell-excrement look.

It's hard to decide which is more annoying , the already mentioned "permanent I-smell-excrement look" douchebaggery of Schumer or the "my glasses are permanently affixed to the end of my nose because i think it makes me look wise" douchebaggery of Carl Levin.

66 How is that supposed to work for minority shareholders of a corporation?   
Posted by: polynikes at January 22, 2010 12:21 PM (m2CN7)

Off the top of my head....

They can always sell their stock.

They can band together with other like minded people to buy more stock and change the direction of the company.

67 From here on out, its dip to kill.

68 If you search for "KVI John Carlson campaign contribution" you'll turn up a second egregious application of McCain's baby.

Two radio hosts worked hard to pass a statewide public initiative. They were harassed the entire time as providing 'illicit campaign contributions.' IIRC, nothing in particular ended up happening - but the just the way it was done was prior restraint IMNSHO.

69 The Founders clearly intended the exception for corporations to be limited not merely to media corporations, but to left-wing media corporations. A conservative media corporation exception would be akin to permitting shouts of "fire" in a crowded theater.

70 Olbermann is becoming a parody of his own talking points. He's some kind of Mobius Strip of neverending stupidity.


What is this "becoming" crap.  He's been self-parody for decades.  Remember his rants about Lewinskygate and those evil Repubicans?

71

OT

In related news, Zero continues his relentless march into oblivion....

72 @70 I'd like to see Shumah lose his seat.  Can't stand the extreme bile he spouts and that permanent I-smell-excrement look.

It's hard to decide which is more annoying , the already mentioned "permanent I-smell-excrement look" douchebaggery of Schumer or the "my glasses are permanently affixed to the end of my nose because i think it makes me look wise" douchebaggery of Carl Levin.

You do not understand, he's a lawyer. He went to law school. That means he is smarter than you. Now - kneel and do obesince in his presence

/sarc off

Yet another lib-douche who got elected by the MSM attacking the Repub candidate. When Pothole-Al called him a putz the NYT bleated about it endlessly. (BTW, Al was right).

73

It's hard to decide which is more annoying , the already mentioned "permanent I-smell-excrement look" douchebaggery of Schumer or the "my glasses are permanently affixed to the end of my nose because i think it makes me look wise" douchebaggery of Carl Levin.

Ooh, good point.  I think those glasses must be riveted to his skull.

74 In regard to Unions, did we forget that we are for the ability of the Union worker not to have his dues go towards political positions in which he does not agree?  How is that supposed to work for minority shareholders of a corporation?    

Posted by: polynikes at January 22, 2010 12:21 PM (m2CN7)

It isn't. The shareholder can sell his share at any time, it doesn't effect their employment.. People in closed shops can leave the union without quitting their jobs.

75
Typical Liberal:

WalMart = Weyland Yutani  !!11!!1!!eleventy

76 Can anyone image Apple, Exxon, ADM, and Boeing agreeing on anything? This decision is good for one group -- the media. It doesn't favor the left or right, and I don't believe it will lead to a spike in money spent either -- the 527s will die, and the money will go directly to the media, oh well.

77

Back to basics - I'm not aware that "Citizens United" was a large oil company or an eeeeevil corporation. It's a group of American citizens who band together for a common cause.

And THAT'S what scaring the communists shitless.

78

"Strikes me that a lot of these folks know that Kennedy is a mercurial fellow and that they may need him someday "

 

Being the Palin supporting illiterate that I am.  I had to look up what mercurial means.

79 And when speaking of "freedom of the press", I think it was Scalia (natch) who made the salient point that it is not the phsyical printing press that is free; it is the person operating the press. Freedom of the press is not granted by membership in a guild or company; it is an innate right of every citizen or group thereof. Monty, Monty, Monty. Your feeble exertions on the behalf of that crypto-Nazi Scalia are as amusing as they are fascist in their desire to believe what simply isn't there. It's freedom of "the press", not freedom of "the operator of the press", old boy. These majestic, inanimate beasts of ink, steel and paper were obviously intended to be protected exclusively by those dead, white racist slaveowners you claim to fancy. People are another matter entirely. Leave the matter of their disposition to those more enlightened, like Mao or Pol Pot.

80 can't leave a union....

81 In regard to Unions, did we forget that we are for the ability of the Union worker not to have his dues go towards political positions in which he does not agree?  How is that supposed to work for minority shareholders of a corporation?   


Two very different things, IMHO.  For one thing, many states allow joining a union to be a condition of employment; in other words, you WILL pay union dues if you wish to have a job.  Buying stock is done for the purpose of turning a profit, and if you don't like what the company is doing you can sell and buy different stock with no inconvenience to you.

82 Corporations tend to give more money to conservative causes

I'm not so sure about that.  ACORN gets a lot of funding from corporations.  So does PBS.

83 44
I feel sorry for that chicken.

Posted by: Dang Straights at January

_______________________________________

I think the only think left of the poor thing is a beak and a few feathers...

84

What's the baseline for how much Obama knows about the constitution?

85 In a written statement, he said the high court had “given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” and pledged to “work immediately” with Congress to develop a “forceful response.”

Because you know, McCain/Feingold had completely solved this "problem".  There has been like zero special interest money in politics since it's inception.

What an f-ing moron.  If he's so opposed to special interest money, I'd suggest he stop taking it.

86 11 Kinda on the fence with this one, the application of Contract Clause in Dartmouth College v. Woodward College extended rights to corporations but..

Posted by: Mike H at January 22, 2010 12:05 PM (cvvNY)

 

It's actually applicable.  This ruling hammers home the fact that a person does not give up constitutionally-protected rights (in this case, property rights) simply because he's an owner of a corporation.

It's also the ruling that characterized a corporation as "an artificial person."  It was ruled in 1819 so that makes ANOTHER thing Olbermann is mistaken about.

87 "Can anyone image Apple, Exxon, ADM, and Boeing agreeing on anything?"

Sure: "We like free government money."

88

Hey, you know where else the lefty logic leads? Here:

What other body spends money to influence voting but doesn't vote because only individuals can ... The DNC of course.

Quick! Ban the DNC! Support Free Speech!!

(I know, there are different rules for that. Really? Why? Shut up. That's why.)

89 Speaking of unions, this must really stick in Zero's craw.

90

Hey - if I just give another one of my riveting speeches, the American people will just shitcan that whole pesky First Amendment thing and live in grass-covered yurts to help feed all my dipshit parasitic supporters.

It's a win-win for me!

91

#12 Is there anything these people cant equivocate with slavery or the holocaust ?

There is something they can't equivocate with slavery or the Holocaust - Communism (or any other form of lefty collectivism). 

92

Would the freakout have anything to do with the billions in Soros money tied up in 527 groups that are now effectively on equal footing with all the other corporate entities out there?

Maaaaybe...

93 RE: "Our super genius 'Professor of Constitutional Law' President had this reaction to the decision..."

Yeah, we really do need to see this guy's grades. On second thought, actually, we don't. This math isn't all that hard.

94
I'm not so sure about that.  ACORN gets a lot of funding from corporations.  So does PBS.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 22, 2010 12:31 PM (mR7mk)

I'm just repeating what Rush said yesterday, havent looked into it myself. However, I wonder just how much corporations are still giving ACORN and its conglomerates after the massive hit they took from Breitbart and co. a few months back ?

95

You'd think a supposedly smart guy like Obama would know that but....

... but nothing. He's smart enough to know that there are three branches of government. Congress (1) shall make no law yadda yadda, and the Supreme Court (2) just weighed in with their interpretation.

Obama (3) knows that it's all up to him now.

So keep an eye on him. And watch what he does because, as a lot of AIG workers could tell you, what he says is meaningless.

96 PS: SIR!  IF you have an OUNCE of dignity, you will RESIGN at ONCE! SIR!

97 90

What's the baseline for how much Obama knows about the constitution?

Posted by: Cincinnatus at January 22, 2010 12:32 PM (euuyg)

About as much as that stupid bastard knows about economics.

98 95   Bwahahahahahaahahahahhahahahahahhahaha

99 As usual, I can't understand what Olbergnome is whining about. If corporations were recognized as having the same rights as persons in 1886 ... then they have the same rights as persons. Who gives a flying fuck if it happened in 1886 instead of 1791? Should every SC decision made after 1885 be overturned?

100

Give a child control.  Then try to take it back away.

That's what we are experiencing.  It's Jell-O-Ball dipping-in-a-cloud

DEEELICIOUS.

101 the 527s will die, and the money will go directly to the media, oh well.

Posted by: Jean at January 22, 2010 12:28 PM (ZOgLH)

And where were 527's advertizing? Milk cartons?

102

(Sockpuppeteer Victor lima five Golf Hotel signing off.)

103

I feel sorry for that chicken.

Posted by: Dang Straights at January

The Purdue Oven Stuffer Roaster........its dead Jim.

104

Is there anything these people cant equivocate with slavery or the holocaust ?

Yeah...actual forced servitude and ethnically-based mass murder

105 The dips may change, but the teabag remains the same old dip and ripple

106 Now if we ca just get a few states to fire up their own militia...we'll be in buisness!

107 What's the baseline for how much Obama knows about the constitution?

Posted by: Cincinnatus at January 22, 2010 12:32 PM (euuyg)

About as much as that stupid bastard knows about economics.

Posted by: TexasJew at January 22, 2010 12:35 PM (dcKUM)

"Profit and earnings ratios"

108 If you really want a look at this side of the lib-progressive world, just type "Abolish corporate personhood" into your favorite search engine, and peruse the results. Apparently allowing groups of people making up corporations (like ACORN, say) to exercise their individual Constitutional rights in a collective manner is going to destroy "Democracy" and make us all slaves to some evil entity called "Big Business"...so something. 

Or I guess what they really mean is another variation on "It's only okay when we do it."

109 In 1886 the Court declared that a corporation was a “person” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.) This is nothing new, so what's the outrage here?

110

"Why exactly should those rights be destroyed simply because they are exercising them collectively instead of individually?"

Drew:

Perhaps this might explain the Left's unhinged reaction:

1. Corporations have heaps of money (litigation targets)
2. It's far easire to spend 30% of a corporations yearly net profits on a political cause than one's personal net yearly income
3. Corporations are not Socialist entities

Regulate what a corporation says and the corporate power to lobby government or challenge government actions is greatly reduced. This might be a small thing. But it does potentially muzzle one of Socialism's biggest whipping boys; corporations will have to remain silent while lies are spread about them, and potentially bankrupting laws and regulations are passed..

But regulating corporate speech might be, after a case ot two, extended to corporate officers, executives and managers.  Suddenly a large segment of the educated and employed population has to watch what they say publicly, and maybe even privately. Or else.

Even forming a PAC now has risks; PACs are corporations, with regulated (and therefore restricted) speech rights, and this may also apply to the leaders of the PAC.

Suddenly, the competitors to Leftist/Socialist speech disappear.

But the SCOTUS put a stop to this plan.  My guess is that a lot of large compnies are going to spend money and be heard in 2010, and it won't be favorable to the Democrats.

111 Would the freakout have anything to do with the billions in Soros money tied up in 527 groups that are now effectively on equal footing with all the other corporate entities out there?
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at January 22, 2010 12:33 PM (pZEar)

I think the idea that a)companies are going to flood the airwaves for candidates and b)those candidates will be Republicans is a bit of wishful thinking.

First, there are a lot of lefty corporate types out there.

Second, to get that involved in a race that is close (the only kind worth spending a lot on) by definition means pissing off a lot of potential customers.

Can anyone really imagine, say Walmart, running a ton of ads for Scott Brown this last go around? Why would they want to piss off 47% of Mass voters (aka, their customers)?

I think companies will get more involved in issue ads but not that much. They'll still run it through trade association type deals (which they can do now) in order to prevent backlash.

112 Why is it that our president, former "Constitutional Law Professor" has refused anyone to see anything he's written about "Constitutional Law"?

Could it be that this would prove that Barry is also A FUCKING IDIOT in this area?

113 See the difference is that liberals are a part of collectives, which are more equal than those corporations that the racist truck driving conservatives belong to.

114
Speaking of unions, this must really stick in Zero's craw.

Posted by: maddogg at January 22, 2010 12:33 PM (OlN4e)

Its coming down to being in a Union and having you're company survive or not move overseas during this administration to continue having a job and being a Union worker.

If these folks who notoriously vote Dem in every election are seeing the light that spells disaster for the left.

115
Certainly after the Randi Rhodes incident, sidewalks will be carefully regulated

116 Matt Damon!

117

Minority stockholders can vote on board issues.

Non-union workers in closed union shop DO NOT EXIST.

Unions are goons who intimidate.

Anyone recall a CORPORATION INTIMIDATING A STOCK HOLDER.

 

118 OT, but I have to share that there's a biography of Caligula on right now at the Bio channel and the dude bore striking resemblance to Obama.  Started out being beloved & wanting to be the ideal ruler, had a breakdown (ok, that's different, I guess) and began doing everything he could to demonstrate his absolute power, started taxing everything to pay for his parties and suppressing dissent. 

Just sayin'.

119 The funniest part about the whole lefty "corporations aren't people" argument is that the left are dyed-in-the-wool collectivists who only recognize groups and collectives. The left does the best that it can to kill individualism, but when presented with a minor setback to their dream of total federal control of every action and behavior - especially concerning elections - they go back on everything they argue for and suddenly claim to champion the individual in their drive to shut him up. Classic.

120

If these folks who notoriously vote Dem in every election are seeing the light that spells disaster for the left.

Especially after Zero was so willing to spread our cheeks for them on Zerocare.

121 Rocks, the only change will be that the 527's staff will not get to scrape off a cut -- if anything moving the money back under the scrutiny of corporate legal, PR, and marketing departments will lessen the partisan tone in political advertising.

122

I wonder which WALL STREET firms OPIE and his POSSE will ALLOW to spend money to support Republicans.

GM?  CHRYSLER?  AIG?? BANK OF AMERICA???

How would LIBTARDS feel if BUSH controlled corporations with the full COERCIVE POWER of the govermnet??

LIBTARDS will not be satisfied until ALL CORPORATE AMERICA is Government controlled.

123 Yes lefties - corporations aren't run by people- they are run by robots and aliens.

Posted by: pre paid sex monster at January 22, 2010 12:08 PM (0fzsA)

And lizard people.

Posted by: A MN voter at January 22, 2010 12:09 PM (7BU4a)

Don't forget the CIA!

124 How about a good debate on corporate citizenship -- Why not give them the vote, - No Taxation without Representation, right?

125 I pressing for an actual vote next.

126

Yes, let's call it AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for Corporations.  

UNIONS SPENT MILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIONS on Odumbfucks ELECTARDATION.

It's only FAIR that Corporations get to do so for OTHERS.

Right?

127 My Dear Mr. Fuckwhistle: I read with interest your comments at 12:17PM this afternoon, and all I can say is: bravo, sir! A wise simile, well and robustly executed! All best to Mrs. Fuckwhistle and the children. Yr Ob'd'nt S'v'nt, Monty

128

Abortion was AFFIRMED???  We need to get CONGRESS to take ACTION quickly, we beed a FORCEFUL response.

 

RIGHT??

129 In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886.


So if, according to Olby, the 1A doesn't apply to corporations because corporations weren't recognized as equivalents of persons until 1886, wouldn't that also mean that the 1A doesn't apply to Black Americans because they weren't Constitutionally recognized as persons/citizens until the 1860s?

130 You'd think a supposedly smart guy like Obama would know that but....

I am pretty an Executive Order by Obama would clear all this up, that or some new administration regs by the EPA.

131 Started out being beloved & wanting to be the ideal ruler, had a breakdown . . .
Posted by: Y-not at January 22, 2010 12:43 PM (sey23)

I think Caligula's "breakdown" was syphilis, IIRC.  Come to think of it, Obama's acting kind of syphilitic, too - especially on his nationalization initiative: He's going all Custer on us. 

That would be a GREAT rumor to start: Obama's economic, health care, and domestic and foreign agendas are the syphilitic ravings of a depraved politician with dysfunctional political compass!

132

Anyone here have a HOUSE with a CEO, CFO, CHAIRMAN, BOARD, EMPLOYEES or STOCKHOLDERS?

Dearest Mr. Fuckwhistle.  

You comments of 12:17 were brilliant. You are one of the finest examples of the LIBTARDATION our PUBLIC SCHOOLS provide.

How many FUCKWHISTLES are their in you household?  Prolly just one.  Any who, each and every one of you FUCKWHISTLES has free speech and may join together and buy commercial time.   Good luck in your search for employment.

This commercial was not authorized by any candidate nor any fuckwhistle.

133 It was fun watching Olby's head explode last night.  I do not go there normally, but I knew it had been a tough week for the lad, so I caught the last 15 minutes of his show.  While he was mourning the death of the republic in his final rant, there was a companion video shot of Rachel Maddow waiting to accept the baton as it was passed from the 5 o'clock show to her 6 o'clock show.  She looked  like there'd been a death in the family.  Now she's normally not the most cheerful looking person, so I guess that the Brown win and the demolishment of McCain Feingold may not have been special to her.

134

Free Speech is always a bitch to communists. It is the most important right of all Americans, and those who try to deny it should be punished.

Minor quibble:  The second amendment is the most important right of Americans, because without it, the other rights are allowed only at the whimsy of the government.

135 What's the over/under on Olbermann taking a looooong bath tonight?

Though since the Comcast deal, I've noticed his Friday/Monday absenteeism has gone down, DAMN CORPORATE SLAVE DRIVERS!!!

136

Why would CORPORATIONS favor Republicans?

LIBTARDS want to create jobs.  Right??

137 One of the other implications of the Citizens decision that I haven't really seen addressed: Corporations pay taxes, just like individuals.  Applying the lefty logic, the corps are obligated to perform duties of a citizen, but would be exempt from exercising the rights afforded to citizens?  Since corporations can't vote for candidate that would best represent its interests in Congress, abridging the 1st Amendment with respect to corporations would deny corporations any means by which to communicate or exert any influence on the government that holds the key to its existence.  Restrictions on the ability to convey corporate concerns involve a fundamental matter of fairness to entities that shoulder a significant fiscal burden for this country.  Concerns of corporate citizens deserve to be heard.

138

Errrrrr.  Olbermans Corporation campaigns for Obama 24/7 already.

General Electric.

139 It doesnÂ’t say anything about whether or not corporations are people, real or imaginary, the thing is the speech, not the speaker.

Or, as is rarely done by Constitutional scholars, let's actually read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well, lookee there, "the freedom of speech".  Non-people -- dogs, vermin, even lawyers -- are entitled to it.  If they want to say corporations can be restricted from doing something via the First, it's only to peaceably assemble or petition (i.e., lobby).

Of course, to prevent these entities from doing things is to prevent people from peaceably assembling into entities like corporations in order to do these things.  Corporations aren't made of space aliens.

140

Why does Obama call AARP and Big Pharma along  with Andy Stern of SEIU to speak to them??

Shouldn't the BLACK OUT work both ways?

141

Gus-

  In your unique way you have raised a very important question I'd like to see Drew and our commenters address:

How will the Courts vew Companies like GM who are now under the thumb of the Federal Government in light of this new decision? 

Wouldn't the inclusion of Public Funding in these Corporate/Gvernment entities mitigate the freedom(s) that the Courts have returned to them?

  when you look at the current administration's attempts to collar all Financial Corporations who received TARP funding, I can't believe that they would be shy about imposing their will on the Corporate 'Free Speach' generated by these entities.  This is a new worm in the can of Corporate Bailouts.

142 Why would CORPORATIONS favor Republicans?

They wouldn't. Small businesses favor Republicans. The bigger a corporation is, the more it is a rent-seeker and desires government to end their smaller competition.

143
The Pelican Brief is story that illustrates how incredibly easy it would to change the direction of government by simply assassinating one or two Supreme Court Justices.
Of course, this novel was a lefty screed directed at evil right wing haters.
But I'm not the only one who has noticed that the Left projects a lot.
I hope that the security around the justices is up to snuff.

144 evil right wing haters

Really, isn't that kind of redundant?

145 what is the proper etiquette on dipping?  should we wash in between?  While a nice polished shine is nice, I dont want wax fruit hanging from the tree.

------

all this continues to make me wonder which constitution it is that Obama is a scholar of.

146 @135

Damnitt, I was going to say that!

You're better off trying to teach your dog calculus than trying to talk logic to a lefty. Hell, he is so dumb that he even implicates that argument that maybe blacks don't deserve any of the Bill of Rights 'cause it were written after they were granted "legal" status by his reference to Dred Scott.

But, it is even stupider. Don't know much about history but, as I recall, weren't many of the 13 Original Colonies settled under a corporate charter?

Holy shit! Does that mean the United States does not count?

Mind blowing stupid.

147 Per CountrySquire and my comments yesterday, Mark Levin is banging the piss out of Schmucky Sleaze, Family Guy Gibbs and the rest of the ignorant cocksuckers that are complaining about this.

148 Parody: Democrats Shocked That Supreme Court Would Rule That Groups of Individuals As Well As Individuals Have Free Speech Rights: www.optoons.blogspot.com

149 Keith Olbermann - Panty Sniffer

150 To be fair to Moby, he actually has two songs that don't inspire one to contemptuously throw the CD across the room....both on the Heat Soundtrack.

Otherwise, he's nothing more than Tangerine Dream with better synthesizers, trendy eyeglasses and an internet connection.

151 Posted by: jimmuy at January 22, 2010 01:11 PM (WctXV)


What can I say? Great minds think alike.

152
...... correct me if Im wrong here.....

But during Alito's and Robertson's confirmation hearing, didnt the left (and especially Chucky Schumer)....  drone on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ad neaseum about respecting judicial precedent.

If I heard judicial precedent once I heard it 10,000 times.

Seems to me..... Judicial precendent thats been around since 1886 deserves the same consideration as the decisions from..... say...... the 1960's.

153

I actually watched last night because I was hoping Olbermann's head would explode. . . . alas. 

But I was stunned at how insane he is.  When you're reading the transcripts it's bad enough, but to see it. . . The guy is completely bats**t crazy!  I thought he was making fun of himself at first.  Why isn't SNL running these on their show -- because you cannot satirize this stuff any more than Olbermann already has.  He is a satire.

I'd only caught snippets of the show now and then.  Now that I've seen it?  I would have been on the floor laughing if I didn't know he was serious!  But he was serious, and that kind of scared me.

154

Either way, the heart of the leftÂ’s critique of the decision seems to be that corporations arenÂ’t people and therefore they donÂ’t t have the same rights as individuals.

I am not surprised they took that route. That was the heart of the dissent that the idiot Stevens made.

 

155 The issue I have with this is that I cannot compete with millions of dollars pushing that "free speech" around. In essence, the assertion of the 1st in such a capacity actually infringes on mine.

156 No it doesn't

157
"The issue I have with this is that I cannot compete with millions of dollars pushing that "free speech" around. In essence, the assertion of the 1st in such a capacity actually infringes on mine."

I see. Since some can speak louder than you, you may not being heard, so everyone must shut up.

Idiot.

158 OK so I'm a frequent reader of this Amazingly Kick Ass blog but I rarely contribute to the discussion however I felt I needed to chime in here even if I'm discarded and unread. When I was in the Army I worked in Intel and the big thing that stands out here to me is that this claim that corporations are not Citizens is ridiculous. In fact law enforcement for intel treats corporations within US borders as US citizens which gives them all the same protections under the constitution. Such as the 4th and 5th and 1st etc. etc. But even still I agree that the SC did not speak to the citizenship status of corporations but it would seem ridiculous to assume that they had no protection under the law especially when laws will affect their ability to do business within the US. Why should corporations lose their ability to engage in political speak especially if they might lose their ability to do business or if laws might affect them. They can accuse corporations of influencing all they want but real people work for these corporations and whether we want to believe it or not most corporations actually care about their employees. Enough that they would fight with their own profits to ensure that their people would still have jobs. Really though from my intel experience this business about corporations not being citizens seems like it could really f things up. If corporations don't have the right to free speech then should unions. You can claim that Corporations don't represent the political views of all its employees sure but neither do Unions. If one loses that ability both should. Anyways I know there are actually legal arguments for what I'm trying to get across but it would seem highly counterproductive to say that Corporations don't have rights.

159 Posted by: UGRev at January 22, 2010 01:49 PM (862vz)

You have a right to speak, not to be heard.

160 Posted by: UGRev at January 22, 2010 01:49 PM (862vz)


Yet it's amazing what an unemployed mom could accomplish free-speech-wise with a single posting about "death panels" on her FREE Facebook page.

161

I'm not sure if they really care this much about the case or it was just too much on top of Scott BrownÂ’s election and the death of health care reform, so they have collectively lost it.

 

Really, Ace?  Really?  Consider that for 60 years, more or less, the Dems have enjoyed Godawful organization and money advantages by relying on money and time extracted from unions foot-soldiers.  Every race, every district, everywhere there is government.

Now imagine that the Republicans have that same advantage.

It's been said the the main problem with Republicans is that nobody knows that they stand for; and that the main problem with Democrats is... that everyone knows what they stand for.

Now leverage that with, you know, actual paid media and people on the ground, getting those messages out.

Politically, they are absolutely right in going apeshit.  They may have just lost the future-- with the election of Scott Brown, and the nullification of their domestic money advantage.

162
During the lawyers arguments to the Supreme Court,  the gov's attorney had to admit that the law would make it possible for the government to ban the publishing of a 400 page book that mentioned in one line who you should vote for.

They say that's where the case was won.

The left.  Banning books.

163
If any of you have left-wing nut job friends,  ask them if they are aware that McCain Feingold would ban books.

164 Biblio: "...I would have been on the floor laughing if I didn't know he was serious! But he was serious, and that kind of scared me."

Olberman, on any given prepared speech, is a spectacle only the late Andy Kaufman could pull off. I could just see Kaufman, after buying everyone in his audience pudding, showing Olberman, uncut and unedited, and just sitting back waiting for the response. Would the crowd be confused as hell wondering what just happened, or would they start yanking the lid off their pudding cups?

165

Keith Olbermann - Panty Jock Sniffer

Have you forgotten my origins as a Sportscaster, sir?  I bid you, good day, sir.

166 In a written statement, he said the high court had “given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Stampede of special interests getting their grubby hands on the political process? From the president who met weekly with the president of SEIU (orders of magnitude more than he spoke/met with General McChrystal)? From the guy who is/was intimately involved with ACORN? From the president who issued over a dozen exceptions to his 'no lobbyists in my administration' promise in the first 2 weeks of his administration? I guess to a lefty a 'special' interest is one that isn't in cahoots with your policy and campaign.

167 Notice how the rants focused on Halliburton?  I'm surprised he didn't throw Blackwater in as well.  Based on Olby's rational discussion, I would guess that "corporations" lurch across the landscape like the zombies in Night of the Living Dead.

168 The "special interests" think has always irritated me somewhat, even when I do it myself (it's a particularly benevolent sort who can avoid it completely). Special interests are nothing more than citizens banding together to advocate for their own viewpoint. In other words, free citizens exercising their free speech rights in groups, so as to more effectively influence government.

We are ALL members of a special interest group of some sort, most of us are members of more than one.

169 It's a shame that Al Qaeda never incorporated.

We may have seen some of that famous nuance from our Lefty friends.

170

I use the following reductio ad absurdium argument when anti-gun nuts say that "assault rifles" can't be covered by the 2d A because they didn't exist when the Constituiton was written:

"So, you're position is that freedom of the press applies only to the spoken word or newspapers printed on hand operated presses?  The Founders couldn't have meant  internet/TV/radio/telephone/cable/telegraph/canwithastring since they didn't exist at the time."

The usual response I get is, "Oh, that's different!"

Same here.  Of course, I expect morons like Olberman to miss this point.

 

 

171

"special interests" and "entrenched lobbyists" arfe groups who advocate for less government and more individual freedom.

"grassroots advocacy groups" are those that argue for socialism and communism.

The press controls the language and that is what we get.

172

"Tom Harkin is going to be so disappointed. He had just announced, in his pre-Brown glee about killing the US with the health care monstrosity, that Congress "has moved health care from being a privelege to being a right". "

It's the first and only "right" that a person under Obamacare's individual mandate would be fined and/or imprisoned for NOT exercising as commanded by the gummint.

Riiiiiggghhhhttt!

173 It's the first and only "right" that a person under Obamacare's individual mandate would be fined and/or imprisoned for NOT exercising as commanded by the gummint.

Riiiiiggghhhhttt!

Posted by: effinayright at January 22, 2010 02:53 PM (lQRmV)

Effinayright, effinayright. Good point. I asked Tom about your concerns and he said,

"It's a mandatory right. Now, exercise your right to free speech by saying, 'Thank you, Lord Harkin,' or I'll throw you in jail."

174 The first "reaction" (hissy-fit) I saw was Schumers. He specifically singled out Roberts, so I thought Roberts wrote the opinion. I guess, just being an asshole for the sake of it. My guess is this directly effects Chuckies stranglehold on something-he was about to bust both bra straps.

175 "The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon," says the New York Times by Ann Althouse.

"Now, you might want to say that some speech is too loud and pervasive and strong, too much able to drown out competing voices in the marketplace of ideas. But if that's what you really want to say, it will be kind of ridiculous if you are The New York Times."

http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 2010/01/supreme-court-has-handed-lobbyists-new.html

176

TheGuardianII @ #164: this claim that corporations are not Citizens is ridiculous. In fact law enforcement for intel treats corporations within US borders as US citizens which gives them all the same protections under the constitution. Such as the 4th and 5th and 1st etc. etc.

All righty, G-II. I have questions, based on what you said:

Does spousal privilege exist between Kraft and Cadbury? And how would you characterize that marriage? Seriously, if they were treated the same as citizens, wouldn't Cadbury have secured a restraining order against Kraft months ago? And that rabbit that lays those Cadbury eggs sounds like a chicken, so should we keep ...

... never mind that last.

177

Well, actually, let's just take Olbermann's stance literally.

Indians were excluded from the constitution for purposes of representation.  Should they still not count today?

178 The New York Times Corporation publishes an editorial suggesting that corporations shouldn't have the right to political speech. 

Irony, you are a bitch.

And in case you were wondering whether they are actually worried about the influence of money, check this out:

"If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: WeÂ’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you."

That's odd.  I would have thought wealthy individuals could credibly make the same threat.  But I guess the NYTimes isn't nearly as worried about the influence of George Soros, as they are the influence of the million shareholders of Wal-Mart.

"(The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend, though they have far less money at their disposal.)"

So, to summarize:
Freeing up labor unions to spend more money = good. 
Freeing up other aggregations of people to spend more money = we're doomed!

179 The First Amendment is Highly Overrated.

180 Two very different things, IMHO.  For one thing, many states allow joining a union to be a condition of employment; in other words, you WILL pay union dues if you wish to have a job.

My friend is in a union and refuses to pay his dues.  He's a Conservative.  He gives his dues to a local charity.  They bitched and moaned but legally, there was nothing they could do.  Heh.

181
Krauthammers take

I think it's a great ruling. The most important amendment is the First Amendment. The most important of our rights is free speech. And the most important element in free speech is political speech. And that's why the governing class has always attempted the . . . regulation of political speech.

The less, the better.

Now, it has to be admitted that one of the downsides of this will be a marginal increase in the power of money. However, for all of the restrictions that we have had under all our laws – the [campaign] finance laws — money always ends up having its influence one way or the other. It finds its level. It goes around loopholes. You hire smart (and now rich lawyers) and you get around [the law].

And, secondly, the only way to completely abolish the power of money is to do what was done in other English-speaking countries and . . . ban all political money and you have it all paid by the government. The problem is: If you do that, it's a huge advantage for any incumbent.

So, I think what we heard today [from the Supreme Court] is exactly what you ought to do: disclaimers and disclosures so everybody knows who is giving and who is financing. But open the gates.

182

In a written statement, he said the high court had “given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,”

Ya mean like the stampede of SEIU and AARP special interest lobbyists who visit the White House on a regular basis? The same unions and special interests who poured millions into Obama's 2008 campaign?
Fuckin' hypocrite.

".....and pledged to “work immediately” with Congress to develop a “forceful response.”

Translation: He's going to see how fast he can squelch this latest blow to government control over who gets to spend what, on which candidate.

183 I loved the list of Great Evils who would benefit from this decision.  All the usual suspects: Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.  I'm surprised Obama didn't keep on going: "...Sauron, Weyland-Yutani, SMERSH..."

And as far as I can tell, the only reason Obama became a constitutional lawyer was to look for loopholes in the thing.

184

Olbermann whines:

In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections.

None. They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service.

What really bothers the leftwingnuts is that conservative-leaning corporations will have the same opportunity to 'spend all the money they want', just like the leftwing corporation that Olbermann works for.

185

I am a bit unsure of the ruling; I don't like the notion that corporations and unions can now drown out everyone else with their money; on the other hand, giving government the power to restrict speech is dangerous.

Having said that, the political realities are interesting- at the moment, the Republicans stand to benefit, but when we have the debate over immigration reform, which direction will the corporate cash winds blow?

I can't imagine Archer Daniels Midland will spend their "speech" to restrict the flow of cheap immigrant labor.

186 100 years of law overturned. I thought conservatives didn't like activist judges.

187 Someone with more money than I have is unfairly advantaged, and that advantage has to be curtailed by government for citizens to be on equal footing.

Someone with more dick than I have is unfairly advantaged, and that advantage has to be cut to length by government for citizens to be on equal footing.

In other words, Democrats are illiterate, thoughtless dumbshits.

188 Go back and watch Olbermann interviewing the constitutional law professor regarding this decision. He actually says, "What now holds the corporations back from doing whatever they want to do, including completely taking over the electoral process... no limit to what they want to do including eliminating the first amendment." So, a Supreme Court decision that protects the right to free speech eliminates the right to free speech? Hell of a program you run over there, Keith. His rant starts at the 5 minute mark here: http://tinyurl.com/ye45jor

189

No, the decision does not address corporate personhood.  But this decision amplifies that error in justice that dates back to the Santa Clara v. Union Pacific decision that goes back to 1886.  By the way, if you review that decision, there in nothing in it that states corporations are people.  The only reference is in the headnote of the case written by a clerk of the court.

Corporations are not people.  They do not serve jail time for misdeeds and negligence.  They do not die.  There do not have all the responsibilities that other citizens have.  They do something illegal, and maybe someone dies, they get fined, they raise the price of the product.  Just another cost of doing business, and on they go on.  I commit a negligent act, I go to jail.  Corporations are a legal construct, not people.

The Founders never wanted to have this level of corporate involvement in government and belived it was detrimental to the nation and severly limited their activities for the good of the Republic.  At that time the East India Tea Co. held economic control over 20% of the world's population and had a private army.  We are getting back to that now with Big Oil, Pharma, Big Ag, and of course the mecenaries for hire.  The Boston Tea Party was an action against the tyranny of the East India Co. as well as the British monarch.

In the Founder's America, corporate charters were granted for a limited time, usually 10 to 40 years.  That way they could be periodically reviewed to insure that they were a good citizen. Charters could be revoked for causing public harm.  That would never happen today. Corporations could only engage in those activities necessary to fulfilling their chartered purpose.  An oil company could not own a newpaper for example.  Corporations could not own property that was not essential to their charter.  Why does Citibank need Caribbean condos?  Corporations could not hold stock in other companies.  Today we have defense contractors and foriegn actors that own media companies.  Finally the personal assests of corporate shareholders was NOT protected from the consequences of corporate behavior.  Bailouts would never happen if they did.

Yes, corporate money and influence has bought a lot of legislation over the years as you can see how just unfettered corporations have become since the birth of this nation.  This decision by the Roberts court will simply introduce much, much, much more influence.  Influence the Founding Fathers clearly thought was wrong.  Even the sainted Adam Smith who argued for free market economics thought that large corporations were a danger and unfairly limited competition among smaller merchants.

And now the full financial power of large corporations have been given the green light to spend their entire corporate treasury for/against a certain candidate, and for/against any legislation.  Congressman didn't vote the way you wanted them too?  Just cut a check for $50 million and sink them.  And what they say, doesn't even need to be factual.  And the corporations don't even need to be American (or have American interests at heart) to participate in this.  They can also spend the money in ways where they don't even have to identify themselves.  I wonder who or what legislation that Citgo, or Sony, or Halliburton, or the Saudis are going to be in the market for?  Something that serves their interest, not necessarily the American people's.

Finally, in arriving at this decision, the court has elected to invalidate nearly a century of case law and laws enacted by elected representatives.  This means that there is no longer any legal certainty in this country.  No matter how long a point has been settled in the law, and people and corporations abide by those rulings, they are all out the door now, until the Roberts court has ruled on it.

I know on this site, I'm in the minority.  Most people will see this as a huge win for the GOP, because they have always been more corporate friendly and more willing to preserve their rights above the citizenry.  In a country where there is already too much influence by corporations (and labor) we don't need more of it.  Corporations have just been granted 'Super Personhood' and will get the attention of the legislators long before you and I as citizens will.  This is the beginning of the downfall of the American republic.  Ultimately, conservative citizens will pay the price of this as well. 

190

yes,you are all right.
chi hair iron are precious possession for not only women but men also. you may have a try make
everyone in your family fashionable.

191

We launched the 2010 latest and most fashionable True Religion jeans on our shop, you are welcome to patronize.Here are many discounts for you.
Our aim is to provide high-quality products and excellent after-sales service.

http://www.jeanushop.com

192 Take it to homeknow,find good blog is very differcult,but find good clothing such north face jackets,or find cheap oakley sunglasses as similar as oakley sunglasses outlet.thank you,you can go north face outlet to shopping.but the article are different.

193  The designers at Rayban sunglasses have been producing stylish designs for many years and they continually incorporate new ideas to remain ahead of the completion.

Searching...

194

Online Radii Shoes• Buy Radii Shoes on www.radiishoe.com. Fashion and free shipping in radii footwear, radii straight jacket, radii 420 top.

195 cheap polo shirts is hot sale now, with this summer is coming, the weather is becoming more and more hot.

196 Since NHL found in 1917, the number of its fans grows more and more. They always show pride in their favorite teams by the NHL jersey. But the Authentic NHL jerseys are so expensive that many fans choose replicas for substitute. However, the<a href="http://www.lovejerseys.net">NFL jersey </a> NHL hockey jerseys in the lovejerseys.com are nice for the high quality. What¡¯s more, you can get what you love at low price and best service.