Supreme Court Poised To Radically Change Politics By Letting Corporations In: New York Times

New York Times:

The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections. If the floodgates open, money from big business could overwhelm the electoral process, as well as the making of laws on issues like tax policy and bank regulation.

The court, which is scheduled to hear arguments on this issue on Wednesday, is rushing to decide a monumental question at breakneck speed and seems willing to throw established precedents and judicial modesty out the window.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[RTIII]

11:23 PM on 09/27/2009

The Rehnquist decision to appoint GWB to the post of POTUS was a huge turning point for the Supreme Court and set a stain on that group that will last at least one if not more generations. To now have Robert's court even take this case is gr.ave cause for concern; if they grant corporations this particular aspect of "personhood" - it will be the last nail in the co.ff.in of our democracy and the final plank in the construction of the new fascist state that will have replaced it.
.

[aflyinyoursoup]

03:22 PM on 09/16/2009

So the Democrats are now OPENLY carrying water for the Corporate Oligarchy.
No surprise there....Money can buy even the staunchest ideologue.

But that's not all!
Wait til this next little gem is loosed on the American political landscape...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/08/supreme-court-poised-to-r_n_279122.html#postComment.

At that point only the hardiest of fools will continue to engage in this sham of a political system laughably known as a Democratic Representative Republic.

It's ALL OVER, folks. You can go home now......

[aflyinyoursoup]

01:38 PM on 09/16/2009

Wake me up when the revolution starts!

[RobertFromMN]

07:46 AM on 09/09/2009

How is this not bigger news? How is this not bigger even than the health care battle? As if special interests/corporations don't already run (and ruin) this country, the Supreme Court is going to expedite America's destruction. Really?

[AlwaysRightLeftist]

03:04 AM on 09/09/2009

This will be overturned. What's the point of even fighting to improve America anymore? Really. Seriously. I'm looking into moving to the Netherlands at this point. A lot of you will be like "good riddance", and well all I can do is feel sorry for you, because America is doomed. It's very sad. I mistakenly had "hope". Just look at how often Obama kowtows to conservatives. Nothing will change for the better. Sorry for the doom and gloom, but this is reality.

[omeo2013]

09:45 AM on 09/09/2009

If you find a a way to move to the Netherlands, let ME know. I'm trying desperately to find a way to move to Europe and never come back.

[NCIndependant]

01:36 AM on 09/09/2009

Why is this not on the front page at the top? This is FAR more important than even the health care mess.

[reasonshouldrule]

10:49 PM on 09/08/2009

So much for those hypocrites who talk about "constructionist" (republican) versus "activist"(democrat) judges. If this isn't activism, I don't know what is. Someone here already said it--if the Justices go this route, our votes will be meaningless. In no more than a few years, we will be entirely ruled by large corporations, and our "elected" government will only serve as a facilitator.

[rosiebond007]

09:43 PM on 09/08/2009

NO, NO THIS WILL BE A HUGE, HUGE WASTE OF MONEY - LEAVE THINGS AS THEY ARE

PLEEEZE

[blueskybigstar]

09:06 PM on 09/08/2009

We need to impeach these activist judges who voted that Florida does not need to count all its votes, knowing that the brother of the candidate had appointed Kathryn Harris was likely to decide that the vote be stopped. They should have put out orders of arrest for the people who disrupted the count. We need to impeach these activist judges, some of whom have lied before congress and those placed by an illegitimate president who never won an election.

[WhirledTraveler]

06:47 PM on 09/08/2009

So the 'Conservative' members would disgrace (tongue-in-cheek) the GOP and vote for fascism? No surprise there.



Merriam-Webster...

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

[tripper69z]

05:49 PM on 09/08/2009

Wouldn't it be wonderful if corporations spent the money used to influence elections, judges and politicians in general on paying higher wages to their workers and hiring more workers?

For that matter, wouldn't it also be wonderful if the Health Insurance companies took the $1.3 million per day they spend influencing politicians and actually used it on the people who gave it to them through their higher premiums, deductables, and co-insurance and now need medical help but are refused for BS reasons like "pre-existing conditions".

...and I think, what a wonderful world...

[butterfliesblossom]

05:26 PM on 09/08/2009

Maybe, what they are considering is doing away with all Lobbyist. Corporate Lobbyist and PAC Lobbyist. How do we know that is what they are deciding is to give corporations the right to spend on elections.

I am hoping for the best, maybe, they are not blind.

[MsLiz]

05:35 PM on 09/08/2009

What you are suggesting is that the Court has the authority to disregard the First Amendment's right to petition the government.

[butterfliesblossom]

05:58 PM on 09/08/2009

NO! Everyone has a right to Petition the government, but it should be tied to campaign funds, or any other money consideration.

I actually can argue to why Lobbyist contributions should be unconstituional. The 24th Amentment abolished poll taxes. Why? Because the poor could not have a voice in government they could not afford to vote. All state poll taxes (for both state and federal elections) were officially declared unconstitutional, because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Why can't we fight Lobbyist with the same argument. Freedom of Speech is not free, to be heard you must be able to afford Lobbyist who fills the pockets of legislators. Those who can pay the most is often heard the most. This is not Equal Protection.

[Skepticat]

07:15 AM on 09/09/2009

Back when the first amendment was written in pre industrial times, corporations were few. They were not considered to be legal "persons" until after several post civil war court decisions. Today some large multi-national corporate conglomerates have more economic clout than many countries. To suggest that an entity employing 10s of thousands of people around the globe existing ONLY to make a profit is the same as an individual living person or somehow shares the values that make people human is absurd. Most of the economic ills of the US economy can be directly linked to decisions such as deregulation which were made for corporations at the expense of the citizens. These decisions were made by politicians "influenced" by generous corporate contributions to vote against the interests of their lowly human constituents. The playing field has already been tilted far enough away from the "we the people" side. Giving corporations even more power to "influence" law and policy is unlikely to be an improvement.

[Unforgivableblackness]

04:45 PM on 09/08/2009

So essentially they'll just make what already goes on, legal.

[Tulka2]

04:06 PM on 09/08/2009

Heads up.

The Supreme Court only rules on Constitutionality of laws Congress has passed. What this is about is a way wacky law that says Corporations are "persons". Since the law says a Corporation is a "person", well then it follows a person must have free speech.

The error is in the "person-hood" of corporations. The Congress could step up TODAY and correct that error. If a new Congressional law says Corporations are not people, then all of this is moot.

[ousteroune]

06:34 PM on 09/08/2009

No, the problem is in equating money with speech. Only in America would the right to speak be equated with the right to give an elected representative an ill-concealed bribe.

[AnitaStewart]

03:45 PM on 09/08/2009

This was all noted before the last elections but most people chose not to listen. People made their decisions to choose between the two corporate owned candidates in spite of the fact that the candidates were very clear about their alliances with the corporations. There were other candidates from other third parties running for president. We all could have changed the course of this country by voting for third party candidates or independents.

At this point, your only form of protest before the next elections is to LEAVE THE DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN PARTY (since they have fused into ONE PARTY--THE MONEY PARTY) and join the THIRD PARTY of YOUR CHOICE and/or vote for INDEPENDENT or NO PARTY AFFILIATION candidates. Our legislation is being written by PACS or by corporations so the laws are not even being written by our leaders, much less read or understood. Run for office yourself. Do what it takes. We need to take our country back. We also need MEDIA and ELECTION REFORM. Turn off the TV and do not listen to the polls, they do not mean $hit and our news is useless.

I voted for the Green Party candidate and I am proud of my vote! Obama has turned out to be no different than any other corporate schill in the White House.

[MsLiz]

05:45 PM on 09/08/2009

Yeah, sure. Makes more sense just to sleep through the election.