Butterfly Rewards - earn free credits and redeem for good causes -  learn more!
my care2
make a difference

causes & news

news network

socially conscious news and video shared and rated by the community

Supreme Court Considers Major Shift in Election Law


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: conservative, supreme, court, reverse, McCain-Feingold, Act, elections, corruption, corporate, free speech, campaign, spending, power, corruption, money, finance, politics, society, business )

Tom
- 88 days ago - latimes.com
The Supreme Court conservative majority want to give corporations even more power by reversing two previous rulings that limit corporate spending in elections, saying such limits violate the 1st Amendment "free speech" rights of corporations!
Comments

Michelle M. (83)
Saturday August 29, 2009, 3:08 pm
well, that way it would be out in the open. Thanks Tom.
 

Bee Hive Lady (301)
Saturday August 29, 2009, 5:19 pm
Ir was the greatest mistake in American law making to create the corporation and treat it as an individual with constitutional protections . It will only lead to perdition. Thanks, Tome.
 

LLOYD H. (5)
Saturday August 29, 2009, 9:18 pm
Yes, another win for corporate greed and control, but it is not like it is going to do anything that is not already being done now, except perhaps make the actions more public. Just look at the Health care Reform circus, those companies who want to can and do already get over, under, around, through the present laws, that were writen to allow for this by bought and paid for Congresspersons, by setting up and funding 'astroturf'supposedly citizen groups(60 Plus, Patients First,Americans for Prosperity,Freedom Works), hiring PR and Lobbyist firms to run campaigns that match their agendas and there is no accountability. The one thing that could really help is a "Truth in Political Advertising Law" with swift big teeth in it, but every court so far has struck them down, 'as there is no reasonable expectation for truth in political advertising', until that reasoning the American citizen in exercising their most vital, empowering and important civil act has to assume that they are being lied to and no reasonable assumption that they will be told in the course of an election campaign is true and informed consent of the governed is based in fact not lies, is shot down all the money watching will serve no purpose.
 

Roseann Dudrick (70)
Sunday August 30, 2009, 12:21 am
That blatantly shows were neo-CONS interests are - not with their constituents, but then we already knew that.
 

Kim stands for PEACE (140)
Sunday August 30, 2009, 1:53 am
YES!! Profit$ over people! Hell, the big corp$ are already dictating to govt; why not allow them more control?
Salve Lucrum! Lucrum gaudium!

(Ancient Latin proverb
Translation: Hail profit! Profit is joy!)
 

Locan Sleeping-Squirrel (89)
Sunday August 30, 2009, 7:17 am
The word that comes to mind when I think of 1st amendment free speech rights for corporations is RETARDED. But that is an insult to those among us of a diminished capacity. Any one else watch the movie Idiocracy last night? I think we are closer to that than I realized.
 

NE L. (52)
Sunday August 30, 2009, 10:58 am
All politicians should have the same amount of $$ to campaign with. Corporations should never be allowed to contribute to any campaign.
 

Robert H. (5)
Sunday August 30, 2009, 1:34 pm
Looks like the SCOTUS is about to do it again! -Prove that they are against the interests of the common citizen.

-Remember KELO..? [The founding fathers are squirming in their graves -again!
 

Roseann Dudrick (70)
Sunday August 30, 2009, 2:01 pm
Our last and most important vote is w/ out wallets. Boycott
 

Deborah L. (3)
Sunday August 30, 2009, 3:49 pm
Can everyone say "Fascism"?
 

Judy C. (49)
Sunday August 30, 2009, 8:58 pm
There should really be a limit on campaign spending of any kind.
 

mary f. (74)
Monday August 31, 2009, 2:25 am
thanks tom
 

Melva H. (67)
Monday August 31, 2009, 9:46 am
The GOP deliberate destruction of America is STILL on the move, thanks to their SC 'enablers'. Ethics over Money? Doubtful! What if the Left could come up with half the perks?? Still doubtful.
 

Rebecca S. (163)
Monday August 31, 2009, 1:08 pm

The Supreme Court should rule that corporations have NO right to free speech since they are NOT a PERSON!!! They should not be permitted to donate to campaigns at all.

We NEED public financing for elections and no other option...with a $5 limit per person. That still allows for the exercising of free speech without allowing our elections to be bought.
 

Robert H. (5)
Thursday September 3, 2009, 6:11 am

Apparently both the ACLU and The [anti Kelo] Institute for Justice agree that $ =Speech. i.e., that
"Might makes Right". This is insane! -Not the America that I was brought up with.


 

Robert H. (5)
Thursday September 3, 2009, 6:38 am
Rebecca, The Supreme Court ruling that a corporation IS a Person has a long history that citizens need to study with the object of having these decisions reviewed and overturned. [The Institute for Justice seems not to be interested in this approach to KELO, and why should they when there is $ and [essentially false "Kudos"] to be made fighting it case by case for as long as possible.] American democratic Ideals have given way to corporate greed $$$ everywhere you look. I have heard the argument that Single Payer Healthcare would interfere with Insurance companies' 'right' and 'duty' to make $ for share holders, after all this is the 'American way ' -a Capitalist approach! Anything else smacks of 'Socialism" -Horrors !!!
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)
20
20 log in or sign up to start earning Butterfly Credits today!


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.
Copyright © 2009 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved