Supreme Court Provides For Corporate Takeover of Nation

The recent precedent-shattering decision of the court gives corporations the power to rule the country. The decision, alledgedly based on the right of free speech, has been embraced by Republican leaders as a step in the right direction.

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/last-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-a-step-towards-corporate-communism-2010-01-23.html

The recent precedent-shattering decision of the court gives corporations the power to rule the country. The decision, alledgedly based on the right of free speech, has been embraced by Republican leaders as a step in the right direction.

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/last-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-a-step-towards-corporate-communism-2010-01-23.html

LAMENT

I choose to CHEER, and be cheerful, in the traditional America.

Quote:

I choose to CHEER, and be cheerful, in the traditional America.

Dave would like a return to the gilded age when no government services to the betterment of our welfare were available. Only the very rich survived to old age and all the rest were merely tools of the industrial robbers.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

I choose to CHEER, and be cheerful, in the traditional America.

Dave would like a return to the gilded age when no government services to the betterment of our welfare were available. Only the very rich survived to old age and all the rest were merely tools of the industrial robbers.

Looks that way.

The recent precedent-shattering decision of the court gives corporations the power to rule the country. The decision, alledgedly based on the right of free speech, has been embraced by Republican leaders as a step in the right direction.

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/last-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-a-step-towards-corporate-communism-2010-01-23.html

Does this ruling essentially mean that corporations have the same rights as individuals?

It's apparently the end of Abe Lincoln's dream of a government
of the people, for the people and by the people.

This -- along with such travesties as the Dred Scott decison

and the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson -- is one of the most shameful decisions
the Supremes have ever come out with.
I am ashamed and embarrased for my country.

David, it's sad, but your senility gets worse and worse each day.

Advocate wrote:

The recent precedent-shattering decision of the court gives corporations the power to rule the country. The decision, alledgedly based on the right of free speech, has been embraced by Republican leaders as a step in the right direction.

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/last-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-a-step-towards-corporate-communism-2010-01-23.html

Does this ruling essentially mean that corporations have the same rights as individuals?

Yes, basically! Corporations and unions were deemed to have the same rights as individuals do to mount a campaign for a candidate or an issue. The court said their spending money is tantamount to speech under the first amendment.

Advocate wrote:

Yes, basically! Corporations and unions were deemed to have the same rights as individuals do
to mount a campaign for a candidate or an issue. The court said their spending money
is tantamount to speech under the first amendment.

You and Thomas seem to have different answers to this question.

If a corporation is now considered to have the same rights as an individual,
then doesn't it logically follow that they should be able to vote in elections, like an individual?

The court said their spending money is tantamount to speech under the first amendment.

If a corporation is now considered to have the same rights as an individual, then doesn't it logically follow that they should be able to vote in elections, like an individual?

(a) Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shallmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy"it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people"political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain

preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in thepolitical speech context, the Government may impose restrictions oncertain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion. Pp. 20"25.