In a stunning reversal of "established law" the Supreme Court has decided that companies are "people" and therefore protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. So this means that any entity can mount a multi-million or -billion dollar ad campaign to defeat or support someone running for office. This actually means that huge amounts of money will be spent to make sure House and Senate members are elected or reelected if and when they show respect and support for the corporate entities that put them in office. You and I can take out ads in the N.Y. Times for or against anybody. Now the big players can do the same. Got some spare change for a one minute spot on CNN? They do. And best of all they can be really dirty and tell lies and half truths if they want to because by the time they get slapped (if they ever do, remember the guys that have to slap them are the guys they put in office) the election is long over. Sue away pal, sue away.But the big surprise is who voted to gut all the campaign finance regs. Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Are you surprised yet?
That sound you hear in the distance is the sound of politicians sucking harder and longer at the tit of big money.
Interestingly the big Republican guns think this is a good news event. Hmmmmm. Makes me kind of queasy. No, actually it makes me really sick.
Posts
5 comments:
Very well said, Woody. Makes me sick too!!
You know what makes *me* sick about it? While he affirmed the majority, Thomas also published a dissent because he felt the ruling *didn't go far enough.* See, it isn't enough to allow anyone with the cash to buy an election. We have to make it *anonymous*, so that when rich folks / organizations go shopping for legislation, they don't get hassled for it.
'Cause nothing harshes the shopping groove like protesters.
So look on the bright side: yes, the USSC has affirmed the right of private corporate citizens to buy up congressfolks like the junk bonds they are... but at least we still have the right to know who's holding our Representatives' leashes.
I'm glad you could say something because words failed me on this.
Do you know that the Japanese language has many words for "green". Similarly, Alaskan languages and many northern European languages have many words for "snow".
I need a language with many words to express anger, outrage, and disbelief. English doesn't seem to be cutting it.
R. Out of respect for many readers I have deleted the explictives. This decision is exactly the kind I was cautioning about when my students were voting for Bush. W
Post a Comment