Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If money is now considered free speech protected by the 1st amendment, are campaign contribution limits now unconstitutional? Aren't we limited to $2000 as far as giving to an individual candidate? Isn't that now limiting my "free speech?"
Unlike the Supreme Court justices, local judges are elected. What's going to keep a local corporation filling the local judicial system with their own people now? Or, if a judge rules against a corporation, he/she will now probably have to face a very well funded opponent. Do you think that might effect their decision-making? If the limits on individual contributions is lifted, will rich people who lose court cases try to affect that judges reelection chances by contributing hugely to his opponent? Will THAT effect how judges think?
Sorry all I have is questions really. But this Supreme Court decision is really disturbing to me, and I'm usually not all that concerned with national politics.
It should disturb every American.
"Five conservative justices have now rewritten the Constitution to permit corporate election spending to drown out the voices of individual Americans," Whitehouse said. "Today's disastrous decision is a long step towards government of the CEOs, by the CEOs and for the CEOs. We need to carefully review the consequences of this decision, which threaten to further strengthen corporate interests at the expense of ordinary Americans and, at worst, turn the keys of American democracy over to CEOs."
Flying a plane into a skyscraper has nothing to do with 'free speech'. These terrorists made their views known by doing just that. I consider an act of terrorism like that to be an act of war and as such I do not believe they should be tried in a civilian court, but rather in a military court.
According to your post, there is nothing in the constitution that specifies free speech to only US citizens.
Your quote: And I'd love for someone to point out that part of the Constitution that says the rights and freedoms guaranteed by that document apply only to US citizens.
Your own argument will allow for multinationals with multinational motives to have a powerful platform in this country.
"Five conservative justices have now rewritten the Constitution to permit corporate election spending to drown out the voices of individual Americans," Whitehouse said. "Today's disastrous decision is a long step towards government of the CEOs, by the CEOs and for the CEOs. We need to carefully review the consequences of this decision, which threaten to further strengthen corporate interests at the expense of ordinary Americans and, at worst, turn the keys of American democracy over to CEOs."
I just read that the Supreme Court's decision went way beyond even the case they were deciding. The case was about airing that movie about Hillary Clinton, but the court decided to make a huge, general ruling about spending directly on campaigns, not just ads or movies.
I just do not ever want to hear a conservative who agrees with this ruling to EVER complain about "activist judges" again.
However, when "free speech" practiced by wealthy corporations, especially multinational corporations, can buy an extremely expensive propagandized election, we have lost our democracy.
A corporation is not an individual. In fact, corporations have all the criteria for a diagnosis of a psychopath!
I'm curious - why all the hand wringing NOW? Didn't you realize how much corporate money was poured into the 2008 campaign?
Do people actually believe that corporations are not investing in their candidate of choice? They always have been and M-F birthed the 527's and other end-around entities to suck up all that corporate cash.
If I had my way, elections would be funded purely by the public, with a cap on the amount, to be matched by private donations AND they start campaigning 3 months before the election.
The amount of money that flows into politics is obscene, but what can you do to put the genie back in the bottle?
The ruling by the court levels the playing field for ALL interests.
If I had my way, elections would be funded purely by the public, with a cap on the amount, to be matched by private donations AND they start campaigning 3 months before the election.
What is campaigning? Pretty much it's the epitome of free speech. Why do you want to limit people's ability to speak to only 3 months?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
