Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rolls Back Corporate Campaign Spending Limits
lorenlal writes "The Supreme Court of the United States must have figured that restrictions on corporate support of candidates was a violation of free speech, or something like that." From the AP story linked above:
"By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states."
If the U.S. Constitution ensures the free speech rights of corporations, as the SCOTUS has judged, then clearly the Constitution is defective.
We need to replace the "conservatives" on the supreme court who don't understand that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of citizens.
Developers: We can use your help.
welcome our new Disney overlords.
Unions too.
Best Slashdot Co
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Right of free speech + right of association = right of groups, as corporations, to speak freely.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Now your vote really doesn't count... if it ever did after creation of the electoral college. With unlimited spending the sheep who listen without thinking will just keep electing who they're told and never consider the consequences. Yay...
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
[Chief Justice] Roberts said he was not prepared to "embrace a theory of the 1st Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern."
But [Justice] Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments. "Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections. "Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office," Stevens said, and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.
Maybe China now has something useful to do with the trillion+ dollars they have burning a hole in their pocket.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period. If some of you Slashdot commies fail to comprehend that, that is your problem and yours alone.
(More here.)
Since corporations are able to possess the 1st amendment as a whole body, are they not entitled the remaining amendments?
Ok, that IS crazy. But what isn't is that, come election time, I wouldn't be surprised if pink slips get issued in order to free up some money to run messages for/against our tastycrats and fingerlick'ans.
I have to agree.
Corporations and unions have been given the right to buy who ever they want without any back alley deals...as long as the money doesn't go directly to or is coordinated by candidate.
import system.cool.Sig;
I, for one, welcome our new psychopathic, immortal, politically empowered, corporate-person overlords!
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
- V
The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.
(citation needed)
Or, perhaps just a functioning definition of the word "fascist," which you clearly don't have. Idiot.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A corp has no real responsibility, no sense of morals, and rarely ever is punished for many of its crimes. ANd yet, we equate it to man. That single warped logic is killing us.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
At issue is that under the Constitution, the Federal Government has no explicit power to regulate even political campaign donations.
This is my sig.
It has happened here.
----- Leghorn "Not responsible for program content"
...and everything to do with money. Most of the time shouts of "free speech!" are heard, it's because of money.
A CORPORATION doesn't have an opinion, and thus doesn't need to be financing political commercials. A PERSON can, sure...but not a frakking COMPANY.
Living With a Nerd
I haven't read the decision and the dissent yet, but I'm fascinated by how immediately negative the comments prior to this one are, especially the comments that try to argue that corporations should have fewer free speech rights than people. Part of the nature of free speech is that there's always some category that one would often not want to apply it to. For the Slashdot crowd that seems to be corporations. But the whole point of robust free speech is that you give it to any who want to use it. Concern over what this will do to elections is understandable as a policy concern but that's a pragmatic consideration that shouldn't impact such basic philosophical decisions. Moreover, what this really does is level the playing field between corporations. As it is now, Fox or MSNBC or any major newspaper can effectively push for a candidate or policy they want simply by the bias in their coverage. But a corporation that isn't involved in "news" or the like has its hands tied. And as for the impact this might have on elections: It should be apparent from the election of Obama that if a lot of people actually care about a candidate they can give in both time and money a lot more than even many large corporations. Of course, that candidate might then turn around and sell people out, but that's a separate problem...
If corporations want to be individuals, it's time we start taxing them like individuals.
whoops, didn't mean to be anon on that, oh well, fuckit
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Here you go, idiot.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Fascism is corporatism coupled with authoritarianism, so he's only half wrong.
And how many of those individuals involved in the contract get to pariticipate in the decision of who and when to support how much? Not the stockholders. Certainly not anyone below C level that's for sure. Now that's the right way to run a participatory democratic republic--turn it over to the CEOs. Control of the government largely by and for corporate (and union) managers.
The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.
Does this qualify as a Godwin violation?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Over the top use of words and phrases likes that not only makes you look panicked and ridiculous, but weakens it for when a case might actually be applicable. I assume you are probably referring to the corporate state idea, but even then, a simple ruling is just a ruling. IBM does not yet appoint the president, Microsoft does not have a veto on laws. One must wait until time has actually passed to see if your zealous "END OF AMERICA" prediction actually happens. My guess: it won't. Corporations will spend more money during elections, maybe (or possibly not, we'll see) but your country will pretty much remain the same.
Reminds me of when Stephen Harper was elected in my country four years ago. Some people made up mock tombstones with "Canada 1867-2006". Four years later, despite what one may think of him, Canada certainly did not end in 2006, and that stuff just served to make the creators look like political chicken littles.
From wikipedia
Fascism, pronounced /fæzm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.
To speak: This ruling allows corporations unlimited spending, which tends toward corparatism. The fact that the Executive Branch's power has grown after 9/11, and has not retracted under Obama, along with the "you are with us or against us" patriotic thuggery from the far right, has the US tending toward (though not there yet, thankfully) authoritarian nationalism. Finally, the conservative judges made this possible, along with the far right being the harbinger of the nationalism, and we are well on our way.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Because remember, kids, "fascist" means "something I personally don't approve of."
[A U.S.] Supreme Court ruling in 1886 ... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech. Thus corporations were given the same “rights” to influence the government in their own interests as were extended to individual citizens, paving the way for corporations to use their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse. The debates in the United States in the 1990s over campaign finance reform, in which corporate bodies can “donate” millions of dollars to political candidates stem from this ruling although rarely if ever is that mentioned. Thus, corporations, as “persons,” were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests. All of this in the interest of “free speech.”
— Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p.100
Personally, in my opinion, that's where it went downhill. A corporation doesn't need rights as an individual. If a corporation needs to speak it has many members which can be enabled to speak for it.
The problem is that the voice of a business has no bearing on the amount of individuals it represents but merely by the amount of money it can throw. If a business representing 100,000 employees only has $100,000 to contribute it won't even be registered against a tiny company of 5 people that can contribute $1,000,000,000.
If there were reasonable caps to contributions, say, $1,000 per person (people) and _no_ corporations were allowed to contribute, then the people get the power back. If a large corporation wants to push an issue, they can lobby their own employees to contribute to their cause, but the choice would again be with the individual people.
I mean honestly, if I have $300 to contribute to a politician I support, how in the world is that going to compare to a $10,000,000 contribution from Big Media when they are leaning in the opposite direction on an issue?
I'm not saying "the people" have had any real power for a long time (when compared to big business), but this just skews it even farther away from us.
Sad day to be an American...
Some form of public funding for elections might be the answer. Eliminate all private contributions. I say, limit spending to ONE 2010 CPI inflation adjusted dollar per registered voter. A constitutional spending limit might be enough, if it's low enough so that even the weakest candidates could raise it.
Oh, and all these 5-4 decisions? The SCOTUS isn't doing its job. They've been completely politicized for quite some time. Constitutional issues should almost never be split. Maybe there should be 1 or 2 dissenters in most cases. At least there should be 1 dissenter, just to play devil's advocate; but split decisions? Absolute, utter ball-dropping, failure to perform your duty, NONSENSE!!!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Why do you draw a distinction between "free speech" and "political speech"? Surely our founding fathers wanted to talk freely about politics. That's the whole point. (I'm sure there's a reason you said that, I just don't see it.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Just to be clear: we're giving one set of institutions which do not have a mandate to respond to individuals (corporations) control over another set of institutions (government) which, uh, used to. And we're doing this in the name of... more liberty for people? Let me know how that works out for you...
Ur Fascism (Umberto Eco) I'm not sure that it's a terribly useful definition for the internet. It, is however, a definition.
The closest Eco comes to denouncing corporatism is in this paragraph.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view – one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
The President of the United States, brought you by Walmart.
Right, so corporate money hasn't been involved in politics in the past 20 years.
You have a choice between it being out in the open or behind closed doors. Choose wisely.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The American dream is rotting away before our very eyes. It's slow, taking generations, which makes it pretty difficult for Americans to see how to stop it, let alone actually try to stop it.
I agree. But the Supremes just interpret laws. If we want a change, we need to start an Amendment, something like a prohibition against granting personal liberties to corporations and prohibiting any entity that cannot vote from seeking redress from congress or from donating to a political campaign. I would be happy to grant enough money to run a campaign to any candidate that meets the requirements to get onto the ballot. It will be expensive, but not as expensive as living with a Congress that somebody else bought and paid for.
Think global, act loco
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
IAWTC.
Non-American here, just wondering if this means foreign corporations can now open shell businesses in the US and spend billions of dollars to influence US elections to favour their own companies or countries? I guess in the past they would have had to convince actual US citizens (or pay lobbyists) to do the influencing for them, they can now do so pretty much directly without the middle man. Interesting.
...as in "end of the Republic" horrible. We just greased the slide to a complete fall into Fascism.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Maybe if we had a major, concerted, write in campaign in a strategic region, we can get Google* elected to Congress. (I'm wondering what it would look like trying to get Google to raise it's right hand to be sworn in!) That would then give others the ability to challenge the election in the courts.
We do need someway to break this "corporations as people" mentality.
*(Recognizable, electable, and less likely than others to abuse the power during time in office. Still carries a huge risk, I know.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
That people are mindless drones who will automatically vote for whomever spends the most dollars to communicate to them. If we were indeed mindless automata who would vote depending on who spent enough money, then yes, you're right. But we're not. And that is what undermines your argument. The SCOTUS is basing their decision on the basis that voters can and will decide for themselves. Now, whether voters choose to vote for he/she who has the most money to spend, that's a whole other beast.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
This undermines the entire election process. They claim it's against freedom of speech. No it's not. You are free to say whatever you want. It has no baring on free speech at all. This is people wanting to buy an election. There is a reason the law was enacted in the first freaking place!
There should be an investigation here and all parties proven to be involved in these shenanigans should be sent to prison.
Guys, this does not change anything!
Any limit can, and was circumvented, by simply spreading the bribes (that’s the actual proper name) over a couple of sub-companies.
The supreme court realized this, and rolled it back, because then, you can at least track the money back more easily.
Makes sense.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
No organization of any kind should be permitted to make campaign contributions. If a number of like-minded individuals wish to support a campaign, they can all make individual contributions.
I don't care if Bill Ford donates a few million in order to elect someone who will retard updates to CAFE standards. I have a huge issue with Ford Motor doing the same thing.
The Constitution should defend and protect people and their interests. Corporations and groups of any kind may exist, but they should not have a financial voice in Government.
I don't get it. This does not make sense to me either legally, or ethically.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.
But Sen. Mitch McConnell ...praised the court for "restoring the First Amendment rights" of corporations and unions.
Kennedy ... said, "No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
Corporations do not have first amendment rights. They cannot vote. They are not individuals. They have no rights at all.
If people want to get together and spend money on a commercial about something political, because they really feel strongly enough to give their own money, they can do that via a PAC. Why the heck would we want corporations to be able to do this? No good can come of it.
You are close to the mark, but this is potentially worse than fascism as we have known it. It opens the possibility of an entirely new form of tyranny that the human race has not yet experienced.
If you study the history of fascism, the various ideas that "fascists" have become confusing, until you realize that fascism isn't an ideology. Fascism isn't about ideas, but achieving a specific effect: maximizing the power of an individual or group of people who have control of the government. Where it serves that purpose, fascism will embrace extremes of spiritualism or materialism, or even mix the two. Consistency doesn't matter. Authority does.
What is different about this is that we aren't talking about putting the power of the State in the hands of an individual or group of individuals. We are talking about putting it at the disposal of artificial entities; immortal profit making machines with a capacity for accumulating wealth beyond that of any individual. This is like *Colossus: The Forbin Project*, only with machines we've already built and operated.
It's not that making a profit is evil. It's that the very definition of evil (see Saint Augustine, or even Kant) is making one sided decisions. Human concerns like ethics are not part of the design of the institution of the corporation. Ethics are forced on corporations by two things: the individuals working for the corporations, and by law.
But the ethics of the individual are always under pressure in a corporation. We've all seen that. There's always the question of whether we can push the limit just a bit, and if we try it and get away with it, we suddenly have a new conception of what "normal behavior" is. We know that "everybody does it" doesn't excuse something, but we don't act that way. The law is what makes it possible for people to remain ethical. They can always say, "we will go to jail if we try that," or "we'll be fined," or even "we'll get bad publicity," which of course depends on individuals having rights that are respected under the law.
Corporations have inappropriate influence now on government, but that doesn't make a dystopia. Life is still good for most of us. But we can't extrapolate that to giving them unchecked power to make laws for their own benefit. If we do that, the safety net provided by individual ethics won't matter. Once corporations are above the law, any corporation that fails to take the profit maximizing step regardless of the other consequences won't survive.
Allow the power of corporations to grow without any check, and for the first time in human history human affairs will be governed with absolutely no regard to human welfare.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm glad you said this. I'm also shocked by how many misconceptions are apparent throughout these comments.
People seem to go on and on about 1886. Corporations are certainly not people strictly speaking, they are just groups of people. Those people have individual rights, and by extension, a group of people also has the same set of rights. And by rights, I simply mean things that the government is restricted from doing to those people.
Why shouldn't corporations be entitled to free speech, just as any person who is a part of that corporation is entitled to it? If I speak as part of a company, do I suddenly lose my right whereas if I take off my "Exxon" cap I get it back? Doesn't really make sense to me.
I think overall this ruling is excellent for many reasons. One, it upholds the Constitution as opposed to reinterpreting it...that's really great. We need more rulings like this. Second, it forces people to rethink their approach to this problem. Yes, it is a problem that corporations and other groups of people can essentially "buy" elections. As opposed to restricting their ability to spend money on speech though, what we should instead be focusing on is the motivation behind why these groups of people find it in their best interest to spend millions of dollars on campaigns. The real problem is that the government makes decisions that redirect billions of dollars from one group of people to another. These groups have incredible monetary incentive to spend billions to ensure that the pot goes to them and not to the others vying for it.
The reality is that the only way to end this constant conflict between groups of men is to end the government's ability to determine who gets the pot by taking away that pot from the government to begin with. Let private citizens individually make decisions on how their money gets spent....not voters. The government's job and how it should go about it should be clearly defined and restricted by the constitution. It's ability to raise money shouldn't be arbitrarily determined by majority rules voting, but rather, by people voluntarily investing in it because of the results it produces. Only by sufficiently limiting the government's role in the economy and it's overall power will you be able to eliminate the corporations incentive to buy elections and profit from a process that is inherently and essentially unfair.
If Fox News wanted a Libertarian to have a chance, a Libertarian would have a chance. For example, Glenn Beck might dis President Obama and praise the (L) candidate for President in 2012 on air. But MPAA-owned TV news networks have their reasons for keeping anyone who's not a Republicrat off the public's mind.
We have to kill our Free Speech in order to save it!
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
You could read the ACLU's Amicus Brief:
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Sure why not?
Could this decision by made ineffective by passing a law saying that when political / issue advertising is purchased in media, groups with opposition views must be _freely_ given an equal amount of time / space to rebut the advertisement. Perhaps even stronger, the space / time the rebuttal is given must immediately follow / be next to the original advertisement?
Can someone explain why this wouldn't be constitutionally legal? I don't see a free speech argument since any group can now advertise / make their views heard...
This is what happens when you award corporations the same rights as those awarded to real people.
AccountKiller
Goldman Sachs paid less than 1% taxes last year. What individual rate are you paying?
...when do we see the death penalty applied to them? The Ford Pinto's exploding gas tank and Union Carbide's Bhopal clusterfuck are merely the first examples that come to mind of corporations exhibiting depraved indifference to human life. Had an individual done these things he/she would be facing the death penalty; why should corporations be exempt?
In the past, Americans have shown a tenacity and zealotry for fighting, in a very literal and physical manner, those other 'people' that have done harm to them or their way of life. The most direct manner of fighting another person is to do harm unto that person. There are various methods of doing harm unto other people. A person needs food, water, and oxygen. Depriving a person of these things can cause significant harm to the target eventually resulting in the death, or end of that person. An adversary may also cause a powerful, sudden shock to the body of a person. This shock, often involving damage so extensive, can lead to long term suffering and, eventually, death.
Now let's draw an analogy.
If we are going to consider corporations (or any large social interest group) to be people, how might we fight them if they do us considerable harm or threaten us? Corporations need income of money to survive. They also need willing individuals to power them. If we deprive a corporation of either its income, or the mindset necessary to power it, then we can cause damage to the corporation, eventually resulting in death. These come in the form of boycotts and strikes. However, in times of extremism, it's not long term deprivation that we use as a fighting tactic, rather, against people, we prefer the sudden irreparable shock and damage clause (a bullet, a bomb, a knife, whatever).
So if we are really fed up with the way social interests buy out our government. If we, as Americans, genuinely feel threatened, how do we pick a fight with social interest groups? How do we cause a powerful, sudden shock to the body of a corporation? To figure this out, perhaps we need to draw an appropriate analogue to the body of a person. The body of a person is the vehicle in which the mind or personality of a person travels. The means by which it physically interacts with the world. So how does a social interest group, like a corporation, navigate and interact with this world? If we can answer that question, then we have a target. If we have a target, then we can damage that target. If we can damage that target significantly, we can successfully combat the threat that corporations and similar large social entities may present to us.
Of course this all borders on the notion that folk want to fight this type of seemingly corrupt social motion. So, any ideas on how to attack the body of a corporation?
As an idea (and only an idea, not an answer) perhaps we could make the case that the body of a corporation is the goods which it peddles to people, as well as the feedback-advertising loop (PR) that it uses to interact with its customers. Perhaps the best way to combat social interests is to do sudden shock and harm to their products (or the production of said products) or their PR work. Smear campaigns work well enough for this, but they need a large, international, focused effort these days to work. Look at what smear campaigns did to Big Tobacco for instance. Finding a way to eliminate their goods from the market, in a sudden, coordinated manner, could be enough to drive a social interest or corporation six feet under as well. Again...not an answer, but some food for thought.
Those claiming that a revolution in order might want to keep this kind of thinking in mind.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
I have yet to hear any corporation speak, or communicate in any way. It always needs people to do that on its behalf. I say when the corporation itself, with no people to help it can speak on its own then it should be free to do so.
Nullius in verba
Sadly both sides are right. We need reform... but the only way we could do that would be to amend the constitution. Either that or the supreme court needs to get off their ass and finally define corporations as non-citizens.
Because remember, kids, "fascist" means "something I personally don't approve of."
No, that's what "socialist" means.
We need MORE money in politics, not less.
The flaw in your argument lies with the fact that a single very wealth person could 'buy' more speech for a candidate that they favored, than a candidate that had broad grass roots support and more modest funding. This causes the candidate to give you much more influence over their agenda than a candidate that has broad grassroots support. Sure, your idea requires candidates to spend less time fund raising. They would all be solidly in the pockets of the rich, though.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It depends on who dominates who. If the authoritarian government dominates the corporations, that's fascism. If the corporations direct the authoritarian government, then it's more like plutocracy.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
There are a lot of solo-gigs in the tech industry. I own my own LLC. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, I am the single owning member of a person. I also happen to work from home. Why can't I claim my LLC as a dependent? Seriously... if corporations are people, then I should be able to. I guarantee you that if I tried, a world of trouble would come crashing down on me. This suggests to me that there are different rule books.
IBM does not yet appoint the president, Microsoft does not have a veto on laws.
And you said he sounded silly. Individual corporations typically don't have the power to veto legislation, but industry groups (formed colluding corporations) do. Rather than veto laws, the industry groups typically write the laws and get Congress to ratify them.
Support SETI@home
and there corporate welfare.
The biggest threat to America is corporations and there control. When creating the constitution, there was a huge debate over wether otr not to out right forbid corporations becasue of the amount of control they had gained in England.
We are very close to just being serfs.
Are speech won't matter because we won't have billion dollar ad campaigns, or enough of a voice to point out specific lies.
I look forward to seeing candidates replacing the American flag on there lapels with the Nike swoosh~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So, an orginization formed for the purpose of advancing an agenda (say, Sell More Oil PAC) should be allowed to contribute.
However, Exxon shouldn't.
I get that right?
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
I'm pretty sure there's some clause in the first amendment that would prohibit such a limitation. Maybe that clause which does something like.... "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" ... I mean, you'd like to think that the constitution really means something, I guess.
As long as Roberts and Alito get their cut.
Support SETI@home
Fascism's single greatest achievement is convincing the world it doesn't actually exist. Hell, that's basically the entire game plan once fascism is installed - deny the people the chance to ever publicly acknowledge their situation, quashing dissent and revolution before they can even begin.
Who CARES if it's not a textbook Mussolini-style fascist state yet?
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Friend --
I'm about to get on a plane, and I've only had a brief chance to look over the decision, but it appears the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on corporate speech in political campaigns -- overturning 20 years of campaign finance regulations and allowing corporations to wield unprecedented control over our elections.
What we need is a system in which the American people can trust that when Congress acts, it does so based on principle, or reason, or the will of the voters -- but not on the need for campaign funds. This decision erodes that trust down to nothingness.
We need to act now to fix this broken system -- and fortunately, the path forward is clear.
I just recorded a video from the terminal with my initial reaction -- watch the video and please say you'll join this battle for fundamental reform:
Watch my reaction to the Citizens United decision
http://action.change-congress.org/SupremeCourt
Please forward this email to everyone you know who cares about the future of our democracy and ask them to get involved. And please stay tuned to http://change-congress.org/ for more on today's decision.
-- Lawrence Lessig
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Oh, the constitution also says these rights are stackable, not just collective?
No, it doesn't. The rights are not production rules that can be manipulated to manufacture new rights, as the court has done.
I think this is a good step, in my opinion. And in my opinion, this ruling will allow corporations to fund political statements, and thus candidates directly. This brings them out into the open, where we can truly see them for who they are. Let's say that Megacorp X does what you describe. Do you really think the media will let that go unreported, especially on a hot topic? People will feel resentful that they're being manipulated. Let's allow them to do this: we'll be able to see them and deal with them.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
The reason that fascism bears no resemblance to WW2 Italy or Germany is because these states weren't fascist. Germany was an odd melding of nationalism and socialism, as was Italy. Spain under Franco was far closer, and is commonly referred to as a fascist state.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You are right. Anything done without any human involvement whatsoever should not be given the same protections as something done by people. When corporations act with no human intent or human involvement, their freedom is without conscience or merit.
When humans act, they have freedom. That freedom deserves protection. When they do it as part of a corporation, they maintain their humanity and the actions deserve to maintain their protection.
Allow the power of corporations to grow without any check, and for the first time in human history human affairs will be governed with absolutely no regard to human welfare.
Well, I would disagree. It has happened before. It's just that there normally was a face to the government that ignored human welfare. Gengis Khan was brutal and certainly ignored human welfare. However - and this is a significant difference - what's new is that with corporatism, there is no face to a corporation that engages in cruelty. And as Penny Arcade demonstrated so succinctly, nothing makes people into bigger assholes than anonymity.
In other words, corporatism means everyone can be the biggest, cruelest asshole on the block. Lovely.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
From Wikipedia
Fascism, pronounced /fæzm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system ...
You forgot to make one more step: look up the definition of a "corporatist economic system" on Wikipedia. Let me do it for you:
Corporatism is a system of economic, political, or social organization where corporate groups such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, scientific, or religious groups are joined together into a single body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body. The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. This meaning is not connected with the contemporary inaccurate and pejorative use of corporatism to describe politics that is dominated by business corporations. Corporatism views society as being alike to an organic body in which each corporate group is viewed as a necessary organ for society to function properly. Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of functionalism. Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies and to prevent conflict between the groups.
You say far right (I assume you sit on the left so it makes you feel morally superior) but political belief is a circle not a line.
There's a point far enough to the right or left where they run into each other. And to burst your little bubble, the far left have just as many authoritarian and disgusting beliefs as the far right.
Many on the "far left" support the pillars of Fascism, and I must say your little definition above is quite infantile and incomplete.
The best most poignant description of Fascism comes from the man himself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini: "Everything inside the State, nothing outside the State.".
And the Nazi national motto was "Community before the individual".
Sounds a lot like the beliefs of the far left to me, from healthcare to education, population control, eugenics and regulation on every tiny aspect of human life, there's *nothing* the far left doesn't think the state should be involved in. And the health and continuance of the state are far more important than the individuals in it. (Read some of the "solutions" to Global Warming that come from the far left to see Fascists truly unmasked).
Go far enough in either direction and both "sides" beliefs and talking points start to look awfully similar to one another.
Also the right has had no power in your country for over a year now (three years since they had any real clout). And if you believe there's no thuggery coming from the far left who currently have absolute power over the United States then you're living in an absolute delusion.
Because remember, kids, "fascist" means "something I personally don't approve of."
That's world-wide definition. The American English one is a bit more nuanced: "something I personally don't approve of, which cannot, even with a big stretch, be called 'socialist' or 'communist'".
Maybe now that SCOTUS has deemed corporations to be "persons" the IRS is in a position to treat them as such and regard the legal opinion as indication that Corporations now TOO must pay taxes on GROSS INCOME rather than just NET INCOME. After all, SCOTUS has just overturned all the laws to the contrary.
From wikipedia
Fascism, pronounced /fæzm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.
To speak: This ruling allows corporations unlimited spending, which tends toward corparatism. The fact that the Executive Branch's power has grown after 9/11, and has not retracted under Obama, along with the "you are with us or against us" patriotic thuggery from the far right, has the US tending toward (though not there yet, thankfully) authoritarian nationalism. Finally, the conservative judges made this possible, along with the far right being the harbinger of the nationalism, and we are well on our way.
Wikipedia is one of the worse sources for any historical information you can get. There is no left/right argument with fascism (within the contex of US politics). In practice, collectivism has more in common with fascism by design structure. Merriam-Webster definition: fascism 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.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
Be extremely careful of who you buy things from. If a corporation donates to candidate X who you don't like. Never, ever do business with them again.
The Assyrian's and Nazi's cared about human welfare? Corporations would grant some human welfare, its just equivalent to that of those working in sweatshops in China.
Common Sense
No taxes, no government. Gee that sounds like a wonderful, but rather preposterously unworkable idea. But hey if it sells for the benefit of corporate interests, go for it. Corporatized anarchy, literally the ultimate form of government.
The Chinese and other foreign interests are going to love this. They can use the money we pay to borrow from them to support their multinational corporations, who working out of their Washington offices can dictate US policy.
The Corporation as a legal person started in 1844.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I wasn't paying her for sex, I was just exercising my free speech rights to protest prostitution laws.
Make the owners of the corporations take the money on as taxable income before spending it on political influence, just like the rest of us do. That way speech is still free, everybody is taxed properly, and the voters as well as employees can see exactly who is spending the money instead of simply "the company."
Is that authoritarianism distinct from totalitarianism, or is it the kind of of authoritarianism that overlaps with totalitarianism?
"I really hate this whiny assed victim mentality so many pussies have today."
You can talk with pussies? That must come in handy.
Because the corporations need not be owned by US citizens, in a remarkably poorly thought out opinion the Roberts court has just given foreign corporations the ability to manipulate US law and its electoral politics and there is now nothing US citizens or polticians can do about it.
Expect soon for all UW women to be wearing burquas and for everyone to be required to speak the new official language of the US, Chinese. Now, its only a question of time.
If anyone wondered about what wealthy foreign nationals would do with all those increasingly worthless US dollars they have been lending us at every increasing rates, now you know.
It is now!
It depends. Is Fascism politically distinct from Naziism?
Stolen from a great post above, but see below. As Justice Stevens points out in his dissenting argument, the answer is a resounding "Yes".
But [Justice] Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments. "Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections. "Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office," Stevens said, and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Free the corporation from it's owners!
Silly person making pedantic arguments without considering the unintended consequences of his proposal; consider this.
The shareholders and the corporation together forming a voluntary political group which in turn donates money/speaks/etc.
If you insist the money come from individuals the corporation issues a special dividend which the individuals in turn are required to donate.
What a waste of effort. Shareholders have free speech rights, they can speak as a group, get over it.
Are you a lawyer trying to drum up business?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Absolutely. This just merely says its now OK and official for foreign nationals to become involved in US electoral politics.
Now irate Iranians won't have to burn our flags, they can just try to burn our politicians at the ballot box via their Washington corporate offices. Now Canadians, Russians, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, South Americans Middle Easterners etc., can get even with all those advocating "Yankee imperialism" or policies that might perpetuate the US as a world super-power, to use a now well worn out phrase. Its now free and legal for them to do and if they want to spend the money.
Heck, they can just raise gas prices, commodity prices, prices on goods sold to America, or interest they charge us for our excessive borrowing just to pay for their new found electoral rights just granted to them by the Roberts court. This is a bonanza to lobbyists representing foreign governments and foreign corporations.
Your suggestion that tracking the spending for corporate money will become easier is absurd. You are burying your head in the sand, while Chinese and Saudi corporations are now ramping up to outspend you at the ballot box.
Good luck in your dream world. Let us know how it turns out.
There's a huge difference between those groups and corporations.
The government didn't give you, me, and groups of racists the right to free speech. The government merely protects that right. The government did give corporations the right to free speech. Without government, racists still exist but corporations do not.
I love the GP's "endowed by their creator" reference. What created the corporations? The law did.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
"Why should the government prevent corporations from spending money on commercials?"
a
What if the corporations were run and owned by foreign nationals, who advocated that the US military must by law only buy weapons from those who make a shoddy product? What if foreign islamic governments via their Washington corporate offices begin to elect politicians who demand that all US women begin to wear burquas and make consumption of alcohol punishable by beheading? What if foreign bankers elect US politicians who want the interest rates on US federal debt be increased to 35% per year?
Just another commercial in your mind? Your world is about to change in a hurry and no doubt you won't even notice as you will be too busy watching the commercial.
Seems ironic that all those tea-baggers, libertarians, and conspiracy theorists who always seem in a tizzy about the imposition of bhe "new world order" have had their heads (and their butts) handed to foreign-owned corporations by the so-called "conservative" Roberts Court. At least there is now some justice. Ruppert Murdoch can reclaim his Australian citizenship, as with this ruling there is soon will no longer any real advantage to being an American, at least as far as American electoral politics is concerned.
And by explicitly circumscribing what governments may not do, they implicitly give the government the right to do everything else.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Of course, abuse of the Commerce Clause weakens this, but in theory you are wrong.
In the time-honored traditions of the US of A, greatest nation on earth, corporations will simply pass onto us the costs of their campaign advertisements. We will get to fund advocacy whether or not we think it is in our interest.
If you don't like it, you can always just stop buying things.
Edith Keeler Must Die
We may have thrown right wing politicians into the trash can but the Supreme Court has to die off on its own. Corporations should be banned from all political activity. Their employees and stock holders already get equal footing with others. Let them contribute as individuals.
Everything you said is correct, and yet it's all wrong. I realize you could be speaking from the standpoint of the "Corporate Person" pun that got in this whole mess to begin with, but let's be clear that this is a fiction. A corporation is not a sentient entity. It does not have desires or interests of its own because "it" is not an entity capable of having them. The corporation can take no actions because it has no will. It is not immortal because it is not alive.
The desires of a corporation are the desires of its executives. The actions of a corporation are the actions of its executives and their subordinates taken in the corporation's name. They aren't separate, they are one and the same. The only way for a corporation to take an action that the executives do not desire is for one of the subordinates to disobey their executive, for which they can be fired.
You're absolutely right that corporations are anti-democratic semi-feudal organizations. But an organization is nothing but the people comprising it. So when you say that the directors should view the corporation like an untrustworthy animal, it is buying into the fictional personification of the corporation that says it has a will outside of the directors themselves. Do not allow the directors to abdicate responsibility for their own actions in this way. It may be a legal reality, but it is not a literal reality.
Nobody would speak of, say, the 1st U.S. Army have a will or interests outside of the General commanding it, excepting that the General has lost control of the people under their command. You can't nuke "the concept of the 1st Army" though you can nuke the people in it. It is "immortal" only in the sense that the concept will still exist, but that concept is nothing and does nothing and desires nothing until a new General takes up the head, and then the 1st Army's desires are the General's desires.
Or for another example, you would never say "the people of feudal Britain were oppressed by Britain", you'd say they were oppressed by the King, the executive. The idea that "Britain" could oppress the people despite the wishes of the King is ludicrous.
So, getting back to the point. This problem with this decision is not that it gives political power to corporations. The problem is that it gives political power to CEOs and directors (usually CEOs of other companies if not the same company), to use the resources of the corporation -- meaning the product of the labor of everyone working for it -- for the CEO's own political benefit.
The enemies of Democracy are
There's a subtle difference you seem be missing between "spending money on campaigning/advertising" and "electing".
If Americans are dumb enough to vote against their own interest due to some ads on TV, then does it really matter anyway? They are doomed no matter what, migth as well speed it up.
It was a grand experiment and it lasted surprisingly long. But the idealism of the founding fathers had long ago given way to inherent greed of the captains of industry. Capitalism had given way to corporatism over a century ago.
It was only a matter of time before the next shoe dropped.
The business playing field has long been tilted in favor of corporations whose only raison d’être is to maximize profits for their shareholders, the same shareholders who sell their shares in a nanosecond if they can turn a miniscule profit or limit their losses. They operate without the baggage of conscience or even the slightest inkling of compassion for real people, neither customers nor their employees. Prior to today, the tentative prohibitions that have existed on how corporations could use their power to influence the political landscape were only a nuisance, but now even those facades have been eliminated.
Just one more step on the way to Fascism. If anyone doubts that the US is heading in that direction, just read the definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism . If that doesn’t sound like the right-wing agenda I don’t know what does.
Did anyone notice while the right was declaring Obama a socialist and the Democrats had a super-majority, nothing managed to get done. The minority party stood in the way and managed to block every step in every direction, eventually bogging the process down long enough for the corporate owned media to work its way with the mindless masses until eventually the polls turned against any possibility of a progressive agenda.
Now the super-majority is gone. Independents are now aligned with the right wing. The hopes for anything that might reign in the abuses of the insurance industry are all but gone.
And now, this ruling; Corporations are free to buy politicians like never before. Who is going to stop them? No one.
The party’s over. All I can say to those of the right-wing persuasion is congratulations on your victory. But always keep in mind, be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Here is a synopsis for ya: Every single citizen above the age of 18 has a right to free speech both with their pocket book and their vote. Now corporations and unions are made of what? Citizens and non-citizens (shareholders, board of directors, managers, employees). How corporations money is spent on campaigns and politicians is normally limited to board level decisions (the deciding power of usually no more than 20 people in a corporation). So, in effect we are giving these 20 people of each corporation extra dollar votes. They are able to spend other people's money (shareholders money), in effect "speech" twice! Once for themselves and once again for themselves using other people's money. Why do we feel the need to let these 20 or so board members get extra spending power. If those 20 want to spend on campaigns why don't they all pool their bonuses and buy an advertisement? Why is it they are able to spend shareholder money on campaigns? We are just giving them more power, its a beautiful coup for the people who control the corporations in the US, they now get more swing power with mass opinion. And oh yeah, and do you think that when Citibank or Exxon's big Saudi shareholders tell the board who they want in office and the company really should run some ads for that politician, do you think they will do it? That's right, we now have more foreign interest swaying public opinion. Next, if corporations really are people and get to spend whatever they like, we might as well let them vote, oh yeah, how many votes do they get? I suggest everyone write your congressman and senators and bitch about this one. It is so much bigger than everybody thinks.
Real men don't need signitures!!!
I bet you think liberalism means government regulation economy and gay rights too. Words do not mean what you think they mean.
Corporatism does not mean rule by large companies. The corporations refereed to in 'corporatism' are more along the lines of trade guilds.
In many respects, what you are claiming is fascism is almost exactly the opposite. Fascism is not the rule of government by private business interests. Fascism is the rule of private business interests by government. Unless you think Hitler, Mussolini and their cronies were all big industrialists before getting the world domination bug.
Corporatism as a system has nothing to do with corporations in the modern sense. Please look at the book Corporatism and Comparative Politics by Howard J. Wiarda. It is on Google Books. Unlike Marxism, it's goal is for the working class and the bourgeoisie to be not in conflict, but a part of the same body (corpus). This would mean things like employer-employee solidarity and an economy that is controlled by the state together with employers and workers working together (ideally). Corporatism was posited as a third way between capitalism and Marxist systems. Our current situation is not a third way. It's just an evolution of capitalism.
Hah, that's about the most idiotic post I've ever read on Slashdot.
The more money spent on politics, the more power the corporations wield.
Do you really want politics to be reduced to the level of Nike advertising campaigns? (Even more so than it already is)
Rupert Murdoch's been doing that for a while, as has the Chinese government, so I don't think anything's really stopping you from doing that, this decision notwithstanding.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
I can't imagine why SCOTUS is taking this approach. True, since 1866 it has been swept along in the idea that corporations should have the rights of citizens, but they don't have to rule this way if they don't want to. And they didn't always. Below is a cut from 1905 I've probably sent you before. Even after 1866 The Court knew the difference between individual and corporation. I have no theory why it keeps screwing America by ruling this way. And we also suffer from the reverse; individuals being treated as corporations with no rights. For example the IRS says you have no "cost basis" in your own labor so when you sell it, it's all "profit or gain" and therefore "income". They wouldn't talk to an individual like that, IRS thinks everyone is a corporation, under its jurisdiction, the bastards.
Come the revolution they'll be the first ones up against the wall :)
Hale vs Henkel
201US74
Year 1905.
a 5th amendment case
"Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of the corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State.
The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in the exercise of its sovereignty inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose."
What does anyone else think of this MIT article from june of 2002 http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/representation/CF_JEP_Final.pdf titled ' Why is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?' which basically says that political campaigns do not get most of their money from corporations or corporation like entities, and furthermore, legislators largely do not vote based on donations from such entities. It kinda makes my head spin as I still, maybe ignorantly, believe otherwise. -Noble
For example, Swift Boat Veterans For Truth?
...immortal profit making machines ...
Which are run by mortal human beings which don't all agree on any one issue. Historically, certain kinds of corporations have supported the Democrats and other kinds of corporations have supported the Republicans. Corporations can be neither good or evil, only those that control them can. I have never heard of a corporation that isn't run by people. Your Colossus analogy is faulty.
(....They can always say, "we will go to jail if we try that," or "we'll be fined," or even "we'll get bad publicity,"....)
Corporations ultimately don't say anything, but the people that run them say things using the corporations money. Is there really a difference between a one man private business running a full-page ad for a given candidate that he likes for whatever reasons, or a corporation doing the same thing? Is there a difference between an individual businessman expressing his sentiments or those running a corporation?
It's not the business structure, but the people that control such a business structure, that can be either moral or immoral. The business structure itself, whether a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or corporation has no bearing on morality or criminality.
All theory is gray
Corporations absolutely should not have rights equal to those of humans. Corporations are effectively immortal. Since they cannot be captured, jailed, or put to death they are not subject to criminal law at all. They are only subject to civil law and in many ways even that is limited. In comparison to the way individuals are taxed, corporations are almost exempt from taxes. If a corporation incurs more debt that it can pay it is able to file for bankruptcy and walk away from the debt and any contracts it does not like (say with unions) and often time w/in a year the stockholders have MADE money on the process.
When our country was young people understood how dangerous corporations are to liberty. In fact it was largely in response to the abuses of the British East India Company that our revolution took place. When our country was young corporate charters were issued for limited periods, 10- 40 years; for limited purposes, say to build a rail line and could be easily revoked for violating a law. Corporations could only engage in activities directly related to their charter; could not own property or stock in other corporations; and stockholders were not protected from the liabilities of the corporation. You can see how radically different things are today.
You may be surprised but Adam Smith actually argued against corporations in "The Wealth of Nations" because they drove out competition from individual merchants and artisans. It was not until the railroads gained such power that they were able to get a Supreme Court to declare them "persons" that corporations began their meteoric rise to becoming the dominant world organizations. Now most governments act as proxies for corporations. The US governemnt already does more for the benefit of corporations that that of citizens, now with all restrictions on corporate electioneering removed these incorporeal, immortal, lawless monsters will be able to buy whatever elected position they desire by simply buying up so much propaganda that any truth will be buried in the din.
-- QED
Money is not speech. Money has no argument. It embodies no logic. It says nothing. But, money easily can become votes.
We live in a free market economy, but prohibit buying and selling votes. I cannot legally sell my vote or buy yours. No matter how compelling the offer it cannot be used as an argument to sway my political choices. I can not offer money to a politician to sway positions on issues. That is the very definition of corruption. Money is not reasonable political speech.
Money sways elections. Add more money to a campaign and it wins more votes.
We have a democracy which allows one vote per citizen. Corporations may be persons, but all persons are not citizens. Corporations have no restrictions on foreign ownership or influence. Corporations are foreign persons. They do not have the voting rights of a citizen. They possess fewer political rights than any citizen.
Corporations are granted special legal and financial rights. They have no human moral obligations. They can amass vast fortunes beyond those of an average citizen. They are unlimited in their size and social influence. Their rights need to be tempered to allow their amoral influence to be balanced by the human rights of the citizenry.
Corporations can express their freedom of speech through their corporate channels. They should be allowed unfettered press releases. Their voice cannot be ignored. But, they should be prohibited from buying press to amplify their political voice. Their vast financial resources would overwhelm the public discourse. Let them speak, but don't let them shout.
Extremely well put! The shoe analogy is just precious, and both makes the point brilliantly and gets me flat-out laughing about something that is otherwise shockingly depressing.
*SHOES!* They are like HATS for FEET!
Only in this case, "They are like CORPORATIONS for CHUCKLEHEADS!" Or something.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
If they had passed this months ago, the health care industry would have poured so much money into Martha Coakley's campaign that it would have changed the result of the Massachusetts Senate vote, and allowed the Democrats - fully aligned with their new partners - the health care industry - to shove whatever system they wanted right up your ass.
First, learn what fascism is. Second, learn the history of the progressive movement in America. Third, report back with your findings.
We're getting the best government that money can buy. And who said the US has no state religion? It's the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR, praise the hoard.
They can't force you to pay taxes either, so I suggest you stop. Teabaggers unite! (somewhere far far away)
No, actually, they can. There is a Constitutional Amendment that grants the Congress the power to tax, it allows for income or anything else to be taxed.
This is my sig.
Are you kidding? Mussolini and his buddies defined fascism. Their party was the Fascist Party. They got the name from the fasces, bundled axes and sticks used in ancient Rome as a symbol of state power. To say that fascist Italy wasn't fascist is asinine.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
political parties are irrelevant if they are dwarfed in spending and organization by corporations
hate the current political parties all you want, but at least they are organized along ideological grounds, rather than crass profit-driven interest
its also the death of charismatic politicians. a politician's personality will now be sublimated to his corporate master's pr interests. and they WILL be working for corporate masters, rather than the general public. is there any doubt in your mind about that?
man this sucks so bad. hopefully they can legislate against this fucking retarded supreme court decision
thank you, constitutional fundamentalists. you know, the constitution is a living document, not the goddamn bible. it really does change over time. in fact, it is an unhealthy society that does not alter the constitution's original precepts. the constitution is not something you refer to in the past as some unchangeable entity. it must be questioned, and it must be refined over time: it governs a LIVING society
the founding fathers themselves stood against such unthinking unchanging fundamentalism. the founding fathers would tweak their documents if they were alive today. the founding fathers got so much right, but there is plenty they got wrong and there is plenty the future delivered that they did not address. meanwhile, this low iq anti-judicial activist trend: you don't consider this decision to be judicial activism? judicial activism in the name of NOT changing the constitution is the real enemy, and also reveals the one-sided moronic propaganda against "judicial activism" since ALL interpretation of the constitution is "activism." and of course the fucking constitution is interpreted: the constitution did not directly address campaign spending by corporations. the constitution is not a religious document, you constitutional fundamentalist assholes. i'm looking at you scalia
change is good. not changing is the real enemy of a healthy liberal democracy
man it will take a long time to purge our society of the rot the gw bush presidency infected it with
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sure they did. Not *as* humanity of course, but certain segments of humanity.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
that's just fucked up.
"To stop the terrorists."
The notion that corporations are people came from a lie. Some clerk altered the summary of a case that found (as all the cases before it) that corporations are not people to say that the court case found the opposite. Since then, many people read the summary without reading the whole thing. It cannot be stressed enough: the notion that corporations are people is a legal notion based on a lie. They are not people, and this ruling is yet another transfer of power from US citizens to the hands of large corporations, which is why conservatives and libertarians are defending it.
After all, why deal with all the uncomfortable responsibilities of living in a Democracy when we can just hand all power over to our corporate overlords and let them make all the decisions for us? It worked out so well on Wall Street, didn't it?
The profits belong to the stockholders(or owners in a non-public company) and the corporation represents their interests NOT your interests.
Even if my 401(k) includes some of my employer's stock?
>You are close to the mark, but this is potentially worse than fascism as we have known it. It opens the possibility of an entirely new form of tyranny that the human race has not yet experienced.
I love Slashdot for statements like this. Because McCain-Feingold has been overturned, the U.S. is about to become worse that Stalinist Russia, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Uganda under Idi Amin...It is refreshing to see the imaginative leaps the human imagination can undertake.
Sincerely, Derek
A curious little blog
seriously, you think this is new? that the general public is listened to in anything that matter$? if so then explain the Iraq war and healthcare for starters. strongly opposed by the citizens, strongly against their interests but very favorable to corporate interests. the US has been driven primarily by the paymasters for a very long time, certainly longer than my 50 years. now if the public got _organized_ that might be different, but our corporate media sees to it that that will never happen. if you're angry about this situation, just go shopping:>
look sig is kool
that is to say, heathcare reform strongly _favored_, Iraq war strongly opposed...
look sig is kool
is worse than useless, it aids those who attempt to destroy democracy by you self-neutralizing your own voice for positive change
you agree that money should NOT have an influence in participatory democracy, correct?
then this is the goal you work for, no matter how bad it has been, nor for how long it has been bad. what is true is that this supreme court ruling is a major step back, correct? therefore, you fight against it. you don't, like your unfortunate attitude, accept it as an immovable status quo
life is always a struggle. there is always shenanigans you have to fight against. you only lose when you stop struggling and accept the bullshit. then all that happens is the bullshit gets only worse
now you may have accepted this corruption and rot as the status quo, but i haven't, and neither have a lot us. so if you're not going to help us get $ out of politics, shut up and step aside
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm curious why my original post was modded troll yet this is modded +5 when we said the same thing. Mine was minus an explanation, but it is still true.
Corporations now vote with their dollars directly, and massive ad campaigns, swift boating or otherwise, will have tremendous influence in elections, especially given that the vast majority of voters are low information voters.
Sure, it might not be a 100% match with Fascism of the past, but it is a new form of Fascism replacing heroism/glory with the glory of money making. Money is king.
That same very wealthy candidate could just run themselves instead and you wouldn't utter a peep of protest
I wouldn't? Why would I be any more sanguine about buying your own way into office? If anything that is even worse than someone else doing it. At least with someone else doing it there are two people 'in the loop' as it were, as opposed a single person doing what ever the hell they wanted to.
The whole point of a democracy is having a plurality of points of view providing input on how the government is run. By limiting donations, it forces candidates to seek positions on issues that will provide them with a broad support base. The alternative is basically a plutocracy, where those few with a lot of money to spend gain undue influence over the laws that govern all. How is that a good thing?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
you're not advocating for realism or a superior ideology, your simply voicing your own particular psychological failings. when you accept unacceptable things, like a dog being shocked at random, you're just mentally ill. you CAN change things with a ballot box and we HAVE and we WILL continue to do so. its not 1. accept bullshit, or 2. engage in revolution. jesus what a moron
the lowered expectations that you have accepted in your life do not define my reality, nor the reality of anyone else who isn't broken in spirit like you. you're pathetic, and worse, the whole mass of you and people like you only aid those who need to be routed if this country is to achieve further progress by ceasing to act: dead weight
this world will be made a better place, by people whose spirits are not broken. and we'll do it even if we have endure your whining the whole time
help or shut the fuck up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We've already had many of our fundamental rights stripped away. Your alternative solutions might have worked fifty years ago. It's way too late for that now. The rich have the power, and there's no way to take back that power without first preventing them from wielding it.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Money should not equal speech. I'm sure that equating money with speech is far from the intent of whoever was writing the Constitution.
For example, you'll find many Anarcho-Capitalists being big fans of Singapore, tyrannical as many of their laws might be, because it is a relatively small government (or a very large neighborhood association) where pretty much everyone is there by choice and they are free to leave at any time. A world consisting of thousands of little Singapores [athousandnations.com] (each municipality / county competing with every other) would definitely be an improvement over what we have today - violent empires that have spread themselves "from sea to shining sea" and beyond!
Ah, yes, your choice of any of a thousand tyrannical governments. Is this the promise of Anarcho-Capitalism? Do you think they'd be competing on freedom, or on their ability to make a buck at the expense of the others? What would any of the Singapores care if one decided that in addition to every other crime on the books, now defection was a crime?
I think it's hilarious that in your ideal country the only freedom you have is to leave.
The enemies of Democracy are
What is different about this is that we aren't talking about putting the power of the State in the hands of an individual or group of individuals. We are talking about putting it at the disposal of artificial entities; immortal profit making machines with a capacity for accumulating wealth beyond that of any individual.
I'm looking forward to the Rollerball championships...
Oh, Hi Mr. Coward! Are you still following me? I think that is funny as hell! Sorry I wasn't able to respond to your sad little whining, I was too busy having sex! You know, that thing that happens on the porn you watch in your basement? Not the animal crap you usually watch though, we are talking actually breathing living 100% woman baby, yeah!
So sorry I had better things to do than listen to you cry. How's life in last place? Is it good? Shame that after 16 years the best you can muster is 1.6% huh? Hell you are just barely beating other! Hell craptastic old IE6 is stomping your ass like 2000%! Man, I bet that just twists it in and breaks it off,huh? Question, if your browser is so "special" why is it dead fucking last, just barely beating the "other" column? So is that 'special" as in Olympics?
So please, feel free to drool and rant ALL you want Mr. Coward, although I probably won't notice you until early next week at the earliest. You see, while I have this little bit of time while my baby is sleeping, it won't be long before she wakes up and we can get back to business. What can I say, I wore the little thing out,LOL! Enjoy your hand Mr. Coward, shame that your browser can't even download those porn vids for you, since it has no downloadhelper or iMacros and all, but hey, it's a feature,right?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"The law is what makes it possible for people to remain ethical. " I think what you said is pretty much truth, but I'll add that what you theorize as a possible future result of possible negative actions, has in fact, already happened to us. Corporations are well ''round the bend', lacking ethics simply because they have the resources to believe that the cost of breaking the law is just another cost of doing business. You and I remain ethical because we fear jail, but a corporation can't be jailed, only fined. We remain ethical because we fear a large fine, but corporations never pay a fine, they just extract a bit more from us. Therefore, they are above the law, and it is the law that protects human welfare. As for "life is still good for most of us", I wonder at your definition of good.... (remember the frog in a pot at room temp+3degrees. He's happy now, but the flames just went up a notch!) thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom
working outside it is far worse than all the corporate meddling you can imagine
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it