Thank goodness for the First Amendment. I actually like that comment where it is suggested we cut out the middle man and elect the CEO. Very apt and an great observation.

Purplewolf,

I am aware of that because it is very easy to see how our
republic’s democracy has been turned from a ‘of, for and by
the people’ to what Thomas Paine took such pains to explain
the dangers of the aristocracy gaining control of the
representation being ‘of, for and by the aristocracy(oligarchy)
and the use of money to gain ‘more’ rights than the people.

And I would without hesitation now say that not only have the
‘aristocracy’ got control of the legislative and executive
branches but, just as the actions of o has shown his obedience
to to the aristocracy, now the scotus cannot be anything else
but the final branch bought and paid for as a tool of the ‘elite’.

This isn’t just about restrictions on elections but other causes
as well:

http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/bob-kerrey-on-
the-supreme-court-election-funding-decision/

which is even more sad and scarier.

Samosamo: I am not holding my breath as to the willing congress part, they have proven to be weak, easily bribed, yes people. I just wonder how much money greased the palms of those on the Supreme Court who engineered this debacle. That crap eating grin on Roberts face told all-more than we will ever know.

I’ve been wondering why so many Republicans are cheering the decision. They’re hoping some of the criminals are set free to launder money again:

“. . . The decision could also affect pending trials, like that of Mr. DeLay, who was charged in 2005 with criminal violations of state campaign finance laws and money laundering. . . “

“The money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering charges will definitely be undermined,” said Dick DeGuerin, Mr. DeLay’s lawyer. “The reason is that the foundation of the prosecution’s argument is that corporate donations are illegal in any part of the political process, but the Supreme Court just struck that idea down.

But Carl Bryan Case, the director of the Appellate Division at the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, which is handling Mr. DeLay’s case, disagreed.“The indictments against Mr. DeLay describe corporate contributions to a political campaign,” he said. “What the Supreme Court addressed was independent
expenditures made by third parties on their own and without having to do with campaigns.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/us/politics/23states.html?hp

Purplewolf,

The can damn sure be impeached, but it would take a willing
congress and I am still looking for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Now that it has been proven that the SCOTUS are traitors to America and since these traitors can not be fired from their jobs as this is a life long position unless the judge(s) decide to retire, the Supreme Court needs to be disbanded as it does not have the best interest of America and it’s people as it’s foremost important job requirement.

By doing this, who is to say that foreign companies will not come in and undermine America now that they will be considered equal to the status of a person and just because big money now can roll over the little people, don’t bank on them supporting Republicans as they may decide to put their own loyal peon into the seats formally filled by dead meat Dems and Repugs.

Bye bye America! Hello fascism.

Time to thrown these turncoats out of their cushy jobs and close this useless organization.

Next Questions:
  Will political ads outnumber product ads during the SuperBowl ? 
  Will Exxon’s ad against Cap-And-Trade be funnier than the Tostito ad ?
  Will political ads use celebrity voice-overs and spokespersons ?  (e.g. Michael Jordon plugging John McCain’s re-election)

This will definitely create a huge tax break for corporations that
are always looking for ways to put the tax burden on the people.

Though it is already happening, I would rather think it will take
the doors off the hinges to the scothus so the lobbyists can line
up and have free access to the federal judges, hell, all judges, so
it is an aristocracy of representation of all 3 branches and the
judge’s ‘under the robes quid quo pro’ have increased their
meager salaries.

All 5 of the federalist judges are traitors to this country!

This was easily anticipated when Roberts and Alito were confirmed.

You can’t blame a scorpion for being a scorpion and stinging.

But the BLAME falls squarely on the Dims in the Senate WHO COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS!  But they were ballless and spineless, and brainless and visionless, and scared shitless of the Big, Bad Republicans who refused to play nice.

Even when they had 60 seats (now 59) the Dims are STILL scared shitless of the GOP.  They wasted time on Olympia Snowe, who now, clearly NEVER intended to buck Mitch McConnell.  They wasted time on Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and Joe Sleezyman, rather than kicking their butts, threatening funding in their states, removing them from choice committee chairs, blocking national funding for their campaigns, etc, etc, etc.

Cowards.  How many of the 59 Dims in the Senate are not cowards or Republicans in Dems’ clothing?  My mind’s a blank—I can’t think of one.

I’m in NJ and I got an imbecilic eMail from my Senator, Menendez.  In it he said “Oh this is a wake up call!” and that he hears it,  but then went on to say how important it is to get out the message about all the great stuff the Dims are doing in DC that people just don’t know about!  Of course, this ended with a plea for donations.

Either he’s a moron or he thinks I am—along with my fellow New Jersey Democrats.  Too dim-witted to know that HE is part of the problem, him and Lautenberg. Both are part of our “hold your nose and pull the lever” contingent in Washington.

I cannot think of ANYTHING the better explains the problem with the National Democratic Party and their tone-deafness than Menendez’s inane email.

Talk about cognitive dissonance!

The real problem with this decision has to do with the stupidity of Americans ... sad, but true.  If Exxon/Mobil wants to run an ad supporting a particular candidate and it states, openly “We at Exxon/Mobil like this candidate because ...” there is nothing inherently wrong with this.  An intelligent electorate would see that this was a self-serving ad and would judge it accordingly.  However, we know that the ad would not divulge who paid for it and those who saw the ad would just assume it was true and factual.  We are a stupid people overall as years of negative and false political ads have shown.  Painting a candidate in a negative way is always a good strategy ... just ask Karl Rove.  So corporations will win because the typical voter is dumb as a post and will fall for anything they push at him/her.  That will be our downfall.

The American Republic isn’t dying, it’s been dead for quite awhile now and the smell of its rotting corpse is no longer possible to conceal with sweetly scented perfumes bearing names like “Change You Can Believe In”.

Corporations have been steadily tightening their grip on mainstream public dialogue and party politics for about 50 years. This poison pen letter from the Supreme Court gives the corporate oligarchy all they need to consolidate their power.

By giving corporations unlimited “rights” as “persons” and therefore as “citizens” to use money to influence and fund election campaigns, it will become effectively impossible for any candidate to run for office without their support. It’s nearly impossible now, but at least that statement contains the word “nearly”.

The Constitution sets out the rights of citizens of the United States, who are defined as persons born in the United States, born to citizens of the United States and foreign persons naturalized as citizens. Corporations are not persons, but by a bizarre twist of our legal history, they have become recognized as such, and from that follows the notion that corporations are entitled to all the rights of citizens.

Never mind that corporations cannot be required to serve in the armed forces, nor be physically punished or imprisoned for crimes. Nor do corporations suffer from cold, hunger, thirst, disease or death. They do not have mouths with which to breathe or talk, nor do they have hands with which to write. Yet our Supreme Court says they have the “right” of “free speech”. 

The only thing corporations suffer from is reduction in their profits. They share none of the human concerns of natural citizens. Their sole concern is money, and their sole method of exercising their “right” of “free speech” is through money: bankrolling (a.k.a. “buying”) candidates and purchasing media time.

The corporations have lots and lots of money, and they know that the most profitable investment they can possibly make is through buying the government.

Our elected representatives of both parties are already in the pockets of the corporations. This disastrous ruling will silence and remove those few voices in politics who oppose corporate rule.

Should we mount a public campaign for a constitutional amendment clarifying that a corporation is not a person or a citizen?

Yes, BUT Constitutional amendments have to be enacted through legislation, and the corporations now hold all the levers of government power.

Corporate rule will inevitably bankrupt the country, destroy the currency and cause complete economic and political collapse. Out of catastrophe will come an opportunity to start again, although an authoritarian corporate fascist government is a likely outcome, at least for a couple of decades. Such a fascist government would probably retain, superficially, the institutions of the republic, just as the Roman Empire continued to have a powerless Senate for 500 years after Julius Caesar.

What can avert this scenario? Nothing short of mass non-violent revolutionary action. Violent revolution would be unlikely to succeed against a ready army of right wing goons. Revolution would have to take the form of strikes and boycotts against global capitalist corporations, banks and their “goods” (they’d more accurately be called “bads”) and “services” (more accurately called “crimes”). You can start now by taking all your money out of corporate banks and putting them in local banks and credit unions, stop buying anything produced by outsourced overseas industries, buy only local organic food, and boycott chain restaurants. Quit your corporate job if you can, as soon as you can. And buy a gun, before the corporate fascists decide it’s dangerous to let you have one. You may need it. 

Forget Obama. Forget the Democrats. Forget incremental change within the system. That’s like wishing for the French aristocracy of 1789 to abolish themselves.

Just read “Citizens United for Subservience to Tyrants.” It’s interesting:

“One aspect of the ruling that hasn’t gathered much attention:  as far as I can tell, the analysis doesn’t distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations.  Not that it would matter much, since a foreign corporation can always establish a domestic subsidiary, or buy an American company:  Cities Service, for example, is a unit of PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company.  So the ruling allows Hugo Chavez to spend as much money as he wants to helping and harming American politicians.  If the Russian, Saudi, and Chinese governments don’t currently have appropriate vehicles for doing so, you can count on it:  they soon will.”

http://www.samefacts.com/2010/01/corruption-in-washington/citizens-united-for-subservience-to-tyrants/

No Mans Land:
“I know what you’re thinking: we’ve already got that, right? Well wait until they figure out how profitable a war with russia or china would be. If that happens I submit that we all will long for the days of bush’s war on ‘terra’”

That is a scary insight and I wouldn’t argue against it.  One would like to think that since corporations are made up of individuals that some ethical direction would persist.  However, I think corporations share many propertied in common with mobs, which are not known for their restraint and ethical fortitude.

Today, my high school Civics teacher would have a tough time instilling pride at how brilliant our system of “checks and balances” is at preserving the interests of the people.

This concept of uninhibited Corporate paid speech is the modern equivalent of allowing only landowners to vote, except that the more land you own the bigger your vote becomes.  The silver lining in this decision, is that are already living in an intolerably bought and paid for government, and that this decision might serve as a catalyst to actually get politicians to address this issue.  That said I having little faith that anything but lip service will exhibited in this regard from the rats in “our” legislature. 

The other equally important problem is that the wealth of politicians is determined by corporations.  This is really the central bit that needs to be changed.  It is not enough to block campaign financing and lobbying to end corruption.  We also need to pay our politicians top dollar and block them from taking corporate money even after they retire.  Otherwise there will be no change and corruption will continue to rule.  But can anyone imagine these rats making legislation to prevent corporations from making them rich?  There seems to be no realistic mechanism for attaining this goal short of revolution.

Wildflower and manni

you’re a day late. Read the majority opinion. Free speech, aka money,
cannot be limited. The only way to control it is with a constitutional
amendment. What’s more it would have to be done relatively quickly, say
before the next generation grows up thinking its normal. The longer you
wait the harder it will be. The most opportune time is immediately but
scotus waited to make this decision until the start of a contentious election
season. 6 months from now the money will be rolling full throttle and
opinions will magically change on the airwaves. Coupled with the already
corporate media and we’ll be lucky id we even hear it mentioned. Once
that happens it will be impossible to turn off. If the 19th century is any
guide it will require some rather bloody labor disputes and a couple od
depression before anyone of influence takes note. See the molly mcguires
for a glimpse.

Toss this one around…

This decision removes the restriction on using shareholder money for
political campaigns. For example last year exon mobile collected 1 million
in contributions from its employees. It was barred from using any of the 45
billion in shareholder profits it earned. That restriction was erased today.

That said, what is to stop big defense from spending billions to buy every
seat in the house and senate as well as the presidency to start directly
controlling national policy? And what is to stop them from plunging us into
a perpetual war the likes of which we can scarecly imagine? I know what
you’re thinking: we’ve already got that, right? Well wait until they figure out
how profitable a war with russia or china would be. If that happens I
submit that we all will long for the days of bush’s war on ‘terra’

What a bastard!

The Bill of Rights IS for the protection of the citizens from
corporations NOT FOR CORPORATIONS and, to soften this
treasonous and politically split ruling ( 5-4), UNIONS.

Orwell’s 1984 is almost complete because this is, as in ‘Animal
Farm’, where the animals would wake up one day and find the
‘rules’ had slightly been changed for protection of the aristocracy.

The neoconservative movement really did a number on america
giving more power to the goddamn aristocracy that will take, I
think, many many decades to recover from, if it ever does,
because the ‘ardent federalists’ on the scothus are actually
‘ardent corporatists’  and corporations aren’t people whose grave
can be found, the only way a corporation could be considered a
life would be a CANCER OR DISEASE!

1984 is just about totally constructed for america so watch out
eastasia and eurasia, here ‘they’ come, those ever changing
perpetual wars.

I don’t believe even destroying all those neoconservative think
tanks would do any good, the plans and agendas are set!

RE MAANI; “limit “paid” “free speech” . . .  put a fixed amount on how much any one “individual” - either person or corporation - may spend on a . . . campaign.”

Might be worth looking into this.  Apparently, Japan has contribution limits:

“the 1948 Political Funds Control Law was amended to establish ceilings for contributions from corporations, other organizations, and individuals.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_funding_in_Japan

The gates were already open. This removes the gates.

This fuses permanently the interests of government with those of business.
We would be better to cut the middle man and start electing CEOs directly.

“Given that the money is there in equal quantities in both cases…the choice is really: do we want to limit free speech in an unconstitutional manner, or do we want to stand up for the liberal principle of free speech?”

Surely you’re not suggesting that the individual American has anywhere near the ability to “buy” “free speech” that corporations and unions do?

There is a middle ground, and that is to limit “paid” “free speech” equally: if a corporation is the same as an individual under the law (for better or worse) - and that law is unlikely to be overturned - then put a fixed amount on how much any one “individual” - either person or corporation - may spend on a given campaign.  That amount should take into account the realistic amount that a person could spend, perhaps based on mean income.  Even if this comes to a few thousand dollars, it would then limit corporations to the same.  And corporations would be barred from “bundling” and other practices that attempt to circumvent this.

This would mean that, say, Goldman Sachs - as a corporate “individual” - could only spend the same as I could: a few thousand dollars.

That would seem like the fairest way to go.

We need to start working on a constitutional
amendment to fight this insanity.
http://movetoamend.org/

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

I’m not sure they haven’t already bought and paid for the government, all three branches from the look of this SCOTUS decision. I don’t want to feel
pessimistic about this but how do we strip corporations from being treated as individuals under the law? How do we make people understand the implications of corporate ownership of our
government?

People are angry, rightfully angry, over what’s
happened to the economy, angry with the people who
created/benefited from it. Maybe some of that anger can be directed to the root of our problem: campaign financing and how it’s costing us our democracy.

No news here; nothing’s changed so calm down.
It’s simply an affirmation of an already existing
reality. You actually thought this was a democracy?
Silly you.

KD BAR THE DOOR.

And such was the final nail in American Democracy.

R.I.P. USA

Happy Birthday CSA Inc. (Corporate States of America)
Live long and prosper until you implode.

The Mayan 2012 end of days prediction doesn’t look so crazy now.

“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,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “The First Amendment confirms the
freedom to think for ourselves.”

Since SCOTUS has now declare that government has no say as to where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, then, it is logical to assume that U. S. citizens also have the right to view/listen to “paid political commercials” from other Nations who may have complaints and/or grievances against those business and/or corporations who are contributing to the political campaigns of individuals who are asking for our votes.