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

[Bluesue]

That would just finish the Republicans quest for decades to have corporations in charge of the government. They have always bowed to corporations. I just shouldn't even bother with my little $25 a month.

But, even today corporations buy the government through lobbying. $1.4 million a day spent on lobbying health reform (it's like they're funding a war). We shouldn't kid ourselves that the health reform that's finally approved won't have a big payday for the health insurance industry and the health care industry, including pharma.

Oh, I almost forgot. And it will be big payday for the members of Congress.

[plzchuteme]

Why doesn't this story command top billing with the big slash banner headline?

[PlaceboStudman]

Welcome to the new age of transparency and openness in Corporate America. Now there can be no doubt that the big corporations will own this country. Hopefully SCOTUS will wait and not rule on this until after Health Care and Energy reform are passed

[RoloTomassi]

Well, this just draws our attention to what sort of political trajectory we can expect in the next 3 1/2 years, and what the financial system pandering we've been seeing is really all about.

Our greed-driven corporate government will not stop until the entire political process is hemmed in by blatant corporate influence; such would gurantee the dual-wing, singular US political party machine stays in its current format, and is not even remotely threatened by populist political advocacy.

It is tempting to say that such is already the case, but it can and apparently will get much worse.

[Dbos]

Capitalism is not democracy .Big business is not democracy.Democracy is the will of the majority of the people. lets at least get that strait once and for all.

[noneIn2008]

You mean the public reported spending
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print#

[JackRusselTerrier]

The campaign finance regulations that exist today are a bad joke on the American people. There are enough loopholes large enough to be able to drive a truck through while sliding sideways as if this tuck was weaving through traffic cones.

We don't live in a Democracy but a plutocracy. The rich and powerful control the government and the courts too..

[pbziegler]

If you don't already know that corporations own the American political system you've been asleep. The right-wingers on the court believe corporations deserve greater freedom and protection from governmental oversight than you do. Time for a second American revolution?

[FormerReaganite]

Agreed. The "tea baggers" who think government is the problem, are misguided. It is the *corporate power* that runs the country, via their political puppets, who are mere agents of the powerful, commanding capitalist overlords. But only the enlightened few among us can see this. What a pity.

[WeMustSpeakOut]

It is long overdue.

[ThePeacemakers]

Should have figured this was coming.

Obama raised more money from the public than any candidate EVER.

They didn't think the people would participate in the 1/2 billion dollar game for Pres campaigns and it happened. They're scared sh -- less.

[nellie]

They're also mad as he ll that their "Hillary the Movie" creation was barred as a campaign ad. Every rightwing windbag from Rove to Coulter made a guest appearance in that nasty piece of pro paganda, and doubtless they spent a pile of money on it.

They're probably working on "Obama the Movie" right now, and just clearing the path for 2012. They can't win on the issues. They can only cheat and game the system.

[LeLoup]

OK then: if corporations win that fight, let's cut every tax advantage and every subsidy they have.

Oh wait! by the time we try that, they'll already own the governement.

Rats!

[FormerReaganite]

They already do.

[WeMustSpeakOut]

Lock, stock, and barrel.

[me again]

Bush's SC picks will be haunting our Country for decades to come......this is the reason this Country can ill afford a President without a strong and proven centrist point of view ever again. The SC is now full of right wing activist justices........Roberts, Alito were dangeorus choices at worst, poor choices at best.

[Forester]

We are already there folks. Corporations rule this country. Wake the f#ck up.

[noneIn2008]

Read the Rolling Stone article on Goldman Sachs. We need the people to see they create a facade of Dem vs Republican, when both are two sides of the same coin, minted by the banks.

[Forester]

Of course I've read the Taibbi piece. But this is only one of many examples of our corporate democracy. Are Americans shocked all of a sudden because of this one article?!
Good grief, we have become the passive consumers they have been grooming for generations. Do we actually think our politicians in DC will act in our interest when we are not pouring millions of campaign funds into their coffers? They will do symbolic and half-hearted gestures that will continue to serve their true masters. We are some naive sheep here in the land of mass consumption. And to think my 4G grandfather fought in the VA militia for a healthy AIG.

[FormerReaganite]

And that corporate power increases steadily every time Republicans are in power.

[LeftRight]

Wow.... If you read the whole article it's even scarier...... The basis for this is the Hillary Clinton movie. Even that's not the scary part, it's that the court refused to make a decision so far, and will hear arguments BEFORE the next session. This means that the normal court make up of 4 conservatives, 4 quasi-liberals, and one semi wildcard will be broken, and we will be stuck with 4 conservatives, 3 quasi-liberals, one semi wildcard, and one abstention, because there's no way that Sonya will be able to rule on the case without hearing the arguments!!!

This sure looks to me like the conservatives on the court were afraid that Kennedy would rule the correct way (that corporations cannot contribute) and so rigged it so that they could win in spite of that!!

[me again]

Quasi is a not an appropriate term for the three on the left, they are liberal. You know exactly how they will vote, Sotemayor will be the same.....Nothing wrong with that label.

[FormerReaganite]

In my opinion, we cannot call anyone on the modern Court "liberal" (By liberal I mean the late justices Earl Warren, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, et al) No comparison to the present court at all.

[LeftRight]

I know how they will vote, and I know how a liberal would vote, and the two are not the same....

[LeLoup]

Darn! I read the article twice and I didn't thougth about that.

This is the worst kind of judicial activism possible.

[nellie]

Even worse, Scalia has asked Ted Olsen to go back and review cases from the past 30 years. He's counseling the lawyer on behalf of the corporate contributor. I don't think justice has a snowball's chance in he ll of touching this decision.

[isolow]

the beat goes on...

[RMJ50]

Legitimizing the collusion between the capitalists and the legislature, this would end the free vote. It is impossible for the politician telling the truth to counteract the psychological warfare afforded by the wealthy corporations who want to suppress the truth. Call me cynical, but I am loosing all faith in this government of the people, for the people, by the people given the amount of collusion which has been shown by the bank bailout.