A Death Blow to McCain-Feingold
In a not wholly unanticipated move, the Supreme Court invalidated a key portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCFRA), also known as McCain-Feingold.
The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was split. The majority opinion was written by Judge Anthony Kennedy, and the dissenting opinion was written by Judge John Paul Stevens (who is widely believed to be retiring after the present term). He was joined in dissent by Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg. (The full text of the opinion can be found here.)
Like many cases of legislatively mandated restrictions on constitutional rights, BCFR was wrapped in the mantle of high-minded concerns for good government. Largely hyped in secret by the Pew Charitable Trusts and also by the usual media civic advancement poseurs, it was an effort to eliminate “soft money” in campaign financing; limit issue advocacy ads within 30 days of an election (when such speech would be most effective); and prohibit campaign ads paid for by corporations — including non-profit issue organizations — and unincorporated entities using any corporate or union funds.
It is far from clear that the legislation prohibiting such ads and expenditures proved any barrier to the creative campaign and special interest professionals, who certainly seem far more clever than the legislative branch at finding ways around such things. But it is clear that the Act posed substantial limits on the exercise of free speech when it is most valuable to both citizens and the notion of good government — namely, election time.
History of Supreme Court Treatment of the BCFRA
There was no way of avoiding the obvious restrictions on free speech imposed by the Act, though neither the sponsoring senators nor their colleagues seemed to understand or care. And President Bush clearly thought the worst portions of the Act would be struck down by the Supreme Court — although when he signed it, he expressed “reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising.”
Led by then-Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, a group of plaintiffs challenged the Act, arguing that, on its face, it violated the First Amendment. Surprisingly, the Court rejected this “facial challenge” (that is, one based only on the clear language of the Act rather than one based on a dispute under it). In McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, the Supreme Court upheld much of the legislation, determining that their decision was required by Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 US 652.
Today the Court held that the rule prohibiting corporations and unions from using general funds to make independent expenditures for “electioneering determinations,” or from using speech advocating the election or defeat of a candidate (2 U.S.C. Sec 441 b), constitutes an ongoing prior restraint of free speech which must be invalidated. The Court thereby overruled the Austin decision, as well as the portions of the McConnell decision upholding the extension of the Section 441b restrictions on independent corporate expenditures.
The Court held that these restrictions constitute a ban on free speech backed by criminal sanctions, and that the Constitution bars permitting speech by preferred speakers while disfavoring speech by other, less favored, speakers. Deciding that Austin was poorly reasoned, the Court ruled it would not accord it further precedential value. (The case only involved a corporation, but the language of the opinion and logic suggest that it applies equally to the use of union funds.)
So, why the Court shift?
For non-lawyers, the Court’s changed stance might seem puzzling. However, it follows a line of reasoning which suggests the Court should always defer to the legislature, and should not prematurely assume constitutional infirmities until the facts make them clear, or if there appears to be no way the words can be applied in accord with the Constitution.
This is huge. Today Obama rails against banks. He tells us how bad they are and they will be fine if he taxes them and stops their growth. But they can’t run ads for candidates that know what banks do. They should have free speech also. Banks under Chavez also lack free speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Is there something about that which is unclear to McCain, Bush and the liberals on the Supreme Court?
The progressives calling it a reform act. That’s a laugh. They call the health care take over reform also. But, both are unconsitiutional.
RINOS, and Dems, their days are numbered.
Good news indeed! Government may not tamper with the First Amendment!
Yeah, this is the law that’s given Soros so much of his power. Down with it!
I’ve posted a lengthy opinion on this great decision on my personal blog. I hope that some of you will want to read and comment on it here:
http://www.ladsplace.net/lad_blog/2010/01/hooray-for-the-scotus/
the countless left-wing 527 operations are
the forces of truth and justice, and corporationsthe font of rich evil menThe talking heads of Congress have decided that this favors the Republicans, because the unions don’t have as much cash as the corporate world. Well, speaking as a Californian, the unions in my state don’t even regard McCain Feingold as a small speed bump. So I view it as just leveling the playing field.
Crank up the Tea Party, let’s roll! There’re more where Scott Brown came from!
Does no one here remember there was a veto proof majority that wanted this bill? Do not blame Bush for it. He was against it and only signed it when it became obvious that to go through the motions of a veto would distract the country from more crucial issues. He basically asked the Supreme Court to over turn it but the Court acts as the Court wants to.
It is also stupid to say that Corperations have more money, yes they have more but they will not spend it unless they think it will do some good. It is not thier money but the Stock Holders Money and most of that comes from average Americans and not the rich.
This decision was long over due and welcome. Without President Bush this decision would not have been possible because he is the one who made the crucial Supreme Court Appointments. He did not appoint a middle of the roader style of jurist but true Constitutional believers. The only Judges Obama will get to nominate will be replacing far left jurists unless an unexpected accident or illness occurs. That means Obama’s influence on the court will be thankfully limited and I suggest that the Republicans in the Senate do thier best to block any extreme left wing jurist from ever getting seated in any judicial seat on the federal bench.
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.
The fly in the “progressives” ointment are the clauses “Congress shall make no laws”,”or abridging the freedom of speech”.When I took the ASVAB test I scored in the 96 percentile in reading comprehension.I understand, unlike them apparently, exactly what it means.Typical of the “progressives” they want to bend the meaning of what the amendment clearly states.The same way they want to twist the interpretation the 2nd amendment or any other Constitutional clause to fit their fallacious agenda, period.It obviously doesn’t say “or prohibiting the freedom of speech except in the case of corporations”.
For those worried about influence pedaling, The Constitution gives us,We the People, all the power and tools we need to prevent this via the Bill Of Rights.If elected officials commit crimes against the nation and Constitution, and the legislative branch takes no action to rectify the situation, we vote them out and install reps who will follow the Constitution,the executive branch prosecutes the guilty,and SCOTUS strikes down any law in violation of The Constitution.
Our resident trolls: Glass-Steagle BAD!! McCain-Feingold GOOD!!
It was a good decision and a bad decision. It was good in that it will allow groups like Citizens United to get out their point of view. I fear it will be a death blow to the free market. Large corporations with overwhelming assets will use them to elect toadies who will legislate to give them preferential advantages. Not to mention the flood of earmarks.
12. Money doesn’t buy you a message; it only gives you a chance to be heard. The American people have ways of getting back at corporations and politicians who pull stunts like that.
RAP says: “Large corporations with overwhelming assets will use them to elect toadies who will legislate to give them preferential advantages.”
RAP, voters have nobody to blame but themselves for the people they elect to public office (including “toadies”).
Nowadays, with the information available on the Internet there is no excuse for the citizenry not to be fully informed if the elctorate is prepared to research issues
Yep, just one more reason I refused to vote for Johnny boy. (no I did not vote for the One)
By the way, why isn’t there more screaming when it turns out a bunch of congressman really did act unconstitutionally?
Maybe someone could post a list of all current congressman and senators who voted for this unconstitutional action.
Ha. I’d like to see teabaggers actually live up to their principles and go after this. If the problem with Obama is that he lets Wall Street dictate his message, I can’t see how allowing Wall Street to saturate the market with propaganda is going to be a victory for free speech. This is where the rubber meets the road teabaggers. Here’s where you prove you’re not just reactionary goofballs who were asleep while Republicans did all the things that now infuriate you because Obama is doing them. Here’s where you take a stand and say enough, reach across the aisle and create a real movement. Stranger things have happened. But first you have to get off the Republican crazy train, telling you that freedom is slavery. This isn’t a victory for free speech, this is a victory for the corporations that own your government.
Here’s a deal. Sack up on this one, and I’ll call you anything you want to be called. Cringe in fear as your Republican overlords put words in your mouth, and you deserve the appellation teabaggers.
The thing I find troubling here is not the freedom of speech
issue but that corporations are now considered with the same
merit as an individual. What are the ramifications of of saying
this? How can a corporation vote? Is it right that it never really dies and so will never have to pay the death tax as an individual
has to? Can it be drafted? How do you send it to prison if convicted? et cetera. I think this is much deeper than what we’re
seeing here.
16 BLOVIS:yOU CAN BLOVIATE ALL YOU WANT;THE ATTEMPT TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH HAS BEEN DECISIVELY CRUSHED! Obama was elected by a camariilla of internationalist plutocrats with useful libtard goofballs like you providing cover.Go across the aisle? You mean like Mccain did?WallSt. ALREADY saturated the market with pro Obama propaganda.The only difference is that now the right can respond. What part of the first amendment don’t you understand?
Deguello. Sorry, that was a message to the so called Tea Party activists, not life long Republicans hiding behind them in an attempt at legitimacy [or Teabaggers].
No. 9 Anonymous
Scott Brown and the Moderate, Independants have saved your political fortunes. There is no room anymore for the old sour palin tbags. You need to take notes. They dont need you anymore and no thanks, they dont want you folks around, unless its for entertainment. Scott Brown owes his election to Independants, not baggers. The northeast has taken charge of the ship and you guys need them alot more than they need you. No more flyover movements. Its time to move on to victory, not the past… out of date failure.
#21 So now Scott Brown is a moderate? This is in the same class of delusional idiocy as Obama’s contention that people voted for him for the same reasons they voted for Him! Libtardism marches on, punchdrunk,impotent,and in denial. Scott Brown was part of a ternd in the NE against libtard govt. Moderates and independents voted for overtly conservative Republican in New Jersey, Westcheter,and Long Island NY,all liberal strongholds thanks to extensive and practice concocting comforting fantasies- you’ll need it come November.
OK, that’s one vote for sour.PC your preceding statement applies equally to your side of the aisle.We’ll see what happens in November.You are old enough to know how fickle the independent vote is.You don’t actually think people won’t continue to vacillate between the two parties, in the normal political cycles in this country do you? What do think is going to happen in the next ten months to stop the bloodbath the dems are facing?
Poor Citizen, you seem to be the old sour one. If not for the Tea Parties the whole Obama/Pelosi/Reed disaster would be a fact and the poor Independents would be choking on their next big doses of catastrophic socialism. You are welcome that your takes won’t be 60% in the next couple years.
That you purposely demean a large section of Americans is sad.
That you continue to hate Palin is just faintly funny.
Faintly funny? It’s hilarious.
For Blovis-the-cock-sucker:
“If the problem with Obama is that he lets Wall Street dictate his message, I can’t see how allowing Wall Street to saturate the market with propaganda is going to be a victory for free speech.”
Can you explain how #1 (doubtful on its own, cause the problem with Obama is that he only listens to himself) leads to #2. For example, you can say – I believe Obama’s problem is that he listens to Axelrod (a Jew) – and yet, if the Supreme Court decides that Jews have a right to advertise in the newspapers – that would still be a victory for freedom of speech.
I am amazed how stupid some liberals are.
BTW, your last statement is also stupid: “This isn’t a victory for free speech, this is a victory for the corporations that own your government.”
Can it be both – a victory for corporations and the freedom of speech? For example, a right for imbeciles like you to make statements – is it only the victory for imbeciles, and it is not in any way a victory for freedom of speech?
We should all celebrate the idea that a fictitious legal entity which operates across national boundaries without check (free trade) can now directly influence the American democratic process, right? For example, it’s going to be GREAT when Chinese corporations (owned by the Chinese government) start pushing one candidate over another in US elections! Let’s hear it for “free speech!”
Question: Which freedoms that we (the people) have, should NOT be extended to the international corporation? Can corporations vote, if not, why not?
If you like freedom, then eliminate corporate personhood.
Think people!!!
As with everything, there is more than one side to this thing. For most of you here, you see this as being “free speech” — and it is. But even “free” comes as an expense.
Most people in this country are “low-information voters” They get their political views from slogans and bumper stickers. Left, Right, it is the same. Most people don’t have a memory going back further than a couple of decades — if that. They have no clue as to why something was put into place fifty or a hundred years ago. All they hear is how “unfair” it is now.
If this was just a case of allowing someone or a corporation with a lot of money to spend on supporting candidates, then fine. But look a little deeper and you will see some pretty disturbing things that can — and will happen.
First, understand that in today’s world, that corporation is not necessarily a “US” company. In fact, it is very likely that it is owned by the Chinese, the Saudis, the Japanese, and steady yourselves – the Iranians and North Koreans might have some money invested also.
Do you really want foreign governments shoveling money into our election process using corporations as their fronts? China wants to support a particular candidate because he or she is friendly to their economic goals. So they pump billions into buying up ALL of the ad space to only show their candidate(s).
You people need to go read the entire ruling to see what has happened here. Quit just working off of the bullet points.
to feldman-
the distortions of your analogizing are pathetic-
even for the child-sized minds of limbaugh supporters.
you are another internet ass with logorrhea.
I dare anyone to dispute the fact that this ruling vaults the dollar over the vote. Time and time again, politics has shown that, despite credentials, principle and even party lines, more money means more exposure (often via propaganda pieces, smear campaigns and good old fashioned misinformation) and more exposure means the seat. So if you think for a second that politicians don’t respond more to unrestricted corporate funding than to the needs of their constituents then you are truly jaded- its really just common sense. I get the whole money equals free speech argument, I think its rather weak given the gravity of the ruling, but I get it- the problem arrives when we confront the consequences. Your vote will matter less-guaranteed, this is purely indisputable, its just as indisputable as when Hobbes first discussed the self interested nature of man in Leviathan. This is a sad day for democracy, democrat or republican.
This is a sad day for democracy in America, Republican or Democrat.
It blows my mind that the people on this site can’t understand the precedent this case requires. This is only partly about free speech but is equally about corporate person hood. The court just defined an imaginary tax entity with the same constitutional right as you and I. This isn’t about silencing anyone, but rather deciding whether an imaginary entity that can’t (literally can’t because it doesn’t exist except as a state-level consruct) should be treated like a real person with federal protections for the state-created entity.
If you are going to bestow one constitutional right to this thing that isn’t human, are you now going to bestow others? You are going to give corporations a vote at the ballot box too?? Why not?! Because corporations aren’t people! And yet this court case requires such a fallacy. And you are all supporting such a move; give all of your god given rights to a magical entity that isn’t human without the ability to punish or hold it as accountable. You are supporting the removal of some of the few great equalizers this country was founded on because you are so caught up in the talking point rhetoric of this being a “victory for free speech”.
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations…which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”- Thomas Jefferson
And yet some of you have the nerve to act as if this court action was the intention of the framers??!
The Pandora’s Box is open. What will happen now that credit card issuers are free to spend whatever it takes to stack the law in their favor? It is a resurrection of usury- a slap in the face of Christian principle. I am not a debtor, I am not looking to excuse my debts because I have none. However, the majority of people I know-(white Christians in particular) carry substantial debt. What will happen to them when their creditors start penalizing them with capricious fees and garnish every penny they earn until they die. Conservatives rally in favor of everything Obama is against. Be careful what you wish for.
Once again, this conservative SCOTUS throws up on itself. Not since the mental gymnastics of applying equal protection in Bush v. Gore have we seen such blatant political activism from the high court. Still, it’s fun to hear conservatives blather on about the importance of the first amendment every now and again!
For all those opposed to a plain reading of the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers provided a mechanism for them to achieve their goal of suppression or limitation of free speech: amend the Constitution. Oh, but that would require submission of the issue to the People through a Constitutional convention or through ratification of a proposed amendment by the necessary number of state legislatures. So untidy. So democratic.
The Supreme Court’s decision will be a boon to the free speech of left and right, and to labor unions and corporations. It will be a boon to us all.
God save our Republic.
For those of you critical of the decision, I remind you that the media is largely corporate and were excluded from coverage under this statute, but if the court ruled otherwise, they , too, could have been shut up in the most important area of public discourse–elections.
In fact, in the course of argument in this case, the government argued the Act gave the FEC the right in the critical pre-election period to ban books, movies, internet communications and even kindle books mentioning endorsing or opposing a candidate for office.
Until this decision, if you owned a newspaper you could say whatever you wanted about a candidate whenever you chose to, but corporations , unions and citizens groups could not.
I am appalled at how little regard some of you hve for the most fundamental of your constitutional rights. At the same time so many of you conjure up “rights’ out of thin air that are nowhere guaranteed you.
The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that government is equal to God. It has bestowed upon a creation of mankind, corporations, the same inalienable rights that God has bestowed upon us, the People of the United States of America. What basis can the Supreme Court have for such a fundamentally flawed ruling? Will they extend such rights to your computer, your house, your car, your property? The premise is absurd, but they have already extended rights to fish, birds, and other creatures over which we have dominion granted by God. No, they ruled that the precedence of previous courts is the standard by which they judge the law and not the actual law. They have already extended protection to foreign nationals who illegally enter our country. They have already deemed the seizure of land from one citizen to give to another so that additional revenue can be had by the state is justified. They have allowed the police to stop and search persons to determine compliance with the law whether it be for insurance or sobriety or illegal occupants. It is obvious that the Court has regard for neither the Constitution nor the rights of the People of the United States of America. (By the way, I’m a Conservative)
Is there anyone here naive enough to think foreign money doesn’t already directly influence American elections?
Judicial activism is all good when it comes down on the side of “progressives” ie. Roe vs. Wade, affirmative action etc.Am I right David Hayes?
DJ Allyn I refer you to the Service Employee INTERNATIONAL Union.
Harvard Yard has it exactly correct.Don’t like it,add an amendment to specifically ban ALL corporate campaign contributions.Yeah,that means union and media corporations too.
Has anybody noticed that the American people are not stupid? And the Tea Partiers are just the visible tip of the iceberg. We can tolerate freedom of speech. Give us some credit.
I understand the reservations. If corporate advertising becomes a problem, we can revisit the situation. I assume it wouldn’t fly constitutionally, but if we put gags on corporations, shouldn’t we also put gags on every organization? Why should non-profits or political organizations be allowed to advertise? The concept is the same; a group of individuals banding together to create greater economic impact for their point of view.
But for all we know right now, people might see right through it. The Internet is a fabulous tool. And how many young people are sitting around watching TV commercials.
THis, of course, is the end of democracy as we have known it. Individuals will not be able to speak through the corporations, or come close t matching their financial power. Financial power should not and must not determine the future of our country – individual citizens must and should. Unfortunately,the disrespect for education, for knowledge, for learning, for listening has made too many of our citizens unable to tell the difference between propaganda and fact/reason, so we are now screwed forever, since what we hear from Fox/Wall Street Journal/Australian owner of these Rupert Murdoch, and similar interests, will influence and control far too many of us, and our freedoms are out the door. Do you really think, for example, Corporate Health Care like United Health Care really cares for you as an insured as opposed to its shareholders and its executives making tens of millions of dollars a year off of your premiums? They consider every dollar spent on your health care a “medical loss,” and the constraints on what they are reimbursing you while raising your premiums 30 to 50% this year tell you how much they have your interest at heart. Wake up America – you’ve just lost the democracy we thought we enjoyed.
Post after post, and still some of you are acting as if those who ACTUALLY read the court opinion are saying something different. You are just posting and responding to the “free speech” rhetoric.
If you are support this, please, explain WHY you support a corporation = a person. Don’t you dare sit here and act as if all those against this are somehow against free speech.
That is the problem here, not the free speech for individuals or even groups. You are arguing back in 2002 when mccain-feingold was created. You are just happy that bill was overturned largely. But you are so damned insistent on being right, and having your political will done in this ONE case that you are willing to excuse that CORPORATIONS, A STATE ENTITY, WAS DEEMED A PERSON; CORPORATIONS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. You are happy that the court just played God and made a living thing. The court just endowed an imaginary construct as equal as you and I. Not because corporations are groups of people (they aren’t BTW, for all of you that keep wrongly stating that) but because a corporation IS a person. Will you be supporting electoral votes for each corporation too?? Since you support the case, you MUST support this too, for that is the foundation by which this opinion is based on.
This court case is a pragmatic failure due to the outcome it will have on our democracy, but greater than that it sets a precedent that you are blindly supporting because of the singular effect it is presently having on one bill.
Interestingly btw, the other effect here is that if you and I were to spend our money making movies to campaign for a candidate, we’d have to spend the money out of pocket. A corporation can spend the money, make no profit from it (it won’t directly) and take the spending as a corporate loss. You and I have to spend after-tax money on such ventures.
Not only are corporations now protected as equals to you and me (even though a corporation isn’t alive or breathing) we have given incentive for corporations to involve themselves in our democracy in a greater role than you and I.
And some of you still think the argument is over free speech. Amazing.
@ anon
“Has anybody noticed that the American people are not stupid? And the Tea Partiers are just the visible tip of the iceberg. We can tolerate freedom of speech. Give us some credit.
I understand the reservations. If corporate advertising becomes a problem, we can revisit the situation. I assume it wouldn’t fly constitutionally, but if we put gags on corporations, shouldn’t we also put gags on every organization? Why should non-profits or political organizations be allowed to advertise? The concept is the same; a group of individuals banding together to create greater economic impact for their point of view.
But for all we know right now, people might see right through it. The Internet is a fabulous tool. And how many young people are sitting around watching TV commercials.”
=========
You start off with politicizing this and using the same rhetoric, talking about “tolerating freedom of speech”. 50 years of media study show that mass information campaigns control populaces and that freedom of speech only works with enough voices. Currently 5, count it FIVE, media conglomerates have monopolized a majority of ALL media (print, tv, internet,etc) in our country. We do not have the variety of voices currently that we did even 30 years ago (same market share was divided by 50+ conglomerates)
BY DEFINITION, corporations are not a group of people. You have obviously. never run a corporation. A person cannot act as a corporation or become one. Rather, a corporation must be created separately. Where do you think the liability limits come from?!
BY THIS CASE, corporations are not a group of people. A corporation is a person. It’s own person. Equal to you and I by the constitution.)
Corporations are designed by the state to limit liability, make profit, and honor contracts no matter who is employed (including officers). That’s it. It is a business/tax creation for those reasons only. But now it is a person. It is not, and never was, a “group of people”.
People might see through it??? HA. Again, 50 years of social media studies says you are wrong. You are admitting that disinformation will become a larger problem but you are convinces that you will see through it. 50 years of evidence says you are wrong at the populational level.
How many young people are watching TV commercials? Way less than the number of (voting) elderly, since young people know how to use a DVR and stream from the internet. Funny enough, you just brought the subject up for me, but it is the elderly that continue to get their news in conventional ways. The same that vote the most.
Most of you defending ‘Citzens United vs. FEC’. Wow. First off it’s sad that some fool who spouts troglodytic and propagandistic horse **** should be the catalyst for gutting McCain-Feingold. The only thing that says, it seems, is that the supposedly agendaless, non-activist Supreme Court would’ve killed those needed reforms regardless, with any flimsy pretext they could find. And this one is pretty flimsy.
And to the losers that think they’re taking ‘their’ country back and that this decision benefits you. The people who will benefit from this are laughing their asses off, but particularly at you. And, by and by, they’re going to take especial pleasure in, putting it bluntly, boning you, and yeah, laughing their asses off at some of those they’re screwing actually being boobs and rubes enough to support them.
What’s that tapping you pendulously on the chin, children? The n*t sacks of very wealthy, powerful entities that don’t give a rat’s *** whether you live die. So long, suckas.
42 CLEM: CLAM UP!It’s a free country, deal with it! Go live in Castro’s Cuba where a vigorous version of Mcain Feingold has been in force for forty years.Losers? Suckers? Last time I heard,the demlibtards like you had lost 3 key elections,death care,cap and trade,and Air America,while the clowinish,affirmative action,marxoid dweeb of a president lost his famous “cool” in Ohio in a fit of childish petulant hysterics.The only “suckers” were those Americans who voted for Obama thinking that he would improve the nation.They have at last realized that the guy’s a threat that needs to be neutralized,unlike you who continue to believe his lies.You are a stalinist hypocrite,perfectly OK with a leftist plutocrat loke George Soros spending millions , while conservative activists and organizations remained muzzled.Your moment has come and gone, scum!Buy some tranquilizers;your’e going to need them!
The problem – and I did not read any previous posts, that there is no way to know for sure if the ads that corporations will put out appealing to the masses – because they are not appealing to the politicans, they are seeking the voter’s support on any issue that will benefit their bottom line – are objective or subjective. However, it seems and I am calling my broker in the a.m. that companies will lose the support of their shareholders should they solicit the voters based on their profit margin and not what is best for the population. Americans have lost their voice this last week and should realize that if they are middle-class America – the rich in this country have realized a momentous opportunity to get richer and the rest of America – well, they are now the sheep that must listen to the only voice with enough money to speak the loudest. How can democracy survive this evolution? It won’t. Journalists will need to be more vigilant in following politics but they will undoubtedly be more biased. So who will we trust. Not the corporations we are invested in. Our fellow neighbor who may or may not be invested in the company that is advertising their interest. We become the United States of Paranoia and that will be the demise of the Pax Americana.
This is not about corporations;most of them propagandize for globalism,PC, affirmative action,cultural nihilism(helps to market garbage like rap). This is about conservative Americans organizing non-profits to disseminate their points of view and organize to fight these leftist plutocracies who run finance,entertainment,and the “news”media.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
– U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Extending free speech to corporations is just another extension of the flawed premise that a corporation should be treated like a person. In essence, doing so gives >1 (ie, unequal) say in matters of the government. You have your personal voice, which I am all for keeping 100% free, and now you also have your portion of a corporation’s voice. This gives corporate officers much more of a voice in public affairs than the average Joe. And thus, gives corporate interests far more voice in public affairs. I know Republicans are for the advancement of corporations over people – but that’s now what this country was founded for. To use a right-wing catch-phrase – it’s un-American.