From Democracy Now:
In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending
“In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court rules corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. One lawmaker describes it as the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case justifying slavery
(snip)
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.
(snip)
JAMIN RASKIN: 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.”
—
From Info Wars:
Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections
“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.
(snip)
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.”
—
From Boston.com:
Biz, unions freed to spend big on elections
“A bitterly divided Supreme Court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions by freeing them to spend their millions directly to sway elections for president and Congress.
(snip)
Still, more labor and corporate money in the political system could dilute the role of both political parties.
And the decision seeded the ground for further challenges to an already weakened system of campaign finance regulations.
(snip)
Obama called the decision a victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.
The ruling will lead to a “stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Obama said. He pledged to work with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to come up with a “forceful response” to the high court’s action.”
—
The worst decision since Dred Scott? Wow. But you know I can see it. It’s crazy that corporations can give more money to politicians than individuals can!
It’s odd how the Boston.com article keeps emphasizing that it’s about both corporation and unions. As important as the labor movement is when was the last time you were worried about union power? I’m more worried about “big oil and Wall Street banks” than unions.
Corporations are not people and it’s ludicrous that the Supreme Court would grant them such rights. How can this be a democracy when corporations are being granted more rights and citizens are having their rights stripped away?
Posted by Vixen as News at 9:04 PM CST