NYT: Court May End Ban On Corporate Spending In Presidential Races

The New York Times:

With a little-noticed order last week, we fear the Supreme Court has set the stage for dismantling the longstanding ban on corporate spending in elections for president and Congress. If those restrictions are overturned, it would be a disaster for democracy.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[RTIII]

There's something else VERY ODD about this.

Note the timing.

September 15th is BEFORE the next session starts. So, we're supposed to lose one of our "liberal" justices at the end of the present term. True, we have a new nominee waiting in the wings, BUT, there's that pesky confirmation process - it can take a LONG time, and given Coleman, et al, the Rs are known to play dirty pool and drag their feet for political advantage.

I say FOUL PLAY on the part of the new Chief Justice! You Simply CANNOT hear this case without the FULL court seated! However, not doing so is probably part of his plan. What a PERFECT time to take this case!
.

[LeftRight]

Thank you. Someone else noticed that. I think that they were worried that Kennedy might switch back to the liberal side for this choice, and Roberts would rather have a hung court than a liberal decision!

[RTIII]

If I recall correctly, this all started to go wrong way back in the nineteenth centry - 1886, I think - in a lawsuit between Santa Clara County, California, and Western Pacific Railroad. The railroad won the first "human rights" granted to a corporation. It's been downhill ever since, but ever accelerated starting with Ronald Wilson Reagan (how many characters in each word of that name? Hmmm!)

We MUST stop "corporate personhood" in its tracks and in fact reverse it.

This _is_ PURE Fascism, people, the whole, pure thing. Right here, in America. ...A (likely) legacy of our times.
.

[LeftRight]

Well, technically we cannot completely stop corporate personhood. ONLY people in the USA are allowed to own property, pay taxes, make contracts, etc..... So to solve that, Congress creates a legal "personhood" for corporations so that they can do all those things. However, the SCOTUS went too far and decided that corporate persons can have many of the same rights as REAL persons.

The biggest problem that I have with that are that corporations DON'T DIE!! Therefore they can continue to amass wealth LONG beyond the time when a real person would be able to!! The next biggest problem? The fact that corporations can buy and sell other corporations. Since they are legally "people" wouldn't that be slavery??

[RTIII]

And they can't be held accountable like real people can.

They don't have empathy either, or intelligence (per se).

It's a simple social contract that needs to be re-written...
.

[Artemis34]

Guess we need a legislative committee that is dedicated to reversing everything the right wing supreme court decides.

[MrsVantini]

Life is amazing for it's coincendences. Last night, I happened upon an episode of Boston Legal where one of the partners was arguing a Supreme Court case. It was both entertaining as I doubt any true lawyer would address the Justices so and saddening as even though it was a TV show, all that he described from the litany of personal involvement , political activism, lack of recusement and the abandonment of of democratic ideals "we the people for the people", "justice tempered with mercy" that the Justices are supposed to embody, was true.

it's getting to the point where even the Supreme Court needs oversight.

[JackWhistle]

Oh shazbot! I just realized! THIS is why Palin chose NOW to jump ship! The goppers knew that press coverage of her would easily supersede anything of importance.

[psnyder]

The informal and casually propagated doctrine of corporate personhood must be overturned. As long as it persists all the other absurdities, like the present one, follow.

One dollar, one vote? Not anymore, if ever. Now it's one dollar (contributed), one vote.

[Artemis34]

Indeed! No corporate "personhood."

Public Campaign Financing now!
http://change-congress.org/

[plaidsportcoat]

Yes, they are extremely threatened by the people. Perhaps that is part of the reason they gave so much of the people's TAXES they had paid to the government to the corporations to save their sorry butts. They tried to weaken the PEOPLE over the last 40 years by strengthening the corporate Overlords and are scared stiff now that the People are in power. Godneeds to get rid of some of those conservative supreme court justices.

[Torus34]

Corporations, originally conceived as the useful creatures of individual states, are now reaching the end of their long battle to slip the traces. Their ability to influence government officials, presently somewhat limited, will dramatically exceed that of individuals if the law is overturned.

At that point, corporations will have equal or greater rights than individuals in every sphere but one: the right to vote. The fact that they have not pursued that specific right indicates that they see no point in obtaining it.

[plaidsportcoat]

The Supreme Court majority is Against Democracy.

[olmossy]

Corporations don't need to vote if they have bought and paid for the Politicians.

[vgirl1]

Not a surprise.

The neo-conservative, activist Supreme Court will do anything to help their sponsors keep the American people from being able to determine the outcome of an election again as the people did in 2008.

The Court will clearly work to ensure the power corporate America once again determines political outcomes and agendas. How else can the Bushes, Cheney's, Grassleys, Boehners, et al ever hope to remain wealthy and regain power so they can blame the nation's poor and middle class, the media and immigrants and minorities for the nation's ills?

[plaidsportcoat]

Exactly. And we have to fight this like a real bigwar.

[olmossy]

They don't need the Bushes when they have Geithners whispering in the Presidents ear.

[ibsteve2u]

I hope that the Supreme Court remembers that this is supposed to be a Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

If not, I suppose that it won't be long until the U.S. flag includes a 14th stripe, featuring the logo of the corporation that currently owns the White House.

Although that isn't much of a change; Goldman Sachs and Halliburton were co-owners for two terms...and I am not at all certain that the former has dropped their "sponsorship".

[isolow]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Corporations of America, and to the Industries for which it stands, one government, of corporations, to scr*w the people with immunity and aplomb.

[ibsteve2u]

I think it is due to the startlingly appropriate use of the word, but I couldn't help but laugh when I read "..and aplomb.".

Their calculations are indeed that cold.

[JaneQCitizen]

There's really only one remedy against big corporations and that's to stop doing business with them.

Shop indie, shop small businesses, buy handmade, locally made stuff as much as possible.

Without consumers, these corporations won't exist.

[ibsteve2u]

The point of "free trade" was to remove the dependence of our corporations upon the well-being of both the American people and the American economy.

Once you have have achieved a financial disconnect from any one country by spreading your manufacturing and markets around the globe, you can play the labor forces and consumer markets of any country off against any other country.

Hence, a boycott or labor movement in any one country can be offset by, respectively, the consumer market and labor available in other countries.

We will either regain control of our nation's course by using our laws to control the corporations and "high finance", or the power of the American people has effectively come to an end.

[themainpoint]

I can't believe this article is not front and center on the Huffingtonpost front page. Almost every other issue and article written about here leads back to corporate control of government.

Get the money out of politics. And until then, just don't vote for those who accept donations or those try to win office unfairly by using their own money.

What is interesting to me, is how many people in this country don't get that if the middle class in this country can be destroyed by corporations, so can anyone. This is something I believe our founding fathers--many of whom were property owners--studied and understood. Historically, when the masses property, liberty and opportunities are not safe, nobody is truly secure. People who are destructive and add to the misery of the world for an irrational greed (you can't take it with you!) will not discriminate and just stop at the middle class.

[nellie]

You're so right. This should be the top story, at least the top political page story. The supreme court ruling on this case could effect every single progressive policy that we hope to pass during the next 8 years.

[OneLiberalLady]

" I can't believe this article is not front and center on the Huffingtonpost front page"
EXCELLENT point. It amazes me the absolute fluff that HP often highlights in its headlines. And here is an article about a topic of utmost import, as you point out, to most of what is wrong in this country and they bury it. If is truly disappointing.

[ADENE]

Blah, Blah,Blah, this after Obami spent almost a Billion to get elected???.

[nellie]

Glad to see you have such a keen grasp of the issues.

[PWM]

So did Reagan and everyone since.

[isolow]

that is why things like this can happen. your blah, blah, blah statement is all that is needed... how's the Michael Jackson updates going - got your tickets yet? - I'm sure that interest you...

[OneLiberalLady]

He spent what he spent because we donated it, enthusiastically. McCain wouod have spent more too, had his constituency given it to him.

[Artemis34]

Sour grapes.

You are just mad we figured out we have to buy the election and were able to do it 5 bucks at a time!

[PlaceboStudman]

As an addendum, with this ruling, we can pretty much kiss health care, energy and climate change reform goodbye. Not to mention prolonging the wars because of the Military Industrial Complex's impact