Citizens, Revisited?

[seeing.the.unseeable]

I realize that I should be more of a realist than an optimist when it comes to this topic.

Still, I'm foolishly heartened by even the slightest possibility that the SCOTUS might do something to rectify this situation before it really is too late.

washingtonpost.com

[Grace62]

Nothing like reality to point out the error in the thinking behind that decision.

“Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,’ ” Ginsburg wrote.


YA THINK?

[mattkime]

what about free speech???

[Ted King]

mattkime wrote:
what about free speech???

As Romney says, corporations are people - he meant that corporations are made up of people. Those people have free speech rights already so we don't need to give corporations - as virtual legal entities - free speech rights.

[seeing.the.unseeable]

Ted King wrote:
As Romney says, corporations are people - he meant that corporations are made up of people. Those people have free speech rights already so we don't need to give corporations - as virtual legal entities - free speech rights.

I might also amend this to note the obvious: corporations are not required to submit to the same citizenship requirements which determine the voting status of individuals.

Corporations are often international. As has been noted often, how does one determine the actual source of the money - excuse me, "free speech" - these companies use to, erm, speak?

To me, this was always the central failing of this ruling. As if it wasn't bad enough to legitimize a bottomless well of dirty money that would drown out the already-pathetic voice of the individual voter, they also opened another potential Pandora's box.

I have enjoyed reading the "corporations are people" defense of Citizens United decision by the knee-jerk dittoheads in the WaPo and NYT comments sections. I wonder how many of those same folks who want a wall around the country understand, well, much of anything at all.