Corporations now have the right to spend money directly to influence elections

[Cainad (dec.)]

I'm actually gonna have to agree with the conservative judges on this one (Note to self, you just agreed with Scalia, get a lobotomy)  Free speech is free speech, if we allow restriction corporations this way, then that opens the door to restrict corporate use of other media as well.

They've been restricted that way for over 100 years. Hasn't stopped the corporations from spending money on media, now has it?

[Freeky]

My response to the OP was "Wait, what? WHAT?!"  But then I read the article, and I had a wishful thinking moment, which was "So now people will figure out that they'll have to start paying fucking attention during elections, and see who wants what, because this will easily be the most obvious way of telling who is going to do some good vs. who is going to give big business moar moneys. Right?"

[Requia ☣]

Nah, we already know what businesses give to politicians, the executive donations tell us that.  In truth campaign money isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be (you need to double money spent in order to gain 1% in the polls).  What we really need is to explain to the politicians that loses a corporate sponsor or three won't cost them the re-election.

[Captain Utopia]

I'm actually gonna have to agree with the conservative judges on this one (Note to self, you just agreed with Scalia, get a lobotomy)  Free speech is free speech, if we allow restriction corporations this way, then that opens the door to restrict corporate use of other media as well.

If it means that online speech of forums (blogs and forums) will no longer be threatened, then I'm all for it.  I'm not convinced that particular justification is valid though.

[Requia ☣]

Online speech is threatened now?

[Captain Utopia]

The example I've seen bandied about was comparing "Fahrenheit 911" to "Hillary: The Movie"

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which sided with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary: The Movie could not be shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries under the McCain-Feingold Act. Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called it "one of the most important First Amendment cases in years."

why this is relevant:

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

I'd rather a government have no control in determining where the line should be, since they will abuse it later, if not sooner.

It's wouldn't necessarily be their fault either.  If that part of the bill was left in place you'd have a situation where if a contentious movie could not be shown whenever the creators wish, what about a text script of it which becomes a chain-email, or an inflammatory rant which suddenly goes viral at just the right moment?  When you don't have the luxury of time to properly follow the money, how do you determine grassroots from astroturf?

Since everything is trending online, this would have inevitably affected popular blogs and forums within a few election cycles.

[Baron Von Stevenstein]

the implications are terrifying, something straight out of a distopian novel.
how long do you think it will be until the franchise wars starts like in demolition man or the corporate wars from rollerball?
heard the decision compared to the dred scott decision, saying that its worse.

well at least we can all say we remember when lady liberty got ass raped by ronald mcdonald and that aol guy

[Requia ☣]

Aha!  I finally found the judicial opinion.  I don't think the reporter read it.

The bit Thomas dissented from in the majority opinion was joined by all 8 other judges, so disclosure of campaign finances stays up (yes he could have singlehandedly undone that if the other 4 hadn't agreed to partly join the majority).

This is even less substantial than I thought, According to the opinion corporations are already forming their own PACs in order to get around the law, one of the cited reasons for the decision was that the law effectively discriminates against corporations that don't have the resources to deal with the red tape involved.

It has nothing to do with spending money on campaigns, and everything to do with political speech, its the 2002 McCain Feingold act, not the 1907 law mentioned.  This has to do with being allowed to publish material in the runup to an election.

They cited Morse v Frederick (bong hits 4 Jesus) as a *defense* of free speech.  

The specific facts of the case are very disturbing.  The plaintiffs were trying to put a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton up, not on TV, but on video on demand services, the FCC was expanding enforcement of the law, FP is right to have called this a threat to the internet.

[Jasper]

Corporations are too powerful and too able to ignore the law.  They are The Enemy, and anything that diminishes them is good news for me.

[Cain]

Erm, wouldn't corps still be limited to the same 5000 dollars private individuals have under this?

On direct donations: yes.

However they can spend everything they have on political advertising, if they so wish.

The implications for this are going to be hilarious.  I cant wait until Chinese and Russian-backed corporations get in on the game.  Gazprom is practically minting roubles nowadays.

[Reginald Ret]

In a 5-4 decision, the {supreme court of the USA}court's conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections.

This is what makes me want to puke.

[LMNO]

Requia:

Two things bother me about this.  One, as Regret said, it says that a corporation is a person, and is entitled to the rights of a citizen in this country.  Except, of course, when taking responsibility; then, it's an LLC, a Limited Liability Company, which is subject to more beneficial tax rules and legal protections. 

The other is that they have decided that money is speech.  Therefore, the people (which includes milti-billion corporations, mind you) with more money have "more" speech.  Now consider the economic divide, where the top one percent of the population controls roughly 50% of the nation's wealth.  And that's before you add in the corporations. 

So, the only messages you will be hearing during an election will be from that one percent who have all the money.

[LMNO]

So, let's look at mid-term elections.

In November, 36 seats are up for election: 19 Dems, 18 Republicans.

With the conjunction of Scott Brown winning, and the elimination of spending regulation, corporations will be spending millions to oust the Dems.

Democratic seats up for election are basically the entire west coast, some of the rust belt, and parts of new england.  Look for most of them to be won by Republicans.

After that happens, Obama may as well declare himself a muslim and spend the rest of his term in Kenya, listening to Jeremiah White.

"Yes, we can... provided the skittish voters aren't duped into a xenophobic frenzy."

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Horrormirth to follow?

Can you imagine the commercials?  I mean most candidate commercials are to the edge nasty, but they will still have to work with the other party 98% of the time so they keep them this side of the line.  If corporations are producing those commercials the mud slinging will be of epic proportions.

This law, it lets the corporate monkeys fling the poop far and wide at whicever candidate they wish right?

We should start a parent corporation then sub corp each of us individually then put all kinds of shit on the web.  What could they do?

Nevermind, I forgot where I was for a moment...   

[LMNO]

If you're one of those people who want to see the house of cards fall, it's gonna be hilarious.



LMNO
- Reconsidering that move to Buenos Aires more seriously.