Corporations and the First Amendment

Because it adheres to the stricter language of the Constitution, instead of allowing for the specifics of the situation and a broader interpretation of the law.

 

The really interesting First Amendment law is going to surround some of the Islamist extremists over the next decade or more, and already has. We have warm fuzzies about our local '60s radicals, but it's going to be a real test to see how we react to these guys who are exercising the same rights.

 

I hate Illinois Nazis.

 

I also find it fascinating that for all the bluster and romanticizing about the Framers and the Founding Fathers that the courts didn't even really start to expand the First Amendment to what we know it as today until World War I.

 

"Today's decision slants the political process towards the Republicans"/ Eugene Robinson WA PO

Just do not understand that statement.

 

Bluster about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers is always fascinating.

 

So when Ted Turner or George Soros or any other free-thinking or liberal zillionaire, through a shell corporation, dumps a billion dollar into the [fill in the blank] race and gets his or her candidate elected, that will be okay with everybody?
Because that's what this decision means.
Very wealthy people can now spend as much money as they want, on who they want.
It will be used and abused on both sides of the aisle and in the end, no one will be happy with this.
Potentially the worst Supreme Court decision this century and, in the running, for worst ever.

 

Well, Dred Scott and Lochner were pretty bad.

Today will probably be Roberts' legacy.

 

Yes, why wouldn't we, who believe that the constitution says what it means, be OK with that?

It is like NCAA "violations" -- you want to clean up the NCAA?

Ditch about 75 percent of the rules, particularly any rules involving boosters money, and you'll clean it up.

Campaign finance rules are a sham and they are a sham, not to clean up the process, but instead are intended to limit the process and to limit who can be involved in the process.

With no campaign finance rules - a big multi-zillion dollar corporation can now essentially fund a candidate and make sure he or she has as much access to the kind of advertising needed to become relevant.

It evens things for the third party candidates.

 

l

This is false. This decision locks down the two party system now more than ever. No big corporate entity is going to bet hundreds of millions on a third party player.

And if they are, that isn't right either. You are essentially saying that it is okay for a company, or union, to spend as much money as they want to get someone elected.
It defeats the democratic process to allow that kind of money into politics.

And Waylon, yeah, Dred Scott is up there. Let me rephrase to say in the running to be among the worst ever.

 

Not that it isn't true, but it's funny to me that voters can't really be trusted to see through too much advertising.

 

You mean like, in a year when the overwhelming majority of the people are pissed off and disgruntled with both parties, where a third party blending a lot of those disgruntled people is trying to get into the race -- corporations and individuals wouldn't think about spending lots of money to get a guy from a third-party elected?

This guy would tend to disagree.....