The only opinion the Majority needed to issue was,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the worst Supreme Court decision since Dread Scott. It wholly undermines free speech in favor of corporate money which unfairly raises the volume on corporate speech. Further, the Bill of Rights was written to protect "Natural Person" human beings against the excesses of state power including artificial state power be it the power of the Virginia Co., The Massachusetts Bay Co, or the East India Company, or Halliberton or GE. We had a revolution to end the corporate tyranny of 1776. Now it has been re-instituted by treason perpetrated by the Supreme Court majority itself via the "anti-natural-law" construct of "corporate-personhood". Further the natural law compatible construct of viewing corporations as "artificial states" is completely absent. There is no free speech in artifical-states we call corporations. This decision by the court is treason. Democracy is dead in America. The United States is now a kleptocratic corporate plutocracy of, for, and by the corporations. The People Be Damned. Impeach Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, and Roberts. They have committed treason against the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and the American Revolution itself. Impeach them immediately.

No sir.
I would respectively disagree with you: "We had a revolution to end the corporate tyranny of 1776."

We had a revolution to end the tyranny of King George, to end taxation without representation, to throw off the shackles of a burdensome, and oppressive foreign monarchy.

If your argument is correct,then that means the four "Liberal Dissenters" on the court, that voted against this ruling were then, on the right side of the argument.

I don't buy that rationale.

At the beginning of this nation and during its first one hundred years there were great limits on corporate speech indirectly because there were great limits on corporations activities as well as the length of time they could exist. Corporations were initially only allowed to exist if they served some societal need like the building of a road, or a canal. They given a limited life span of no more than 40 years and quite often less than that after which they had to suffer corporate death. Corporations were under complete and total regulatory power of their democratically elected bodies in their states of incorporation. Even bad management was grounds for the revocation of the corporate charter. There was a great deal of limitation on corporate activities of all kinds and this was by the intention of the founders and the writers of the U.S. Constitution. While there was no limit on natural person human being speech, there was a great deal of limitation on corporate speech and activities of all kinds. Corporations should not be permitted to take part in elections at all. Government should be of, by, and for the people not the corporations.

EXACTLY!
But he can quit carrying the prayer rug.

Unless he marries a woman of the Muslim faith among the Mormans and she can carry it for him.

Straight from the Keith Olbermann show!!! Keith either has to get back on his meds or put on the tin foil hat. Same for Mini Keith above.

You are right Cowboy. I was baptized a Mormon some 40 years ago and yes they are conservative. But there are many polygamist "reorganized latter day saints." They are the ones who split from the "latter day saints" when they outlawed polygamy. They just do it below the radar, so to speak. .

With all due respect, please forgive me here. I made those comments tounge-in-cheek, facetiously. I try never to say anything disparaging, or disrespectful toward anyones religion.

I wholeheartedly support a couple of things: freedom of speech, and freedom of religion being the most important.

No explaination needed. I got your comment and you are absolutely right. I am not a practicing Morman. 40 years ago, I was 8 years old. I was responding to the comment about there being no polygamist Mormons by dk45. I posted it in reply to you instead of his comment. That being said, I am still friends with some that still practice the Mormon faith and you can take my word for this, at least the ones I still know, they revile Obama and they only have one wife. And some of them work in the government, mainly the Veterans Admin.

Yup. Takes care of the Fairness Doctrine pretty well too, doesn't it.

Is there any more proof that this administration is deliberately trying to drive this country into oblivion? I have always said that America will never be brought down by an enemy military force, but we will be challenged by an enemy within. Not through the electoral process but through the courts and executive fiat. NJ, VA, Mass has begun the internal battle against tyranny. Take up arms now, if you haven't already.

Now THAT, was funny!
You just made me spew coffee on my 'puter screen. Next time, give me advance warning.

Good seeing you, old friend. We have seen alot here, over the months since this site came into being, eh? I reckon we will see alot more.

I'd rather the Bill of Rights apply only to US Citizens. Not quasi-legal entities like corporations or unions.

The look on Harry Reid's face when he welcomed Scott Brown to the senate today was worth 1.2 trillion dollars. That used to be called priceless.

Big defeat for MSM corporations, ACORN, UNIONS, HOLLWOOD, and leftist corporations (there are many).

Have you seen this Headline? "The World Bids Farewell to Obama" Der Spiegel Online

US President Barack Obama suffered a painful defeat in Massachusetts on Tuesday. With mid-term elections looming, it means that Obama will have to fundamentally re-think his political course. German commentators say it is the end of hope. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,...

I guess his messiah crown is loose!

Sorry, you are wrong. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the East India Company that basically pulled a "WalMart" by getting parliament to lower the tax on tea for export from England to the American Colonies effectively undercutting the small businessmen of Boston and throughout the colonies by ensuring that they could not compete. The Boston Tea Party was an ad hoc union action by the small business people of Boston who did not have the representation in parliament that the East India Company had. Further all of the Colonies started out as "Crown Corporations". The distinction between States and Corporations has always been closely linked which is why the founders sought so effectively to restrict not only corporate power but the creation of corporations themselves. So YES, the four dissenting justices were and are very much on the correct side of this issue. Corporations are children of the state created by articles of incorporation, but unlike natural persons, they no longer suffer death and they have no moral compass except that which we give them under law through regulation and hold them accountable through oversight. The majority opinion hands these morally vacuous entity the ability to buy government and write the laws themselves destroying what remaining democracy this country still had.

I suggest you read the dissenting opinion of the late Justice Brandeis
(LOUIS K. LIGGETT CO. v. LEE, 288 U.S. 517 (1933))
Here is an excerpt:

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (dissenting in part).

"The prevalence of the corporation in America has led men of this generation to act, at times, as if the privilege of doing business in corporate form were inherent in the citizen; and has led them to accept the evils attendant upon the free and unrestricted use of the corporate mechanism as if these evils were the inescapable price of civilized life, and, hence, to be borne with resignation. Throughout the greater part of our history a different view prevailed. Although the value of this instrumentality in commerce and industry was fully recognized, incorporation for business was commonly denied long after it had been freely granted for religious, educational, and charitable purposes. 2 by corporations. So at first the corporate of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that the absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to those which attended mortmain. 3 [288 U.S. 517, 549] There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent in large aggregations of capital, particularly when held by corporations. So at first the corporate privilege was granted sparingly; and only when the grant seemed necessary in order to procure for the community some specific benefit otherwise unattainable. The later enactment of general incorporation laws does not signify that the apprehension of corporate domination had been overcome. The desire for business expansion created an irresistible demand for more charters; and it was believed that under general laws embodying safeguards of universal application the scandals and favoritism incident to special incorporation could be avoided. The general laws, which long embodied severe restrictions upon size and upon the scope of corporate activity, were, in part, an expression of the desire for equality of opportunity. "

This case isn't about "Free Speech" of citizens of the United States. Its about whether or not we are going to have super citizens with perpetual life and billions of dollars being able to buy any politician they wish or even entire governments in spite of the views of employees who have different views or individual citizens. Corporations are not democratic institutions. While a natural law compatible extension of the first amendment which would view corporations as the artificial states that they in reality are would mean free speech in the work place for all employees, no such free speech exists within these artificial states.This majority decision has enshrined trans-national corporate refeudalization as constitutional (even though its fundamentally un and anti-constitutional). It has denied free speech to the natural person American because it has supplanted it with the super-over-magnified speech of the super-artificial-citizen the corporation making all of us irrelevant refeudalized corporate peasants. We need big democratically elected government to keep corporations in check otherwise we are merely irrelevant peasants in a refeudalized corporate world. This supreme court decision undermines our constitutional guarantee of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Dear Member-of-the-Uneducated-Class,

I don't have to read the decision to know that its wrong. It is corporatist on its face. It relies on "corporate personhood" which has never ever been explained by the Supreme Court at all, so sub-silencio it cannot be challenged.

When I talk about "natural person",.I am using a legal term which means "a human being". An "artificial person" is also a legal term usually referring to a "corporation". "Corporate-personhood" refers to the use of the legal construct "artificial person" to extend the Bill of Rights to cover "corporations". The supreme court created the construct without explanation in 1886 based upon a distorted reading of the fourteenth amendment which was written to make freed slaves full citizens under the law. Corporations are not democratic institutions that make democratic decisions over what to lobby for. Unions on the other hand are democratic institutions which do represent their members in a democratic fashion. One is autocratic, one is democratic. Again this decision by the supreme court undermines the free speech of natural persons in favor of the super-speech of corporations which should be considered "legal entities" by not citizens. In effect it puts autocratic corporations in charge of our government. A kind of "inverted fascism" which has an entirely new set of oppressions among them trans-national worker arbitrage and corporate bailout on demand.

I would also refer you to the speech of FDR at the 1936 Democratic National Convention. It's worth reading because the situation is highly appropriate for today's economic and political situation. Further the parallels with the current supreme court and the supreme court of the four horseman of the apocalypse prior to the constitutional revolution of 1937.

Here, and in every community throughout the land, we are met at a time of great moment to the future of the Nation. It is an occasion to be dedicated to the simple and sincere expression of an attitude toward problems, the determination of which will profoundly affect America.

I come not only as a leader of a party, not only as a candidate for high office, but as one upon whom many critical hours have imposed and still impose a grave responsibility.

For the sympathy, help and confidence with which Americans have sustained me in my task I am grateful. For their loyalty I salute the members of our great party, in and out of political life in every part of the Union. I salute those of other parties, especially those in the Congress of the United States who on so many occasions have put partisanship aside. I thank the Governors of the several States, their Legislatures, their State and local officials who participated unselfishly and regardless of party in our efforts to achieve recovery and destroy abuses. Above all I thank the millions of Americans who have borne disaster bravely and have dared to smile through the storm.

America will not forget these recent years, will not forget that the rescue was not a mere party task. It was the concern of all of us. In our strength we rose together, rallied our energies together, applied the old rules of common sense, and together survived.

In those days we feared fear. That was why we fought fear. And today, my friends, we have won against the most dangerous of our foes. We have conquered fear.

But I cannot, with candor, tell you that all is well with the world. Clouds of suspicion, tides of ill-will and intolerance gather darkly in many places. In our own land we enjoy indeed a fullness of life greater than that of most Nations. But the rush of modern civilization itself has raised for us new difficulties, new problems which must be solved if we are to preserve to the United States the political and economic freedom for which Washington and Jefferson planned and fought.

Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history. This is fitting ground on which to reaffirm the faith of our fathers; to pledge ourselves to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776—an American way of life.

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy—from the eighteenth century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own Government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this Convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that Government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

For more than three years we have fought for them. This Convention, in every word and deed, has pledged that that fight will go on.

The defeats and victories of these years have given to us as a people a new understanding of our Government and of ourselves. Never since the early days of the New England town meeting have the affairs of Government been so widely discussed and so clearly appreciated. It has been brought home to us that the only effective guide for the safety of this most worldly of worlds, the greatest guide of all, is moral principle.

We do not see faith, hope and charity as unattainable ideals, but we use them as stout supports of a Nation fighting the fight for freedom in a modern civilization.

Faith— in the soundness of democracy in the midst of dictatorships.

Hope—renewed because we know so well the progress we have made.

Charity— in the true spirit of that grand old word. For charity literally translated from the original means love, the love that understands, that does not merely share the wealth of the giver, but in true sympathy and wisdom helps men to help themselves.

We seek not merely to make Government a mechanical implement, but to give it the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity.

We are poor indeed if this Nation cannot afford to lift from every recess of American life the dread fear of the unemployed that they are not needed in the world. We cannot afford to accumulate a deficit in the books of human fortitude.

In the place of the palace of privilege we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity.

It is a sobering thing, my friends, to be a servant of this great cause. We try in our daily work to remember that the cause belongs not to us, but to the people. The standard is not in the hands of you and me alone. It is carried by America. We seek daily to profit from experience, to learn to do better as our task proceeds.

Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales.

Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.

There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.

In this world of ours in other lands, there are some people, who, in times past, have lived and fought for freedom, and seem to have grown too weary to carry on the fight. They have sold their heritage of freedom for the illusion of a living. They have yielded their democracy.

I believe in my heart that only our success can stir their ancient hope. They begin to know that here in America we are waging a great and successful war. It is not alone a war against want and destitution and economic demoralization. It is more than that; it is a war for the survival of democracy. We are fighting to save a great and precious form of government for ourselves and for the world.

I accept the commission you have tendered me. I join with you. I am enlisted for the duration of the war. *- FDR 1936*

NOTE: The war FDR was referring to was not WW II which did not start until 1939, but the war against the great depression. Today we are again fighting a war against another "Republican Great Depression".

"Corporations were under complete and total regulatory power of their democratically elected bodies in their states of incorporation." You actually prefer these entities be controlled by the shifting whims of politicians and bureaucrats?

Instead of railing against corporations having so much influence in politics, how about directing your energy and venom toward reducing politicians' influence in business and the private affairs of the citizenry? Corporations take such a keen interest in politics precisely because government can't resist the urge to play puppetmaster with them. I would also argue that in this game, unions play offense, while most corporations play defense- and would be happiest if they weren't forced to play at all.

Also, throwing around terms such as 'treason' in this day and age over an admittedly imperfect, but nonetheless inescapable*, ruling makes you sound like a hyperventilating zealot, not a reasonable advocate.

*I say 'inescapable' because, unlike BHO, SCOTUS can't simply vote 'present' over something as egregiously flawed as McCain-Feingold and current campaign finance law in general. The nation deserves better than that and had it refused review, the Supremes would have been guilty of far worse.

[...] full article: Citizens United vs. FEC – Supreme Court Protects First Amendment Rights biggovernment.com Relate NewsBarack Obama : Supreme Court ruling expected to make [...]

That's what made her so popular in Alaska…she came in and cleaned house…literally..

This ruling is Armageddon dimwit! Aren't you supposed to be against the establishment selling your values to lobbyists and special interests? Because this ruling just put lobbying on steroids times a thousand. Aren't you against this? Don't you like candidates who oppose this type of "legislation for sale"? Candidates like Palin and Bush and Brown who campaign on representing you with all the "special interest" spending? If so, why the f##k you celebrating this ruling?!?!?

I don't give a crap what side of the isle you're on, this is horrible! I'll put it in a standard that one of your double standard faces can easily understand…imagine a union spending $2 million dollars on a Workers Family Party candidate for a state assemblyman seat and the Conservative only has $25,000 to compete…is this fair? Should this be legal? It wasn't til yesterday!!! Now it's completely legal and you dimwits are freakin' celebrating this like it's some sort of "victory" against the Left? Are you that freakin' stupid? This is a disaster for AMERICA…end of story!

Palin spent all of last year campaigning against the "special interest" legislation for sale and you thought she was the greatest thing since sliced cheese. Well, the SCOTUS just ruled the people like Sarah Palin and those that support her anti-special interest lobbying legislation for sale are stupid and those stupid ones are celebrating it!

[...] read full article: Citizens United vs. FEC – Supreme Court Protects First Amendment Rights biggovernment.com [...]

Your "freedom" will now cost you $11 million dollars if you are to match the contribution put out by the SEIU. Sorry…it's now the law as of yesterday.

Have a nice day.

A corporation or union is a group of citizens. It is not just quasi-legal, it is an actual group of men, men with rights.

"the end of hope"

Indeed. Bwahahahahah!

With regard to your statement:" You actually prefer these entities be controlled by the shifting whims of politicians and bureaucrats?" HELL YES I PREFER democracy over ceo autocracy. Hell yes, I prefer democratically controlled politicians and democratically controlled bureaucrats who are accountable to we the people over autocratic corporate ceo's who are destroying the planet, destroying democracy, and creating a refeudalized "inverted fascist" world run by trans national kleptocratic plutocrats. The question is why don't you? and more specifically why don't you believe in the constitution of the United States? Why don't you believe in the constitutional guarantee of government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Why can't you see how your individual rights are threatened and undermined by "Corporate-Libertarianism"? Do you really want the USA and the world run by corporations accountable to no one? Because that is what you appear to be effectively advocating. The vast majority of corporations in the world are not "cooperatives" where every employee has equal ownership and an elected say in what the corporation does. Things would be different if that were the structure of all our corporations, but that is not the case at all. As when this country was founded and for the first 100 years, if corporations don't serve the public interest, then they should not be allowed to exist. These banksters and their banks should have had their corporate charters revoked, their ceo's be tried for financial fraud, their banks should be replaced with a "Not For Profit" banking infrastructure that really serves the people and small business. Banks manufacture nothing. They create no wealth at all. They simply appropriate money from others activities. They are necessary for efficient economic activity, but as I said before all corporations that are permitted to exist should serve the public interest or they should cease to be. Corporations that do not serve the public interest do not deserve the privilege of doing business in corporate form and should be forced to do their business without "limited liability" protection.

As far as the Supreme Court goes. They are guilty of far worse. The majority has just perpetuated the "Federal Judicial Fraud" of "corporate personhood". They have without any amendment to the constitution whatsoever extended constitutional protection to autocratic corporations with very deep pockets under the lie that that these corporations are somehow representative of their people when there is nothing representative about autocracy at all. In essence they have recreated a government by aristocracy (corporate aristocracy) in the United States. You should not be surprised by this. The five in the majority decision were Alito and Roberts who were appointed by King George III (Not George Washington, not George H.W. Bush, but George W Bush) and Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas who were three of the five who subverted democracy in the 2000 election to appoint George W. Bush president when Al Gore factually won the majority of the votes in Florida. This is not the first time that the Supremes have thrown the constitution in the gutter for their friends in power. Supreme court justices are, as are all article III judges, in appointed for life patronage jobs accountable to nothing except impeachment which will never occur as long as corporations control the politicians who appoint the corporatist judges. "Inverted Fascism" where the corporations are on top and control the government has a whole different set of oppressions than traditional dictator run fascism. But make no mistake about it the Supreme court majority has committed treason with this decision and it is not the first time that several of them have committed treason while on the court.

Instead of overturning the law, the supreme court should have found the law constitutional and should have abolished "corporate-personhood" as there is no amendment to the constitution which grants corporations constitutional rights with the one exception of the one industry known as "the press". In other words the Supreme court should have ruled that congress has the right to choose to regulate or choose to not regulate corporations however they see fit regardless of what the autocrats running the corporations want. Doing business in "corporate form" is a privilege not a right. If you really think you have "Free Speech" trying exercising your "Free Speech" at work in a large corporation and see what happens. You will be out of a job. But the corporations "free speech" that's golden literally golden enough to buy government in spite of whoever is elected. That is what the Supreme court has done.

Revisionsist history for the win!

The colonies had become used to self-governance within the framework of the foundational documents of Britia (Magna Carta). The English government of the time, parliament and King, felt that the foundational documents of the Empire were effectively living breathing documents whose words could be twisted to support whatever governmental whims existed at the time. The colonists rejected this view feeling that self-governance was their right under those documents, and they ultimately fought a war over those beliefs.

And it so happens I agree with them. Foundational documents (COTUS) are not "living breathing" things unless the people make them do so through the Amendment process. The idea that free speech, which was primarily free political speech, is allowed to some who are governed by the government but not to others, is a "living breathing" interpretation. It rings like "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

If you or your entity are subject to the whims of government, then you have the right to speak out against that as an individual or an entity. Media corporations do it all the time.

Wow. The SCOTUS re-affirms the freedom of speech, and less recently the freedom recognized (not granted) by the second amendment?

…

This is still Earth, right?

It's a shame about Sotomayor, though. Her taint will linger for decades, most likely. I just hope the other justices hold out until 2012 before contemplating retirement.

wow. while i'm tempted to chip away at your morass of illogical, cherry-picked, ridiculously skewed delusions, i realize you are a true 'true-believer' and any effort spent in that regard would be a fool's errand. have a nice day, on whatever planet you reside…

This decision is most definitely a step in the right direction. The correct destination on this issue – to be in proper alignment with the Constitution and in particular the 1st Amendment – is NO LIMITS / FULL DISCLOSURE. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Always. The Founding Fathers knew that. We all know every politician is in somebody's pocket. Just give us an honest shot at knowing who's pocket each time.

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/

Then that would make Churches, Boy Scouts and PTA's "quasi-legal entities" ?

I am glad the court reaffirmed the constitution. I would be in favor of all contributions needed to be reported to the FEC under criminal fraud penalties. I also am in favor of making the CEO and Chairman of the board of directors a corporation criminally responsible. Now, just like a CosaNostra boss, they can only be held responsible if the whole company is a criminal enterprise(I know the liberals think they all are just because they exist).

This is great. But it is incomplete.

My 1st amendment rights are still being restricted, but other companies and Unions are not.

I am a contractor to the Federal Government. I am a small business, self employed guy with an "S" Corporation.

I am restricted from supporting at least certain kinds of political groups with my donations.

I say "Why can the Union spend money to influence govt., even when they might prosper from it, but I can't support a candicate or cause BECAUSE it might help me keep my job.

Something is still fishy.
David

Nice try, Keith Oglemen. This is all nonsensical partisan drivel and not pertinent to the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
For the last time, I'll provide some information which might give you a clue (though I doubt it):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
Try sticking to Constitutional Law instead of case law. If not for overturning precedents we would still have segregation and worse. The original intent of the Constitution trumps everything else, PERIOD!

Political expediency is no reason to ignore the Constitution.

[...] reading: Chris Berg, Big Government: Citizens United vs. FEC — Supreme Court Protects First Amendment Rights The Divine Lamp: The Supreme Court And Free Speech Frugal Café Blog Zone: Rep. Sheila [...]

Yes you are correct when you wrote "The original intent of the Constitution trumps everything else", unfortunately that is not at all what the majority of the court did. The Bill of Rights is rooted in Natural Law, i.e. the First Amendment is rooted in Natural Law, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. "Corporate Personhood" is an ANTI-Natural-Law Construct and therefore fundamentally unconstitutional and irreconcilable with American constitutionalism. Only a new Amendment to the Constitution which explicitly grants First Amendment rights to Corporations can change that. Such an amendment does not exist, which is why what the Supreme Court did is treason. Impeach the corporatist five!!! They are enemies of Jeffersonian democracy. They are enemies of the our natural law rooted United States Constitution.

You obviously don't know what Federal Judicial Fraud "Corporate Personhood" is. The majority has just perpetuated that fraud in a major major major way taking it further than it has ever been taken before. I don't need to read a piece of corporatist propaganda to know that it is corporatist propaganda if the end result is perpetuating a fraud on the American people. That is what the Supreme court has done. But when I get the chance I will read the decision and then I'll post again as to specifics of why the rational is not just flawed but treasonous. You obviously need to be educated on the subject so here is a couple of links for you: The Womens International League for Peace and Freedom pages on corporate personhood "http://www.wilpf.org/cvd", and Reclaim Democracy "http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/santa_clara_blues.pdf". Calling this decision a defense of the First Amendment is like calling the current health care bill "Health Care Reform". The decision of the court undermines the First Amendment and the current health care bill if passed would simply be a corporate give away and not do any real reform at all. Maybe you are content with being a refeudalized corporate peasant. I am not.

Thank You Syntax Game. I whole heartedly agree with you. Both liberals and conservatives who believe in our natural law rooted "We The People" U.S. Constitution are rightly horrified by the court's decision.

And since when did you re-write the Constitution to state "We the Banking Industry" or "We the Large Unions" or "We the Insurance Industry" or "We the Green Job Industry"?

I was under the impression the Constitution was written for thePEOPLE and not for the rich and powerful elitists and their obedient terriers.

"Until yesterday only the unions could spend what they wanted on a candidate. Today this is not so. The Unions now have some competition." — Are you freakin' stoned?!?!? No they couldn't until yesterday! Nobody could excede the limits until this ruling. Not for 63 years. Stop listening to Jew-hating idiots like Limbaugh and educate yourself.

"In the end it's up to the people to see through all the hype" — And this was a guarantee and with fairness up until yesterday. I love how people who blast the MSM while religiously watching Fox News, the number one rated cable news network on TV. Can't get much more mainstream than that and NOW, Fox News and MSNBC can spend any amount of money they want on a candidate anywhere they want. Bank of America can spend millions and so can the SEIU. It's the wild wild west now. And the little people? The little piss ants who carry little angry signs whining about Socialism and the likes? Unless you got $15 million in your pocket to compete, you now are truly insignificant.

In addition, more and more corporate leaders are realizing that they will gain the support of the general public (and customers) faster by openly taking a stance on limited government and preservation of personal liberty. The tide has changed since Dr. Ron Paul views came into widespread recognition by his candidacy for president. People started out not knowing what to think about it all and fell into the snickering trap when all of the media ridiculed him and censored him , even Fox. Remember that? Then Fox realized where the profit was and turned the ship around. People have became interested in politics for the first time recently and have educated themselves, especially in the last year. So, maybe you will start to see the corporate money bombs now in favor of the "R3volution".

You would believe the architects of our nation, our nation's founders would favor unions, insurance industry, Wall Street, Green Jobs, military industrial complex and/or the energy companies over people like you and me? To take the power away from people like you and me and allow it to be given to those with the best ability to outspend us?

Who's the obedient pervert here?

Bottom line…unless you have the $25 million dollars in your pocket to match the contributions from special interests such as Banking, insurance, energy, green job industries or unions…you can whore yourself out purple…you ain't gonna make a damn bit of difference.

I think it's something more like 'what corporations are allowed to spend' that worries the left, whether it's called "political speech" or not. And why self-police when they can give money to all sides? What's $100 million every couple years for a company that makes $20 billion a year?

"About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the CPB itself.

Over the years, the portion of the total NPR budget that comes from government funding has decreased. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations, and less from the federal government. Major donors are listed on the NPR web site.[15]"
-Wiki

There you go buddy. Now we're both a little less ignorant. I am surprised that NPR gets ANY public funding, as biased as it is….

The need to band together for grass roots election reform has been made more urgent with the Supreme Court’s five to four decision that extended the ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which confirmed the old adage that money talks, by taking the further step of declaring that corporations (as super citizens) have the right to speak the loudest. A corporation is not endowed by it’s creator with inalienable rights, its personhood is a legal fiction created by law, so it is the law that should curb its political speech; if the court refuses to do it then the people must take action. Indeed, as a body, we can formulate the principles for election reform and as a single force dictate what will be accepted from the candidates we elect and make the taking of inordinately large contributions from whatever source a disincentive.