Northwest Indiana Discussion

So the subjugation of individual rights in order to further the corporate elite is alright in your opinion? Basically we are legalizing the ability of corporations to buy the election. Individual interests be damned. Government sold to the highest bidder.

Horseshit.

The Supreme Court ruling did no such thing.

If you don't know what the ruling was about, what it said, or what it means then go play in the sandbox with splorks and hatemonger540 because this is way over your head too.

Simple fact of the matter is that at no time is more freedom a bad thing.

That is what the Supreme Court ruling was about and it is a good thing for America.

Thanks for playing.....

Horseshit.

The Supreme Court ruling did no such thing.

If you don't know what the ruling was about, what it said, or what it means then go play in the sandbox with splorks and hatemonger540 because this is way over your head too.

Simple fact of the matter is that at no time is more freedom a bad thing.

That is what the Supreme Court ruling was about and it is a good thing for America.

Thanks for playing.....

we would be better off if we allowed everyone the freedom to practice medicine,practice law,fly an airliner or drive a car because more freedom is never a bad thing. What a stupid tool! [/b]

Hey Baring Parkway Fats,

I don't know about flying an airliner, but you do the other stuff all the time--or so you'd have us believe. You're not the highest frequency oscillator on the PTP board, are you?

Here's a few points I found. And I agree this is not a good thing at all.

Millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from the maker of “New Order” fashions, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

You think these politicians are corrupt now, wait until they have to return the favors for all this money

That's not the way it works, mrbsmom.

You have been misinformed (and mislead) as to what the Supreme Court ruling was and what it means.

The ruling handed down by the Supreme Court is a triumph for the American way and for free speech in general. Life is not supposed to be an "even playing field" and anyone who tries to tell you different is a probably Democrat and most likely trying to exert influence and power in order to benifit themselves.



No question that they are corrupt now but this Supreme Court ruling allows some of that corruption to be countered. This is a very good ruling by the Supreme Court and a good thing for America.

Federal election law has long prohibited any foreign national from directly or indirectly making “an independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.” And the Supreme Court’s ruling does not explicitly address the issue of foreign corporations. However, in his dissent in Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens cautioned that the decision “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Some legal observers fear the ruling would open up the floodgates for any corporation operating in the United States, no matter who owns them. J. Gerald Hebert, executive director and director of litigation at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, told the Center for Public Integrity that the existing prohibition on foreign involvement does not refer to foreign controlled domestic corporations. “With the corporate campaign expenditure ban now being declared unconstitutional, domestic corporations controlled by foreign governments or other foreign entities are free to spend money to elect or defeat federal candidates,” he believes.

Other observers are not so sure. Stephen Spaulding, a law fellow at Common Cause, believes that in the absence of any explicit Supreme Court comment on this area, the issue of foreign-owned corporations spending on federal campaigns is “still an open door question.” He adds, “it may very well be a new path in campaign finance litigation.”

The Federal Election Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Even if the Supreme Court, the FEC, or Congress decide that the right of corporations to engage in electioneering does not apply to foreign-owned corporations, with significant foreign investment in even American-based companies, it could prove quite difficult to determine who may spend and who may not.

Perhaps the most chilling portions of the majority opinion involved their persistent references to corporate "free speech". A corporation is a legal fiction, a government-created entity that otherwise cannot exist in reality. It can't walk, talk, think, or act. Only its representatives can do that, in the forms of boards of directors, management, etc. In other words, when a corporation "speaks" (freely or not), it doesn't actually utter a sound. Instead, one of its leaders does the speaking...an individual.

In short, the Court extends the absurd myth that corporations are persons by granting them speech rights that cannot truly exist in collectives, because collectives are not living, sentient beings.

As most readers know, the freedom movement has a heavily conservative component. The Court's decision makes crystal clear the foolishness of leaning so heavily to the right. It basically puts the mythical "rights" of corporations ahead of the real-world rights of individuals, a completely wrongheaded viewpoint. Rightfully, corporations should have no rights beyond the individual rights of its members, while individual rights should be sacrosanct. The conservative court essentially reversed this priority, by parading group rights as sacrosanct and stomping on individual rights.

Freedom advocates should pause and take note. Those who call themselves conservative should be very wary of this decision. Those who think the freedom movement should ally itself with conservatism should realize that this Court decision is actually a defeat of freedom, because the individual lost while the corporation gained. So long as the prohibitions of McCain-Feingold remain in place again individuals, this decision will more and more firmly ensconse itself as a thumb-of-the-nose toward individual rights.

The real loser in this decision is not Democrats, but any chance of a 3rd party. The playing field is wrongly tilted in favor of the status quo. Any candidate that is willing to go against the corporate elites is going to get crushed.

I really hate to say this but Sparks(ouch that hurt) and Mattlap are right. Here's a few points I found. And I agree this is not a good thing at all.

Millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from the maker of “New Order” fashions, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation. But under the Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias. The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to “mega-corporations” owned by foreign governments.

So it’s not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs.

You think these politicians are corrupt now, wait until they have to return the favors for all this money.

Nice post. This Supreme court ruling paves the way for the Chinese to start buying our politicians the way they are buying our companies.

The Supreme Court Protected Us On Thursday

By John Lott
- FOXNews.com

The Supreme Court did America a service when it tackled campaign finance this week.

Do you want government regulating what movies can be shown to the public? Do you want the government determining what movies can be advertised? Or what books can be sold? Well, the Obama administration actually argued for these regulations before the Supreme Court in defending campaign finance regulations. Actually, they went even further and said that such regulations were essential to limiting how much money is spent on political campaigns.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed. On Thursday, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down a law that had been used to stop the advertising or showing of "Hillary: The Movie" during the 2008 presidential campaign. No one doubts that the movie was critical of Hillary Clinton and that its release was timed precisely to hurt her presidential campaign. What the court couldn't abide was letting the government decide when a movie crossed the line and became too political. The ruling eliminates bans that corporations and unions have faced in trying to influence elections 30 days before a primary election or nominating convention, or within 60 days before a general election.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/ ... -feingold/

Nonsense.

The ruling by the Supreme Court does no such thing.