It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by johnny2127
The supreme court should interpret the law to protect against corruption. This insured corruption. Therefore the supreme court was wrong.
Originally posted by tetrahedron
"The founders never intended corporations to have rights under the constitution. This was an activist ruling."
Nonsense. A corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals. This applies from Mom&Pa's Cherry Pies in Chatanooga, TN to General Electric. Restricting the rights of a group of individuals restricts the rights of each constituent member.
Does [free speech protection] apply to foreign nationals? Does it apply to the government of China or Russia or Iran in this country? Does it apply to corporations? Those are all different players who are not individuals, not voters, not citizens.
- Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission
A corporation, however, "is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded.
Originally posted by tetrahedron
Nonsense. A corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals.
CORPORATIONS KNOW NO BORDERS.....THIS OPENS THE DOOR TO MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS EFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF OUR ELECTIONS.
Originally posted by amance
The corporations already owned our government institutions through all the PAC money and such. This won't really change anything for the worse. I'd rather know where the money is coming from (directly from corporation to politician) than have to trace it through the myriad of holding companies, PACs, and lobbying firms.
This is bad news but it already was bad. It's like setting fire to a previously burned down house.
How much more are we going to take?
Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by maybereal11
CORPORATIONS KNOW NO BORDERS.....THIS OPENS THE DOOR TO MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS EFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF OUR ELECTIONS.
Thank you. I've been posting this all over the threads on this ruling and not enough people are getting it.
This puts our nations's sovereignty in jeopardy...and our entire political process.
I'm still fuming about this....I just can't believe it happened.
The high court threw out a century-long ban on corporate spending to support candidates for office in a 5-4 ruling that reverses decades of high court decisions upholding the prohibition. By implication, the decision also invalidates similar restrictions on unions, as well as state bans.
...
Both advocates and critics of campaign finance reform agree that the decision is an earthquake in the law.
Indeed, Thursday's Supreme Court decision will restructure the way election campaigns are run at all levels of government. Trevor Potter, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and general counsel for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, notes that corporate spending bans in 24 states and countless localities will be obliterated almost overnight.
"Suddenly," he says, "the prospect of a corporation that's unhappy with a zoning decision — or the action of a local mayor — being able to go in and spend enough money to defeat them in the next election, or elect a new town council — all with corporate funds — is going to be a big shock."
Judicial elections in every state will now see more corporate and union spending too, and, in Congress, the floodgates are now fully open.
Other critics of the decision are even more blunt. Fred Wertheimer, who has helped craft every piece of campaign reform legislation since Watergate, calls the decision "the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in Supreme Court history."