Supreme court ruling on corporations and politics

Post Reply New Topic

if it were up to a vote of the people there would still be slavery. since ill-informed [for the most part] voters elect politicians into office, and since politicians select supreme court justices, it is ultimately the american voters' fault when we get rulings such as this. freedom [for the common man] and ignorance cannot coexist.

the corporations will now dump heretofore unequalled sums into campaigns supporting their fascist candidates, outspending the unions by multiples, thus drowning out any real political debate, and completing this nation's transition to a true corporate oligarchy- UNLESS CONGRESS ACTS NOW! but 41 will block any such move. thanks for bloody nothing, massachusetts! god help us all.

no other western nation allows such a lopsided apportionment of political power to the monied classes as this nation, and it will be our downfall, for the love of money is the root of all evil- that money is power, power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. anybody who cannot "get" this is just part of the problem.

Courts also ruled that media outlets are puppets of their owners and that the journalists are obligated to serve as mouthpieces for these owners, that to do otherwise is to violate free speech rights. This includes the right to force journalists to lie for them. The case of the Fox reporters in Florida established that. There was a more recent case in California where a court ruled that the owner of a media outlet had the right to fire journalists for wanting to organise a union, because the owner's free speech rights gave him absolute power over who can serve as his mouthpiece. Thus, if a mouthpiece decides to join a union, it's the right of the owner to say that this mouthpiece does not adequately transmit his free speech and thus should be terminated despite other labour laws on the books.

I don't see how letting corperations donate to campagin funds affects democrocy in any way. It's their money. They can spend it any way they want.

It is not my job to argue your points for you.

Sand seems to make the assumption that all corperations are inherently evil.

If I where rich, and wanted to use that money to back, say, a third party candidate because I believed in their ideals, the oppisite ruling on this matter would prevent that. That is not fair.

If corperations are corrupt, it is because consumers have made them so.

If it becomes profitable to not be corrupt, corperations will cease to be corrupt.

Sand: The latter.

Awesomelyglorious: I don't care wether or not their motivations are genuine, I am not their judge. My point is that we can manipulate corperations to do the right thing, because as you said, their goal is to make a buck. And by the way I never accused that goal of being corrupt, it is just reality.

all the publicly owned campany's money is property of the shareholders, So why not put every contribution up to the shareholders?

simple the CEO's and mutual funds always have the votes rigged to come out as they desire