MLM Directory

The new Supreme Court ruling, the end of Democracy? Should the Supreme Court be abolished?

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/22/the-sweeping-impact-of-scotus-campaign-spending-decision.aspx " * It adds to Republican chances of pickups in red states with small, cheap media markets. * It turns the cottage industry of campaign consulting into a Hollywood-lucrative major media sector. * It reduces candidates and political parties to mere appendages in their own campaigns. * It will turn corporate boardrooms into political cockfighting pits, since that is where the key decisions will be made. * It gives President Obama a populist issue, if he has the cojones and imagination and sense of injustice to take it on. * It rips the veil of "conservatism" from this court, which just rendered one of the most wildly "activist" opinions in decades. It makes a mockery of the legal theory of "original intent." The Founders would be rolling over in their graves." http://www.newsweek.com/id/232166?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newsweek%2FTopNews+%28UPDATED+-+Newsweek+Top+Stories%29 "But this was no justification for the court's blockbuster, precedent-smashing Jan. 21 decision unleashing corporate executives to pour unlimited amounts of stockholders' money—without their consent—into ads supporting or attacking federal candidates. Indeed the 5–4 decision would allow any big company to spend a fortune attacking candidates whom many, or even most, of its stockholders would rather support. And corporations—including multinationals controlled by foreigners—will spend money on elections not to advance the political views of their stockholders, but to seek economic advantage." As if Scott "Hottie McAwesome" Brown wasn't bad enough, it seems as if the Right has found every way it could to suck this country dry of all its legitimacy left. The American people have no voice now, politics is officially run by the corporation from here on out. To CONSERVATIVE TSUNAMI: I believe in free-speech for individuals, not corporations. A corporation is not a person, and only has the interests of its own profit in mind. To u_r_a_libtard: Unions don't have NEARLY as much money as corporations. It's obvious who is the biggest beneficiary of this. Unions may have some money, but not nearly as much as the big guys.

Public Comments

1. Not abolished but investigated and questioned. Question Authority.
2. will the angry leftists ever wake up and realize free speech cuts both ways!!!
3. The supreme court ruling ends the monopoly that the mainstream media had on political content. Its was another blow for Obama and the left in what has been the most disastrous week ever for them.
4. You are right the supreme court is partisan.
5. wow, oddly you didnt whine when unions can pour millions into candidates campaign funds with out permission from their members. my, what a high level double standard you have
6. So you are saying that GE can use NBC to actively campaign for Obama , but other corporations cannot ? But thats what you wanted all along total control over the media didnt you , you little leftist you.
7. No, they shouldn't be abolished. They should be congratulated on a job well done with this ruling. They leveled out the political playing field and now the libs are whining. What's new? I don't understand how you can say that the American people have no voice now. The voters have ALWAYS had a voice. If voters would take the time to listen and learn about a candidate instead of just gobbling up political hype, this country would be far better off.
8. This is a devastating blow to Democracy. Corporations and labor unions have too big of influence even without this ruling. However I fail to see how this is a republican victory when it is clear that no one wins except Oil companies, health care companies, wall street and giants like mc donalds and wal-mart. They do what they do not in the best interest of America but for the interest of profit. These are the groups that will be legislating soon.
9. Something smells "fishy" about this ruling. In the 2008 Presidential campaign Obama got a lot in more non-individual contributions than McCain did. Obama got $284,530,535 and McCain got $132,090,435. In both cases it was a lot more than contributions from individuals. This seems more like an effort to knock out 3rd Party candidates than anything else. The Democrats and Republicans are already in bed with the big money.
10. Ah....more fatuous nonsense. In the minds of libs : SCOTUS on abortion - great SCOTUS on free speech - bad. Libs = hypocrites
11. OK ... let me tell you what the Imperial Democrats are so worried about. Up until now they had the edge in campaign donations. Take a large corporation. The unionized employees of that corporation were free to donate to Democrats ... just as their shop stewards and union leaders suggested they do. The company itself? Prohibited. The Democrats are afraid that large businesses that are traditionally more attuned to the pro-business Republicans than they are to the pro-union Democrats are going to tip the balance of power here. So leveling the playing field is the 'end of democracy'?
12. The (ironic) inevitable upshot of this ruling is the end of individual limits on contributions, which (within a few election cycles) will almost certainly advantage the Democrats more than Republicans. If a corporation that may have thousands of non-American shareholders can legitimately "have a voice" (in terms of cash contributions to a particular candidate) in a US election, then what possible valid argument could those that support that have against a wealthy liberal foreigner (can you say "George Soros"?) doing the same? This can result in nothing good for conservatives...
13. Same answer for the same questioned asked several times. Unions, Soros and GE spent billions to get Obama elected. Soros supported Air America to run against Bus. GE bought a network to bash Bush. Oracle supported anti Bush groups. All the corporations did was launder the money first or went around McCain Feingold.
14. I think you are getting a bit hysterical. Free speech means free speech. Do you realize that this only undoes McCain/Feingold that only became law in 2002? For crying out loud the Republic existed quite well for over 200 years before that. Do you realize that this decision does not allow Corporations to donate any more money to particular candidates? All it does is allow Corporations to do what Labor Unions and wealthy individuals already were allowed to do, run as many adds about issues for or against or about candidates for or against. That is all. So before this decision, the United Auto Workers could run ads against Corporations but the Corporations could not defend themselves. Rich people like George Sorros could run ads against Candidates that supported particular legislation but non-wealthy groups could not. Please, stop the drama. What is wrong with hearing both sides of an argument? *
15. "OK ... let me tell you what the Imperial Democrats are so worried about. Up until now they had the edge in campaign donations. Take a large corporation. The unionized employees of that corporation were free to donate to Democrats ... just as their shop stewards and union leaders suggested they do. The company itself? Prohibited. The Democrats are afraid that large businesses that are traditionally more attuned to the pro-business Republicans than they are to the pro-union Democrats are going to tip the balance of power here. So leveling the playing field is the 'end of democracy'?" as long as the constitution is around and we know what the constitution and the bill of rights are about, we can still practice free speech unless the government destroys or fundamentally transform the constitution. if that happens then we won't have a voice, but chances are we the people will protect that constitution no matter what and will not let that happen