Court eases business, union election spending rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
To those opposing this, what part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech" is unclear? That was meant to protect political speech and this entire case started with a political documentary that was banned by the government.

Some are acting as if corporations will now have the power to do Jedi mind tricks on the populace. Give us some credit for being able to see through BS. After all, the horrible health care bill didn't die for a lack of effort by very powerful people to persuade the public.
 
darkdog said:
To those opposing this, what part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech" is unclear? That was meant to protect political speech and this entire case started with a political documentary that was banned by the government.

Some are acting as if corporations will now have the power to do Jedi mind tricks on the populace. Give us some credit for being able to see through BS. After all, the horrible health care bill didn't die for a lack of effort by very powerful people to persuade the public.
Click to expand...

And it took a state like Massachussetts that is mostly a Democrat state to vote for a Republican senator to send a message to Obama and his crappola health care bill. People saw thru the b.s. and it didn't take full page ads by corporations to send this message.

Jedi mind tricks? LOL. I like that one.
 
Messachusetts
 
netrox said:
Very very bad decision!

"The Supreme Court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections Thursday, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. "

washingtonpost.com

The rights of individuals will be seriously threatened by the so called "rights of corporations."
Click to expand...
I was like ZOMG when I heard about that. Someone called it the Dred Scott decision on another forum that I sometimes lurk at.
 
Rights of individuals threatened? How can it be when freedom of speech extends to every person whether through an individual, groups, organizations, companies, or corporations. Now, people are screaming like stuck pigs about this one. Somebody must be doing something right.
 
deafskeptic said:
I was like ZOMG when I heard about that. Someone called it the Dred Scott decision on another forum that I sometimes lurk at.
Click to expand...
Whoever said that is a complete tool. The Dred Scott decision is one of the worst, if not the worst, decisions ever handed down by the court. It's a black stain on our history. To compare a decision supporting slavery to a decision protecting political speech is beyond despicable.

What's with all the fear-mongering you liberals supposedly hate? "Oh no! Political speech! :eek2:" Jeesh, are you for the first amendment or not?
 
kokonut said:
Rights of individuals threatened? How can it be when freedom of speech extends to every person whether through an individual, groups, organizations, companies, or corporations. Now, people are screaming like stuck pigs about this one. Somebody must be doing something right.
Click to expand...

Does a corporation or an union vote?
 
netrox said:
Does a corporation or an union vote?
Click to expand...

technically - no. a corporation/union itself cannot vote because it is not a person but confusingly enough - it is recognized as an individual by law for legal reason when it comes to suing.

However - corporation/union influences its employees to vote for certain person. It is not unheard of for them to offer $$$ incentive to vote for a certain person. It is also not unheard of leaders to bus them to a certain locations as a show of force to deter other individuals from voting other person or to change their mind.

oh well.
 
I see all the usual AD Conservatives calling it a good decision, and my mood gets gloomier. Another victory for Big Money interests. Hence, my signature never changes...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top