Supreme Court Rolls Back Corporate Campaign Spending Limits

lorenlal writes "The Supreme Court of the United States must have figured that restrictions on corporate support of candidates was a violation of free speech, or something like that." From the AP story linked above: "By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states."

I for one...

[Delwin]

welcome our new Disney overlords.

Re:Constitution?

[FooAtWFU]

Then perhaps we should amend it! In the meantime, free speech (and a free press) isn't just a good idea: it's the law.

Re:Constitution?

[Captain Splendid]

then clearly the Constitution is defective.

You're thinking about this the wrong way. The constitution is not defective. Finally, all this anti-corporate ideology is on the wane, and true social equality will soon be reached when we get a corporation as a supreme court justice.

Re:Constitution?

[DoofusOfDeath]

It's kind of hard to imprison a corporation...

I volunteer to try.

Re:Constitution?

[commodoresloat]

They're discriminated against in the hiring process as well. I can't tell you how many hiring committees I've been on where we've only hired actual human beings. It's pervasive! I say we need affirmative action for corporations; level the playing field a bit, at least until we see more and more corporations in positions of power at corporations. True fact: nearly all corporate CEOs are actual human beings rather than corporations (Steve Jobs is the exception here).

Re:Constitution?

[Whorhay]

Well that may be, but I'll bet they have been unfairly avoiding their civic duty of Jury Duty!

Re:Constitution?

[startled]

Good point. Since corporations were granted their personhood in 1884 there has never been a corporation as President or even Governor.

What about more basic rights, like marriage? Yeah, yeah, "mergers" give you all the same benefits. If that's so, why not let them call it marriage?

You ask me, get the government out of this whole marriage thing, and let individuals, their faiths, and their churches decide if they want to let AOL be "wedded" to Time Warner. In the mean time, the government can call AOL and Time Warner "civil partners".

After that, maybe we can end this horrid business of corporations being bought and sold. Disgusting!

Re:citation

[ScentCone]

companies don't have to disclose contributions in advance

So, why would you invest in a company that has a board of directors you don't trust? Why would you hold onto stock in a company that operates according to principles with which you disagree?

And - just to be clear, here - most corporations aren't publicly held anyway. Most are small operations, privately held. If a candiate is swearing that their purpose in life is to get elected and outlaw (for example) restaurants that serve pork ... why shouldn't the guy and his wife that incorporated to start a BBQ joint be able to run an ad saying that perhaps this guy shouldn't be elected?

Pussy Whisperer?

[ClosedSource]

"I really hate this whiny assed victim mentality so many pussies have today."

You can talk with pussies? That must come in handy.