Jan 27, 2010 -- 4:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Good that we have a wild wide ocean that separates my country from that!

I'll second that

maybe; btw see my latest post on the NASA thread

Jan 28, 2010 -- 12:44PM, Nepenthe wrote:

Jan 26, 2010 -- 2:17PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

Now the problem is, these 'corporate persons' are not limited to two  grand.  They can donate whatever they want to a political campaign.  And sadly, it isn't too hard to buy a candidate for a million bucks.  Which means that your natural personhood, and your rights, are co-opted by corporations that will have a vested interest in the legislation passed by the candidate.  It doesn't take much to understand how that works, Nepenthe.  If a legislator is bought and paid for by, oh, health insurance companies, how likely do you think he will be to vote on health care reform? If a legislator is bought and paid for by arms merchants, how likely do you think he will be to vote to end a pointless war? If your legislator is bought and paid for by media corporations, how likely do you think it will be that he votes for fairness in media?

Number one - campaign donations are severly limited, as they have been for awhile now.  That was not changed with this decision.  This decision addressed the point of a group of people wanting to air a movie. But, because it concerned a particular politician, in some magical pre-election time frame, they were barred, by federal law, from showing that movie.  This has nothing to do with money, corporations as persons, etc.  It has everything to do with "Congress shall make no law". 

Number two - and I have already said this, lobbying already rules those who represent us in D.C.  I have not seen one bill introduced to stop this.  Obama has done little to nothing to stop this.  Yet he is outraged by the SCOTUS decision, when he himself has several former lobbyists working in his white house!  With the health care bill alone, we have heard of several "back-room" deals designed for the sole purpose of "vote-buying".  From the union exemption thing to something about Nebraska getting all of it's Medicare paid for and other such non-sense.

Number three - almost forgot, just read about it today.  That little McCain law that was over-ruled, well I didn't realize that there was an exemption for media outlets.  How nice that some can enjoy free speach benefits while it was denied to others.

No.  Number one ... there are no more limits on how much corporations can give to PACS  to advance a candidate.  That's PRECISELY why people are so up in arms about it.  They are also reviewing the Michigan Chamber of Commerce case, and if they overturn that decision, corporations will be able to give to candidates directly in an unlimited fashion.

Number two.  Everyone should be outraged by the decision, and by corporate personhood as equal to natural personhood.  Every bill has 'back room deals' that go on to pass it; it is a credit to the transparency of this Congress (and the media) THAT YOU EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT.  

Number three.   If you take a look at the first amendment, the ONLY 'profession' that is specifically protected is the press.  Newspapers are free to endorse candidates (unless they elect to follow a nonprofit business plan - like churches, if the government covers your taxes for you, you can't pick sides).  Don't like it? Amend the constitution.  There is nothing IN the constitution about protecting the rights of non-natural persons, the fourteenth amendment is pretty damn clear about what that means, and corporations fall into that legal fiction called 'corporate personhood'.  

Do you really WANT businesses buying your legislature? What's in it for you, Nepenthe?

No.  Congress made a law that restricted corporations from buying candidates (Tillman Act, 1907).  There is nothing in that act that restricts each individual employed by, or shareholders of, said corporation from spending their own cash to contribute to an individual campaign.  

The fourteenth amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Okay.  Where are corporate 'persons' in this definition? Answer: Nowhere.  The only place where corporations are 'persons' comes from the very first act of Congress in which corporations are permitted limited protections to enter into contracts and buy property - that is, so that the decision is vested in one natural person on behalf of the 'corporation'.  

Each natural person involved with a corporation (or a union, or a lobbying firm, or a special interest group) already HAS all the rights of personhood.  They don't need them doubled because of their involvement in these organizations, and that is where the Supreme Court is heading.