Supreme Court decision on Politcal Ads

[Moliere]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34983042...s-answer_desk/

I'm an advocate for free speech but this Supreme Court decision just feels wrong to me and I can't figure out why. I think it is because the justices are basically putting corporations on the same level as people when it comes to protecting rights. I guess I see the 1st amendment rights as natural rights that every person should have, but I just don't feel like that is applicable to corporations.

I wonder if this decision will really impact the elections. Does a Republican candidate really want an ad running that promotes him, however at the end of the ad it says "This Ad Paid for by Exxon"?

I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to play one on CUF, but I know there are many lawyers on here that probably have a different view of the similarities between people and corporations.

Thoughts?

[TripletDaddy]

I can see both sides.

I would expect the breakdown to fall out somewhat like this:

GOP
Oil
Tobacco
Guns
Wall Street

Dems
Unions
Hollywood
Healthcare
Alternative Energy

The problems are somewhat obvious....the individual takes a back seat to corporate interests and it becomes even less necessary for candidates to pretend about individual needs.

However, corporate America pays a crapload of taxes and are often regulated. The corporate entity seems to have a right to its own voice.

[Moliere]

However, corporate America pays a crapload of taxes and are often regulated. The corporate entity seems to have a right to its own voice.

The do pay a lot of taxes, but a corporation is essential an entity comprised of individuals. Most individuals at a big oil company will be republican while most individuals in union management will be democrats. Those individuals can speak and vote as they please.

In addition, corporations and unions already have incredible political power without running politcial ads. The pay large amounts to lobbyists, and politicians obviously side one way or the other in hopes that when they are done in office they can sign on with the corporation for some big bucks and big bonuses. My company just hired a guy who worked in Washington for a number of years as a politician and lobbyist.

[All-American]

The do pay a lot of taxes, but a corporation is essential an entity comprised of individuals. Most individuals at a big oil company will be republican while most individuals in union management will be democrats. Those individuals can speak and vote as they please.

In addition, corporations and unions already have incredible political power without running politcial ads. The pay large amounts to lobbyists, and politicians obviously side one way or the other in hopes that when they are done in office they can sign on with the corporation for some big bucks and big bonuses. My company just hired a guy who worked in Washington for a number of years as a politician and lobbyist.

On the other hand, corporations have zero votes.

[frank ryan]

On the other hand, corporations have zero votes.

I bet corporate board members outnumber union bosses

[All-American]

I bet corporate board members outnumber union bosses

And I bet employees outnumber them both.

[statman]

If anything, this decision adds transparency. If your money was endless, you could hide behind a PAC. Now that the process is more direct, we'll know how much money people like George Soros REALLY donated. If only there was a way to keep tabs on multi-industry media concerns like GE - to which such laws have never applied. They call their support for candidates, causes and parties "news"

[UtahDan]

It is an incredibly long opinion. Several concurrences, dissents. Something like 180 pages. That was the only thing offensive to me. The majority opinion (which is all I have read so far) is well worth the read for those equipped to do so. Lots of interesting history, though at least the first two sections are procedural and should be skipped. The interesting stuff starts, I believe, at III.

I think they got it right. The idea that undertaking an "electioneering communications" (basically, media of any kind paid for by a corp., union, etc.) near an election should be a felony never sat well with me. There are so many sources for information now, no particular group should be censored based on the notion that they are just too powerful to have a say. That always struck me as un-American.

[grapevine]

Corporations are ownded by people. Someone that owns an oil company has as much right to free speech as someone that works there. If it wasn't for individuals there would be no corporations.

[Hallelujah]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34983042...s-answer_desk/

I'm an advocate for free speech but this Supreme Court decision just feels wrong to me and I can't figure out why. I think it is because the justices are basically putting corporations on the same level as people when it comes to protecting rights. I guess I see the 1st amendment rights as natural rights that every person should have, but I just don't feel like that is applicable to corporations.

I wonder if this decision will really impact the elections. Does a Republican candidate really want an ad running that promotes him, however at the end of the ad it says "This Ad Paid for by Exxon"?

I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to play one on CUF, but I know there are many lawyers on here that probably have a different view of the similarities between people and corporations.

Thoughts?

This law suit came as a result of the Hilary movie that someone wanted to show that was paid for by a corporation.....much like Michael Moore.

They have a right to point out why someone shouldn't be elected. Not sure it has to do with campaign contributions.