Five Supreme Court judges prove to be corporate tools

090525_r18516_p465

What good it the First Amendment if we can’t let non-people use it to?

While I am a registered Indy, I often lean to the left but have supported Republicans in the past, but I think what bugs me the most about Conservative Republicans is how they will bend over backwards to trample on the little guy so corporations can have their way, and this ruling proves it;

Some South Dakota political operatives are wary of a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down Thursday that nullifies a 100-year-old restriction and allows corporations and unions to spend more money to influence federal elections.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned rules that barred corporations and unions from using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.

This is disgusting on many levels, it would be one thing if the 5 justices that voted for this were just a bunch of regular Joes before they rolled into the SC, but not the case at all. Chief Justice John Roberts was a corporate tool before he got the job, and before that he worked for the second worst president we ever had, Ronald Reagan. He has an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with joe-six-pack.

Joel Rosenthal, former chairman of the state Republican Party, said the decision goes against what most people want.

“The public mood today is, ‘Let’s get this money out of politics,’ ” Rosenthal said. “This allows more money in.”

While I agree a 100% with Joel’s STATEMENT I find it ironic that he would say this, since he has assisted city candidates in the past that have taken plenty of money from BIG DEVELOPMENT company owners. But, hey, that’s okay because the companies themselves aren’t cutting the checks 🙂

Mark Anderson, president of the South Dakota Federation of Labor, said corporations aren’t people, and the First Amendment shouldn’t apply. Thursday’s decision “squeezes out the little guy.”

Well, Mark, not sure if you have not noticed, but the little guy has been squeezed out for a long, long, time.

Also, the court affirmed federal rules that require sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them.

In small 4 point type, of course.

Most experts have predicted the decision will send millions of extra dollars flooding into this fall’s elections. And they predict Republicans will be the main beneficiaries.

Get outta here! Makes you wonder why people even bother to vote anymore?

The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a dissent written by 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens. Speaking from the bench, he called Thursday’s decision “a radical change in the law … that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions – and the narrow interests they represent – in determining who will hold public office.”

In other words, Bend over America!



9 comments ↓

#1 Ghost of Dude on 01.22.10 at 7:51 am

If the unions can funnel their pension money to a candidate, I would think a corporation should be able to do the same.

Until someone decides that the bill of rights only applies to natural persons, it’s only fair.

#2 Plaintiff Guy on 01.22.10 at 8:05 am

Constitutional truths are not guarranteed or self-evident. A sad day for democracy and the common man. The new ‘Republic’ is now controlled by non-biological republican process.

#3 l3wis on 01.22.10 at 8:12 am

GoD- trust me, I’m not happy about the union thingy either. This is really the last piece of the 1st Amendment being ripped to shreds. When Franklin bent over his printing press, I don’t think he ever wanted to influence colonial corporations. His concern was ‘the man’ and rightfully so. I can’t wait to see the teabaggers evaluation of the situation.

#4 Sy on 01.22.10 at 9:24 am

L3wis:

“I can’t wait to see the teabaggers evaluation of the situation.”

Than why wait? Here ya go:

“The Founders wrote the First Amendment specifically to protect free speech for the purposes of political advocacy and criticism. The Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law” abridging that right. But that is precisely what Congress did by restricting the right of Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, to release a documentary film critical of Hillary Clinton while she was a candidate for president. Fortunately, the Court held that the government does not have the right to distinguish between different classes of speakers and to disfavor some of them, such as corporations.

The provisions of the law acted as an outright ban on some kinds of speech, and they set up a complex regulatory framework for others, limiting them in a way the Supreme Court found equivalent to a prior restraint on communication. The law also gave the FEC the power to decide what political speech was allowed and to punish those who violated the law with severe civil and criminal penalties.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjUwMTdjMDY2NzMxZDRmZDlmMTcyOTQxN2Q0NzAzMjk=

#5 Sy on 01.22.10 at 9:41 am

Plantiff Guy:

“Constitutional truths are not guarranteed or self-evident. A sad day for democracy and the common man.”

Amazing how you rail againt Home Rule and how the Evil Munson Administration has constantly shafted the “common man”, yet you are all to cool with the FEC having the ultimate control over how you get your information on candidates. We have a chance to vote for or against the Mayor. We don’t get that chance with the FEC.

#6 John2 on 01.22.10 at 11:29 am

The spineless democrats got what they deserved when they failed to block the nominations of Roberts and Alito.

#7 l3wis on 01.22.10 at 3:26 pm

Sy – Yup, blame the Clintons. You are missing the bigger point here, corporations are not people. Sure, the people who work for those corporations have a right to free speech, because they are ‘people’ but corporations are NOT citizens. Sorry.

#8 Sy on 01.22.10 at 4:04 pm

L3wis:

“Sy – Yup, blame the Clintons.”

WTF? I’m not blaming the Clintons. The case in question could’ve just as easily been against a Republican. That’s not the point. This is:

“the government does not have the right to distinguish between different classes of speakers and to disfavor some of them, such as corporations.”

L3wis:

“but corporations are NOT citizens. Sorry.”

No shit, sherlock. However, corporations are owned by people. So when you assault them, you are simply assaulting another class of people. Albeit indirectly.

Just like the old saying: “Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do”

#9 l3wis on 01.22.10 at 11:09 pm

Sy-

Listen. People who own corporations can donate as much as they want, that is not the issue here. Corporations acting as a Corporation ARE not human beings and should not have first amendment rights.

Scott