Let's break out our checkbooks and BUY OURSELVES A COUNTRY!

Robert's Court = $$$

Congress = $$$

Lobbyist = $$$

Heck of a job, Right-wing, activitist, Supreme Court.

We already have the best government that money can buy. Not the best by any means, but certainly the best that money can buy.

I say we end political campaigning all together. Just about every political ad I've ever seen from both sides is either an outright lie or twisting of the facts so far that it might as well be an outright lie. If a person needs a political ad on TV to help them decide who they should vote for then they probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

Should have had the Judges turn out their pockets after they gave the ruling.

Does that include Fox "news"?

To all my Republican Friends, Independents, Undecided Voters, Ron Paul Supporters, and Freedom Loving Americans, Please, please, VOTE a Straight DEMOCRATIC ticket top STOP the REPUBLICANS and MITT ROMNEY from DESTROYING the MIDDLE-CLASS.

That's what "they" want to do. Make AMERICAN into a Two (2) Class Society. Mitt and his Rich 1% percenters who will become obscenely Richer, and the Rest of us working-class heroes and Middle-Class who will be TURNED into SERFS to work Ungodly hours in Mitt's CORPORATIVE SLAVE FACTORIES.

You KNOW I SPEAK the TRUTH. VOTE a Straight DEMOCRATIC ticket come this NOVEMBER 2012. Teach the Republicans a "Lesson", they won't so Forget!

I can say the above, because I was Once a proud Republican, but No longer. "The Line must be drawn Here!"

God Bless You and God Bless the Middle and Working Class.

I'll buy the notion that corporations are people when Texas executes one...

There is no question that corporations have the right to try and buy the government. We also have the right to not buy their products and to vote down their candidates eventually they will stop the effort in futility

So long as the unions can spend, spend, spend, and the media can slant the news to suit their political whims, I see no problem with allowing companies to spend money to get people elected that they prefer. Otherwise, the playing field is completely tilted to the left in terms of money for elections.

You libbies are too funny today. Here we have one decision by the SCOTUS you all do not agree with so it's one moan after the other about the right is going to destroy the country and the SCOTUS is scum, etc. But then jump to the discussiong about the courts decision regarding the Arizona Immigration law and I don't see one liberal on that vine whining about the courts decision. In fact, there are some posters calling the SCOTUS scum on this discussion thread, while praising in on the other.

When a corporation can show up at the ballot box, show it's proper 'ID' and vote, be held accountable for corporate fraud and imprisoned, pay proper taxes instead of 'offshoring' it's profits, be subject to 'death' taxes when the current CEO dies, etc, I would then consider them a 'person'. Until then, I view the entire right wing side of the Supreme Court as traitors to our great nation and beholden to corporate interests and big money.

This SCOTUS has created a situation whereby I am severely restricted, as an individual, in the amount of money I can donate to political campaigns and placed transparency requirements such that I must disclose by full name, date of birth, marital status, current employer and other information.

But if I simply incorporated myself, using "for general purposes and expediency" as the incorporation mission statement, I can donate unlimited amounts to politicians without fear of disclosure.

No wonder Mexican and South American drug cartels are forming PACs to use in laundering money. No wonder the Chinese have become donors to the American political process. The process is broken, and given the current power of corporations (including foreign corporations) over American politics, I don't see how it has any possibility of changing.

STLMike, I didn't read one "libbie" calling the SCOTUS scum. That's the rightwingnut way. I read opposition to the ruling, which, despite efforts by the Reich (oops, my bad, the Right) is allowed in America.

This is not a new concept.

Google corporate personhood. The precedent dates back to the 1800's.

This is the same concept that allows you to sue a corporation.

So, either you can't sue them anymore, OR you have to think for yourself when you see a political ad.

I'm sure I already know what the whining liberal lazy government-wipe-my-arse answer will be.

You guys just can't stand it because for the past 40 years the unions have given 90%+ to Democrats and any other voice has been drown out in the ruckus.

This is truly a level playing field.

What are you afraid of, the grotesquery of far left liberalism will finally be exposed?

Good. About damn time.

Bruce, as soon as corporations are forbidden to be formed at the whim of the labor pool you can compare the rights of unions with the rights of corporations.

STLMike- actually, the supreme court was still wrong in not striking the other part of the law down. racial profiling will, for now, be not only practiced as it is already by many in law enforcement, but actually sanctioned by law. so, actually, i am pretty upset with the supreme court. but i think most liberals feel they take what little victories we can get these days.

Unbelievable. Corporations are not people. Completely unamerican. Completely.

Where are all of the states rights republicans to rail against this decision. Oh I forgot states rights only apply to womens reproductive decisions.

Welcome to the Corporate States of America, where votes are bought and sold to the highest bidder. Elections this year, like so many that came before it are an illusion to keep the masses content - believing that they actually are making a decision that will effect the outcome of the election. Do you like cooperative fascism?

So the Supreme Court ruled, the left relitigated it, the Supreme Court ruled the same way again, and the left still won't accept it as 'settled law' like the libs claim for the rulings that favor them. Hypocrits

It's too bad we don't have a time machine so we could send these right-wingers back to where they would fit right in: Germany in the 1930's. Whenever I read a comment from the radical right calling people 'liberals', I know I must be reading a comment from a millionaire plutocrat, because no normal American could be so out-of-touch with his or her best interests. Or maybe its just some poor soul with no education parroting the Australian viewpoint of Faux news.

Just about every comment from here on up is right on the money....we are no longer the land of the free or home of the brave....we are slaves to those "corporate people" that own us, the politicians and almost everything else.

It is NOW TIME TO START THE REVOLUTION FOLKS!!! before we are all deported by the corporations for being inconsequential to their wants and desires.

Hey, scout.

Why are you so convinced you, or worse the government, know what's in my best interest? Shouldn't I be able to decide that?

Or, are you afraid of having to decide that for yourself, so you want the government deciding everything for you?

Personally, I would prefer to make my own decisions and when I make a bad one, pay the consequences. It's highly unlikely there are many millionaires posting on MSNBC, just a bunch of people who wish they were. There's a not so subtle difference in the posting styles of the people who are understand it's their own responsbility to become a millionaire, and the ones who want the governtment making their decisions for them while confiscating the wealth of the millionaires to "spread around".

Your entire post is a joke. You've Godwined the thread, engaged in typical left-wing stereotyping in the name of being anti-stereotype and whined like a good liberal.

Liberal USED to be something to aspire to. Now, it should be an embarrassment.

Thomas Jefferson says that this nation is screwed...I believe him.

Money equals votes is only true when the public is uneducated. Face it, people, we are getting the leaders we deserve.

"The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.^[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association."

Corporations deserve rights and the right to participate modern day society, but it is not liberal or left-wing to expect they be held to the same standards that actual PEOPLE are held to. Although it is convenient for the court to recognize corporations as persons, large corporations never do time behind bars, can't be tried for murder, and when convicted of a crime, can negotiate a large settlement in terms of $ they must pay to close the case. Now when I can pay my way out of a crime I committed, not admit guilt, and force a court to seal the records while never doing time.....I'll buy that I have equal protection under the law as stated in the 14th Amendment...same as corporations.

Our military is deployed around the globe to protect corporate interests. As if any American boots would be in the Middle East without US Corporations heavily invested in pumping oil. As if we would still be in Afghanistan were it not for the vast mineral riches US Corporations are targeting.

Our government does not work in the best interest of the American people, they work for big donors, special interest groups, and the pocket full of IOU's. Washington is all about corruption and power peddling. Until the American people start voting incumbents out, make no one secure, corporations will always have more influence.

The SCOTUS is beyond a doubt...politically "tilted". To interpret what is a common sense issue such as the Citizens United decision using an obvious far right wing prospective is extremely disturbing to say the least! The Citizen United decision is not only wrong, its illegal. If we ever get a true politically neutral, unbiased SCOTUS...the ruling will be easily overturned. The problem is...I'm not so sure that we will ever return to a pure SCOTUS due to how far right the core Conservatives have moved due to the "Teabagger" influence. Wake up people!! Just sayin! Obama/Biden 2012

STLMIke

The two decisions from SCOTUS are completely "independent of each other. How is right for a police officer to racially profile someone under the suspicion they are an illegal immigrant? Yeah, that's the right thing for us do to in America.

As for this decision from SCOTUS, it's nothing more than a HIGHWAY for people to "BUY America". Corporations/Unions/CHURCHES, etc are NOT people and they should not be allowed to BUY American Leadership in the Political Realm.

Do you not find it disgusting watching our country get SOLD to the highest bidder? I think its time for US voters to check the box on all ballots this year that says:

• NOT FOR SALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"These smartest guys in the room actually decided that spending money is the equivalent of free speech. You might wonder why no one in that smart room stood up and said wait a minute, if money is speech, isn't lack of money lack of speech?" ~ Little Steven (Bruce Springsteen guitarist)

As of today the Supreme Court has handed down the final decision that one person's speech is qulitatively far greater then all others when paid for and that corporate “person hood” has not only all the rights vested in an afforded the individual but now also those of a citizen and more importantly one without restraint. These 5 judicial “anarchists” have so thoroughly embraced constitutional interpretation literally they have likewise assailed and possibly damaged irreparably and irreversibly the intent. To say they have opened the floodgates is a gross understatement - rather they have opened the gates to the city to allow the enemy in! War is coming! Before us is no less then the slaughter of two and half centuries of the American pursuit of idealism. They will kill in earnest honor, altruism, duty to neighbor and community. They will murder patriotism for the more malleable traits of ignorance and jingoism. They will silence all those who question authority and rightfully do so. They will buy and lie until their desired outcome is achieved. They will elevate and institutionalize propaganda with ruthless efficiency - one voice, on all mediums, at all times broadcasting loudly the empty silence of mediocrity and the lie (FOX News has only begun its ascent). In every quarter special interests will be lifted up, fully vested and leveraged to great affect. Truth, impartiality and accuracy will never again be allowed to interfere!. On the horizon and steadily marching lock step towards us an army armed with unlimited “generosity” and billions in bribery’s bent on the complete and absolute elimination of healthy discourse, the death of every last vestige of privacy, dignity and the meaningful impact of one person, one vote, one voice! To a man/woman we will simply be nothing more then consumers, mere statistics to be managed and if needed, without sympathy or regard discarded into the night of a perpetual Human recession (no American Dream here). From the President down and to the last appointee everyone morally dead, bought, sold and accounted for. And rising above all this carnage and what was once our proud Nation held high for all to see - a corporate logo. And in each hand there will rest the coin of a new realm and there upon it will be inscribed with deafening finality “Government of the rich, by the rich for the rich”!

@STLMIke

"You libbies are too funny today. Here we have one decision by the SCOTUS you all do not agree with so it's one moan after the other about the right is going to destroy the country and the SCOTUS is scum, etc"

This is an issue that transcends party politics, the majority of both Republican and Democrat "regular people" want this struck down. The only people who want this to keep going are the corporations buying politicians and the supreme court justices that want to drive us furthur into a plutocracy.

Zathrose, so you are saying that the left is acting just like the right acts when it comes to Roe v Wade. Damn hypocrites.

According to Mucker87 this is a common sense issue, and here I thought it was interpreting the law. No one seems to complain about the Unions spending on candidates that may or may not have support of all their membership. But corporations spending on candidates in the best interest of investors and employees, now that is totally different.

Of course it is okay for corporations to own mainstream news outlets and totally slant their reporting toward the candidate they favor, but allowing corporations to give money is just not right. There is so much hypocrisy in this issue. It all just comes down to who you want to see elected and who you don't, anything that stacks the deck in your favor is fine, right?

Just try voting for the right individuals and forget about the party for a change. Start kicking incumbents out of office. After all how many times do we need to send the same person to Washington to do the same things they promised to do the first time they were elected? Ask yourself why anyone would raise millions and put their life under a microscope if the payoff for being elected wasn't so sweet.

You miss the point Rick, its not that corporations can spend money - its that they can spend unlimited amounts anonymously.

Unions have NEVER been able to do this until citizens united was passed, in fact anyone with a Super PAC can spend any amount they want and they never have to disclose it to anyone.

The issue is that now corporations can buy their candidates outright anonymously (to the rest of the world, but you can bet your life the candidates know) instead of backroom deals and secret meetings with endless lobbying. Now instead of having the illusion of corruption in government we have ensured corruption in government will be the norm.

The one good thing that can come out of this will be Shells court case where they are trying to get out of human rights violations because they are claiming to be a corporation and not a person. Can't have it both ways and unless something dramatic happens, Shell is going to be in a world of doo-doo!

If Scotus give corporations to get the same privileges as people, then people should have the same privileges as corporations in getting the bailout like them before. Scotus should ask the Corporations to BAIL PEOPLE OUT NOW!!since the people were dead broke!

I would not worry about the Republican remarks to much, mostly short on fact, long on rhetoric and indicitive of social status.

The people of the United States who comprehend the issues of the decade need to focus on three things .We need to keep the Senate, take congress, and retain the White house.

By doing this we can change the destruction that the Supreme Court has brought down on our country and we can control right wing looneys.

REPUBLICANS FOR OBAMA,

It's too bad so many people do not really listen to what is going on. They vote like a knee jerk reaction. What you say is so true. The Koch Bros and the obscenely rich are not rich enough yet and they want full control over the rest of us to work for nothing. What kills me, is that they actually come right out and say what they plan on doing and anybody that has eyeballs and ears can see and hear exactly what they plan to do. You don't see the Democrats pushing voter suppression in any way. Once they destroy the middle class, it will be hard to turn things back around. People should be fearful of their evil agenda and not let them get away with it.

Oh goody. In one day the right leaning justices have given permission for states to spend money detaining illegals that are just going to be released by ICE anyway AND allow for more corporations to buy politicians.

Just one more step towards killing the middle class!

It is way past time for the American people to wake up!

Corporate rule? We the Corporations? A government OF, BY, and FOR CORPORATIONS?

It's time for co-ops to spring up like what happened in Texas in 1877! We need to work for ourselvesand buy only what we NEED from each other!

I am voting a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC BALLOT in November b/c the RepubliCON Party is obviously pro-plutocracy. We all need to become very familiar with that word...see dictionary.com:

"

plu·toc·ra·cy

   /pluˈtɒk rə si/ [ploo-tok-ruh-see] noun, plural plu·toc·ra·cies.

1.
the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.

2.
a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.

3.
a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

I just called my local printer to order hundreds of the following bumper sticker:

MY VOTE IS NOT FOR SALE. MY COUNTRY IS NOT FOR SALE.

Very well put Mr. E Nigma...your rebuttal to Rick's comment is spot on. No spending limits and anonymity is the deal breaker...that's what makes this a "common sense" issue. It goes way beyond "interpreting" the law...the SCOTUS is tasked with the Constitutional virtues of the law and how it applies to the citizens of this country...corporations are not citizens. A fair election process should not be a slave to free market. Unlimited resources can and will buy elections in this country...and THAT is the crime!

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

FOR SALE. The Constiuational Government of the United States.

The Government of the United States operated in a fair and open manner untill the Supreme (5 Republican Judges) decided that Corporations were entitled to free speach and therefore could donate any amount of money towards electing a Politicial canidate of their CHOICE.

The five stupid Republican Judges should be impeached for treason. The decision makes no sense to an American Citizen.

This upcoming election could see a total purchase of the Democratic system of Government we enjoyed in the United States.

it will take a very strong indivual to lead the assult against the Supreme Court but it must be done.

I suspect it will take a 2 million person march against the Supreme Court to get their attention. The winner of this falls election should have no effect on this March.

The decision is dumb and has no basis in the Constituation and was an exercise by the Republican Supreme court to put our Democracy up for sale.

Get the scum bags out of the Court.

a defeat for man kind but a huge win for Corporations one step closer to human slavery to the corporations. congratulation you have reinforced the sell out of the american government for futures in the NWO.

Your officially all DIC'S.

Rick-3416939

No one seems to complain about the Unions spending on candidates that may or may not have support of all their membership. But corporations spending on candidates in the best interest of investors and employees, now that is totally different.

Nobody is complaining because it IS totally different. As we saw in Wisconsin, a large number of union employees sided with Scott Walker and the Republicans in the recall election. Many individual UNION MEMBERS who chose Walker, even though it appears to have been against their own self-interest.

Corporations, allowed to spend unlimited amounts of cash, buy votes from the general public by broadcasting any lie they see fit to produce. By the time the election is over, people might realize they've been conned, but by then it's too late. This corporate money is nothing short of a coup against Democracy and I believe it will spell the end of Democracy - not as we know it, but the END of Democracy completely. We will be living under a dictatorship of large corporate executives and the @!$%#ing asswipe "Job Creators" that the MORONS who can't count to twenty using all their fingers and toes decide that the ads must all be true.

We are witnessing a coup. And the 2nd Amendment remedies the Right talks about will all be a pipe dream once the CORPORATE FAR RIGHT TAKES YOUR GUNS AWAY. Why will they do that? Because they will have won and will no longer need your votes. The will do whatever the @!$%# they damned well please. The stupid will have been duped into doing the bidding for the rich; and once again, the stupid will starve like dogs.

Beyond belief? Wait and see, idiots. Just wait and see.

This is just a reaffirmation that Wall Street must be occupied

I am neither on the right wing, nor the left wing. I am a registered Independent, I've voted for more Democrats in my lifetime than Republicans. I abhor social conservatism, I am quite liberal on most social issues. I think fiscal liberalism is grounded in delusion and fantasy, and am fiscally conservative on most issues.

But the whole issue over Citizens United, and the uproar today is far far overblown on the more extreme left side of things.

This has very little to do with corporate 'personhood', and shouldn't any way you look at things. The Constitution is quite clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Corporations are not physically people, but what they are, are organizations of people, individuals, who have come together to work towards a common cause, to produce something of value in order to serve others in exchange for profit.

Even if Corporations do not have legal personhood, you can not prevent a corporation from spending on political speech without preventing the people, the actual individuals, from spending on political speech. And preventing people from spending on political speech is a form of censorship.

What is extremely frustrating is the lefts insistence that you can 'buy elections'. That's been proven to be false, over and over and over again. Yet the myth remains. In 2006 the Republican outspent the Democrats and yet the Democrats won both houses of Congress that year. In 2010 the Democrat outspent the Republicans, and yet the Republicans trounced the Democrats giving them some of the worst losses any party has experienced in over 80 years. If money bought elections, neither of those things would have happened.

I take the stance that the American Civil Liberties Union takes on this. Efforts to curtail political advertising is an affront to the Freedom of Speech, the very concept of this is that it is too dangerous to let people be exposed to political ideas, that they will not be able to hear those ideas and come to a decision on which ideas to believe on their own. That in and of itself is a dangerous attack on liberty.

Political speech should never be censored, it is some of the most important kind of speech out there.

People do not need to be coddled, they can hear all sides of an issue and then make up their own minds at the ballot box.

So, I am sorry to those of you on the left up in arms about this. I can not in good concious support you. Citizens United was the right decision. As is the ruling affirming that decision today.

That is good for liberty. And liberty is good for all of us, and ultimately the nation.

Waaaaaa, we don't have the monopoly on dumping millions of dollars into campaigns (via unions) anymore... Waaaaaaaa!!!

Listen to those Liberals whine... they weren't whining for the eight decades they were buying elections with union money...

Alternate headline:

Supreme Court confirms right of Corporations to corrupt democratic process

Alternate, alternate headline:

Supreme court confirms America for sale to highest bidder

This seals it. Representative Citizen Democracy in America is dead and buried. US law limits the amount of my contributions, as a private citizen, to support candidates who represent my views. But corporations are allowed unlimited spending to outright purchase the government they want. Disgraceful, and un-American.

Our founding fathers are tossing in their graves as the grand Republic which their great intellect, vision and courage brought about, is tossed into the dust bin of history by five men of much lesser intellect, vision and passion for our Citizen Democracy.

George Orwell had it right: all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Substitute "money" for "animals"

My head hurts.

Bruce-308647 Comment collapsed by the community
So long as the unions can spend, spend, spend, and the media can slant the news to suit their political whims, I see no problem with allowing companies to spend money to get people elected that they prefer. Otherwise, the playing field is completely tilted to the left in terms of money for elections.

Bruce, Citizen's United gave unions, the same freedoms to spend unlimited amounts of cash as it did corporations. See, before unions were also limited in the amount it could spend. But, wingnut news won't tell you that aspect of the decision.

JPM, the individuals of a corporation were never retricted in the amount they could donate to political causes.

@ JPM77, What corporations are actually doing, is forcing me the consumer to pay for their political beliefs. They give and give, while at the same time, jack up my monthly bills to buy their belief. It is theft and bribery, and I wish I could go Aaron Burr, on their asses. And some would say then don't support them and use their services. Well I would if they didn't have monopolies in my town. I can't very well go without water, electricity or food, or cable. Could you?

Fed Up-2683606
Waaaaaa, we don't have the monopoly on dumping millions of dollars into campaigns (via unions) anymore... Waaaaaaaa!!!

Listen to those Liberals whine... they weren't whining for the eight decades they were buying elections with union money

Fed, stop drinking the wingnut new koolaid. Citizen's United gave even more freedom to unions to spend money on elections.

The SC(R)OTUS, you know what the "R" stands for, is at it again. The Republicans, in debt to the corporate masters, will maintain this abortion of justice until they are kicked out. Of course because at least four of the in-justices have been installed by the "Federalist Society" which itself is owned by the same group of corporate sponsers now donating anonymously and without limit, expect them to rally the wagons in support of Citizens United. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are all former members of the "society" which it seems is a pre-requisite to being appointed during Republican administrations to the federal bench. Where is the fealty to the Constitution when a "society" of wealthy and corporate corrupters (including the same bad actors we know, the Kochs, Scaife, Murdoch) , dictates what you do and how you rule? This is outrageous on it's face, or high treason depending on which side of the "society" you're on.

Here is the real $hit: Republicans know they are a dying breed, they know people won't vote against their own self interests for much longer? They know they can't control the people so they go after the Judiciary to block and obstruct Democratic change. If they have their way the Constitution will die and Fascism will rule.

The Kangaroos have spoken

raddave unfortunately that is not true. A restriction on the amount a group of individuals that consentually come together as a corporation can spend to put their political message out for public consumption, is inherently a restriction on the amount any individual within that corporation can spend to put out there political message.

You can not restrict a group and not have that restrict the individuals in that groups freedom.

Most of the complaints about this stem from some misunderstanding that is common on the left that corporations are somehow evil, inherently. But they are not. Profit in and of itself is not evil either.

I am no fan of crony capitalism, I argue against it all the time. When certain companies get subsidies as political payoffs and favors, that is corruption. When certain companies are given tax breaks over others as political favors, that is corruption.

We should have a law that treats all equally under that law. When certain companies are treated as 'more equal' than others, we have a problem.

But that has more to do with corruption in the political process than it does with the corporations themselves. Corporations are not evil entities simply by existing. Some may, under the guidance of immoral people act immorally, and we do need law in place to protect people against such actions by making them illegal and thus prosecutable so that anyone wronged by such actions can find justice.

But many others are just fine, providing a good or service to those who want to willingly trade their earnings to them for that good in mutually beneficial trade, in a fair market and in fair competition with its competitors.

But simply allowing more political speech to hit the airwaves, the internet, the t.v. or radio, or cable, satellite, or whatever... that's not a bad thing. The more information that is out there the better decisions people can make as they will have more information at their fingertips with which to make informed decisions.

I just can not see that as a corruption of the political process.

Companies directly buying votes via lobbyists and lobbying? That I do not condone.

But spending on campaign ads, in a Democratic Constitutional Republic that is still elected by We the People... that is not wrong, and it is imperative that we allow it as a fundamental matter of Free Speech.

(American) Democracy can now be defined as A government by the people rich of the people rich for the people rich ....

Gee, Gunga, are all of those union members buying all of those votes all rich people too?

JPM:

Sincere thanks for a small oasis of intelligence in a barren desert of ignorance!

Why are comments like those at #1.11 and 1.22 suppressed? They haven't violated any rule of the Vine except the unwritten rule that any view not consistent with that of the liberal rulers of the Vine will be collapsed.

How is this censorship of opinion different from book-burning? Shameful to see this in a free society. Don't let your partisanship blind you from respecting the right of all to think for themselves even if they don't reach the conclusion you demand.

Get your own money (by legal means) and do what you like with it. Your picaresque attacks are mere childish envy.

Spider

Unions = The working class people of this country for example you ......

Corporations = Some rich man who is not YOU .....who will never be you...

Think carefully what you are saying and what you are supporting ....

I am not in a union. I am not a coproration.

I have invested in my future with some success.

Would you try to limit how I spend it?

This phony argument that the Citizens United ruling levels the playing field so that the corps have equal representation against the unions in BS. Unions are so weak in this country they might as well not even exist.Less than 11% of Americans now belong to unions. The next idiotic argument from the right is that George Soros is spending more than the Koch brothers, here is the facts on that damned lie:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle---koch-brothers.html

Citizen's United gave even more freedom to unions to spend money on elections.

Gee, wonder why the Republicans have been hell bent on destroying unions since 2010? Could it be that since Citizens United, they could not only force the workers to work for peanuts, but also have the vast majority of campaign spending available so that we could no longer do something about it?

AMERICA - The greatest silent auction in world history!

To all of you cheering the Citizen's United, ask yourselves a few questions:

Why exactly are you cheering the decision, is it because you feel it is a constitutional right or is it because your side benefits from it? Is it really a win when it gives a huge advantage to those with money? Now the liberals will have to court the big business the way the conservatives do in order to have a chance at being elected. Will it still be a win when you have little say in elections anymore?

Aside from giving your side a political advantage, what exactly is it you won? Does it make America better or stronger? Does it help the individual have equal power in government the way the founding fathers envisioned it or does it give more power to those with more money?

To me it's like a sports team. The team with the most money can buy the best players and benefit from the money while the other side has a huge disadvantage. The fans of the teams that benefit are ecstatic, until they see how unfair the system is. People in sports were wise enough to see that it ruins the integrity of the game and so they put caps on salaries to even it out. Too bad SCOTUS hasn't figured out the same thing.

I cheer the decision because it is a win for freedom of speech and individual liberty, nothing more nothing less. I loathe censorship. I see that people can hear arguments on different sides of issues and can make their own decisions at the ballot box, and while I do not always like the outcome, I believe in Democracy.

And I have no side. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats really represent me, I find some things to like and abhor about both. Enough I refuse to join either, though I will vote for either if the candidate is good enough.

And yes, I think a win for freedom of speech makes this nation stronger.

With all due respect, I barely see it being freedom of speech, and I certainly don't see it as individual liberty, in fact quite the opposite. That's the point. I too believe in freedom of speech. If an individual wants to buy some time and say what they want to say, I'm all for it. But having a corporation put out an ad, which isn't even factual usually (and that goes for both sides) to me isn't freedom of speech and certainly is not promoting individual liberty. It is clearly buying elections. If people were smart enough to vote based on clear facts, that would be different. But we know people go by what they see the most (which is why the expensive ads for junk are so successful). This gives a clear advantage to whomever can put out more ads. Money is buying elections. Before, politicians had to woo the voters in order to win. Now they just have to woo the big money.

DJ-422465

When a corporation can show up at the ballot box, show it's proper 'ID' and vote, be held accountable for corporate fraud and imprisoned, pay proper taxes instead of 'offshoring' it's profits, be subject to 'death' taxes when the current CEO dies, etc, I would then consider them a 'person'. Until then, I view the entire right wing side of the Supreme Court as traitors to our great nation and beholden to corporate interests and big money.

Great post... repeated here for emphasis!

What makes us human is what makes us reserved in our behavior. We feel guilt, shame, anger, pride, love, empathy, and a host of other feelings that shape our behavior and drive most to be respectful, truthful, and fair in our interaction with others.

Corporations have no heart, just a drive for profits. They have no shame, they only withhold lies if they are illegal or a risk to profits. Empathy? None. A corporate board would say and do many things each member would never do as humans.

Add to that the proven brainwashing tactics of the Rovian political hate machine and an asinine and right wing influenced SCOTUS decision, and you have the perfect environment for a shameless lying hate machine made of infinite money and power... EXACTLY what our forefathers envisioned, right?

Many never liked the influence peddling of Unions... this is Unions on steroids.

People are able to hear different arguments and make up their minds on the merits. You can't truly 'buy' elections. There are plenty of elections, recent history comes to mind - Republicans outspent Democrats in 2006 and Democrats outspent Republicans in 2010 and the side that spent less money won both - that show electoral success is not directly tied to the money being spent by either side. And it is certainly a matter of freedom of speech, campaign laws prior to Citizens United prohibited groups of individuals consentually together as corporations from spending on campaign ads, and that restricted those individuals abilities to speak freely through mediums of their choice on matters of politics. It was censorship, plain and simple.

To me, and maybe I'm wrong, but freedom of speech is where someone has something to say, a strong opinion, about whatever subject. That should never be taken away and, yes, it does make America stronger. But These ads are just that, ads. And to me, advertising doesn't fall under freedom of speech. Ads are regulated. For instance, you can't make an ad saying jellybeans cure cancer. Yet political ads are also trying to sell something, but can be as untruthful as they want. That, to me, doesn't fall under the same protections and needs some sort of regulation.

To LA99999-

Very well put. I was going to write a little thing, but it probably would have been rather forgettable. You asked a series of thought provoking questions like a journalist might.

And to those who claim that unions can give as much money to the Democrats as they please, well, you aren't being realistic. Any one billionaire could give more than all the unions put together. And we have lots of billionaires ready to jump in and buy the elections.

Politicians are called politicians because they make policy. That's why those who are able to contribute mega-bucks make the huge political donations the way they do - to buy the policy-makers (politicians) and instruct them to enact legislation that will help them accumulate even more wealth. And that often means the little guy gets screwed.

So, LA99999, I hope your paragraph makes people, especially the conservative TV viewers and radio listeners, pay a little closer attention. The fact of the matter is, this election will be by far the most important election in my lifetime (I'm 64). If we get it wrong, I fear we're heading toward being a one-party state - a state with no meaningful opposition. History is full of examples of what happens when a country becomes a one-party state.

JPM77

I cheer the decision because it is a win for freedom of speech and individual liberty, nothing more nothing less. I loathe censorship. I see that people can hear arguments on different sides of issues and can make their own decisions at the ballot box, and while I do not always like the outcome, I believe in Democracy.

Huge difference between voicing an opinion with near equal strength and opportunity as the rest. Imagine a business meeting where one person gets to yell and then repeat their message over and over until they beat you into submission. THAT is what this is.

Tell me how limits to political spending restrict any rights whatsoever. Tell me how exposing donors and how much they donated to a message is not similar in nature to our right to face our accusers?

JPM, I appreciate the debate, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. If it were a matter of each side being able to state their true opinion, I'd have no problem with it. The more honest information out there the better chance we have of making improvements. But when they can go on and sput lies, hate, fear-mongering, etc it can't be good. Is it free speech for your neighbor to go on local TV and say that you hate dogs and you beat your spouse? I liken it to that. It's not free speech, it's advertising with no regulations.

There are both strong liberal and conservative media outlets in existence, getting one sides message out is not a problem.

What I observe is that typically the side that doesn't like the results after people have heard their side and still decided against it just complains that they were drowned out instead of going back and examining the weakness of their own arguments. And that goes for both liberals and conservatives, on various issues.

I don't know that requiring people to truthfully report how much they spent is an abridgment of freedoms. I could see there being room for reasonable legislation that would require anyone making donations in a Citizens United world where they are not restricted for having to report the exact amounts given.

But I would never support anything that restricts speech. If anything we need more of it, from all sides.

Thanks Russell, I appreciate the kind words.

I just hope others give it some serious thought.

LA99999 I can agree to disagree, your arguments were respectful and did not devolve into cheap name calling or demonization, something that happens too frequently here despite the moderators, and for that I thank you.

Traitors.

The great American experiment has ended.

So begins the next dark age.

Way to go supreme court of IDIOTS...since corporations are people too, do they then lose their right to incorporate for protection....someone that sues a corporation, under the citizens united ruling it seems to me, should be allowed to sue the company, and each individual that has ties to that company, ie: employees, customers, stockholders, etc, or do they have the protections from a lawsuit individually even though they are cosidered people too....it seems to me they now have it both ways and benefit from these rulings with no consequences in either case....I think it might be time to get back in the streets and demand our rights from the money grabbing sellouts, low wages serfdom, and benefit lagging, elite corporations and people in positions of power and wealth, the congress, and most of all the supreme court of idiots, that do nothing to better this country now, and it seems won't in the future!!

I just don't understand this phenomenon at all ...what is up with all them righties man ?

It's like they have consumed some potion that is forcing them to be suicidal ....

What the hell ......

Is their hatred for the negro in office so intense that they are ready to smite their own interest to cater to those who promise to get rid of him ?

Un freaking believable ....

This is VERY sad. If rightwingers think state's rights are more important than corporate rights, they should join Democrats against Citizen's United and against Mitt "Corporations are people" Romney and additional appointments of radical justices to the SCOTUS.

Don't watch tv sell ur radios and don't look at billboards.

Politics is an industry. Your buying it whether you want to admit it or not.

Lobby by petition only.
Referendum vote on the confidence of Congress. If nay they all go.

Pick a party

It is your government it is not thee government
Scotus, Potus, and Congress work for you, they are you?

Hey Big Sky Country! Kind af a slap in the face eh? So you're gonna let them eastern folks push you guys around. Again? On this? (Citizens United) Wow ... The education system sucks there too eh. Well ... you guys don't have a hair on your collective you know whats, if you do not FIGHT and help us strike down this OBVIOUSLY unhonorable republican law. Citizens united" is flat corrupt and EVERYONE knows it. Fight damnit!

Zathrose, so you are saying that the left is acting just like the right acts when it comes to Roe v Wade. Damn hypocrites.

AH, another dumb ass liberal sticks his foot in his mouth. Roe V Wade is the quintessential example of the hypocracy of the left when it comes to their 'settled law' hypocracy and 'no one is allowed to relititgate that' stance. Thanks for bringing up that shining example to illustrate my point. Couldn't have done better myself.

Thanks for your ideological spewage Pragmatictoafault - and thank you once again for validating the second rule of the internet - i.e. a poster willl always post the exact opppostite of their name implies e.g. SOmeone callled rationalBob will post "President Obama is training an army of muslim spider monkeys to sneak down white people's chimneys on christmas eve to steal their guns." THis post willl be seconded by someone calledl ITHINKforMYSELF. I'd post more but I've got a hot date with a corporation and want to loook my best. ciao

JPM77

Corporations are not physically people, but what they are, are organizations of people, individuals, who have come together to work towards a common cause, to produce something of value in order to serve others in exchange for profit.

When one person, or a board of persons, is acting as a single voice for an organization, then there is incentive by those who get a paycheck from the group to follow along with the views of those who sign the paychecks; be they union or corporate.

When this kind of leveraged influence, whether from the right or the left, goes unchecked, then there is the potential that monopoly will follow.

But the fundamental difference here, between big corporations and big unions, is that if a big union goes under, the void will not be filled by a smaller replacement union; it will simply disappear. But if a big corporation goes under, there will be another corporation to fill the void, to replace the jobs for a lower wage; and no protection for the employee from corporate leverage over the size of that wage, benefits, etc.

Unions protect workers; Corporations protect profits. Profits may grow by 200% while jobs grow by 2%. Profits are not wages and profits do not translate efficiently to jobs or job creation.

I am not ignorant about that which I speak; I am the president of a successful corporation, and though I have too few employees and pay too well to need union oversight, I know what's best for America. And what is best does not include corporate control of America and her people.

JPM77

Corporations are not physically people, but what they are, are organizations of people, individuals, who have come together to work towards a common cause, to produce something of value in order to serve others in exchange for profit.

People join corporations as workers primarily for wages not causes. There is absolutely no implication that workers are aligned politically with corporate boards or CEOs.

The masses of people who work for corporations are responsible for the corporate profit. Without workers, corporations cannot earn money. These same workers have absolutely no say whatsoever over how corporate money is spent on political campaigns.

Your above logic is utter nonsense.

TooMany - I am glad you said this; I was just about to post it myself. I have had numerous jobs where my bosses were much more conservative than I, and I would not approve of them giving company profits that I helped generate to campaigns I disagree with.

Sorrry for my typo fillled post of yesterday. What I was trying to say is that I don't seee any reason why anyone but a billlionaire would be happpy about something that subverts our political process even further than it is. The masssive infusion of money willl go to propaganda which defintely has proven efffecive in gettting the fdim witrttted to vote a certian way. THis, by my way of thinking is a bad thing. What is required is some campaign finance laws that reallly work.

Well, Starlane, you're close. Five out of nine of the Supremes are "tools."

Welcome to the United Corporations of America/United States of Corporate America. This will be the greatest third world country soon, say goodbye to the middle class. It's time to move to a country with common sense.

If you don't agree then go to Sen. Bernie Sander's website and sign the petition to reverse Citizens United. Time for a constitutional amendment to cap and equalize all financial donations/spending on political campaigning for all candidates. Time to level the playing field and put more emphasis on the substance instead of the rhetoric.

Capitalism IS feudalism. It's just dressed up in modern attire.

Mussolini's wet dream of the merger of government and business has come to pass right here in the United States, assisted by the very people who are supposed to be upholding and defending our Constitution.

We need to create horizontal, rather than vertical, power structures.

@Mary,

If you use the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election spending as a guide, any such Constitutional amendment would be opposed by truly massive spending by individuals whose name will never be disclosed. In Wisconsin, the recall advocates were out-spent by 12-to-1 (8-to-1) in ads alone. Granted that the GOP has a major loss as well as the defeat of the recall, in that Walker is now a lame duck who no longer has a majority in the state senate and has created so much ill will that he is legislative history already, relegated mostly to K-Mart store openings and rubber chicken banquets.

My guess is that any Constitutional amendment movement would be outspent by 30-40-to-1 on the national level and 12-20-to-1 on the state level. With Citizens United in place, there is almost no way to overturn or reverse Citizen's United. Catch-22.

Sadly, it's not the beginning, just another nail in the coffin of what almost was once a Democracy.

Oligarchy (whereas political power is completely controlled by a small number of very wealthy) has been in full force for the past 30 years. We're just finally starting to see some of its real effects. The poster child that the vast bulk of Republicans and most Democrats have been pushing is the "privatization" of what used to be non-profit organizations. Wars for profit, prisons for profit, hospitals for profit, these are just the beginning of how ugly it will get. As more of your children go kill and die for the profit of a very select few or go to jail for long stretches due to any one of the thousands of new laws written every year, frequently for very insignificant or trivial reasons, or are denied some skyrocketing pricy health care procedure because their insurance or other finances are inadequate you can thank the privatization movement.

The current educational fiascoes around the country are another industry the profiteers are taking over. They cut funding, it doesn't work when it really needs to and they say "Aha! See! It doesn't work!" And funding is cut more or the program is eliminated completely, and the services are taken over by a private company FOR A HIGHER PRICE AND POORER PERFORMANCE. TAXES DON'T GO DOWN THEY GO UP. IT ENDS UP COSTING MORE, ISN'T AS GOOD AND NOBODY "WINS" EXCEPT THE SUPER RICH IN CHARGE.

The Privatization movement will one day be looked at with the same disdain as Fascism was after the world saw it in action in 1930'S AND 40'S Germany. I just hope America doesn't collapse before the public stops listening to propaganda disguised as stupid, meaningless sound bites and empty, idiotic fluff that the "news" outlets release. But then again, the masses have never been wise or educated. Oligarchy is not possible when the average person is thoughtful and caring about their fellow persons. It can only happen in a self absorbed, greedy populace. So do you think this will turn around? I hope my fears are exaggerated cynicism, not a continual growth of what is happening now.

Looks like the middle class, States rights, individual freedom, and the free enterprise system is down the drain even faster than I ever expected. I'm beginning to wonder if I should prepare may funeral arrangements so I am ready when health care gets rationed.

Public campaign funding only would make citizens united moot.

My guess is that any Constitutional amendment movement would be outspent by 30-40-to-1 on the national level and 12-20-to-1 on the state level. With Citizens United in place, there is almost no way to overturn or reverse Citizen's United.

Exactly, it is scary how the supreme court's decision has put in place the destruction of our democracy.

Gird your loins people, these %$#@&s are coming for us.

The difference between this ruling and the Arizona ruling, which all those right wing false equivalency blitherers conveniently and dishonestly deliberately ignore, is that this was yet another of those 5:4 naked partisan split, whereas the Arizona ruling was bipartisan. With Kagan recused, the 5:3 vote occurred with 2 of the conservative justices voting against Arizona.

One of these is a clearly partisan political decision. The other one clearly is not.

What, no outrage over Obama saying initially that he was going to take public money in the 08 elections, then backpeddling and out spending McCain 2 to 1??? Dodd, Frank, and Obama are the three biggest recipients of Wall St campaign money... what a bunch of Progressive hypocrits....

The Wisconsin recall advocates were only outspent if you start counting from an arbitrary date in order to make it look distorted.

If you count the year long money spent by the Unions and Democrats on the entire recall, instead of conveniently just from the date that Barrett won his primary, then the money raised and spent on both sides was about equal. And if you count the free airtime and articles that is the equivalent worth of millions upon millions that the recall effort got from sites like MSNBC here, or the New York Times, and all of the other left leaning news and media organizations, then there is no doubt that the recall advocates had every bit as much 'money' behind them as did the recall opponents.

Stop deluding yourself.

And in case it matters, I'm not a Republican. I'm extremely socially liberal. I just have to call this as I see it.

so I am ready when health care gets rationed.

don't worry, if the insurance companies have their way, they will ration your health care using the corporate death panel option of "pre-existing condition".

if you've ever been sick for any reason, you don't get health care unless you are a millionaire and can pay for it yourself, and you don't get health insurance at all.

the republican health care plan, if you are poor, go crawl under a rock and die

What, no outrage over Obama saying initially that he was going to take public money in the 08 elections,

well gee fedup, that is just as stupid as blaming bush.

try to get on topic and in the present instead of pulling up stupid bullspit from the past that has no relevance

for those that are crowing about how wonderful it is for foreigners to screw our political system with foreign, unreported money and claiming how wonderful it is for billionaires and corporations (and yes, unions) to corrupt or democracy with their money. you are all fools

we need to limit ALL political contributions by individuals to $1000. that includes said corporations, unions, billionaires, etc. we also need to eliminate these hidden, super-pacs entirely.

nobody should be able to give more than $1000 dollars to political campaigns in any given year

Iseeconfusedpeople, anyone should be free to speak their mind, including buying air time, publishing in print, or whatever else... freely on matter of politics or anything else. To try to limit that is a blatant attempt to curtail free speech rights and censor some people simply because you don't like the speech they engage in.

Fed Up-2683606

What, no outrage over Obama saying initially that he was going to take public money in the 08 elections, then backpeddling and out spending McCain 2 to 1??? Dodd, Frank, and Obama are the three biggest recipients of Wall St campaign money... what a bunch of Progressive hypocrits....

Another Republican lie. Why don't you tell us how corporations buying our elections is good for us too? Break unions, repeal minimum wage; I wonder when the wealthy will enact "Prima Nocta? I believe I see torches and pitchforks in our future.

"New campaign finance data released late Tuesday reveals in stark monetary terms just how little love there is left for Barack Obama on Wall Street.

Wall Street dollars now favor Republican candidates over the president by more than a 5 to 1 margin, with the majority going to Mitt Romney, whose ties to the financial sector date back to his time at private equity powerhouse Bain Capital."

jpm, and why should those that have enormous amonts of money have more free speech than I do? because that is exactly what you are saying, that the wealthy deserve more free speech than the rest of us

jpm, i agree that anyone should be able to speak their mind, I vehemently disagree that the rich should be able to drown out all other voices, which is what you are promoting.

all deserve an equal voice, not only the wealthy

The constitution spells out the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, all other powers are reserved for the states. That does NOT say a state can overrule what is constitutional federal law.

The first Amendment is federal law. In what universe should a state disallow free speech? Only room temperature IQ liberals would see no problem with that.

I think we all (left, right and center) understand what the 1st admendement says. The problem we have with this descision is that we don't believe a previous ruling that corporations are people. They don't vote (yet) and they have an incredible amout of influence over the media. Furthermore, many of us don't believe Jefferson (and others) ever intended upon these copration rights.

So it isn't a matter of liberal or conservative - it is a human right.

They're just pissed because the unions no longer have the monopoly.

It will be interesting to see, when both (twisted) sides get told, where we net out.

The unions have been manipulating and distorting, now it's the people who actually provide the jobs the union whiners demand turn to mangle the truth.

In the end, there will be no "truth", but at least lies can be told by everyone now.

And the liberals HATE IT.

The only reason states have to abide by the 1st Amendment, or any of the first 8 amendments, is due to the 14th Amendment. The Founders never wanted the first 8 Amendments to apply to the states. In fact, the 3rd Amendment still doesn't apply to the states and neither does your right to a jury trial.

So, in what world could a state disallow free speech? I guess the world of the Founders since it wasn't until the 1930s (I believe) that Incorporation Doctrine came about (even though the 14th Amendment was 1865) and the amendments started to be applied to the states.

But let's remember something here, Valhalla Phil, the principle you have stated is the same principle that led to the Prop 8 decision in CA. I heard a lot of Republicans, including Sarah Palin, declaring it to be "judicial tyranny." Maybe it's not "room temperature IQ liberals" that don't understand this but uniformed people.

yeah, those unions are a whopping 7% of the workforce....oh please, only a lukewarm righty would believe that unions have that much power.

PragmaticToAFault: I think you are missing the point of the article. You say ".....now its the people who actually provide the jobs...." the Corporate structure is the Gorilla in the room here......NOT the PEOPLE. The Corporation is on the same level a the Union. The Unions are a corporation in themselves. The difference is the Corporations have no allegiance to anyone but themselves and the top 1% of the country that are CEOs and Boards. The Unions at least tried to represent the people.....maybe not very well but I don't think we are ready to go back to sweatshops voluntarily. The Corporations have moved their production lines to countries where sweatshops are allowed so we don't have them here, etc.

Why does everyone keep deflecting with "unions"? The problem here is corporate power via campaign spending. It's a problem that will effect us all whether you like unions or not. It's like the doc telling you that your dying of stomach cancer and you argue that he said you were overweight when last you saw him. It makes no sense and the problem at hand is remaining unsolved. This country is more and more becoming an oligarchy and the process has to be stopped! This easily crosses party lines!

Diana - Totally and completely false choice between right to work, and sweatshops. There is a vast middle ground in between, and it's covered almost entirely by codified labor laws, both federal and state. When unions contribute 90+% of their money to Democrats, and spend a hundred billion to elect Obama, who in turn blindly support unions, something is wrong. I can agree it's equally wrong to have corporations doing it.

Here is a rare occasion where I would completely support a government takeover - of the election process. Taxpayer funded, with stringent and harshly enforced limits on spending for EVERYONE - no more choosing to be Federally funded, until you realize you can raise more like OBAMA DID. But until that happens, unbridled first amendment is the way to go.

mtGIRL - you're not worth responding to. Luke warm righty. Ooooooo, what a burn. Not.

I believe that everyone is focusing on the wrong issue. Why is it that we fear corps. donating to campaigns? Because they have much deeper pockets than the average American and can influence election outcomes. I don't have a problem with corps. donating as long as their donation is limited to an amount in line with what the rest of the "people" in America donate. In short, contribution limits, say $100, for everyone including just one contribution for corps, including PAC's. That would be easier to achieve and would also level the playing field.

@PragmaticToAFault #3.7, Good to read your common-sense posts again !

Where have you been ? Expect your posts to ALL be collapsed, however, since the liberals are only OPEN to ideas that agree with their own !

Yes, the playing field is has now been leveled and they cannot stand it !!

I can tell you all one thing for sure. The Media is right there in bed with this too. Do you really think that they don't love making all of that money on campaign ads? In fact the more ads and more expensive ads would be right up their alley. I guess that is if you are willing to believe that the Liberal media is in it for the money too.

I am so amazed to see even a few comments on here supporting Citizens United. Wow, I guess those of you who support this are completely OK with letting corporations speak for you and determining the outcome of each election. I think the few of you who support this are only OK with it because the corporations currently support your right wing agenda. Just wait until they are supporting the issues you are against...we'll see who is crying then!

Hey, Jim. I've been lurking, but just haven't had the energy to respond to the moonbats and got sick of the "Fox news, Koch brothers, Bush did it worse/first" blah blah blah blah.

None of them has an original thought in their heads, and yes, collapse everything that doesn't toe their dogmatic line.

Thought I'd wade in again on this, since I studied the topic in one my law classes.

As usual, the truth is beyond them.

SALLY - Why do you make the leap from a corporation paying to run an ad, whatever it may say, and them "speaking for" you?

Do you NOT understand that no matter WHO paid for an ad, you are free to disagree with the content?

Why do you need to have your hand held by the government?

Did you have an objection when the unions and the left were allowed to spend as much as they wanted, but corporations could not?

Don't bother responding, I already know the answer.

Prag,

All Sally is saying is she can't resist those ads those corporations will pay for. You know subliminal messages and all. She is powerless against any ad payed for with "that kind of money". But those weak ads payed for by Labor Union money just really are doing it for her. Having to sit there and differentiate and figure out who is paying for what ad might make her head explode. Sad. I am shedding a tear.

Jim, why is it the playing field wasn't level before? The way it was, the people had equal power. You can argue that the left had an advantage because of unions, but why was that the case? Could it be because unions are made up of working people and the Democrats hugely favor the working people? If not, why do you think they overwhelmingly support Democrats? And if that is the case, why didn't the Republicans try to do something for the working people? Maybe that would have leveled the playing field without having to bring in the big guns. Now neither side will give a damn about the working people.

If the 20th Century teaches us anything it's that PROAGANDA WORKS. Propaganda pushed a modern technologtical society to try to extermininate their best citizens becuae of the mania of one person. That makes this important. It's sad but true. Repeat anything oiften enough and people will believe it. There are astdill people who thhink Obama is from Kenya. It's tooo bad propaganda is so efffective but becasue it is there have to be limits on how much corporations get to control the message that readches people. As a lefty I'm interested in this because pthe most effecive propaganda. How someone can think alllowing corporations to control our electroal process is a goood thing is beyond me. I've yet to read a single cohernet argument in favor other than "THe unions do it THe unions do it." WHich is just slightly worse than saying "Bush DIdid it Bush did it."

inmissouri u got that right.

Not likely -- It hasn't helped with Congress. I am afraid the system is so corrupt at this point that term limits will have no real affect.

Congress needs their own term limits. They may have a specific length of a term, but get voted in over and over just because they're what people are used to (or because they're better at bad-mouthing the competition). I'd say 12 years combined house/senate would be a good max. Again, clean out corporate-owned pains in the ****.

Congressional term limits were declared unconstitutional long ago. The constitution lays out all the requirements that can be on congress members (and Supreme Court justices for those who think Kagan isn't constitutionally qualified). Neither state nor federal government can impose more restrictions or requirements that are in the constitution. If you want limits you have to get an amendment.

Unfortunately you have the same problem with limits as you do with campaign finance reform. The people that profit from it are the ones that decide whether to change it. I'll go out on a limb here and say it won't ever happen. Campaign finance reform has support of 80% of Americans (last poll I saw) but still isn't even getting talked about. Face it, our leaders get rewarded for not caring.

Congress wouldn't even make their insider trading illegal.

Couldn't agree more.

You'll need a Constitutional Amendment for that one.... fortunately the founding fathers were light years smarter than you...

TANK CARSON, your words will be the first uttered when "slaves" rise against the "machine". The right wing element in this "court" has accomplished what no other country has been able to do, KILL US FROM INSIDE. We need to rid ourselves of these TRAITORS, but they have the best protection OUR MONEY CAN BUY. One thing is certain, when they close their eyes for the last time they will remember exactly what JUDAS felt. They will have our best of everything until then but they are still human, and every humans life ends, some peacefully, some violently, some in peace and SOME IN PAIN. These 5 WILL BE IN PAIN.

ray4ausa - We all know where this is headed...torches and pitchforks. Just a matter of time now.

Ol Doc- I hope we can solve things without that, but if it happens I won't be surprised.

zero. Next.

Phil there is no other way that they could have come to that stupid decision otherwise.....

Not in cash but in perks? Wine and dine with DC's finest! A little speaker's income perhaps? There are ways you know!

Or their spouses could be hired by corporations at really nice salaries. *cough* Justice Thomas *cough*

Thomas should be disbarred for a number of reasons.

Corporations have been treated like people in that they have been taxed like people. To deny a corporation speech rights would amount to taxation without representation, which was the major gripe upon which our country was founded.

If you are of the mind that corporations should be exempt from all forms of taxation, then yeah they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. But since I suspect that is not what you had in mind, the SCOTUS made the right call with regard to Citizen's United.

Paul, corporations are NOT taxed like people. They barely pay anything, a pittance, and you know it.

Wrong! The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate (35%) in the industrialized world.

ExxonMobil in 2011 made $27.3 billion in cash payments for income taxes. Chevron paid $17 billion and ConocoPhillips $10.6 billion. And not only were these the highest amounts in absolute terms, when compared with the rest of the 25 most profitable U.S. companies, they also had the highest effective tax rates. Exxon’s tax rate was 42.9%, Chevron’s was 48.3% and Conoco’s was 41.5%. That’s even higher than the 35% U.S. federal statutory rate.

But that is beside the point. My point is that corporations ARE taxed like people and should be entitled to have their interests represented in congress the same way that all other individuals' interests are represented; by being permitted the same free speech rights that other individuals enjoy. Again, if you are willing to forego the tax revenue I mentioned in paragraph one, then by all means pursue a reversal of the Citizen's United decision.

When individual people can get the tax breaks that corporations do and pay as little as 18% instead of the 35% of federal taxes that individual people have to pay then maybe they can be treated like poeple. But they don't pay 35%. You can say they are taxed the same but the numbers don't add up. And what about the subsidies we give to them? Just handing them free money. They aren't in dire need of that money. It takes money to make money and if they don't have enough to do business on their own without taking subsidies then maybe they shouldn't be in business and a business that can live within their means should take over.

So which one of them do you represent, Paul? You're either an owner, high on the corporate ladder or inherited a bunch of family money. Which is it?

Paul-2314271 - Corporations have been treated like people in that they have been taxed like people. To deny a corporation speech rights would amount to taxation without representation, which was the major gripe upon which our country was founded.

If they want to be treated like people then they should go to war, bare children and when guilty of knowingly causing death...be executed!
They've got a lot of catching up to do!

World.idiocracy-

Thank you for agreeing that the time is now. No one pays 35% taxes.
The highest tax braket IS 36.7% for those making above $388,350 per year, and... they're taking deductions. You know... on their residence(s), investments, children, retirement funding, healthcare costs, etc. Those evil 1%er's are not paying their fair share!! What gall, using accountants and subsidies for solar panels to lower their effective tax rates!

Meanwhile, half of all Americans pay no taxes whatsoever (that 1.85% tax rate includes penalties and dead people). The next 25% pay 5.58%, which, on average, is close to zero when you take out (again, the penalties and dead people).
So I hereby deplore your call that 75% of all Americans be disenfranchised for not paying taxes! :->

All data from Taxfoundation.org, as cited in Forbes magazine. Click "View the data in PDF" and see table #1.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Believe the days of the oligarchy have gone. We have become a nation ruled by the corporations. Would that be a corporatocracy?

More liberal lies. Your propaganda is irrelevant, get over it.

2010, Scott Walker, San Jose, San Diego, etc. can't you take a hint?

I think the Supreme Court had to rule this way even if they didn't want to. The Montana law is governed by Federal law.

I don't like it, but this was the correct, albeit not right, decision.

Our hopes now lie with a constitutional amendment led by Bernie Sanders.

Remove the two spaces I had to add to get the text to come through.

http:// sanders.senate .gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c

Valhalla Phil

2010, Scott Walker, San Jose, San Diego, etc. can't you take a hint?

can you hear the distant thunder phil...

The "Fruit" company

Well... by that logic you should start by not paying your local taxes, since they go to various teacher, firefighter, police and other public-sector UNIONS that throw money into elections all the time.

Then you shouldn't buy most American made cars, nor drive on any roads... oh, and don't buy food at most supermarkets, as the majority of them are unionized too.

I buy Subarus made in America by non-union American workers and only shop at the local market which is non-union. IN reality your post was very childish simply because you buy from Corporations every day, despite your pretend politics.

Well, that's just peachy!

Ever think of where the profits for that car go?

I wish people would look up the historical changes that the unions have created before they complain about all of the harm they are doing to our country. The only harm they are creating is to the major corporations who don't want to pay a living wage to their employees. You think the public servents are the ones bleeding this system dry? How dare they ask for a decent wage, healthcare and retirement? How dare they make a 40 hour work week!

When unions back a political power it is on behalf of a lot of people retaining rights... not to be compared with a corporation looking solely to improve on the bottom line profits for a very few.

I am proud to buy anything made by American Union members!

Their robes could have patches like the Nascar racers!!! Same with congress and senate!!!

Corporate Sponsor Patches for the "Justices".... Brilliant!

And president! :<) Read the book "Bought and paid for"

John Wayne Gacey played a clown and entertained children. He also killed a few. But hey he was a nice guy right? Shouldn't that excuse his abhorrent behaviour?

Unions USED to do good things for it's members. Now they have become a cancer on society. Past good behaviour does not excuse current abhorrent behaviour.

Unions used to do good things. How about right now, right to work! Going wages right now $8.00, unlimited hours and no overtime pay, AND no benefits such as health insurance. We are there! Look for a job in Montana and see what is available and check out the the pay and benefits. And thanks a lot by the way!

Phil, yes and you, maybe, used to have a brain and a conscience. Tool

Mark from Bridgeport

Well... by that logic you should start by not paying your local taxes, since they go to various teacher, firefighter, police and other public-sector UNIONS that throw money into elections all the time.

Do you honestly believe vilifying teachers, firefighters and public employees is a winning strategy?
...can you hear the distant thunder Mark?

Ol_Doc: If you call "vilification" to complain about workers being able to work for 20 years, retire on a 90% pension (driven up by over-time during the last 3 years) WITH "disability", get another job while collecting the first pension and work THAT for a few more years, retire AGAIN on that 90% pension (driven up by over-time during the last 3 years), then get a THIRD job while collecting the first two pensions and work THAT for a few more years, retire on a THIRD 90% pension (driven up by over-time during the last 3 years), and then keep collecting all 3 pensions before the age of 65... AND all of the while not having put a cent into their healthcare nor these bloated pensions, then call me a villian.

24 retirees made more than Governor Malloy in 2010, and 378 retired state workers got $100,000+ as well. And that's not counting the 169 cities & towns!

http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2011/04/24-retirees-make-more-than-governor/

The North Marianas Islands and Stockton, CA have already declared bankrupcy due to these sweet-heart union deals, and it's just the beginning.

Yes, I can hear unions imploding all over the country as people wake up and realize their taxes are being stolen!

Corporations have one stream of revenue, their customers. When you stick it to them they just raise prices to cover the difference. GM happens when they don't cover their costs.

So when you stick it to corps you stick it to yourself. Worse yet, corporate costs are highly regressive. If you force Shell to raise prices $1/gal the poor get hit the worst, while Soros, Gore, Rush, etc. could care less.

If you really cared about the poor you would elimiate all corporate taxes.

Phil, you're assuming all corperations have customers. Some, like Bain Capital, only have partners and those partners want nothing more than to make more money for themselves by selling off the assets of a company and then closing the doors. Who benefits from that, and what regress do those employees have? Oh, right! They can still go out and find one of the many jobs that are available in the workplace! Yeah, there shouldn't be anyone waiting there because the corperations have been keeping everyone so well employed. Corperate greed is killing this democracy and you are supporting it. Thanks Phil! What a pal!

Phil, which corporation do you own anyway?

Careful.... You'll bring out the "Birthers" again ;-)

Agree, if you want the rights of a 'person', you get the responsibilites too. Starting with the CEO.

They do have a birth certificate, it's called the articles of incorporation and it's on file with the government. Nice try.

Time for a Constitutional Amendment defining the word "person". My suggestion

"We the people, expressly define "persons" as living beings. Further, we expressly state that all rights pertaining to voting and political speech are expressly reserved for the exclusive use of individuals who have, or have the expectation of being able to cast a ballot in a Federal or State election."

VAL

So... Microsoft can run for President?

You must be one of those TOOLs that makes under 200K and still eat the Republican line.

Look up the word "entity", Tired-of-it. It may be too big of a concept for you to handle, but "entity" would be a more meaningful description that POSSIBLY you could understand.

By the way, corporations have been making donations for many decades .... and it is part of the reason Obama was elected. In the past, corporations could not deduct those political contributions for tax purposes... not sure about now.

@Fly

"We the people, expressly define "persons" as living beings"

So, you're anti-abortion, then?

Just an observation.

Republicans keep pushing a Personhood Amendment which defines life at fertilization. Democrats should counter with one that defines personhood as a living, breathing organism that has been expelled from it's mother's uterus.

...yes unions and corporations are composed of people....and every single one of them has the right to free speech and to contribute to politcal campaigns.

...so can you tell me who exactly was having their free speech "abridged" before the Citizens United ruling?

Corporate executives? No, they had the right to "political" speech just like everyone else

Union bosses? No, they had the right to donate money to politicians before this ruling.

If this ruling was overturned, name ONE SINGLE PERSON who would no longer have the right to donate to politicians? ONE, JUST ONE.

Doesn't say "people"

It's in the BILL OF RIGHTS, which are INDIVDUAL rights of PEOPLE.

Does Exxon now have the "Right to Bear Arms"?

The natural persons who are in the corporations and unions already have first amendment rights. There is no need to give those rights to the corporations and unions as they are not natural persons.

If you look at the nature and purpose of corporations, they are much more like a machine than a person. Both corporations and machines are created, controlled, and owned by persons for the purpose of performing a certain function. Under the law a person cannot own another person, so corporations cannot be persons.

Individually they have that right.....

Sam: So groups of people can't engage in speech, they have to do it as individuals?

If corporations can't do it, can we say the same about non-profits?

PETA is not a person. So can the government tell them their not allowed to give money in a collective fund and spend it on speech? Because, after all, each individual member of PETA would still have those rights.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Having groups aggregating funds has lead us to the current situation, which I'm not happy about. Limiting political contributions to individuals sounds just fine.

WOW..we really do have to go to the ballot box this November and vote for every Democrat on each of our ballots no matter what state you live in. We need to get these crazy bible thumping, ignorant, old white haired bigoted numbnuts out of our government. If not, we will become the next third world country. And for now practice telling your kids...great news....I got you a job in the slavery department at GE... I never could imagine in my lifetime I would see people voting against their own self-interest. It's like everyone on the right has become like sheep being lead to slaughter.

How are corporations composed of people? They are business entities that are filed as corporations so that the people owning them can't be held personally liable. You are confusing corporations with co-operations I guess!

Semantics 101:

Neither corporations nor unions are "composed of people," unlike, say, Soylent Green - each is composed of the cumulative cultural legitimacy each has been granted by society at large. The moment society opts to culturally classify them alongside fairies, unicorns & manticores, their operative composition as powerful institutions will evaporate.

What is occurring in reality is that the United States Supreme Court, having granted an economic abstraction identical legal standing to a living human being, is now both reifying & compounding that error in other laws such as Citizens United... & enforcing that error by striking down a law in Montana that attempted to re-assert elementary reality into the judiciary system.

It is very difficult to treat or cure mental illness when its victims profit from it.

argumentativebutfair
If corporations can't do it, can we say the same about non-profits?

PETA is not a person. So can the government tell them their not allowed to give money in a collective fund and spend it on speech? Because, after all, each individual member of PETA would still have those rights.

No problem. Let's limit the amount of money Exon-Mobile can contribute to the amount PETA contributes.

I repeat. Its government by lawyers for lawyers and lawyers can be purchased.

Questions. Is all these corporate funds being poured in to politicians considered cost of doing business and is tax deductible?

Not the first time the SCOTUS decided to meddle in an election, is it? (See Florida 2000).

The POTUS does not support the SCOTUS"S view on this issue - how is this "giving him one?" To me it is simply fair warnin to all...SCOTUS is saying WE are the real power in this country. WE will endure long after you are gone. Abandone hope all that come to us for justice. It shall not be.

More liberal lies. It was the Florida supremes that meddled in the election by trying to violate their own constitution. SCOTUS gave them a good hiding for that.

SCOTUS gave Obama a nod on the AZ case, and they will hammer him on the mandate.

Only idiot liberals think the supreme court is a popularity contest. They have one job, determine if a law adheres to the constitution. States have all the rights not enumerated in the constitution, it's the constitution that says so.

However, the 1st amendment IS in the constitution, therefore states do not have the power to void that. Do you really want a state to determine who gets free speech?

I guess liberals and critical thinking don't mix.

Hello pot.

Jonathan, it is because as my Screen name state People are Fresh Out Of Give A S___T. plain and simple. We have watched unbelievable things over the past ten years AND not just the government,...Sports, Education, Civil Rights, Hell you name it we've Seen it...and can only come to one common conclusion...we are all FOOGAS.

So you're saying the current President is responsible for the people nominated to the SC by previous presidents. So much for the conservative notion of personal responsibility. Now it seems to be, "You're responsible for messing up your life. You're also responsible for messing up MY life."

Not just term limits but we should be able to remove them immediately if they are found to have taken one f'ing dime from any special interests (uber-rich SOB or corporation) to vote a certain way on anything.

Sorry, corporations can go to prison, Madoff isn't the first and won't be the last.

Liberals have seen to it there is no moral responsibility for individuals, why should corporations be any different? If anything corps are more responsible than individuals.

Unions cannot have their say while corporations are muzzled, YOU can't have it both ways!

Valhalla Phil...plz stop posting !! You really are proving everyone else's point. Basically the right is just a hate and fear mongering vehicle that wants this country to fail as long as the wealthy and corporations walk away with all the marbles.

Thank you Angry.

Angry at #18.2, I am finding it hard to see any logic to your post. If he is PROVING EVERYONE"S POINT, then you should welcome his posts !

The only hate and fear mongering I see are by the lefties who have let their imaginations go wild. You are "liberal" for hearing other opinions, but ONLY AS LONG as those opinions agree with yours.

Look up "entity" and expand your knowledge a little.

It is you that are spewing hate, and Montana cannot usurp the 1st amendment. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

It is Obama and democrats that want the US to fail. They inherited 4.6% unemployment when they took over congress. Now we've had a record 40 months over 8% with no end in sight and $1.3 trillion deficits year after year with no end in sight.

Wrong Phil. You're acting like Obama is responsible for this economic decline. You intentionally left out the mess W left with two wars and no way to pay for them. You talk about personal responsibility yet how many bankers went to prison for ruining our economy? How many conservatives admitted it was their deregulation that causes so many problems?

And guess what, unions are being muzzled while corporations are being handed megaphones yet you insist on not having it both ways. Look up "hyprocracy" and learn something.

It's not liberals who want to destroy this country, it's conservatives who are activly doing it so they can blame Obama then seize power for themselves.

True that. Montana needs to rethink its conservative bias.

Montana can't usurp the 1st amendment, sorry.

Dear Jean. Could be that Montana is dam tired of their rights being given to a bunch of Mexicans. Not Americans but Mexicans.

VAL (tool)

Free Speech is no longer free.

Tired-of-it, Is that why you tried to shut him up ? Hypocrite !

Bob - the patches are already there....it's just the "transparency" thing that prevents them from being seen.....

@Kristina as someone who lives in Montana it is difficult to get a job in Canada. I have been trying for 5 years. I tell my son all the time that when he graduates from college to get a job somewhere else..preferrably Canada or somewhere with universal healthcare and a decent standard of living.

I know some Americans living here in Denmark who were able to get jobs easily enough because of their education, they just had to learn Danish while they are here. Another thing I dont understand about the states, if you dont protect even your language your future is pretty bleak.

We were just in Vancover on our way back from Alaska........you make a good point. Intelligent leadership and a beautiful city; love your health care system. "Oh Canada...."

NOT SO NEWS FLASH

African News Network has reported, a coalition of Nigerian Doctors and Somali Fisheries have formed a PAC to protect their "interests" in American politics.

Campaign finance desparetly needs reform. That is a whole can of worms and this case is just one worm.

Like the dispute between Pres. Jackson and the SCOTUS? Good historical case. Look it up.

That's where I got the "let them enforce" line.

In fact, this strikes me as an excellent strategy.

The USSC has rarely (if ever) had so little credibility as right now.

Equality & human rights should not be distributed on a pay-to-play basis.

Actually Horace Greely said that decades later, but Jackson never did. Mr. Greely probably got the sentiment right though.