Supreme Court Decision is Terrifying…
Excellent story at the source… This decision is really terrifying. Corporations and Unions now can unload their resources on campaigns. We need public financing of campaigns ASAP!
Amplify’d from www.huffingtonpost.com
The Supreme Court’s Citizen United Decision Is Terrifying
If you’re looking for a concise way of capturing today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, how about: “We are all royally, hopelessly fucked for the rest of recorded time”? It’s coarse, I know, but it really does the trick.
n one swoop, the court did away with nearly everything in federal campaign finance law, allowing corporations free reign to inject as much money as they jolly well please into federal campaigns. The decision completes what Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick calls “The Pinocchio Project,” in which the Court transforms “a corporation into a real live boy,” complete with personhood, free-speech rights and the unfettered opportunity to drown the body politic in a tidal wave of perverse incentives.Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com
To leave a comment:
6 Comments 5 Recommends
11 Responses
Not scary at all, actually. A clear victory for first amendment rights. If it is to mean anything at all, it must apply to all, otherwise, we have the gov’t telling us what we can watch and listen to. If there is a flaw, then the Framers created a mechanism to deal with that. It’s called amending. The court is no place to decide who gets to be heard.
1 month agoA perfect way to launder money, bribe politicians with it, and have your mafia-attitude legalised. All in a three-in-one shot decision. Call court. Order now (Only available in America)
1 month agoIts called the First Amendment, something the left seems to think is only to protect immoral people.
1 month agoThis has nothing to do with political standpoints. It’s about law making and implementation. Simply put, the (occasional) misuse or misinterpretation of a rule does not make a rule a bad rule. A bad rule is a rule that only leaves room for such, or by its implementation deprives people from their rights that would normally result from this or other rules. In this case, one could question if the decision leaves room for people to have the right to investigate the origin of campaign financing. Not theoretically, but in reality.
1 month agoThis is not the same thing as anonymously pumping money into a candidate’s campaign. If a corporation, a grassroots organization, a citizen, a union, etc. wants to spend its own money creating their own TV spots, websites, radio spots, print ads to support or expose a candidate - clearly disclosing the source of the funding - I see nothing wrong with that. Last time I checked it’s still a free country and expressing opinions is our right. The left’s “bogeyman” corporations will fund candidates at their own peril. Consumer backlash could be their downfall. They understand the power of a boycott. Corporate advertising departments are pretty smart about staying out of public politics. People should know the difference between advertising and facts - and if they don’t, shame on them for voting. It’s the back-room deals in the dark you have to worry about. Those are still alive a well despite promises of transparency.
1 month agoI agree with you inglesita, when you say we should be more worried about back-room deals. Nonetheless, what happens in the shadows or in daylight, if it comes to money and power, we all know (because it happens more often than not) that lots of it can change people for the worse. And corrupt the systems we rely on.
We can close our eyes for things that did go wrong, saying to ourselves that we must belief in the goodwill of mankind, rather than prevent creating situations that might be temptive to misuse. But than, what would we say to those who felt victim to the temptation? Shame on you, because you weren’t perfect? Shame on you because you were not strong enough to resist? Should we build a society that looks like a candyshop, but condems the cravings?
Of course things go wrong. But some things, and their nasty consequences, are too serious to let society ‘experiment’ with the outcomes. Theory and practise are two different things and we are all humans. In theory, law protects society from destructive anarchy. In practise, you get overrun by a drunk car driver who’s license was taken months ago. In theory, corporations are driven by the same humans that have the right to support their political candidates in every legal way they choose. In practise, money doesn’t suffer. Company buildings don’t feel sad. Churches do not worry. We do. As individuals.
1 month ago