Corporations are nothing more than a piece of paper in a drawer somewhere in a government office.

This was a very bad day for liberty.

Turning this into a freedom of speech issue will prove to be one of the most reprehensible rulings that the Supreme Court has ever made.

They will now have the right to openly support corporate groomed candidates.

And we will have the right to watch what the hell we say on Twitter about their products, or face the "legal" consequences.

I'll make a prediction: in 2020, the left-most candidate will be far to the right of Palin, funded by Murdock and the Walton family.

The sad part is, I'm actually afraid this semi-tongue-in-cheek prediction might come true.

Next up: SCOTUS rules that Corporations, and wholly-owned subsidiary corporations can vote in elections, cutting out the need to bother with spending money on campaigns.

Next up, the corporations will declare themselves as candidates.

Never fear. Be patient.

Someday the Democrats will do something about this, promise.

>> ^Stormsinger:
I'll make a prediction: in 2020, the left-most candidate will be far to the right of Palin, funded by Murdock and the Walton family.
The sad part is, I'm actually afraid this semi-tongue-in-cheek prediction might come true.


Yes, and they'll recall with horror the memory of Ronald Reagan, the Marxist radical.

laws are for the public welfare, so you ahve the SCOTUS twisting the laws that actually make corporations legal, to actually work against the public good, rather the corporate interests.

it's an insult to judges everywhere. I think.

next on the list of corporate america:

OWN THE INTERNET AND BE THE GATEKEEPER FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATION

you might like this about how regulations actually work for business profits much more than you would ever think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7XpUEIfUz8

I read that as SCROTUS. I know I'm not the only one.

This is major major major bad news... but maybe it'll be so bad it'll make people win the end of Corporate personhood that's been around for a few decades.

>> ^alizarin:
This is major major major bad news... but maybe it'll be so bad it'll make people win the end of Corporate personhood that's been around for a few decades.


Yeah, keep asking yourself, what's finally going to put people into action, to effect political change.

Said it before - and I'll say it again...

Free speech is never a bad thing. I will never for the life of me understand how people can be so offended by the right of people (which includes companies & groups) to appeal to government. McCain/Fiengold was bad, stupid law and it was overturned with more than just cause because it was unconstitutional. They made a law abridging free speech. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Another thing I don't understand - why do people get so mad at lobbyists for approaching politicians, and yet they never get mad at the politicians for being 'influenced'? Why did we make an unconstitutional law to punish free speech, and yet we have NO law to punish politicians who vote for bad policy?

If it is 'bad' for companies & interest groups to dangle money, then surely it is far worse for the politicians to actually be - you know - INFLUENCED. Money is like water. It is going to find a way into the system. You can't stop it. McCain/Fiengold was not only unconstitutional, it was stupid. You might as well run around trying to stop a monsoon by catching it in your cupped hand. The only proper solution is harsh penalties, monitoring, and regulation of GOVERNMENT officials. I think a law that throws elected officials in jail for accepting money, jobs, gifts, or favors woudl be far more effective than a law banning corporate lobbying efforts. Attack the source - not the symptom.

The problem is that proving corruption and bribe/favor-taking by politicians is very very difficult to do legally. Look at the William Jefferson case. The guy was ridiculously crooked, but only gets 13 years. 13 years for this kind of corruption? That's pathetic. When getting caught (already hard) and convicted on 11 counts (much much harder), you'd think that the penalty should be a bit stiffer. You can get more than that for simple burglary! This guy took half a million bucks and stood to gain a LOT more if he had not been caught, not to mention his abuse of power and betrayal of his constituents. We need better investigative powers (and measures to ensure they're not abused) and MUCH stiffer sentences for corruption. Good luck getting Congress to write laws that would be tougher on themselves though, especially without adding a bunch of loopholes.

As for this free speech issue, I don't think corporations should have "free speech" rights. People have those rights. People can donate money for political reasons. Corporations are created for commercial purposes and have interests and priorities that are geared to commerce and profit above all, not justice, ethics, morality or anything else that individuals are concerned with. Giving them the right to fund political campaigns and messages is crazy. We're essentially giving organizations geared almost entirely toward extracting as much money as possible from people a HUGE influence in who gets elected and who makes the laws that will regulate those organizations. Anyone else not seeing the problem with this?

We're missing a golden opportunity here, people.

SCOTUS says corporations are people too, right? Well, the DSM-IV says that if a person acted in a manner similar to SOP at the average corporation, they would be labeled sociopathic. If they then engaged in behavior that proved to be a threat to themselves or others, they could be involuntarily committed, until such a time that they can 'prove' that they're sane.

And... well... I'd like to see them try.

>> ^StealthNuck:
I read that as SCROTUS. I know I'm not the only one.


...and afterwards I'm skeptical it's not a typo.

Microsoft and McDonald's 2012!

>> ^Payback:
>> ^StealthNuck:
I read that as SCROTUS. I know I'm not the only one.

...and afterwards I'm skeptical it's not a typo.


S.upreme
C.ourt
R.uling
O.f
T.he
U.nited
S.tates

It's about time I reread Snow Crash...

So the way it stands a corporation can dump gallon after gallon of toxic waste into a community and at the most be forced to dish out a couple million in law suits 20 years later but no one will ever ever be held criminally responsible. But when it comes to freedom of speech laws it has been decided that they have all the rights of citizens.

My capital letters cannot get big enough. WHAT THE GODDAMN FUCK?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Said it before - and I'll say it again...
Free speech is never a bad thing. I will never for the life of me understand how people can be so offended by the right of people (which includes companies & groups) to appeal to government. McCain/Fiengold was bad, stupid law and it was overturned with more than just cause because it was unconstitutional. They made a law abridging free speech. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Another thing I don't understand - why do people get so mad at lobbyists for approaching politicians, and yet they never get mad at the politicians for being 'influenced'? Why did we make an unconstitutional law to punish free speech, and yet we have NO law to punish politicians who vote for bad policy?
If it is 'bad' for companies & interest groups to dangle money, then surely it is far worse for the politicians to actually be - you know - INFLUENCED. Money is like water. It is going to find a way into the system. You can't stop it. McCain/Fiengold was not only unconstitutional, it was stupid. You might as well run around trying to stop a monsoon by catching it in your cupped hand. The only proper solution is harsh penalties, monitoring, and regulation of GOVERNMENT officials. I think a law that throws elected officials in jail for accepting money, jobs, gifts, or favors woudl be far more effective than a law banning corporate lobbying efforts. Attack the source - not the symptom.


Ok this guy is working for the man.

Also about politicians accepting money etc. etc. It is generally argued that a john is to be blamed for prostitution. Often the john will be held criminally accountable and the prostitute will be set free maybe with a warning. The argument I think is basically that if we eliminate johns(as they're trying to do with many court-ordered programs to help them deal with their prostitute seeking behaviour) then there won't be any prostitutes.

Personally I think they both should be punished but some would pardon the prostitute because the need to get paid(to feed your kids, clothe yourself, buy a stick of deodorant) is stronger than the need to get laid. I realize my argument here is not incredibly well developed but it doesn't need to be because...

If companies are people as you so clearly claim why are they never held criminally accountable for their actions, i.e. dumping toxic waste into a community causing unknown amounts of cancer and deformed babies.

A company is just fucking not a goddamn person. Companies don't fucking eat. Companies don't fucking require shelter. Companies are not held accountable to ANYONE or ANYTHING other than their profit sheet. Literally.

Business is war and a good company will turn itself a profit like a good general will win a war. Even if that means murdering the elderly, raping the women, and brainwashing the children.