
I have a background in science and writing. I consider myself liberal, progressive, environmentally aware on many issues, but also believe that conservatism has a place and is valid.
SCOTUS: Who will own Tom Barret?
If spending money equals Free Speech, and Corporations which on average have more money than a person and while that Corporation which is treated with nearly the same rights as a living breathing American; Does this not mean the quantity of free speech you have now can be equated with the amount of money you have?
Corporation = American Citizen
Money = Speech
Corporations > Free Speech
American Citizen < Free Speech
Why are corporations and special interests groups, who are not living people, nor actual citizens, have nearly the same free speech rights as I have as a living breathing individual American? Why does Exxon or the AFL-CIO given the same rights that I have other than voting?
Of course with the Corporate Friendly Supreme Court, I’m sure voting rights for corporations are just around the corner ( you laugh now!).
Could this have been the reason WHY corporations and special interests were regulated in the first place, because they do not share the thing the 350 million + American’s share in common: That we are living sentient beings who not only aspire to live a comfortable life and make money like corporations, but that we love, eat, and Die..., we are creatures of biology and our environment and not a construct of a man-made economic system that does not require Oxygen to survive.
Can some one tell me when Exxon had to go bankrupt to treat the lung cancer it got? Or when Exxon willing paid the Families in Alaska for the environmental damage for the incompetence of their oil from the Exxon Valdez, rather than going to court to get it fixed in their Favor?
How about when McDonalds Corp had to spend its weekly income on food to feed its 2.3 Children?
Or when DuPont through incompetence, willing and remorsefully, paid millions to the family of the dead in Bapol India?
How about the remorse and sorrow Halliburton felt after its faulty and incompetent wiring of US military bases in Iraq killed US service people?
Or when Blackwater willing gave the victims families millions to make up for their loved ones that were unjustly murdered by its employee’s?
Corporations and Special Interest Groups are “non-living” and are not barred by the frailties of “being alive” that make us human beings, not imbued or burdened with a brain, heart, or conscious, or a finite life set by biology or ended prematurely because of disease or violence. The vast majority of corporations only strive to perpetuate themselves or for there goals by any means necessary in our “so called capitalist free market”!
We barely have power over Corporations and Special interest groups due to un-fettered lobbying as it was before this decision. You will find out this election and campaign season you will now have even less power over your elected officials, and your personal contributions will be dwarfed by the heavy power players, because as we have seen that in order to play the game of politics and advertise with ALL forms of media you need millions to win a seat.
URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
Question: Ask yourself this, which players have the most money (a non-living object that represents value by-the-way), and if money equals “Free Speech” who will be able to buy the most influence via media and the politician (they know who gives them their monetary support), and spend millions on attack ads without any repercussions?
It is not you
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Race to the bottom economics: Ideology trumps Common Sense (10)
- Pro-Scott "jon doe" Walker zealots are hypocrites about Recall Elections (40)
- The plan to secure the future (56)
- Finger Pointing & Big Butt's they do not lie! (34)
- Family Value Conservatism: Newt Gingrich vs. John Edwards (66)
- The Devil's Advocate (80)
- Questions? & More (30)
- Where's my Tax Cut! (83)
- Scott Walkers Sermon on the Mound of Cash (82)
- Taking Power Away from the People Machine (80)
- More Alien Relay 2.0 posts





12 Comments
Carl Hicks - Jan 26, 2010 7:49 PM
1/21/2010
"It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible."
http://wispolitics.com/index.Iml?Article=182723
jhayett - Jan 27, 2010 10:12 AM
Dustin_Klein - Jan 27, 2010 11:06 AM
PAC's have the right to give amounts of money to campaigns and corporations are allowed to give as well, but a union is a group of citizens coming together and deciding to give. Not a CEO of a company thinking about profit.
ajohnson911 - Jan 27, 2010 2:29 PM
Also, coporations have WAY more at stake: they support the economy by providing jobs, pay higher taxes (esp. in WI), and a host of other economic positives freeloading individuals do not provide--in some ways, they ought to get votes, but certainly they should be able to spend their own money to support candidates that will support them.
Consider this: Quad graphics just joined forces with another corp. and is now the second largest paper/printer corp. in the US--they will number (I heard) 300,000 jobs. Shouldn't they have the ability to influence politics? Face it, without Quad. sussex and pewaukee and men. falls would probably fail as communities--that deserves something!!!
Jacob Pickard - Jan 27, 2010 3:01 PM
Just to be clear for everyone Jim owns a business, consider's himself part of the rich and elite, and considers union's corrupt.
Jim, tell me oh wise bonehead of lake country, How much has the Private Insurance industry spent to stop healthcare reform? Why are they trying to stop healthcare reaform?
Jacob Pickard - Jan 27, 2010 3:06 PM
Does that not mean, since you are rich Jim, that you can pay Scott Walker through your business to support policy your business desires, while my smaller payment to "walker" as a single person for "regulation", of your industry will get less notice since my piece of the pie is small?
Jacob Pickard - Jan 27, 2010 3:07 PM
Jacob Pickard - Jan 27, 2010 3:09 PM
Jacob Pickard - Jan 27, 2010 3:16 PM
jmark - Jan 28, 2010 8:43 AM
Tami Klink - Jan 29, 2010 8:38 PM
I am not in favor of the latest Supreme Court decision. It concerns me that the corporations will now be able to spend ungodly amounts of money in order to pad their own pockets. In my mind, Corporations are also Lobbyists. They just have a bigger checkbook in most cases.
Have a great week!
Carl Hicks - Jan 30, 2010 3:24 PM