By the Corporations, for the Corporations, of the Corpations...

[think]

This isn't about republicans vs democrats its about free speech. When you limit it in any form you do a certain amount of damage to the first amendment. Both unions and Corporations should be allowed to spend whatever amount of money they feel is necessary to inform people of who they support and why. Who is to say that all that money will do them any good at the ballot box anyway??? I'll put it to you this way I would rather have a free for all as far as spending goes then have the federal government involved in regulating it.

This would be all good except corporations like to hide behind shells to conceal their involvement. With unlimited funding the ability to use shell corporations and non profit front groups corporations can attack candidates and issues without people understanding WHO is funding the effort. Now if corporations are required to state their involvement in their campaigning and people understand that it is Koch Industries, America's most wealthy privately owned oil company and not Americans for Prosperity that is telling them that climate change is a hoax I belieie they have every right to. but to hide behind these front groups is down right despicable and unethical.

I hope as a conservative American you want companies to be honest and open and not use shells to manipulate public opinion. Regardless of your opinion on an issue if a company who stands to make billions from defeating legislation or by getting favorable legislation like special tax cuts should be forced to be open and straight forward in it's efforts to change our laws.

Companies with billions of dollars can buy lawyers, marketing professionals, spin doctors, and whatever the hell they want. Without transparency expect to see a lot more non profit advocates with deep pockets from entrenched industries manipulating our political debates.

[fab]

Companies with billions of dollars can buy lawyers, marketing professionals, spin doctors, and whatever the hell they want. Without transparency expect to see a lot more non profit advocates with deep pockets from entrenched industries manipulating our political debates.

This has always been done. Who says that their will be less transparency now?

[Gerry]

I have yet to see anyone who claims "this is about free speech" take on the task of defending why there are limits on what individuals can spend but no limit on corporations.

That is suppressing and putting restrictions on free speech and forms of expression by an individual.

[draggar]

However, many are missing the point eluded to earlier and Brad echoed...this ruling gives corporations considerably more in terms of "free speech" than the individual. Since when does a corporation, an entity on paper, have more rights than the citizen? And, as I mentioned earlier, is this not considering the corporation on equal terms with a citizen? Yet the corporation can not cast a vote as a legal citizen can?

The supreme court has essentially granted "life" to a corporation.

It doesn't give them "free speech" - it just allows them to buy politicians and then they will pass the laws that they want.

Whether we like it or not, money talks.

... and something else walks.

I agree. That is why introducing unlimited amounts of special interest money into politics will drown out the voices of individuals.

This would insinuate we had much of a voice before this - which we haven't in a long time. This is just a slap in the face to the voters who put these poeple into office yet most are too damned afraid to vote them out.

[Gerry]

It doesn't give them "free speech" - it just allows them to buy politicians and then they will pass the laws that they want.

The supreme court ruled that restricting the amount of money they can spend was a violation of the First Amendment - Free Speech.

This the issue I have - they lifted the cap on corporations but did not lift the cap on individuals.

It boils down to money being at issue in a Free Speech case.

Most bizarre...

[think]

This has always been done. Who says that their will be less transparency now?

I apologize for not being more clear. I'm not saying there will be less transparency than there is now. Transparency is already a problem that needs to be addressed. I doubt most here would even know who Koch Industries is or that the owner is chairman of Americans for Prosperity or any of the dozen or so other non profit front groups Koch Industries bankrolls. (Thank you Rachel Maddow!)

The Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation is one of the Koch Family Foundations that Koch Industry uses to fund these different non profit groups:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ly_Foundations

If there was transparency then unlimited funding for corporations to express their opinions would be less of a problem. Now not only can they hide behind their all non profit front groups but they have access to as much money as they need to manipulate public opinion from behind the curtain out of the public view and scrutiny. Things like starting more front groups and hiring other companies to work phone banks and send letters, write editorials etc etc.

If you don't think this is a problem look what the coal lobby is doing and getting away with! The coal lobby hires a public relations company which forged letters pretending to be from groups like the NAACP then sent them to congressmen. This is not the first time this has happened with this group either :

Like a bad habit, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) has dropped Bonner & Associates, the Astroturf lobbying firm led by Jack Bonner, whose “white collar sweatshop” forged at least a dozen letters to Congressmembers urging them to vote against the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

While ACCCE continues to claim that “this was an isolated incident involving the wrongdoing of someone working for a subcontractor" – an excuse first put forward by Jack Bonner, who blamed a rogue temporary employee for the forgeries – Congress is investigating the extent to which Bonner and ACCCE went to mislead lawmakers.

The fake letters were sent to at least three Democratic Congressmembers, and claimed to represent opposition to the climate legislation from nine different groups, including senior citizens’ organizations, Hispanic and women’s advocacy groups, and the NAACP. So far, investigators have confirmed 13 forged letters sent to the three lawmakers, and dozens more letters are currently being probed to determine if they were authentic messages or more of Bonner’s forgeries.

Whole article:

http://www.desmogblog.com/accce-coal...forged-letters

No, corporations already have plenty of power and the supreme court has now made this carte blanche.

[Gerry]

hide behind these front groups...

Precisely. You are going to see a slew of commercials for this falls campaigns that you have no idea who is behind the message. There is going to be so many non-profits, 507, 503(c)(1) groups formed.

The money and power that that money can buy will be the real veto votes.

McCain is against this stating:

"We are going to see now an inundation of special-interest money into political campaigns," McCain warned. "I think that diminishes the influence of average citizens."

McCain: Campaign Finance Reform Is Dead
Sen. Who Co-Wrote Finance Laws Not Surprised by Court Ruling Given "Skeptical, Sarcastic Comments" by Justices

[H2FC]

Precisely. You are going to see a slew of commercials for this falls campaigns that you have no idea who is behind the message. There is going to be so many non-profits, 507, 503(c)(1) groups formed.

The money and power that that money can buy will be the real veto votes.

McCain is against this stating:

"We are going to see now an inundation of special-interest money into political campaigns," McCain warned. "I think that diminishes the influence of average citizens."

McCain: Campaign Finance Reform Is Dead
Sen. Who Co-Wrote Finance Laws Not Surprised by Court Ruling Given "Skeptical, Sarcastic Comments" by Justices

I agree with you Doc....and for once, I agree with McCain

The average informed citizen's vote will be worthless.....unless he/she happens to agree with the big corporation with the most money.