democracy it ain't
"By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending on federal campaigns. The decision could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads in upcoming elections.
"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the use of corporate personhood in the case: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case."
Republicans offered measured praise for the decision, but progressive good-government groups and Democrats responded angrily and vowed to fight back with legislation.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," said President Obama in a statement. "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... That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."
Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, for years a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, called the decision a "disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
oh man, cuz i totally thought campaigns were honest to begin with.
ReplyDeletequit bein all emo!
it's less about campaign money and more about corporations getting more and more rights, human rights, personhood!!! you should look into this thing called google and stop trying to be so controversial
ReplyDelete"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," said President Obama in a statement. "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..."
ReplyDelete^thats what i am talking about (president obama)
id assume if their is little to no enforcement of corporate responsibility of elections, politicians will be politicians and fuckin be all "corrupt" n shit
"In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the use of corporate personhood in the case: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case."
^thats what you are talking about (the minority)
maybe the corporations are just too powerful to allow them some "peopleness". yknow, i wouldnt be surprised if one day corporations could be guilty of murder, too.
people are almost never wrong, but just addressing something different from how you take it
oh and thank you for the google slam and the whole controversy part
also if ive ever said weatherbox sucks its been in meaningless playful sarcasm. i love the last album.
ps.
ReplyDeletei apologize if emo is a mean word to use for you. i hadnt meant it like that. i use it a lot. on myself sometimes even. weatherbox is much different from the rest of ap magazine for sure
pss.
ReplyDeleteassuming what ur talkin about gets as bad as it gets, maybe no one will have to take responsibility anymore for anything. votes too, bc corporations will drown us out so bad, our votes wont even matter! theyll outnumber us!
its like, instead of "real people", we'll create these pseudo-corporate people/robots. for the first time in history, class division will be a product of splitting the individual from an idea.
but then, THEN we can suggest anarchy...
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They're
ReplyDelete^^^???
ReplyDeleteo shit i see it now
ReplyDelete