Well So Much For Free Speech.

The Supreme Court just gave permission to corporations to use their shareholders’ money to buy political ads, basically unlimited soft money contributions for corporations. 

Your contribution is capped at $2,400.

Why don’t they just only let the CEO’s vote and get it over with.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Well So Much For Free Speech.

  1. I wonder how many people will incorporate themselves to get around that $2,400 cap?

  2. agnophilo says:

    @Rob_of_the_Sky – Extremely wealthy people.  Which are usually the people who own corporations to begin with.

  3. Sgt_Pepper13 says:

    I can’t believe that this went down like this. It’s going to suck living here even more than it has the past 8 years.

  4. Isn’t that sort of a conflict of interest?

  5. agnophilo says:

    @Sgt_Pepper13 – I know.The case they used to decide this was about whether putting an anti-hillary clinton documentary on tv counted as political advocacy, and the court decided to “expand” the issue and undo soft money prohibitions while they were at it.  Because the corporations that are gobbling up the country at a fucking ridiculous rate have had the short end of the stick and they’re not gonna take it anymore!  I mean only being able to own and control 90% of an industry?  They’re so oppressed.@SuperNewman87 – What do you mean?

  6. @agnophilo – It just seems that it would be conflict of interest if the corporation was using shareholder money to buy political adds if not all the shareholders agree politically. Besides the the bastardization of liberty and free speech, this opens up several other ethic problems.

  7. agnophilo says:

    @SuperNewman87 – It’s one big ethical problem.But yeah.

  8. Sgt_Pepper13 says:

    I’m probably not the first to say it, but the wrong Kennedy died last year.

  9. We are gonna fix that by electing a Repub in the bluest of blue states. Yea…stick a fork in America. We is just about done.

  10. amygwen says:

    I just don’t understand how this relates to free speech.

  11. Casbahmaniac says:

    I need to be talked down off this ledge. Is it just psycho talk to be worried about this? I didn’t fully grasp this until further explanation on this. Basically, the Supreme Court yesterday declared corporate entities as valid citizens by overturning laws in favor of the 1st ammendment. But, this opens up a whole new door. There are a lot of “what if” scenarios. I just hope they never come to fruition. Like, a corporation proclaiming it’s advocacy for a political ideology and saying that in order to work for said company, an employee would have to agree with said ideology…to the point of dissent meaning termination. I know I know…1st ammendment, but a corporation is a corporation. We are private of public citizens..the individuals. If corporations acted in the best interest of the citizens, we would all have fucking jobs with fucking full coverage health insurance that covered all of our fucking illnesses. We would be able to retire with a sweet fucking pension and live our twilight years in peace and fucking enjoyment….just the way corporate fat cats do. Now, this is even less a possibility than it used to be and it is going to be downright rare.

  12. agnophilo says:

    @amygwen – In politics money = speech.  The ability to take out ads in support of a candidate.  Corporations can now give vastly more money than every american citizen combined in every election, giving them, and not us, far more say in who gets elected and thereby making our government almost entirely beholden to corporations for re-election, not the citizens they are supposed to represent.Not to mention that the rise of corporatism has lead to media corporations gobbling up every media outlet so the people who give campaign contributions are often the same people that decide what views get to be expressed on TV and in print media.  A few years ago one company, clearchannel, bought 90% of the radio stations in the US in one fell swoop.  Now these corporations are in a position to change the law so they can get the other 10 percent, and you wonder what it has to do with free speech?It’s a fucking nightmare.@Casbahmaniac – Sorry, can’t talk you down from the ledge.  So far as firing people for not accepting an ideology, they can do that now in many states.  I live in a no-fault state, which means they can fire you because they don’t like your hairstyle, let alone your religious or political views.

  13. jenessa1889 says:

    how is it that corporations get more rights than regular people?   It’s still ridiculous of them to say they get the same rights, but to go beyond and say we are capped but they aren’t is beyondridiculous.   what is the reasoning behind that?

  14. tracezilla says:

    I was, and still am, very disappointed and infuriated with this Supreme Court decision.I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. >_<

  15. agnophilo says:

    @jenessa1889 – Those with money get special rights and powers, we’re basically going back to aristocracy, just done up to look like representative government.@tracezilla@lovelyish – My only hope is that it will get fucked up enough that americans will start waking up.  Unfortunately the biggest problem there that I foresee is the prevalence of religion, which encourages people to cope with hardship by going to sleep.

  16. tracezilla says:

    @agnophilo – Lol! That last part made me laugh so hard my dog looked at me like she thought I was going to have a fit. :p Such an amusing mental image, really.I agree with you, though, I hope that something happens to make the American people fight back on this. 😦

  17. agnophilo says:

    @tracezilla@lovelyish – Reminds me of those video games and science fiction stories that take place in dystopian futures where the major powers in the world are global corporations, not governments.  World war 3 will probably not be fought between america and russia or europe and the middle east, but between coke and pepsi.

  18. tracezilla says:

    @agnophilo – That is a thought that is both amusing and disturbing. But, I can see where you’re coming from and am inclined to have to reluctantly agree. If things continue along this vein.

  19. What are the odds that it’s just a coincidence that this is a 5-4 decision? A coincidence that the Reagan-Bush-Bush appointees act as a block in favor of the corporate sector?I think we’d need an improbability drive to figure that one out.Anyone still convinced that the GOP is for the little guy needs to wake up. Which is not to say the Democrats have been able to do much better, but at least the three Democratic appointees to the court understand the Constitution. Oh, and good old Justice Stevens.And seriously, some conservatives have the nerve to call the Court left-wing?

  20. epiginoskete says:

    America’s been an aristocracy for quite some time now. Guess the Supreme Court just got tired of hiding it… or suppressing it in any way. John Adams is rolling over in his grave.

  21. jenessa1018 says:

    @agnophilo – I think the biggest issue is that it’s not directly giving them more voting power.  what it does is give them more ad power, to convince us how to vote.   If that works properly, no one will think corporations get too much say in an election, because no one will want to admit that they voted the way they did because of commercials.  we’ll still think we’re freely choosing who to vote for, but it will be heavily influenced.   it could never make the majority of people think that the election was taken by corporations, because a candidate still needs more than half the votes, which means more than half the country will have voted for that person.

  22. agnophilo says:

    @barefoot_nomad – No coincidence.  The republican party has long been the party of corporate america.  From GWB’s cabinet dripping with oil executives to the republican national candidates presenting industrial de-regulation and limiting corporate liability as if it were the new civil rights movement.  These poor corporations, how will these CEOs be able to feed their families only making more money than every man, woman and child in some countries.

  23. agnophilo says:

    @epiginoskete – I agree. Our choices for president have lately been between billionaires and multimillionaires.  At least obama actually earned his money.@jenessa1018 – True.  Just like most people think they buy the brand name because it tastes better… than the generic they’ve never tasted.@apyus – ?

  24. HappyLemming says:

    Shoot. What was the split? 5-4?

  25. agnophilo says:

    @HappyLemming – Uh huh.  Guess which side both of bush’s appointments were on.

  26. HappyLemming says:

    @agnophilo – Disappointing to hear. The Court tends to be more bipartisan on most economic rulings.

  27. agnophilo says:

    @HappyLemming – That was before bush appointed two conservatives.

  28. agnophilo says:

    And before the republicans lost political power.

  29. HappyLemming says:

    @agnophilo – Hmm, yeah.Edwards replaced Reinquest– they’re pretty close judicially, being both judically conservative. Edwards clerked under Reinquest.The big change was the conservative Alito replacing the centerist ‘O Connor. I’m not well-read enough to speculate on how Sarah Day ‘O Connor may have voted, but it really bugs me to think that it may have very well been 5-4 the other way.It would have also been great to read a ‘O Connor opinion. Most of the justices are career judges. For a long time, while she was on the bench. Sarah Day ‘O Connor was the only justice with any experience in elected office– having served in the Arizona state senate. I’m sure she would have had sharp, pragmatic insight into this issue.

  30. agnophilo says:

    @HappyLemming – Some judges are elected you know, so I don’t know if they others have never held elected office.And yeah, remember when bush appointed two conservatives in a row and even republicans attacked him for it.  Remember when republicans were still sometimes allowed to disagree with their party leaders?

  31. notjus4ne1 says:

    It’s funny I’ve watched the uproar about this issue, and for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone who follows politics are surprised.  A lot is changing and not for the better.  I just want to see how this all plays out when corporations actually do openly use this gift the Supreme Court just handed them.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s