Thank You Very Much United States Supreme Court
 

you just allowed corporate america to stop pretending like they dont run the country...

full article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=acVfQNEL88UI



Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down federal restrictions on corporate political spending may pump millions of dollars into the 2010 campaign from companies with stakes in congressional action.

Insurers affected by pending health-care legislation, such as Indianapolis-based Wellpoint Inc., and banks targeted by President Barack Obama?s proposal yesterday to curb risk taking, such as New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co., are among entities now able to spend unlimited amounts to help elect or defeat federal candidates.

Yesterday?s 5-4 ruling reverses a century?s worth of federal legislation and court decisions limiting the influence of corporate money in politics. Labor unions such as the Service Employees International Union, which supports legislation that would make it easier to organize workers, can also open their treasuries now.

?The decision drastically alters the landscape for candidates and political parties,? said Benjamin Ginsberg, a partner at Patton Boggs LLP in Washington and former counsel to President George W. Bush?s 2000 and 2004 campaigns. ?We can expect much more spending, a virtual cascade of spending, by outside groups.?






>

congrats to the winners...

the question is: why even do elections?

Welcome to the united states of exxon.

And while this does open up the floodgates for labor unions, their monetary influence is a drop in the bucket compared to big corporations.

:2 cents:

next thing we know, candidates will be wearing nascar jackets with all of their corporate sponsor's logos on them.

[/prime photoshop opportunity]

Hey now don't leave off wall street and the pharma companies

Idiocracy here yet? I can't wait for Starbucks handjobs.

CRY ABOUT IT LIBERALS! Yes, even corporations have a right to the first amendment that you hate so much.

ron paul '12: brought to you by cashforgold.com

has a nice ring to it

Hello, I am a massive media/cable company.

I would like to restrict adult and other questionable content.

I would like to say "fuck you" to net neutrality.

Here's a billion bucks to push my company's monopolizing agenda.

God Bless Corporate America!

the N.W.O in action!

What'll happen is regulations on corporations as to some other aspect that directly relates to the ability to contribute.

Plus appealing based on the simple fact that the US constitution is about individuals rights, and a corporation is a legal entity defined on paper, but not representative of an individual in the way the constitution describes.

i am all for it, but there should be limitations on the amounts that corporations can spend..

google for example could spend enough money to get almost anyone they wanted elected in any state with a huge smear campaign against the opponent...

same goes for big oil and banking...

well that sucks

does Canada have a political asylum program for Americans?


spaz

no no no, Ron Paul has far too many of his own ideas...I'm thinking more

Palin/Beck 2012!!! ...or Beck/Palin...you can choose Glenn :)

The more money that pours in, the more the parties can spend on getting elected. Then the need more money to out do the other side. Money talks and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Considering the Constitution applies to PEOPLE. I don't think so. Can a corporation vote in an election as long as it's over 18 years old? Um...no. That would be stupid. If the Constituion applies to coporation how come they can't discriminate against religions they don't believe in? if as a human I can choos eto be a Christian then how come a corporations can't be Christian and thus not hire non-Christians? But they aren't allowed to do that, thus that's un-Constitutional. Assuming the Constitution applies to corporations.

I would like to hear from people who like the decisions made by "conservative" judges about this decision... do you think it was necessary or activist?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Canada IS the asylum

They will still need to disclose who is paying them, so if the media disclosed this information we might get to know who will be the Walmart Candidate (Keep wages low, Government pays for HealthCare) or the GM Candidate (High Emissions).

Someone could make a profit listing out the donors per candidate.

In Canada, I don't think there is a restriction to how much political contributions a company can make to a political party.

Gifts to the Queen of England are tax deductible. (From the Canadian Income Tax Act)

That's right, Canada still swears allegiance to the Queen of England.

THIS!!
corporations are not citizens. they should not be afforded the same rights as citizens. At this point voting is a waste of time. Now companies can help make policies which is a shame.

Why would you jump from the frying pan into the fire? Canada is even more socialist than the USA.

Now I can get my company to pay for the ads I'm going to be placing in all our adult guides in the state expressing outrage at stupid new laws and their sponsoring politicians.

A lesson from Larry Flynt's playbook is in line...

I had a tuna sandwich for lunch:thumbsup

This decision pretty much says it all about times today, BUT for what it's worth it's not as if that shit wasn't going on behind closed doors already anyways. Now corporations don't have to be as creative with it.

The US isn't socialist dumbass. If "socialist" USA is so bad fucking, leave. Oh but you don't. So I guess socialism isn't so bad then.

They'll ease us into that with United States of Comerica first.

It should be noted that the 5 justices that allowed this to happen were all appointed by Republicans.

living in an ex-socialist country i have the strong feeling you don't even know what socialist means...

The decision was based on the premise that corporations and unions have a right to free political speech under the protection of the First Amendment.