Supreme Court - corporations can now buy candidates

DPrival78

here's something to make us all feel warm and fuzzy...

Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, a major turnaround that threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative majority crafted a narrow overhaul of federal campaign spending Thursday that could have an immediate effect on next year's congressional midterm elections.

full story: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/ ... index.html

Pepe Silvia

i read this a little while ago....what a crock of shit! talk about going backwards

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... ?ref=fpblg

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Campaign-Finance Provision
Zachary Roth | January 21, 2010, 10:10AM

In a ruling that has major implications for how elections are funded, the Supreme Court has struck down a key campaign-finance restriction that bars corporations and unions from pouring money into political ads.

The long-awaited 5-4 ruling, in the Citizens United v. FEC case, presents advocates of regulation with a major challenge in limiting the flow of corporate money into campaigns, and potentially opens the door for unrestricted amounts of corporate money to flow into American politics.

In the case at issue, Citizens United (CU), a conservative advocacy group, was challenging a ruling by the FEC that barred it from airing a negative movie about Hillary Clinton. CU received corporate donations and the movie advocated the defeat of a political candidate within 60 days of an election. CU argued that the FEC ruling violated its freedom of speech, and that the relevant provision of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional.

The court overruled a 1990 decision that found that government can stop corporations from spending money on ads that urge the election or defeat of a candidate. It's rare for the Supreme Court to overturn a precedent arrived at so recently.

The five conservative judges -- Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, ruled for Citizens United. The four liberal judges -- Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor, made up the minority.

Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog calls the decision "a small revolution in campaign finance law."

At the heart of the ruling, now available here (pdf), is a judgment by the Court that the law cannot distinguish between corporations and individuals in prohibiting speech - so free speech rights that apply to the latter must also apply to the former. Kennedy writes for the majority:

Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter's special advantages of e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may "have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas." Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) warned last week that if the court found unconstitutional all efforts to ban corporations and unions from financing political ads, it would take the country "not just back to a pre-McCain-Feingold era, but back to the era of the robber barons in the 19th century."

We'll have more information on the court's decision, and its potential ramifications, shortly...

Late Update: In a particularly hard-hitting quote, the good-government group Public Citizen declares:

Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500
is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Today, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.

Godfather.

this has been going on for years, just now nobody will be arrested for doing it
just wait till obama runs again $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Godfather.

Anon

The thread title is misleading because unions like the SEIU can do the same exact thing.

dpmay

yeah, this is bullshit.

corporations (and unions too) are not people, they should not have the same legal rights as people.

it's especially disturbing that this has been couched in 'free speech' terms, like corporations deserve the same free speech rights that persons do. they're not persons!

g under p

Nothing new here, CORPORATIONS are the entity that really runs this country.

Peace

gimmesometruth27

this is bad, really bad....another nail in the coffin....this is the beginning of fascism...

i guess its nothing new actually, except now corporations have the same rights as human fucking beings..

TriumphantAngel

g under p wrote:

Nothing new here, CORPORATIONS are the entity that really runs this country.

Peace

right.

Corporations have already been given the rights of immortal persons.

a wise man told us that years ago. i guess some of you never listened.

norm

g under p wrote:

Nothing new here, CORPORATIONS are the entity that really runs this country.

Peace

But we didn't need the supreme court's approval of it


We are truly fucked

g under p

norm wrote:

g under p wrote:

Nothing new here, CORPORATIONS are the entity that really runs this country.

Peace

But we didn't need the supreme court's approval of it


We are truly fucked

That is true but if you thought an outlandish amount of money was given in the last Presidential election just wait till the next one. It'll be a race to see who or which side will give the most money. Then whomever wins will have to play follow the leader to those corporate influences.

We WILL be truly fucked.

Peace

whatsgoingon

While I think this was a great law thats not how the supreme court is supposed to rule so if they find the law unconstitutional you need to do it right way and amend the constitution. But all this really goes back to main problem is that we now have career politicians which was never intended by our founding fathers. Since it is currently unrealistic to not have career politicians we probably need some sort of control on how much individuals or corporations can contribute to a candidate. However how do you tell an individual or corporation they can't buy an advertisement for a particular candidate without trending on freedom of speech? I probably should read why the majority voted this way but I think that question had to come to mind. This is one of those common sense laws that seems like a no-brainer at first but in order to protect our freedoms we may have to live with this.

gimmesometruth27

how can anybody beleive that business entities such as corporations deserve the same freedom of speech as a person? it does not make any sense. corporations should not be able to match or exceed every dollar donated by every citizen to help a candidate get elected. if they are allowed to do that then what the hell is the point of a private citizen donating money in the first place? what would have happened if for example a candidate raised $40 million in private donations and then a corporation donates not only $40 million to the opponent, but an additional $40 million on top of that?? that candidate is already bought and sold and beholden to that corporation's interests because that corporation got him elected and now OWNS that politician..if that politician does not act the way the corporation wants, then that is $80 million dollars they will lose when they run for re-election.

this is another example of why the american people are fucked, and how once again the 5 "conservative" justices on the court, the same 5 that vote the same way every fucking time are in favor of big business and could care less about the people.

something has to be done, either ammend the constitution, or even better, add and appoint 2 more justices to the supreme court. the adding of justices has happened in the past, and that is one way that the president and congress can say "we are not going to put up with this bullshit any longer!!"

whatsgoingon

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

how can anybody beleive that business entities such as corporations deserve the same freedom of speech as a person? ...........................

...........something has to be done, either ammend the constitution, or even better, add and appoint 2 more justices to the supreme court. the adding of justices has happened in the past, and that is one way that the president and congress can say "we are not going to put up with this bullshit any longer!!"

The first thing I want to say is that I believe the supreme court is saying if you want this law, then amend the constitution however, that is very difficult.

I would agree we need laws to separate business from government but there is nothing in the constitutional that I know of that allows this to happen. If we do that it could have rippling effects throughout the economy because questions need to answered like can the government enforce price controls, give farmers subsidies, give grants to various drug companies, and what about awarding defense contracts. Somehow all that would need to be worked out. I think that would curve the lobbying that has run rampant in Washington these days.

The biggest issue with the Supreme court is these guys can serve forever and while they might have the plus of the country when they are appointed but after 30 years later they have not progressed/digressed with the rest of the country. That increases pressure from the president to appoint younger people so their party servers longer doesn't help either. I would be in favor of saying they can server 1 15-20 year term and are not allowed to hold political office higher then mayor after they are done.

puremagic

What the United States Supreme Court of America did was to create the NEW THIRD PARTY of GOVERNMENT which allow both foreign and domestic corporations to openingly pimp potential candidates. No more Jack Abramoff prosecutions. No more Watergate scandals. Our Supreme Court just made all these former criminal activities legal. The biggest WTF is that political campaign contributions are tax deductible. These corporations will walk away with millions in tax-free income.

Brown is the first. Republicans think he is their man, he's not. He was brought in by the Insurance industry to make sure that any health care bill was either favorable to them or killed. Don't be alarmed, the corporations don't want to change the Democrat/Republican two party system, when they now have the power to openingly and legally manipulate the outcome of any legislative bill. You think our representatives and senators were PAC whores before, they've now just been reduced to crack whores selling their legislative votes for scrap to the highest bidding corporation.

Pepe Silvia

puremagic wrote:

What the United States Supreme Court of America did was to create the NEW THIRD PARTY of GOVERNMENT which allow both foreign and domestic corporations to openingly pimp potential candidates. No more Jack Abramoff prosecutions. No more Watergate scandals. Our Supreme Court just made all these former criminal activities legal. The biggest WTF is that political campaign contributions are tax deductible. These corporations will walk away with millions in tax-free income.

Brown is the first. Republicans think he is their man, he's not. He was brought in by the Insurance industry to make sure that any health care bill was either favorable to them or killed. Don't be alarmed, the corporations don't want to change the Democrat/Republican two party system, when they now have the power to openingly and legally manipulate the outcome of any legislative bill. You think our representatives and senators were PAC whores before, they've now just been reduced to crack whores selling their legislative votes for scrap to the highest bidding corporation.

great post

Anon

Once again unions like the SEIU that heavily backed Obama have the same rules. It isn't just the GOP that stands to gain.

gimmesometruth27

JB811 wrote:

Once again unions like the SEIU that heavily backed Obama have the same rules. It isn't just the GOP that stands to gain.

nobody said they were the only ones going to gain. if you raise 30 million in provate donations, yet a corporation gives you 50 million, who are you beholden to? the public? no way, you are beholding to whoever is giving you the most campaign cash.. the corporations stand to gain. they can give millions to candidates tax free. so much for grassroots..... i thought our representation was bought and sold years ago, and like the old saying goes, "we ain't seen nothin' yet"....

puremagic

JB811 wrote:

Once again unions like the SEIU that heavily backed Obama have the same rules. It isn't just the GOP that stands to gain.

Your missing the overall impact of this decision. Let's take the SEIU as an example. How powerful do you think this organization is now that corporations like Walmart, Target, Cargill, JBT, Tyson, Hilton, Marriot can openingly support hand picked candidates to do their legislative bidding?

What difference does SEIU votes make if corporations can openingly bank roll candidates for their support to start or stop any legislative bill? These corporations now have the ability to manipulate or break these unions, including the all powerful police unions, through legislative bills, even at the local levels where it is most vulnerable. These unions can't compete with energy, pharmaceutical, banking, and insurance mega corporations bankrolling a candidate.

This decision isn't about whether there is a Democrat or Republican president, its about who they put in Congress. Who they seat on a Judge's bench. Who they put on city councils. They now have free rein to manipulate the people who you elect to supposedly pass laws to make your life better. That concept was just flushed by this Supreme Court decision.

This is not a Republican or Democrat victory, it is a defeat for the American public who somehow continue to hope that their voice is heard when they actually elect a candidate to office.

norm

puremagic wrote:

This is not a Republican or Democrat victory, it is a defeat for the American public who somehow continue to hope that their voice is heard when they actually elect a candidate to office.

exactly!

markin ball

This is the issue of our time and a revolution of political mindset is in order. We the people need to only support candidates that do not accept large corporate financing.

gimmesometruth27

markin ball wrote:

This is the issue of our time and a revolution of political mindset is in order. We the people need to only support candidates that do not accept large corporate financing.

if they don't have large corporate financing they aren't going to be winning any election. a hypothetical example...candidate A raises 50 million from grass roots sources, candidate B gets 90 million from ge and exxon mobile and xe, and halliburton. who is gonna win the election??

Anon

If someone is going to vote they should research candidates before making a decision, regardless of party.

Now I know it is hard for some of you to believe but the current POTUS had some pretty unfair media bias in his corner this last election. Did Fox give Obama as much airtime as McCain? Probably not. But did CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any other media outlet give McCain the amount of airtime as Obama? I doubt it.

As much as some of you hate to admit it this is a First Amendment victory, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Let's not even pretend for one second this last Presidential election came down to the issues either. Maybe it did for a minority, wait poor choice of a word, maybe it did for a smaller group but those of us who researched our candidates and didn't fall for the media hype were making our choice on actual information and facts.

Elections should start coming up with a qualification to vote, maybe a simple math test or spelling. Instead we have people who vote by the color of one's skin and who MTV tells them to vote for.

Anon

Another thing about the media forcing certain candidates down our throats...

Let's take a simple debate before the primaries, I'll use the GOP at the Reagan library for example. The questions went back and forth to Romney and McCain like they were the only ones there. Yet there were three or four other guys there. So who decides they don't get airtime? The media? Each candidate should have to answer the same questions, each candidate should get the same amount of airtime to voice their plans.

g under p

With this decision we won't have to worry anymore where a potential president was born. A corporate influence from outside this country with enough money can now elect a president. These corporations have plenty of ready cash (EXXON) than any amount grassroot citizens can donate to a presidential race. In fact it's a waste, I wouldn't give a dime nor should anyone else, just let the corporations pick who they want, why bother even to vote. This is one of the worse Supreme Court decisions ever, the end of the world is certainly possible in 2012. Even somebody like Sarah Palin could be backed with enough corporate money, the thought of that alone is just too scary.

Watch it here...In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending

AMY GOODMAN: We begin our show today looking at yesterday’s landmark Supreme Court ruling that will allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates.


In a five-to-four decision, the Court overturned century-old restrictions on corporations, unions and other interest groups from using their vast treasuries to advocate for a specific candidate. The conservative members of the Court ruled corporations have First Amendment rights and that the government cannot impose restrictions on their political speech.


Writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy described existing campaign finance laws as a form of censorship that have had a, quote, “substantial, nationwide chilling effect” on political speech.


In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens described the decision as a radical departure in the law. Stevens wrote, quote, “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.” Stevens went on to write, quote, “It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.”


To talk more about this ruling, we’re joined by Jamin Raskin. He’s a professor of constitutional law at American University and a Maryland state senator. He is the author of several books, including Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. The American People.


Professor Raskin, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling.


JAMIN RASKIN: Good morning, Amy.


Well, we’ve had some terrible Supreme Court interventions against political democracy: Shaw v. Reno, striking down majority African American and Hispanic congressional districts; Bush v. Gore, intervening to stop the counting of ballots in Florida. But I would have to say that all of them pale compared to what we just saw yesterday, where the Supreme Court has overturned decades of Supreme Court precedent to declare that private, for-profit corporations have First Amendment rights of political expression, meaning that they can spend up to the heavens in order to have their way in politics. And this will open floodgates of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in federal, state and local elections, as Halliburton and Enron and Blackwater and Bank of America and Goldman Sachs can take money directly out of corporate treasuries and put them into our politics.


And I looked at just one corporation, Exxon Mobil, which is the biggest corporation in America. In 2008, they posted profits of $85 billion. And so, if they decided to spend, say, a modest ten percent of their profits in one year, $8.5 billion, that would be three times more than the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign and every candidate for House and Senate in the country spent in 2008. That’s one corporation. So think about the Fortune 500. They’re threatening a fundamental change in the character of American political democracy.


AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about President Obama’s response? He was extremely critical, to say the least. He said, “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics…a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” Yet a number of especially conservatives are pointing out that there was—that President Obama spent more money for his presidential election than anyone in US history.


JAMIN RASKIN: OK, well, that’s a red herring in this discussion. The question here is the corporation, OK? And there’s an unbroken line of precedent, beginning with Chief Justice Marshall in the Dartmouth College case in the 1800s, all the way through Justice Rehnquist, even, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, saying that a corporation is an artificial creation of the state. It’s an instrumentality that the state legislatures charter in order to achieve economic purposes. And as Justice White put it, the state does not have to permit its own creature to consume it, to devour it.


And that’s precisely what the Supreme Court has done, suddenly declaring that a corporation is essentially a citizen, armed with all the political rights that we have, at the same time that the corporation has all kinds of economic perks and privileges like limited liability and perpetual life and bankruptcy protection and so on, that mean that we’re basically subsidizing these entities, and sometimes directly, as we saw with the Wall Street bailout, but then they’re allowed to turn around and spend money to determine our political future, our political destiny. So it’s a very dangerous moment for American political democracy.


And in other times, citizens have gotten together to challenge corporate power. The passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 is a good example, where corporations were basically buying senators, going into state legislatures and paying off senator—paying off legislators to buy US senators, and the populist movement said we need direct popular election of senators. And that’s how we got it, basically, in a movement against corporate power.


Well, we need a movement for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not persons entitled to the rights of political expression. And that’s what the President should be calling for at this point, because no legislation is really going to do the trick.


Now, one thing Congress can do is to say, if you do business with the federal government, you are not permitted to spend any money in federal election contests. That’s something that Congress should work on and get out next week. I mean, that seems very clear. No pay to play, in terms of US Congress.


And I think that citizens, consumers, shareholders across the country, should start a mass movement to demand that corporations commit not to get involved in politics and not to spend their money in that way, but should be involved in the economy and, you know, economic production and livelihood, rather than trying to determine what happens in our elections.

Peace

dpmay

JB811 wrote:

If someone is going to vote they should research candidates before making a decision, regardless of party.

agreed - unfortunately, this does not happen. what this decision does is allow certain candidates to have a much higher public profile, based solely on their affiliation with certain interests that only benefit a small few. and, sad though it makes you and me, this higher public profile WILL translate into votes.

JB811 wrote:

As much as some of you hate to admit it this is a First Amendment victory, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is wrong.

however, on this point, i think you are way off. corporations (and unions too!) should not have the rights that PEOPLE do under the bill of rights. should corporations have the right to independent armies, under the second amendment? (nevermind that they kind of already do.) this is not about the first amendment...

(but i do love your avatar...)

gimmesometruth27

JB811 wrote:

If someone is going to vote they should research candidates before making a decision, regardless of party.

Now I know it is hard for some of you to believe but the current POTUS had some pretty unfair media bias in his corner this last election. Did Fox give Obama as much airtime as McCain? Probably not. But did CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any other media outlet give McCain the amount of airtime as Obama? I doubt it.

As much as some of you hate to admit it this is a First Amendment victory, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Let's not even pretend for one second this last Presidential election came down to the issues either. Maybe it did for a minority, wait poor choice of a word, maybe it did for a smaller group but those of us who researched our candidates and didn't fall for the media hype were making our choice on actual information and facts.

Elections should start coming up with a qualification to vote, maybe a simple math test or spelling. Instead we have people who vote by the color of one's skin and who MTV tells them to vote for.

your entire argument sounds like a man that has some sour grapes...blame the media because your guy lost by nearly 3 million votes and 100 electoral votes...

this is not a first ammendment victory. where in article one of the constitution does it allow for corporations to have the same rights as a living human being? to help you out i will post the first article. hell i will even post the entire bill of rights and see if anywhere in them guarantees a corporation the rights or title of personhood.....


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.




The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

---

Amendment I

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.

---

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

---

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

---

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

i see nothing in there to even base the decision of the supreme court on anything. i skimmed through ammendements 11-27 as well and did not see anything establishing a corporation as a person.

what this law does is grants even foreign companies a vote in our elections. we can have a foreign corporation bankrolling a candidate which amounts to foreign bodies influencing our elections. you being the patriotic american, xenophobic man that you are should immediately cry foul over this decision. through your partisan blinders you complain of people not researching their vote decisions, i can make the same argument about your support of this supreme court decision.

another thing i take issue with is your proposal to make math and spelling tests a qualification for voting rights. last i checked, literacy was not a qualification to vote for anything. neither is it a requiremet to have to see or hear, because they have had blind and deaf ballots for generations. why not disenfranchise all of the poor and uneducated while you are at it? the fact is, most of the poor people in this country have traditionally voted democratic. by you silencing their voices and throwing out their votes, you are unfairly tiliting the odds in your favor. maybe if you had a more palatable candidate they would vote republican. but somehow i don't see the party of rich, old, white men appealing to the poor and most likely immigrant or minority populations.

you also seem to take issue with blacks voting for blacks and whites voting for whites. did you ever think that people relate to people with the same ethnicity? did you ever think a rich white guy is going to identify with mccain or bush over obama, or a poor african american is going to identify with the son of a kenyan dad and american mom over a rich white man born with a silver spoon in his ass? god forbid they may think that they have shared similar life experiences and have some common experiences... :roll:

i have no problem with mtv trying to get voters engaged in the process. you only care because the mtv generation voted heavily for obama. had they voted for mccain i am sure you would never have said anything. so like i said, sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me......

Anon

I don't have time right now to respond to your novel but I will. Right now I will say I did not vote for McCain so ask before making assumptions.

markin ball

Please let's not make this a red vs. blue thing. This is terrible for all of us. The "red" of the court may have voted for this but democrats are just as guilty of bowing to their corporate masters as anyone. What this does is make the corporate voice as loud as possible and further diminishes the voice of the private individual. Some here have said that we still have the power as voters and that is correct. We as voters need to be smart enough to not vote for candidates that take corporate money and demand our elected legislators write new laws to limit corporate power.

g under p

More and more of the voter power is being taken away and no matter who becomes president that person is beholding to someone or some corporate entity. Whether he or she likes it or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX2jcNlofO4

Peace

gimmesometruth27

JB811 wrote:

I don't have time right now to respond to your novel but I will. Right now I will say I did not vote for McCain so ask before making assumptions.

i would not refer to your bill of rights as "a novel", as novel implies a work of fiction...then again, maybe that is what we now have in this country....land of the free, home of the brave, sounds like a good topic for a novel to me...

g under p

I like what Michael Moore had to say here in this video on the Supreme Court decision and he's totally right. At the 24 minute mark great interview.

Michael Moore on Haiti, the Supreme Court Decision on Corporate Campaign Financing, and Why He Calls the Democrats “Disgusting”

AMY GOODMAN: OK, let’s talk about—well, Capitalism: A Love Story just came out. And we’re looking now, today, when we look at the economy, when we look at the state of our union, Ben Bernanke, the question of whether he should be confirmed, reconfirmed, Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. And we’re looking at a Supreme Court decision, unprecedented, overruling years of precedent of corporate money just—if it hasn’t already, the floodgates opened on them—flooding politics in this country. Put that all together.


MICHAEL MOORE: Man, that’s so depressing. It’s like the way you—I mean, you just—this last week has been a rough week for democracy. I mean, I would be lying if I said that I wasn’t in a total state of despair at this moment. And I’m not usually one that goes there. I mean, I’m usually like, “Let’s go!” I have—that Supreme Court ruling—and the disgusting part of it is how I got dragged into it, that there’s the whole argument before the Supreme Court and the justices and the attorneys for the other side discussing Fahrenheit 9/11. I don’t know if you followed this.


AMY GOODMAN: Wait, explain the whole thing.


MICHAEL MOORE: Well, the Supreme Court case that was decided was based on the fact that the Federal Elections Commission declared this anti-Hillary ad an ad. And the other side was—they were calling it a documentary.


UNIDENTIFIED: She’s deceitful. She’ll make up any story, lie about anything, as long as it serves her purpose of the moment. Ruthless, vindictive.


ANN COULTER: Venal, sneaky.


UNIDENTIFIED: Ideological, intolerant.


ANN COULTER: Liar is a good one.


MARK LEVIN: Scares the hell out of me.



MICHAEL MOORE: And the FEC said, no, this is an ad, and you have to follow the election laws. In terms of where the money comes from, you have to report this. They said, no, it’s just like Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. That was produced and distributed by a corporation, the Weinstein Company, etc., etc. And so the justices—they all had this discussion about how—why did Michael Moore get to distribute his film and not have to deal with the FEC, and they did? And that was the case that was decided. The justices decided, yeah, that’s not right. And so, we’re just going to let—now open up the floodgates and let all this money pour in. So I—


AMY GOODMAN: So you’re the cause of this?


MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I’ve got to tell you, my own Catholic guilt and my own—I have thought about this for the last few days. Not that I’m the cause of it, but, you know—see, the thing is, and this is where—this is how they got away with it, is basically, you really never want the government, any arm of the government, whether it’s the FEC or the Supreme Court, deciding who can say what, period.


You know, I think what I do is a form of journalism. You know, it’s essentially a filmed version of the op-ed page, my op-ed page, and it’s full of lots of facts and information, and it also is full of my opinion. And, you know, the right would say, “No, that’s not true. You were just out there trying to get Bush out of the White House and get Kerry elected with Fahrenheit 9/11.” And I could say and prove, of course, that I started working on that film long before there was a John Kerry for president. And I never spoke to anybody in the Kerry campaign, and I’m sure they didn’t want to speak to me. So, that had nothing to do with that, whereas the Hillary thing was specifically set up to be out there during the campaign in ’08 to stop Hillary Clinton. But you can see how it could get confusing and how they can create the ball of confusion in all of this.


And, of course, where did my money come from? Well, my money came from a Hollywood studio. Hollywood studio is a corporation, not only just a corporation, but in this case, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made by Miramax, which is part of the Walt Disney Company. So you can see where they go with this.


And I think that I just—it just—I hate it when the other side, they’re so—I mean, I hate it because I also, in some weird way, also admire them. They’re so good at what they do, the evil that they perpetrate, their ability to rally people, and of course the amount of funding that they receive. Just to make this clear, the Walt Disney Company, once they saw Fahrenheit 9/11, Mr. Michael Eisner said, “We no way are ever releasing this movie.” And as everyone knows the story, you know, we made this public, and he had to admit that they were trying to censor the film, and then I was able to get the film out because of a public outcry about it. So, we will never have the resources.


I just got a phone call from a freshman congressman in Michigan, a good guy, who beat the incumbent Republican in ’08, asking me for a donation for his reelection this year. And I just felt like, why? Because I have—whatever amount of money I could give you, or everybody else in here or people we know could give you, will never ever match what corporate America has. If that’s really the new—if that’s the new rule now, then we’ve already lost. We’ve already lost.


So how do we fight this now? Because their propaganda machine that’s funded now with—will have billions of dollars behind this to manipulate an uneducated American public—when I say “uneducated,” I’m talking about an American public, as you know, where we rank in the world, in math and science and literacy, all these things—we’re so far behind so many other countries. We have 40 million functional illiterates in this country, 40 million adults who can’t read and write above a fourth grade level. If you create a country where the education system sucks so bad, where you make it your lowest priority, and then you want to create some propaganda to easily lead them down the path you want to lead them down, it’s a cakewalk at that point, when you have this enforced ignorance, the illiteracy that’s encouraged, the C-minus president who was so proud of himself and encouraging others that that was cool, it was cool to be dumb. And that’s what we’ve just lived through, through this first decade of this century. And now they’re going to have billions of dollars to manipulate our fellow Americans? What are we going to do, Amy? Seriously. I mean, as I sit here, I don’t have the answer. But, you know, we have your show. What else do we have?


AMY GOODMAN: You talk about us and them, us and them. Timothy Geithner, do you think he should be Treasury Secretary?


MICHAEL MOORE: Absolutely not. He never should have been. I said that at the beginning. And it was—you know, I joked, I think, about it with you like a year ago. I said maybe he’s just bringing him in to clean up the mess he created, you know, something like a parent would do. You know, “OK, you broke this. Get in here and clean it up.” Clearly, that’s not what his purpose was for this year. His purpose was there to protect Goldman Sachs, to protect the banks and Wall Street. And he’s done a fine job of doing that, in making sure that, again, they are back to record profits, record bonuses, all of this stuff.


AMY GOODMAN: How does this play in Michigan? That’s where you live now. And you live in Flint, one of the most depressed areas in the country.


MICHAEL MOORE: People are so angry. And I think, of course, this is what—partly what happened in Massachusetts. And it’s partly why Obama got elected, because people were so angry at what happened to their lives, to the economy, to our reputation as Americans, that a country that is essentially—still has a huge problem with race, a certain number of Americans were able to put their feelings about race aside, because they were so angry at what was going on. That was interesting and somewhat impressive.


I think that anger and the anger in Michigan, we’re going to end up with a Republican governor this November. I can—I already see it. I can already feel it happening, I think, because people are so upset. I mean, you’ve got an official unemployment rate of over 15 percent. Unofficially—I mean, the county I live in is over 20 percent officially, so you know it’s really over 30 percent, at least. People are very, very upset and can now be easily manipulated now, as people who are hurting have been, I mean, historically.


I mean, we don’t have to—we know the examples. We’re sitting here—you know, what happens when those in power, those who support corporate interests, who support right-wing ideology—they used to call it “fascism”—they’re the pros at manipulating the public when the public is hurting. And so, expect to see that. And that’s what I expect to see. And, of course, I’m not just going to sit back and let it happen, and I know people watching this, listening to this, feel same way. But we’re going to have to—we’re going to have to get it together, and get it together pretty damn quick, because they’re already ten miles down the road in front of us.

[color]

Peace