“We the corporations”

By now you’ve no doubt heard about the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, a decision that will have a wide-reaching impact on future campaigns, allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in support or opposition to a particular candidate, opening up the very real possibility that elections (and elected officials) could be bought and sold by lobbyists and special interests. In dissenting with the 5-4 decision issued by the Court’s pro-corporate majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court had reached out to decide questions not properly before it, had issued a needlessly broad ruling when narrower grounds were available and had failed to show due respect for precedent.

The New York Times sums up the Supreme Court’s decision thusly:

The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: “if you vote wrong, my company … (will) spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.”

Stuart Carlson of Carlsontoons.com sums it up best:

Courtesy Carlsontoons.com

Related Articles

13 thoughts on ““We the corporations”

  1. I wonder how Obama raised >700 million dollars? I bet no “greedy” corporations, you know the ones that produce 90% of American jobs, contributed to his campaign. Oh, wait ACORN, you know the group that supports prostituting under age children, weren’t they a major supporter of Obama? Then again SEIU is always a favorite of this administrations. You know rub my back and I will exempt you from “Cadillac” health insurance taxes.

    What is wrong with the decisions, corporations still cannot directly contribute to a campaign. It is called free speech, guaranteed by the constitutions and yes even corporations have that right!

    1. “guaranteed by the constitutions”

      Is that like the internets?

      Cheap shot, but you obviously don’t get it. ACORN is not a corporation. Corporate money will be spent on Democrats as well as Republicans. I don’t like it either way. I’ll have an argument with you later if you want.

  2. Isn’t it just as dangerous, if not more so, for government do decide who gets to exercise free speech and who doesn’t? At least this way, it is out in the open and we will know who is saying what instead of the money being funneled to shadow groups.

  3. Let’s make something absolutely clear: The “campaign finance reforms” that have gotten ruled unconstitutional did nothing – NOT A THING – to take money out of politics. If anything, they made it worse by foisting PACs & 501(c)s on us with a hell of a lot less transparency or than we had before.

    So let’s not hold a pitty party here.

  4. Jim,

    I get it just like the voters in Virgina, Massachusetts, and New Jersey get it.

    Corporations have rights protected under the constitution. I know the constitution to liberals is “living and breathing”!

    Locke is correct, Obama raised >700 million and we will never know who it came from.

    1. Well then I get it like voters in NY-23 get it. Winning three elections doesn’t amount to jack.

      If corporations have rights protected under the Constitution, if anyone interprets it as “living and breathing” it is conservatives who recently discover these corporate rights.

      1. Jim,

        That same argument was repeated daily up until Brown took Kennedy’s seat. Just imagine, a republican campaigning against Obama and this ignorant healthcare bill beat a liberal is one of the bluest states in the nation! Outstanding!!!

        Now what is Chairman Obama going to propose? A tax on banks! The same banks who have already repaid the money that was forced on them. I have a surprise progressives, it was not the banks who caused this issue, it was Freddie and Fannie. Remember the Bush administrations requested tighter regulations 17 times, every time denied by progressives like Barney Frank. Oh, it is so unfair for poor people not to own a house! Cry me a river, we all know what happened.

        Obama is the worst, most immature, thin skinned president this country has ever encountered.

        Just waiting for the terrorist attack, Obama will be impeached.

  5. I can’t believe people are comparing this to the protection of free speech for corporations. If anything this will limit the freedom to have meanigful political discourse because it will once again marginalize the American citizen who will be out shouted by large corporations with nearly limitless bank accounts. Do you really trust lobbyist to take into consideration the needs and desires of the American people. I don’t. Largley because that’s not their job. We need to remember, American Democracy, the thing that all of us should be able to support was to develop a country for the people by the people.

    1. Lobbyists only have a bad connotation when they advocate for something you don’t like. Whether it’s abortion, the environment, or auto workers, there is a segment of the population behind the lobbyists. Some lobbyists represent my interests and some don’t.

      1. I understand your sentiment but I completely disagree. Lobbyist are in my personal opinion one of the largest problems in our current political system. That goes for the lobbyists that I agree with and those that I disagree with. The fact is that the more money an entity has to throw at a lobbyist the more influence that lobbyist has with most politicians. If that’s the way the system should run why don’t we just cut out the middle man and pay politicians to vote one way or another.

        1. When you contact your representatives you are a lobbyist. If you join an organization, that organization’s lobbyist works on behalf of your interests and relating them to representatives. I think it is kind of a knee-jerk response by the pulbic to say “lobbyists are the problem.” Well, what do you propose we do about it?

          I do recognize that some of that influence may at times be viewed as problematic, but there are competing interests and of course the power of voters to offset that.

          1. I agree with what you’re saying, that “lobbying” in the broadest sense is simply trying to convince some one and cannot and should not under any circumstances be prohibited. The problem is money and I don’t see a problem with trying to eliminate professional lobbyists. The problem isn’t you or I giving our congressman a call. The problem is John Smith esq., a guy who gets paid to do so. And directly or indirectly using money to get his voice heard or worse, buy his support.

Comments are closed.