I'm actually speechless.

[lunadelcorvo]

Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court Allows China And Others Unlimited Spending In US Elections

Srsly?

Comments

[jcd1013.livejournal.com]

Yeah, dumbfounded is pretty much my response too. I'm just sick inside. I honestly cannot fathom why people are so scared of the government, but will allow big businesses to control everything, including now with this ruling, who gets elected to office. Where is the checks and balances there?

This week has SUCKED politically.

[celtickittenmew.livejournal.com]

Not to be inarticulate, but NO WAY MAN!! WTF!? Perhaps, it is time for an internet revolution of hedge funds for the ordinary man/woman/person. I mean, if all it takes to be an LLC is to file jointly, send out a news letter, and pay capital gains tax, then random strangers could easily get in on this game. However, it seems that the problem is not with the bureaucratic branch this time. Indeed, it is the judicial branch that has sold out freedom for - forgive the religiosity of the reference - a measly 30 pieces of silver. Those traitors ought to have their licenses revoked and if it was in my power they'd be off the bench faster than you can say SNOW JOB! Something must be done. After all, Edmund Burke put it best in saying that, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’

[sorshawolf.livejournal.com]

This will snowball so badly..so so badly.

Moving to another country doesn't sound like such a bad idea after all....

[samuraiartguy.livejournal.com]

Blows the fucking MIND doesn't it? And who's an "actiivist" court now?

Some commentage at truthout.org

This is SUCH massive bad.

The constitutional basis of this opinion is one of the REAL problems with the whole "Corporations as Legal Persons" concept. Can anyone say, "Washington for Sale?" It seriously needs to be revisited. In the Media Age, the staggering costs of running a successful campaign mean that wealthy corporations and other special interests have the power to literally purchase any election they please.

Maybe they'll pass a law that requires politicians to wear sponsorship logos like NASCAR race drivers if their contributions go over a threshold amount!

It will be very interesting to see how congress will respond to this horrifically unbalanced decision.

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

How will congress respond????

Like the little whores they are-- peddling every corporation they can to get funds for the next election. Promising the corporations anything they want in exchange for that money. It'll be a feeding frenzy. You can bet they've got names, names, names all lined up for this bit of mana from heaven.

[x3non.livejournal.com]

However, there were First Amendment issues at stake (http://www.fixthefec.org/node/1129). Do you want our government to be banning books?

When the Supreme Court first heard the case last March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that brought him down a slippery slope: If the movie had been a book instead, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election time frame?

Stewart said that it could.

"That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Then came questions about electronic devices like the Kindle.

"If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?" asked Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

"That's correct," Stewart replied.

"It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'And so vote for X,' the government could ban that?" Roberts asked again.

In retrospect, Bossie said, this was the moment that turned a majority of the bench against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United.

"That sent a chill down the Supreme Court," Bossie said. The argument became a "point of demarcation."

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

Hearing about this was an extra special moment, as if someone had just announced zombies were real and coming to eat us on the news-- it just didn't seem possible.


As someone else commented (Panzner? Shedlock? Kunstler?) this is NOT a "freedom of speech" thing-- because MONEY IS NOT SPEECH and CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE! It should be pretty simple to realize these basic facts, so if they chose to deny reality, then I agree something STINKS.

Now that the corporations own the Supreme Court...? The great experiment that is the checks and balances of our system have officially FAILED.

I'm so pissed off about this.

Money is not speech.
Corporations are not people.

It's literally the falling apart of our nation. And will we even know it up front if THEY pay for us not to? OMG this is bad...