The SCOTUS has thrown out a 1907 law which prohibits corporations from directly spending money on campaign ads.  The decision does NOT overturn the probibition of corporations directly giving money to candidates.  The decision also does not reverse the prohibition of unions from running campaign ads.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-corporations22-2010jan22,0,4141508.story

My thoughts are that this is a bad decision.  Nevertheless we are stuck with it, as it was overturned on a constitutional basis.  Corporations are owned by citizens, who are free to spend their money on candidates.  Prohibiting corporate campaign spending in no way infringes ont he free speech rights of the individual.

I would expect that the union prohibition (which is a separate law and was not at issue in this narrow case) will likewise be reversed in a later decision.

The LyricBoy Campaign Finance Reform program makes more sense.  In my world, individual people can donate as much money as they want to any candidate, so long as they are within the jurisdiction of the candidate's office and they can legally vote for said candidate in an election.

Looks like the prohibition against union spending was also lifted.  See link...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575017191336805982.html?mod=WSJ-WSJ-US-News-5

We're dealing with a radical right-wing court here.

They're saying the more money you have, the more influence you can have in campaigns.  That is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.  Corporations are not people.  They have only one purpose: To make money for their investors.

Teddy Roosevelt wasn't some kind of Marxist either.  What he saw was what happened when the railroads and the trusts ran the country, and he saw how it could destroy democracy. 

SCOTUS didn't get to do what the right-wing REALLY wants to do: Allow unlimited direct hard money contributions to campaigns.  If the constitutionality of this is questioned in the Roberts court, it'll be the same 5-4 decision -- unless Stevens croaks and the Dems have the balls to appoint a liberal justice (which they don't, of course).
::)

We're dealing with a radical right-wing court here.

They're saying the more money you have, the more influence you can have in campaigns.  That is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.  Corporations are not people.  They have only one purpose: To make money for their investors.

Teddy Roosevelt wasn't some kind of Marxist either.  What he saw was what happened when the railroads and the trusts ran the country, and he saw how it could destroy democracy. 

SCOTUS didn't get to do what the right-wing REALLY wants to do: Allow unlimited direct hard money contributions to campaigns.  If the constitutionality of this is questioned in the Roberts court, it'll be the same 5-4 decision -- unless Stevens croaks and the Dems have the balls to appoint a liberal justice (which they don't, of course).
::)


While I disagree with the decisions, I see them as somewhat balanced in that both companies AND unions now can spend to their hearts' content.

Of course, if you're a smuck who is neither rich nor a union member, then you're screwed.  :-\\

While I disagree with the decisions, I see them as somewhat balanced in that both companies AND unions now can spend to their hearts' content.

Of course, if you're a smuck who is neither rich nor a union member, then you're screwed.  :-\\


That's me!  Ska-rewwwwwed!
:-\\

I did not mention labor unions because their power has been decimated over the pat 30 years.  Some of the public sector unions still wield influence, but not in the private sector.  Sure, the Teamsters were always corrupt, but they got the job done.  Now they're corrupt AND they don't get the job done.
::)

Manchurian Candidates:
Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections


By Greg Palast | Updated from the original report for AlterNet
Thursday, January 21, 2010

In today's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.

The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.

The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.

I'm losing sleep over the 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.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today's 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.

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."

George Bush's former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to the court on behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson's wife died on September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I contacted Olson's office to ask how much "Al Qaeda, Inc." should be allowed to donate to support the election of his local congressman.

Olson has not responded.

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. Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.

Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these "unnatural" creatures.

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"
We'll never know.

Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United.

We've been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover of the Congress funded by a very strange source.

Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races, Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads funded by a group called, "Coalition for Our Children's Future." The $25 million that paid for those ads came, not from concerned parents, but from a corporation called "Triad Inc."

Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and their corporation could have faced indictment under federal election law. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has become legit.

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.

*********

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." Palast investigated Triad Inc. for The Guardian (UK). View Palast's reports for BBC TV and Democracy Now! at gregpalast.com.

Technically, this is consistent with the Constitution.  Freedom of Speech has been construed to include your ability to voice yourself through things like lobbyism.  Campaign ad funding doesn't seem like such a stretch given previous precedents.

Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is basically what Max said.  I have a feeling that if the Founding Fathers were somehow able to see the future of things like Big Business, they would probably have put more safeguards in place to keep the elite rich from overriding the will of the people.

Technically, this is consistent with the Constitution.  Freedom of Speech has been construed to include your ability to voice yourself through things like lobbyism.  Campaign ad funding doesn't seem like such a stretch given previous precedents.

Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is basically what Max said.  I have a feeling that if the Founding Fathers were somehow able to see the future of things like Big Business, they would probably have put more safeguards in place to keep the elite rich from overriding the will of the people.


The Roberts court is not interested in the will of the people, that's for goddam sure!
::)

It's about time for a grass roots uprising on many fronts to restore democracy (at least a bit) and put some spine in our pres.

It's about time for a grass roots uprising on many fronts to restore democracy (at least a bit) and put some spine in our pres.


Unfortunately, it will be revolution by decay.  Corporations cannot run a nation state.  When the fabric of the country deteriorates to the point where enough people are suffering from disease and famine, a corporate oligarchy will have made itself irrelevant.  You and I won't live to see the civil ramifications of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission come to pass, but in 50 years there won't be a United States of America anymore, just balkanized confederations of warring tribes fighting for whatever resources are left.

It's about time for a grass roots uprising on many fronts to restore democracy (at least a bit) and put some spine in our pres.


I think a better plan is to move to Canada.

Unfortunately, it will be revolution by decay.  Corporations cannot run a nation state.  When the fabric of the country deteriorates to the point where enough people are suffering from disease and famine, a corporate oligarchy will have made itself irrelevant.  You and I won't live to see the civil ramifications of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission come to pass, but in 50 years there won't be a United States of America anymore, just balkanized confederations of warring tribes fighting for whatever resources are left.


From where I stand, Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash would be an improvement.  Sign me up with Uncle Enzo's pizza delivery in a Mafia franchulate.  There's less crime, and it beats the hell outa Fedland!  (Excerpt from the first chapter)

A more serious (and by "more serious", I mean "you'll still laugh") look at the implications can be had in Max Barry's somewhat more obscure novel Jennifer Government.  (Likewise, the first chapter is online.)

It's all about music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery. 

Apparently President O'bama today was making speeches in which he stated that he wants to work with the Congress to overcome the SCOTUS decision.

While I agree with his disdain for the SCOTUS ruling, I think he is being completely disingenuous in his speech about "doing something" about the ruling.

The SCOTUS decision (while I believe it to be flawed) was based on an interpretation of the constitution.  The only way O'bama and the Congress can "do something" about the ruling is to pass a constitutional amendment, and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.  And he knows that better than anybody, given his expertise in constitutional law.

Not likely to happen...

Other than that, he'll have to wait until he gets another appointment to the court, and then have a similar case resubmitted.

Apparently President O'bama today was making speeches in which he stated that he wants to work with the Congress to overcome the SCOTUS decision.

While I agree with his disdain for the SCOTUS ruling, I think he is being completely disingenuous in his speech about "doing something" about the ruling.

The SCOTUS decision (while I believe it to be flawed) was based on an interpretation of the constitution.  The only way O'bama and the Congress can "do something" about the ruling is to pass a constitutional amendment, and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.  And he knows that better than anybody, given his expertise in constitutional law.

Not likely to happen...

Other than that, he'll have to wait until he gets another appointment to the court, and then have a similar case resubmitted.


An interpretation of the Constitution that subverts 100+ years of legislative decision-making, which John Roberts, a dirty rotten liar, testified he would not meddle with when he was being confirmed.

Reeeemember: Judicial activism is only judicial activism when it approves people taking their clothes off in front of a camera or blacks and whites going to school together!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smash.gif

More reason for me to remain close to the border, passport up to date.

An interpretation of the Constitution that subverts 100+ years of legislative decision-making, which John Roberts, a dirty rotten liar, testified he would not meddle with when he was being confirmed.

Reeeemember: Judicial activism is only judicial activism when it approves people taking their clothes off in front of a camera or blacks and whites going to school together!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smash.gif


As much as I do not like the SCOTUS ruling on the 1907 law, I have to disagree with you Danoota.

One of the primary functions of ANY SCOTUS is to overturn/stop laws which the legislative branch has passed, but which violate the consitution.  As Roberts himself stated (and I think it was even part of the decision writeup in this case), "if the SCOTUS always deferred to precendent, schools would still be segregated and slavery would still be legal."

Likewise the 1973 ruling on abortion by the SCOTUS also had overturned over a century of legislated abortion laws (and countless state supreme court decisions) both at the state and federal level, by introducing the "right to privacy".

Bottom line, the only piece of legislation that the SCOTUS is obliged to follow to the letter is the Constitution.  All decisions that the Court makes must be in full compliance with (its interpretation of) the consitution, regardless of how well-intended the legislation at hand may be.

Side note, I do not disagree with the overturning of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign spending law.  At the beginning I felt that this was a restraint of free speech for ANYBODY (not just unions and corporations) and that in the end it was a cynically-constructed bill whose creators knew would not stop special interest funding.  It was a huge fig leaf.

-----------------

Added note:  Judge Clarence Thomas agreed with the majority except for one part of the decision.  In his dissent writeup, Thomas claims that there exists some sort of "right to anonymous free speech", something that again is not extant in the Constitution of the United States, but which has been "granted" in some prior SCOTUS decision(s).  While there is SCOTUS precedent to support his position, there is not constitutional language to support it.  And, if anything, the Constitution's 6th Amendment provision that gives one the right to "confront witnesses" (this is an indirect interpretation admittedly)

What this ruling spells out is that free speech = $$$$. The more $$$$ you have the more free speech you have-which doesn't make it "free" does it.  :-\\  In fact, it makes it very expensive. And who can afford it? Well, certainly not you or me. So, we are going to have a country that is of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. What is best for the people won't matter. They might as well change the Constitution now to say, "We the corporations..."


Cat

What this ruling spells out is that free speech = $$$$. The more $$$$ you have the more free speech you have-which doesn't make it "free" does it.  :-\\  In fact, it makes it very expensive. And who can afford it? Well, certainly not you or me. So, we are going to have a country that is of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. What is best for the people won't matter. They might as well change the Constitution now to say, "We the corporations..."


Cat


That ship already sailed, see attached link...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/13/big_labors_investment_in_obama_pays_off_96469.html

If I were to passa a consitutional amendment regarding campaign finance reform, it would basically state "If you can legally vote for the candidate then spend all you want".  This would thus prevent corporations and unions, as well as out-of-jurisdiction interlopers from influencing elections.

Apparently President O'bama today was making speeches in which he stated that he wants to work with the Congress to overcome the SCOTUS decision.

While I agree with his disdain for the SCOTUS ruling, I think he is being completely disingenuous in his speech about "doing something" about the ruling.



ny
Not at all disingenuous.  Congress can pass any # of laws to hem this in while sticking to the basic decision.

ny
Not at all disingenuous.  Congress can pass any # of laws to hem this in while sticking to the basic decision.


Given the nature of the court's ruling, anything short of a constitutional amendment will be struck down by the court, which would likely spare no time issuing an injunction against lesser legislation.

An amendment would require (I think) a two-thirds margin in Congress and then a 3/4 ratification by the states. Neither of which is likely. 

As much as I do not like the SCOTUS ruling on the 1907 law, I have to disagree with you Danoota.

One of the primary functions of ANY SCOTUS is to overturn/stop laws which the legislative branch has passed, but which violate the consitution.  As Roberts himself stated (and I think it was even part of the decision writeup in this case), "if the SCOTUS always deferred to precendent, schools would still be segregated and slavery would still be legal."

Likewise the 1973 ruling on abortion by the SCOTUS also had overturned over a century of legislated abortion laws (and countless state supreme court decisions) both at the state and federal level, by introducing the "right to privacy".

Bottom line, the only piece of legislation that the SCOTUS is obliged to follow to the letter is the Constitution.  All decisions that the Court makes must be in full compliance with (its interpretation of) the consitution, regardless of how well-intended the legislation at hand may be.

Side note, I do not disagree with the overturning of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign spending law.  At the beginning I felt that this was a restraint of free speech for ANYBODY (not just unions and corporations) and that in the end it was a cynically-constructed bill whose creators knew would not stop special interest funding.  It was a huge fig leaf.

-----------------

Added note:  Judge Clarence Thomas agreed with the majority except for one part of the decision.  In his dissent writeup, Thomas claims that there exists some sort of "right to anonymous free speech", something that again is not extant in the Constitution of the United States, but which has been "granted" in some prior SCOTUS decision(s).  While there is SCOTUS precedent to support his position, there is not constitutional language to support it.  And, if anything, the Constitution's 6th Amendment provision that gives one the right to "confront witnesses" (this is an indirect interpretation admittedly)



You make some cogent points

but

I think

on principle Brown v. Board was a good decision, a moral decision.  I don't think Citizens United is.  I think it is cynical and rotten to the core.

They didn't figure Earl Warren would be so liberal, but I knew perfectly well what we were getting with John Roberts.  Thus as horrifying as Citizens United is, it's not surprising. 

You make some cogent points

but

I think

on principle Brown v. Board was a good decision, a moral decision.  I don't think Citizens United is.  I think it is cynical and rotten to the core.

Brown v. Board in my opinion was in no way "judicial activism".  It was a ruling made on a sound constitutional basis.  And of course morally a good outcome as well.

That ship already sailed, see attached link...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/13/big_labors_investment_in_obama_pays_off_96469.html

If I were to passa a consitutional amendment regarding campaign finance reform, it would basically state "If you can legally vote for the candidate then spend all you want".  This would thus prevent corporations and unions, as well as out-of-jurisdiction interlopers from influencing elections.



Oh PUL-EASE!!!! Michelle Malkin? That chick doesn't know her @$$ from her elbow. Give me a CREDIBLE source.



Cat

Oh PUL-EASE!!!! Michelle Malkin? That chick doesn't know her @$$ from her elbow. Give me a CREDIBLE source.

Cat


It is no secret that the SEIU spent megadollars trying to get Obama elected.  The $60 million figure was provided by the union itself.

Here's an LA Times link...

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/28/nation/na-stern28

Money buys access... and neither party can claim that they do not benefit from organizations (union or corporate) who work the loopholes...

Since when does a corporation have personhood?  This ruling pretty much says they are.  Government has always been fueled on big money only now it's done without digression.  So much for my vote counting.

It is no secret that the SEIU spent megadollars trying to get Obama elected.  The $60 million figure was provided by the union itself.

Here's an LA Times link...

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/28/nation/na-stern28

Money buys access... and neither party can claim that they do not benefit from organizations (union or corporate) who work the loopholes...




I think labor unions are only small players in this mess. I'm not saying that they aren't corrupt-some are worse than others. But, I think on the whole, they do more good than harm. But you have an industry like the health insurance companies who love the fact that the system is broken because they can profit-BIG TIME from it, want to keep it that way so bad that they have shelled out boocoo bucks for it-and it looks like their investment has paid off.  >:( >:( >:(  

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/health_care_continues_its_inte.html

So, it looks like "we the people" are going to be held hostage by these people forever.

Then there is the oil & coal industries-which is bad for the environment. And the manufacturers who make a killing by sending jobs to China for cheap labor.

The list goes on and on and on. The bottom line is that these industries do NOT care about the American people. The only care about their bottom line and they are willing to spend mega dollars to keep things just the way they are so they can continue to exploit the workers (whether it be from the U.S. or from China or any other third world nation), and exploit the American consumer. And this Supreme Court just handed them a free pass to continue to do just that and even to expand their power over the American people.


Cat  

I think labor unions are only small players in this mess. I'm not saying that they aren't corrupt-some are worse than others. But, I think on the whole, they do more good than harm. But you have an industry like the health insurance companies who love the fact that the system is broken because they can profit-BIG TIME from it, want to keep it that way so bad that they have shelled out boocoo bucks for it-and it looks like their investment has paid off.  >:( >:( >:(  

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/health_care_continues_its_inte.html

So, it looks like "we the people" are going to be held hostage by these people forever.

Then there is the oil & coal industries-which is bad for the environment. And the manufacturers who make a killing by sending jobs to China for cheap labor.

The list goes on and on and on. The bottom line is that these industries do NOT care about the American people. The only care about their bottom line and they are willing to spend mega dollars to keep things just the way they are so they can continue to exploit the workers (whether it be from the U.S. or from China or any other third world nation), and exploit the American consumer. And this Supreme Court just handed them a free pass to continue to do just that and even to expand their power over the American people.


Cat  


Well actually (as far as I have been able to sort out) all this ruling does is allow both unions and companies to spend their money running ads, producing publications, and so on.  It does not remove the prohibition from directly donating money to a candidate.

In my world I would ban both forms, because the company/union advertising can easily be used to offset other campaign expenses for the candidate and this, for all intents and purposes, it is a "donation in kind".

Which contributions are worse, the unions or the companies?  I will not try to sort that out as both have a long staid history of stonewalling, misappropriation, discrimination, and corruption.  Donations (of money or "in kind") by either of these entities is a corruption of the political process.

Note that I come from Pennsylvania and have seen the good and the bad of unions, and they have been all over the spectrum.  I was around for the murder of Jock Yablonski and his wife & daughter by union-hired goons, and I first-hand have seen unions try to strongarm and threaten workers into signing "card check" cards.  My college buddy's Dad, who was a union official and always "looking out for the working man" was ultimately convicted on 52 counts of embezzlement from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.  In my home steel industry, both the companies AND the union conspired to deny rights to black and female workers, until the 1977 Consent Decree was forced upon both union and company to do the proper thing.  I have also seen the union stand up for a worker who was about to get screwed over too.

My grandfather was a coal mine inspector, and eventually he had to carry a gun with him on the job, as protection against both the union AND management, both of whom did not want him to do his job honestly.

Frim my perspective and experience I have seen that whether somebody is a union leader or a company leader, they have about the same percentage chance of being corrupt.  I have known some fine people on both "sides of the aisle" so to speak, and I've known some real dirt bags too.

Corruption by industry?  It is all over the map.  Coal, oil, steel, railroads... they all have long histories of it.  But you see insider trading scandals at software companies and consulting houses.  The mess at the banks and brokerages.  Airline industry scams.  Wherever you find humans you will find corruption.

Yeah, union corruption is legion in the history of organized labor, but we see the difference between labor with representation and labor without representation.  It comes down to greed whether it's a corporate executive or a union official.  Give some people access to a pile of other people's money and they're gonna skim.  You just gotta get in there and fight that corruption,  keep after 'em, bust balls.  That's what Bobby Kennedy did with the Teamsters, and look how things turned out for little Bobby!

Whoa! Just a some levity in questionable taste...let's not go there, I don't want this to turn into the Alex Jones Show!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/stop.gif

I like your idea of banning both corporate and union advertising for campaigns on principle, but there's no way in hell it would stand up in court. 

The unfair advantage these corporations have is deeper pockets than anyone knows and no accountability.  What if Joe Schmoe for Senate has a strong campaign going, but he's in favor of import tariffs?  In less time than it takes to tell, the Walmart and their cronies over in China could set up a dummy corporation and pour fifty million bucks into destroying Joe Schmoe's reputation the week before the election.  He'd never know what hit him until he lost the race.

Yes, labor unions are corrupt, but they are corrupt and they pay, with benefits.

Since when does a corporation have personhood?  This ruling pretty much says they are.  Government has always been fueled on big money only now it's done without digression.  So much for my vote counting.


One of the early decisions of the John Marshal court held that corporations had the same rights as individuals, that is that they were "people" before the law, ie individual entities apart from their owners, stock holders who had limited liability for debts etc.  But this decision elevates them to a legal position, which could be challenged by congress (regardless of LiricBoy's assertion).  Congress could pass laws redefining corporations that would allow for tighter control of their political activity, for example.  Sure, they could be challenged but that could take years, and meanwhile...

One of the early decisions of the John Marshal court held that corporations had the same rights as individuals, that is that they were "people" before the law, ie individual entities apart from their owners, stock holders who had limited liability for debts etc.  But this decision elevates them to a legal position, which could be challenged by congress (regardless of LiricBoy's assertion).  Congress could pass laws redefining corporations that would allow for tighter control of their political activity, for example.  Sure, they could be challenged but that could take years, and meanwhile...


It was the beginning of the end....  essentially...

It was the beginning of the end....  essentially...


You may be right, and I am very scared, but not willin g to give up hope.