Citizens United Ruling: Corporate Speech Supreme Court: Election/Campaign Spending

[Ciaresayton]

foriegn interests, mainstream media, a 2 party system more CORRUPT than ANYTIME in American history has completely expatriated the American-born, tax-paying constituent into a tax paying non-entity when it comes to these elections. Why dont you rule on the Kenyan Muslim? Why dont you rule on the rigged elections of 00 and 04? There are lawyers at the free clinic who have more ethics, morality, willingness to protect the Constitution from treasoniist infiltrates than all you tools combined.

[Ciaresayton]

The only thing I have ever voted for was Ms Hooters, Palm Beach. And now that I have had 8 months to ponder the worst SC decision since Dred Scott, I am 100 percent positive I will never waste my time voting in the future. The corporation is not an INDIVIDUAL, you hooded treasonists. Taking notes on your decision, NOW? What a fucking joke. All of this moiney pumped into a media structure which spits out the bullshit in their alphabet soup broadcasts. Local television. Local radio. This orgy of

[SereneDementiaDan]

the problem with that guys argument about C-SPAN is that C-SPAN does not promote an opinion, they are a journalistic network designed to inform the public. they aren't contributing money to candidates. this ruling means that BP could buy their way out of taking responsiblility for the oil spill if the right candidate came along. they would spend money on campaigns, basicly bribing the politicians, and they would get there way, such as not having safety regulations because it would cost profits

[klard]

How can a Corporation be a person with Constitutional Rights? This is ridiculous.

[jbranstetter04]

As Justice Kennedy declared: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

[jbranstetter04]

Shockingly, during oral arguments, the government expanded the scope of its power beyond the "broadcast" limits of the actual wording of the law, saying the Obama administration could ban Internet expression and even books.

[jbranstetter04]

Justice Kennedy said that, under BCRA, it would be a felony if "... the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U.S. Senator supports a handgun ban. ...

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," Justice Kennedy wrote.

[Relugus]

Elected representatives should be barred from receiving any money from corporations. They are supposed to serve the people, the voters, no one else. When a corporation can buy Senators, your vote becomes worthless.

Also, corporations want more big government, they will use government to destroy their competition and rig the market creating monopolies and cartels.

Look how Goldman Sachs always has its people in the Treasury, ensuring it gets favoured treatment, at the expense of its rivals.

[Bozo1360]

@Relugus you are correct. Our votes have become worthless.

My question is, why isn't the Tea Party protesting the Citizens United V. Federal Elections Commission decision? Because the Tea Party is a creation of the right wing corporatists.

Corporate influence is ruining the country and they are coming at us through both political parties.

[sistersuperduck]

the patriot act was formed in a time our national security was at risk to fight terrorism we need to use this act somehow or at least the stategy that was used to make the patriot act fly, and overide this decsion by creating an act that protects us(WE THE PEOPLE) we are being threaten as a free nation by this ruling.

it should be as simple as a corporation is not a person

therefor making the ruling null and void.

where's GEORGE WASHINGTON? i know he still exits in spirit.

[timpipe]

Using the Patriot Act, which is so clearly a violation of the foundations upon which this country was built, to somehow undo what the supreme court has done is like using snakes to control other snakes: in the end there is still a snake problem. The Patriot Act was ushered in the same way National Socialism was - fear resulting from a destroyed landmark. A good start would be to eliminate that piece of shi...legislation. The Bill of Rights does not change because of threat.

[sistersuperduck]

i say we outright boycott any and all corporations that abuse this ruling. name them, make them very public and don' t do business with them. they need all of us(THE MAJORITY) more than we need them. put them out of business.... fight this ruling....We need to check the Patriot Act and deem this ruling to be a threat to our national security therefor giving the people of this country every right to overturn this decision.

[sistersuperduck]

the laws were meant to protect all citizens of this country not just those who can afford it. laws should not be manipulated to the point they become a paradox. the election will be bought it will be senselees to vote. this a matter of national security this Supreme Court decision should be overturned under the patriot act as the patriot act has made all sorts of allowances regarding other national security issues,why not this ? this is treason,it is a matter of the interpetation of law.

[PDPresents]

Just as a government speaks through it's voters, the corporation should speak through it's shareholders actions. Through It's customers opinions and loyalty. Not through a CEO's special interest motivations. We're giving up our individuality here. No longer our voice but now THE VOICE.

.

[Davidbzm01]

Pack your bags People. Your country just took a shit down your neck. billion dollar corporations now own Washington. Obama. im sorry i voted for you now. you are not doing what you promised.

[yakyakyak69]

The Radical Progressive Left has their panties in a knot because THEIR corporate media just LOST its monopoly on political speech.

Finally ALL corporations (not just MSNBC, CNBC, FOX, PBS, ABC, NBC) have equal access to air time!

As long as the advertising is correct and not a lie, then we can NEVER have too much information!

BTW, there are all kinds of laws on the books to prevent Defamation which is any wrongful injury to the reputation of a person or entity.

[Michcool125]

wow, an actual thoughtfullview on the issue, rather than the same bland oh no corporations are the spawn of satan and will control everything now bs.

[tubbymanbat]

I do not think corporations should be involved in our politial process. Niether should unions. But the american public is to blame for this not the corporations and the unions. If people would read what is going on about politicians and issues and not take only 1 source we would not have this problem. and as far as the time we have not allowed this we did have slavery in this country for 84 years or so and it was wrong the whole time. lets not discuss how it is tradition.

[meadbert]

If corporations have no free speech, then the New York Times, Fox News and YouTube have no free speech. This means congress can regulate every Newspaper article, every television show and every video and comment posted on You Tube. This is incompatible with a free society.

[biped19]

When are right wing fascists going shut up and listen to facts, rather than engage in nonsense dialogue that involves their circular logic. Here is a clue, don't look at things from a corporate centric view. But, I know by your fake patriot dis-info babbling that it would be impossible. If the corporation did something wrong the individual ('s) who was part of the contract would be taken to court! Get it yet? We all know by now that you a corporate shill boot-licker so stop trying.

[arubberball]

@biped19 Fascism is Left, not Right. When you understand that fact, then maybe you'll understand free speech applies to all.

[biped19]

@arubberball

"Fascism is Left" substantiate that statement. And assertion that Hitler was a "national socialist" does not count because he was not, he simply used populist rhetoric ( like beck) to dupe a desperate German population. The sooner you understand that fact you cease to be a ignorant loser boot licker.

Corporations are NOT people. The framers intended it that way. Traitors like yourself make sophist argument. Go back to my original posts and prove me wrong, or shut up.

[arubberball]

@biped19 Tee Hee. I see have rattle the cage of a Leftist.

[biped19]

@arubberball

Tee Hee, another neo-con-artist reactionary traitor playing the left / right paradigm. You should know about "leftist" since neo-con-artists and neo-liberals are mirror images of themselves. Look, its not cute anymore, the American people are not sitting idle while you and YOUR left butt-buddies destroy MY country for your political religion. Enjoy Obamacare radical.

[arubberball]

@biped19 wow, your country? apparently you haven't look at my youtube profile. But have look at yours, it seems your one of those 9/11 wacko job truthers, you wouldn't who know the truth if hit you in the ass. Let revises my previous comment I've rattle the cage of useful idiot truther.

[NMFarrier]

@biped19

its total freedom or Anarchy on the right... and total government control on the left... or do you believe that anarchy lives in the middle of government control on both left and right???

[Bozo1360]

No one with even a rudimentary knowledge of history would suggest fascism is "left". Fascism is extreme right. According to Mussolini fascism is more accurately described as "corporatism". Corporatism is exactly what this wrong headed ruling promotes. Just because Rush Limbaugh told you fascism is left doesn't make it so.

[arubberball]

@Bozo1360 Your comment, only shows your lack of authentic history. Progressives masquerading as, Democrats during the early part of 1900's up to the start of WW II embraced Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin political views. Democrats/ liberals/progressives had to back track, and try to paint Nazism as Right Wing.Socialism is a stepping stone to fascism, or communism, it matters not what you call it, the results are the same. search HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

[Bozo1360]

LMAO. Glenn Beck doesn't get to rewrite history. There is NO debate-fascism is right wing. And socialism is not a stepping stone to fascism. Fascism could accurately be called socialism for corporations. How old are you? Until the Tea Party movement it was widely understood that fascism was right wing. They don't like history so they tell their foolish followers a new and different version.

[madmiguelh2o]

at least jbranstetter04 had a comeback. His may have been to call me gay which doesnt bother me cause i think gay people rock. yours is just kinda sad :(

[cavetrollhead]

George Soros has some competition. Why would we want only some rich people to have free speech? Either all rich people or no rich people.

[KalimaShaktide]

If corporations are equivalent to persons and must have free speech...what about Artificial Intelligence programs? Shouldn t the free speech argument also work for them? Why shouldn t they be considered a person and have free speech too?

The whole concept is ridiculous, corporations are not people and that is all. Corporations do not vote, die, go to prison or even able to talk in a microphone. Corporations are legal entities and not persons. Argueing the opposite is simply stupid.

[madmiguelh2o]

whay do you hate America? Do you want the terrorists to win?

[KalimaShaktide]

lol and add that one to why the WHOLE world laughs at the United States. What happened to you America? You are the laughing stock of the world.

[takeahnase2009]

@mwg323 You are a dirty neo-conservative Trotskyite just like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. Globalists and communists like you are just scum. I hope you enjoy living like a roach in the corporate state. You dumbass. I hope you get gonorrhea.

[xwebb]

The court's decision is ridiculous. Our country was founded to prevent such corporate control as expressed through such companies as the Virginia Company. But ever since, we've been losing ground. This is the last straw. "Defend themselves"...HA! What a ridiculous justification for the undermining of our electoral process.

[timpipe]

It is fortunate that Thomas Jefferson is DEAD, because his head would explode. The five Justices, many x-corporate shills, know nothing (strike that - CARE nothing) about the foundations of this country. Jefferson wanted protections against monopolies written into the constitution: he knew the people needed to be protected from the corporation. "The definition of Fascism is the marriage or corporation and state." By definition, these five justices and anyone who supports this are Fascist.

[biped19]

Absolutely. 110% correct.

During Jefferson's time the equivalent were "joint stock companies." For all their gifts the framers could not imagine the level of tyranny and traitorous adherence by so called Americans to the god of corporations. At least Jefferson nailed it when it came to central banks.

[takeahnase2009]

@mwg323 Communist! Why don't you and your "free market" neo-conservative buddies go back to China. You and your Commie friends on the bench can give a rip about national sovereignty. We are going to weed out all of the globalists from the conservative movement starting with people like you. I don't know what the warped agenda of neo-conservatives is but it is not to serve the interests of America. Stop destroying my country you Maoist.

[matsutakneatche]

jbranstetter04, this is just one more blow in the slough of undemocratic bills and laws that have been passed in the last 10 years. Good-bye democracy. free speech? You really think free speech is at stake? With this ruling, much more than free speech is at stake, a sad decade-into the dark ages/

[takeahnase2009]

@mwg323 Yes, activist judges. I do not trust communists. My tirade is your epitaph.

[takeahnase2009]

Murray Hill Incorporated just announced that they are running for congress in Maryland.

[takeahnase2009]

@mwg323 A corporation is not a person or an individual. This ruling gives the right to any transnational corporations, even with bodies of people in China, to participate in influencing elections. Would you be in favor of an elected official taking money from an individual of a foreign county to sway politics in the US? I think not. So why allow a corporation with foreign occupants the ability to do this?

[takeahnase2009]

@mwg323 This is only a victory for corporations. Both parties serve the same master.

[takeahnase2009]

It is not a left versus right issue. It is a corporate versus populist issue. Both parties are complicit in destroying the country through globalization via corporatism.

[madmiguelh2o]

you can wave your flag all you want, but this is not conservative or right wing. this is the literal buying of our democracy by people that have no loyalty to our country. they dont even have to be American. You teabaggers always talk about keeping govt out of business, well how about keeping business out of govt.

[jbranstetter04]

Hey faggot, stop calling tea bag people teabaggers. Do you get off on stuff like that? We can't help it if you think of tea bags in that way, a sexual way. Go teabag your boyfriend.

[madmiguelh2o]

cool so now im gay and you are still a sheeple who just helped sell our country off to the highest bidder. the tea bag movement as what we call astroterf(fake grass roots) you pretend to be a revolution but your sponserd by multinational corporate interests trying to maximize profits. Where were youguys when our phones were being tapped and e mails were being read under the guise of national security? fuckin sheeple. BAAAAA BAAAAA BAAAEAAAEEHHH

[jbranstetter04]

"You...always talk about keeping govt out of business...how about keeping business out of govt "

I agree with you in principle about keeping corporations from having "too" much influence in how our country is run, but here is the but, butt don't get excited, they're controlled by the government so I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to inform the voter on the issues. There's a difference between regular corporations and ones like the NRA that advocate on behalf of regular Americans.

[madmiguelh2o]

yes there is a big difference. i have no problem with the NRA givivng opinion based not lie based adds during elections. You know however that the real power here is going to be HUGE corporations who have profit motives only. Not principals or ideals, but profit motives. Say a security firm wants a govt. contract to protect a city from crime. They may fight against the NRA to take away your gun rights so they can profit better. Im saying thats fucked. Dont care if their liberal or conservative.

[jbranstetter04]

I understand your concerns, as they are my concerns too. I just see it as a matter of law. I am not a lawyer, and I did not study this case, but I trust in the 5 Justices that ruled the way that they did. The others I cannot speak of, but I hope that they ruled based on law and not what they think is best for the country, because that is their job, the law, not how they feel. Now it is up to congress to fine tune this thing, or to the people to change the constitution.

[madmiguelh2o]

how about tea bagging persons?

[dunn98632]

This is total crap and dude its not a democracy its a REPUBLIC get it right.

[takeahnase2009]

This ruling is a win for neo-conservatives and other globalists. The ruling will allow foreign corporations doing business in the united states to spend money on campaign ads and propaganda to sway favor with their agenda. What the supreme court has done is invite trans-national money to influence our elections. There needs to be a constitutional amendment to dissolve corporate personhood once and for all. This is something the left and right can agree on in terms of national sovereignty.

[jbranstetter04]

Speech is speech, are you afraid of speech? Will you hear speech and then go and vote against your beliefs? Are you a weak willed person? Can you not think for yourself? If others cannot, then that is too bad; that is life; that is freedom.

[takeahnase2009]

@jbranstetter04 This is a great day for Internationalists and neo-conservatives. I am sure the communists in China and the ruling class in Saudi Arabia appreciate your patriotism.

[jamesmaseobrown]

I agree with you 101% These idiots arguing with you have no idea how the media is used to manufacture consent.

This is one of the worst things that could happen to our country.

[Boomer1949]

The free speech issue is a good one to argue about and we can go round and round on it. But my fears of the unlimited amount of money anyone corp or a PAC, with muliti corp, can spend to promote or demonize a candidate, including movies, ads and interviews, will be the only mass media information the citizens will see or hear. Distortions of facts already happen and smart people see that news is now turned into entertainment, via conflict.

[jbranstetter04]

"news is now turned into entertainment"

News organizations are corporations, and they have opinions too. Do you only want the news media telling about what a candidates views on, lets say gun control, and not have the NRA be able to counter their view. By the way, the NRA is a corporation. Substitute the NRA for Handgun Control Inc, etc.

[biped19]

"News organizations are corporations, and they have opinions too."

Exactly, and look what you got. You are arguing for a "corporate centric world view." That the corporation is something to be defended against the people & government, state and federal. You have it 180% backwards. The results speak for themselves, a dead democratic republic. But if you are for goldman sachs, jp morgan chase, wallmart, monsanto, etc. then by all means alienate yourself from reality & the people.

[madmiguelh2o]

lets see NRA, Monsanto. I wonder who has more money and will influence more? You wont be gloating so much when some huge multinational with mostly Chinese control dishes out enough cash to buy us our next president.

[rrrNEWS]

"Free speech" is supposed to apply ONLY for individuals. Example: In the case of a corporation of 20 000 employees, it would mean that the will of one(CEO) or few(principals shareholders) will be promoted by millions or more dollars(the work of the 20 000 employees).

In the same times the 20 000 slaves will not a have a word to say.Definitly a victory.Just not for the 99% of the people..

You can frame your voter's card and put it in the restroom, you'll not need it anymore... Bye bye..

[zzx2847]

I might agree with you on that except for the fact that in almost every regard corporations are treated as individuals under the constitution. For example they can exercise free speech, hold bank accounts, take out loans, file patents, be sued, file for bankruptcy, and probably most importantly they pay TAXES (a good portion of state and federal revenues).

What's the old saying about taxation without representation?

[jbranstetter04]

I'm sorry if you are too stupid to vote the right way because you heard something on a commercial, but I am not. I know what is right and what is wrong. I also will not vote yes or no on something until I am convinced of the facts. I always vote not to not change anything if I'm not sure of the outcome.

[madeinamerica650]

I think the S court made the right legal rulling, but the outcome does not sit well with me.

[LATINOBLKLV4U]

Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations can now defend themselves against ruthless politicians??

How IGNORANT!, do you know Chavez, Big arabic Oil Cor. and others can now have something to say in american Politics?

[jbranstetter04]

That is a matter for congress to address in legislation. It is an ongoing process. The court only brought it this far. It is up to congress to define things further. Do you know nothing of how the system works?

[madmiguelh2o]

not everyone is as smart as you teabagging sheeple.

[biped19]

For any boot-lickers out there listen carefully:

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE. PERIOD. PARAGRAPH. I dare you, I fucking dare you to argue otherwise. Understand that if you do you've already lost. Why? Because corporations are not people!!! Get it? Good, now get out of my country.

Thought criminal abams encapsulates the entire first amendment and "rights" in the term "ownership."

The game is finished folks this country has been destroyed by the banks & their political party/corporate hit-men.

[jbranstetter04]

OK smart man. Do corporations have a right to defend themselves in court? If you say yes, then they have at least one of the same rights as people do. So then what? What do you have to say about that?

[biped19]

No they don't. Because the of the amendment that gave them "person hood" has redefined their purpose. I say purpose because that is what a corporations was designed to serve. Listen, I'm going to say this once: you are either misguided, or your for tyranny. Corporations should NEVER be in courts because their original existence was contracted and sanctioned by the government to "serve the public interest." Case closed.

[jbranstetter04]

"Corporations should NEVER be in courts because their original existence was contracted and sanctioned by the government to "serve the public interest." Case closed."

You're delusional. You need to join the real world. So now you are saying that people should not be allowed to sue corporations for their negligence. So what are we supposed to do, let the corporations just walk all over us?

[ExcellentAmerican]

Obama said that the Supreme Court is trying to destroy our country and our Constitution, and that they are not working for the common man.

[dullsvillain]

No this is bad! Corporations are not people expressing themselves they are profit driven and answerable to shareholders who are not even American citizens;

I am heading over to sign Alan Graysons' protest petition at his SaveDemocracy website>>>>>>>

[y006]

I sure hope the politicians pay close attention to my needs and wants when I donate my $50 to their campaign.

[DKPS22]

In a letter from Abraham Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

[jbranstetter04]

That's the robber baron's he was talking about. We already took care of them a long time ago, we traded them for a gigantic federal government that controls our lives.

[deadman12078]

Alot of people think they know what is best for our country.

It is unfortunate that those who have the money are the people with the most influence.

No groups should have more influence over politics. Unions, buisness, lobbies, should not have a stake in the political process. The people who make up those groups already have a voice.

Corpations already spend billions a year brainwashing people advertisments and buying off government. It's simply more of the same.

[jbranstetter04]

"No groups should have more influence over politics"

You are only guaranteed free speech, not an allotment of it, so it is up to you to use as much, or as little as you choose. The government should not be in the business of restricting how much free speech an individual or a group of individual's uses, it is not their right to do so.

Do you vote wisely? And if so, then why do you not have confidence that others can do the same? Do you not trust the voter to vote make up their own mind?

[pfizzbones]

Great commentary on the side jbranstetter. This is a victory for the Constitution, and the American people that still believe in it. And it comes at a time, when it is being almost ignored.