US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

like why doesn't Alaska look like fucking Norway, wrt social services? they're sitting on a ton of oil and other resources, they should be taxing the -shit- out of the companies that operate there, and yet they don't. it's not like they're gonna take their business elsewhere! you're ALASKA. but instead you get the Alaska general fund (or whatever it's called) which is a basically a really cheap bribe and that very likely does little to improve the lot of alaskans.

Jesus that ruling is just horrible

not if we can get Doctor Bronner to headline a coalition dedicated to buying Congress seats

we have some of the worst human beings on our supreme court

and i hate the court most when kennedy writes the opinion

“the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

It is a victory for those industries and the pols who openly accept money for their influence.

Fucking pathetic.

I know, some will say "Big deal, politicians have always been bought and sold by corporations."

But that was a century when there WERE limits on corporate political spending. What's coming will make that seem like the GOLDEN ERA of true democracy.

Fucking lead the charge, Obama. DEMAND change. Use your bully pulpit. Have the GS guys that you nominated renounce Big Banks.

It's such an obvious issue, it ties into the populist rage. It allows him to fite Congress, too.

If special interest purchasing (and here's looking at you, Ben Fucking Nelson) is so bad, why does everyone keep accepting the bribes?

I see what Stevens is doing: he's framing his dissent around the conservative SCOTUS of pre-1935's curious decision to treat corporations as "persons," and as such deserving Fourteenth Amendment protection.

to get all Morbs for a second, Obama's the last guy who should be protesting here. Wall Street had lined his pockets for months before 2008.

And he was jerking off the health care industry under the table trying to get a deal done with HCR too

Guys, we can make this Court ruling work for us. See, all we need is a bunch of TV ads endorsing GOP candidates paid for by, say, the adult video industry, or PETA, and we can ensure keeping them out of office.

Also, this shit makes me want to destroy capitalism forever. Like, fuck corporate personhood, and fuck limited liability for officers and shareholders.

i know maybe we should all lobby our states to take away limited liability and tax corporations like persons

it'll work

http://people-press.org/reports/images/578-20.gif

from here:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/in-health-care-reform-new-iraq-war.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

look at the boldface among those who favor, obv

We could get mobs in the streets over this SCOTUS decision if only they'd also ruled Conan O'Brien can't make contributions.

Dalia Lithwick is awesome on this ruling: http://www.slate.com/id/2242208/

btw lol I said Burns (Monty) when I meant Stevens (Ted)

anyway, carry on

I don't know, a lot of horrible shit has happened in the government in the past 10 years, but can someone please explain to me why this SCOTUS thing isn't WAYYYYYY worse than any healthcare bill failing and possibly the worst of the last decade?

was this decis

I see what Stevens is doing: he's framing his dissent around the conservative SCOTUS of pre-1935's curious decision to treat corporations as "persons," and as such deserving Fourteenth Amendment protection.

is this what the majority opinion is based on? that is, that spending limits are infringing on the first amendment rights of corporations?

I was hoping it wasn't because that is just so patently disgusting.

isn't corporate personhood as a legal concept important for individuals who want to sue corporations?

ignore iPhone gaffe plz

isn't corporate personhood as a legal concept important for individuals who want to sue corporations?

I dunno but surely that's something you could legislate without setting constitutional precedent: just pass a law that saws ppl can sue corps. or does being suable somehow -necessarily- require personhood?

lol iphone

I don't know, a lot of horrible shit has happened in the government in the past 10 years, but can someone please explain to me why this SCOTUS thing isn't WAYYYYYY worse than any healthcare bill failing and possibly the worst of the last decade?

I don't know, a lot of horrible shit has happened in the government in the past 10 years, but can someone please explain to me why this SCOTUS thing isn't WAYYYYYY worse than any healthcare bill failing and possibly the worst of the last decade?

also, this. maybe Im just being excitable but it seems to me like this ruling will have long term effects that will be waaaay more sinister than not passing healthcare.

I am being sabotaged by my iPhones corporate handlers.

u r a patsy

well, good thing i already decided to never vote again.

I dunno but surely that's something you could legislate without setting constitutional precedent: just pass a law that saws ppl can sue corps. or does being suable somehow -necessarily- require personhood?

I think the idea is, in order to hold a corporation legally responsible for something, they have to be considered an entity - to fit a sort of legal definition of personhood, therefore, and if you want somebody to bear the brunt of personhood, you have to also give them the benefits thereof

is this what the majority opinion is based on? that is, that spending limits are infringing on the first amendment rights of corporations?

Yup.

The pre-FDR courts treated corporations as people for almost fifty years.

yeah the legalese problem is that you can't sue an amorphous group of people - if you don't consider a corporation a "person", who do you sue? the company's employees? the shareholders? just the CEOs? obviously the simplest thing is to just treat them like a person. unfortunately, that has totally horrible ramifications, like this ruling.

x-posts

like can someone give me a plausible worst case scenario? like does this mean that, say, the pro Corp candidate in a given election can now a) directly receive funding or b) indirectly receive support in the form of advertising and campaign support paid for entirely by corporate interests? like can corporations now spend as much as they want on television advertising hat supports their candidate as long as they mutter "paid for by such and such citizen group for that guy"? what's changed?

sorry for being so questiony but I'm on iPhone and in class and can't open up five billion tabs

isn't corporate personhood as a legal concept important for individuals who want to sue corporations?

not totally sure but i think it's sort of the opposite, really. because the officers and board members of corporations are essentially protected from individual liability when they're acting on behalf of the company -- which makes it harder to hold them accountable and gives them less to fear when they're contemplating their sinister machinations.

and a plaintiff is basically forced to sue the corporation, which will have better resources and much deeper pockets than any idividual employee or director.

i, dividual

also can we not just figure out some way around that legal ish? like, -since you are a corporation- you a) ARE suable and b) ARE NOT entitled to the rights of a real person. why would this be offensive??? just declare this by fiat! no actual persons rights are going to be trod upon by explicitly declaring what corps are and are not entitled to wrt constitutional rights

tipsy OTM.

there's a good reason that we treat corporations as an entity (not like a person) and that's partially why we restrict their "free speech"--because they are not people. And yes, we restrict "free speech" too.

but didn't we just unrestrict their free speech?

The Daily Show Calls It: 'Scott Brown Is Now Apparently The 45th President Of These United States Of America!'

but didn't we just unrestrict their free speech?

no, we gave them the freedom to marry the legislator of their choice. don't be a bigot.

There's nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to say we can't discriminate against legal 'persons' based on their being corporations and there's nothing inherent to free speech that says you can outspend everybody else based on the depth of your pockets. This is corproate dick-sucking at its most obvious and unbecoming to anyone who wants to call themselves a republican. Limited-liablity is a powerful and useful tool for development but God help me if I can find a compelling reason why such nebulous groups should trump flesh and blood citizens.

Because they...generate more revenue?

was gonna start reading the opinion(s) but they're 183 pages....maybe later

http://www.paulwilson.ca/pw_books/covers/skvorecky_republic_sm.jpg

like does this mean that, say, the pro Corp candidate in a given election can now a) directly receive funding or b) indirectly receive support in the form of advertising and campaign support paid for entirely by corporate interests?

I see no one answered this (the answer is "b", btw) What's different is that corporations can now do this directly (ie, they don't need to underwrite some other amorphous PAC, they can just say "paid for by Exxon/Mobil or whoever), and previous restrictions (amounts, timing, etc.) are lifted.

really i'd prefer it said exxon/mobil than americans for clean energy or whatever front group name they come up with, but i don't imagine this is going to change that.

but see prior to this ruling there were limits on how much money they could give to their chosen front group, and limits on how/when/on what that money could be spent. those limits are now gone.