This isn't too surprising why would these corporations put THEIR financial futures in the hands of the masses? lol That's Corporate America for ya. Some would even argue that thats just the world we live in now overall.
Melody Rosado This article made me annoyed I'm so exhausted of reading news about corporations and elections. Now they're in the news together. It's "corporate America for ya" it's true. We need to amend a lot of laws why not start on this mess. This topic doesn't appeal to me. I have to live my life one day at a time. Money is money and people take money too serious.
This is waay out of control in terms of reading into the constitution too literally. I am a firm believer of supporting and instilling the Amendments so that we don't get lost in Politics, however this seems to do just that!! In my opinion it is supporting and funding the unfortunate reality that money makes the world go round. It's disturbing that now it's almost protected by government who should be there to stop such devious political tatics and protect and inform the people of such doings. If it is so hands off, then the people should be well informed of this!! I mean inquiring minds know, but all of the blind folk out there voting because theior pastor or fox news told them so NEED THE TRUTH!! Very tricky indeed. If Adam Smith were Alive and well, I believe he would rewrite his "invisible hand" statement to fit this catastrophe accordingly..
After being accused of being a "liberal" (I do not affiliate myself with any political party) for my stance on this subject I decided to research this topic more in depth. I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Courts decision was accurate when pertaining to the 1st amendment. My thoughts and opinions regarding the decision are irrelevant.
The first amendment basically protects free speech. It does not differentiate individuals, groups of individuals, or between the rich and the poor. The first amendment does not exclude individuals because they are incorporated, which may be in the form of corporations, unions, or the media. Every decision made must first and foremost be based upon the constitution and amendments themselves. If precedents were etched in stone and all subsequent decisions were based upon them, the constitution would eventually be unrecognizable.
If we do not agree with these decisions then we should seek to "amend" the constitution. Seeking to arrive at decisions based on the skewering the actual and original wording would eventually render the constitution meaningless.
David Acosta Just when you think things are a bit better we get hit with this ruling which will corrupt our government more than it already is. What we should do is change the law on appointing justices and have there terms changed to say every 4 years or so. although I agree about freedom of speech and less government, this inequality between the people and corporations is out of balance leaving the little guy at the mercy of corporations.
Well, at least let's acknowledge that there is a difference between incorporated individuals (Inc I.) and a single individual. The former is more financially more powerful, thus commands more political clout. In terms of equilibrium and fairness, is the right of speech of Inc I. the same of a single individual when it comes to political campaigns? When Inc I. can exponentially multiply the individual's financial power and influence politics and legislation? I think the answer is obvious.
Corporations themselves are disgusting institutions and representative of what kind of society we are becoming- we are a mass, faceless, devoid of individuals. This is an exaggeration of course but it is hard not to feel that way sometimes, especially when I see this sort of blatant conditioning, be it in the political realm or simply an advertisement on TV, begging me to BUY BUY BUY from this company or that. Our government is a corporation like any other, and it does not surprise me that the Supreme Court would rule it fair for another corporation to sponsor it.
We as american people should rethink the way law and politics co-exist. We should focus on making laws defend the people it was created to defend. The people how desire the american dream which is not wealth, power or control but is the pursuit of happiness which simply mean oppurtunity which is the opposite of allowing corperation to play the political game.
I think this decision shows the ever-growing power our capitalistic society has given to these corporations. I try not to be a pessimist, but when we see our national debt growing larger every day, and the economic balance shifting towards other countries like China, one must wonder...Maybe Marx had the right idea?
Mariana Trentini I think this is just one of the examples that our governments do to kind of work around laws that they themselves have created. I feel that there will always be strings attached to anything regarding the government. People also get greedy, and the whole money issue ties in with equal rights. Politics is definitley not one of my favorite topics, I remember voting for a change, not more nonsense.
The reality is that our "capitalistic society" has grown this way because of our need to get bigger and better things. In order for this to change, many people will have to go without many luxuries to even out the wealth and power. Sadly, no one wants to cut back and I believe that corperations should get what they deserve. Corperations should be able to back up a political party only because it is their choice. If someone has a problem with that, they should go and do the same thing with the other party. This is how a good capitalistic society should run. -Sara Estopinan
Professor Triff, I understand that it is unfair. I do not agree with companies using financial means to gain political clout.
But as I understand it, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
The enhanced ability over the average individual to get a message or information out, is not an advantage enjoyed only by Corporations. It is enjoyed by persons of wealth, persons of note, celebrity, fame or position, and the government. The greatest advantage is enjoyed by the media, who decide what we hear, how often we hear it, and how it will be presented. With the advent of the Internet, average individuals now have a fairly effective means to be heard.
It is our responsibility as citizens and voters to research and sift through as much information as possible in order to make informed decisions. To give the government the ability to decide who we hear, what we hear and how much we hear, is a power our government should not have. The unabridged freedom of speech trumps the alternatives and ensures our freedom.
It is our responsibility as citizens and voters to research and sift through as much information as possible in order to make informed decisions.
True. But see how much our diet habits have changed since the 1950's. Was it because people wanted to eat fast food? Do they really like it? Or was it a combined slow process of capital allocation, food processing, advertising, food prices, etc, etc? So, in 2010 a young person like you (or anyone else) eats at McDonalds and think he or she is making an informed decision. Got it?
Attempting to recognize a corporation as a person with inalienable rights is devastating to our society. A Corporation is allowed and should only be allowed the right to the pursuit of any legal endeavor they wish to pursue and engage in “any lawful and legal business” for the financial benefit of its owners. This decision smacks in the face of precedent well established over 100years. The reasons these laws were created and enhanced as the needs arose were to prevent the constant prying of the corporations to find new loopholes. The argument placed by Alito also went far beyoned the case being tried anyways. This is also within itself disturbing since many of our legal rights protect us against corporations and government itself was established to protect the individual against a powerful corporate and government culture.
Any company could now legally own a town through the very act of funding every single candidate into the body politic. Even candidates that seek to do well will find themselves frustrated and having a to pick a corporation to help them exercise his political will, having candidates come lapping at the feet of the corporations that have the resources, capital and wherewithal to propel them into political office. Now there will be no need for candidates to fight their way and prove themselves on local levels and otherwise. Finding the right company would be enough to start. Allowing the “military industrial complex” to mechanize the very wheels that turn the political process is in all essence the culmination to the now prophetic words of President Eisenhower. He saw the power and influence that was just beginning to corrupt the political process to new levels never seen before and offered stern warnings. It is probably advisable now we start dusting our copies of “1984” or buying one of our own. Why should we stop the “Military industrial complex”? So far every time a precedent that has been established for years as good legal common sense is removed, disaster for the people follows. Our last Glass, Stiegel Act established in 1933 to prevent the manipulation and creation of false markets. Come
From what I have read so far most people think the topic is not in favor for the people. The way I see it with out having much expertise in the subject things are the way they sould be. The strong (Corporations) controlling the weak. Are the coporations going to have that big of an effect on us in this life time? Is the big deal that people are losing freedom or the choice of the next presedent that was never directly in the voters control anyway.
With all due respect Elizabeth, and allow me to jump in, read the other four discenting decisions before continuing to speak on the matter. Then also read the original law that was repealed and why it was. Alito just put us back 100 years in legal time. This isnt a simple case, every year thousands of cases are filed to get to the highest court, this one got jammed in right after Sandra Day O'Conner left her seat last year. Alito went beyond the normal by not only deciding on the case, but then reopening the complete issue.
Now, take a sruvey of who were the justices that favored the decision, and who were the presidents that vetted them. you will see who this new decision really favors.
To be quite Honest, I am quite indifferent towards this topic. However I am confident that more than likely actions such as these have taken place before the Supreme Court ruled and made this public. Unfortunately, in the society we live in the phrase ‘money talks’ prevails all. Jen Ruiz
There is any number of reasons I might choose to eat a 550 calorie Big Mac, but because I believed it was the healthiest choice available, is not one of them. I appreciate people or the government trying to save me from myself and I have no problem with requiring the disclosure of ingredients, calories etc. On the other hand, upon reaching adulthood, I have chosen be responsible for my choices and not simply trade in my parents for a nanny state. At what point does the desire to protect me from myself end? Am I eventually required upon entering my house at night, to remain there for eight hours because some study indicates that the average person should get eight hours sleep for optimum health? If I run the risk of living only to 80 as opposed to 85 because I chose a moderate lifestyle as opposed to eating only raw vegetables, I want that choice just as I want the other person to have theirs. I would rather accept responsibility for my choices and their consequences, than to not have them. Nor would I dream of begrudging anyone of their freedom of choice.
I don’t mind you jumping in Gabriel, but I do resent your attempt to marginalize my opinion by implying that you have familiarized yourself with the issue more than I have. I assume you have also read the concurring opinions which address many of the dissenting issues. Yes the five concurring Justices are republican. Your implication is that Republicans will benefit more than Democrats. This remains to be seen. It is worth noting that not all corporations are owned or controlled by republicans. It is also worth noting that the most recent surveys indicate that the majority of wealth in this country is now owned and controlled by democrats. Perhaps the split between the Justices, more accurately reflects a divide between strict constructionist and activist judges. In any case, it appears we see things differently and we’ll have to live with that.
Simone Miranda Mueller I am not quiet sure why "free speech" gives the corporations the right to contribute large amounts of money for political campaigns?! However, corporations shouldn't be considered as individual first of all, because they don't represent neither the majority nor the individual. Second, corporations are used to conduct business and business should not be involved in politics. Thinking about elections, contributing money to the favourite party has always influenced the government. Those companies get favours back for donating large sum and this is corrupt. Meaning, the more money I have, the more rights and influence and freedome of speech I have. If I dont have money, I am just one faceless individual. I know that is not the world most people wanne live in, but unfortunately most people wont give a voice to speak, it only the rich who rule the world. I wonder what "benefits" the Supreme Court are getting out of it.....
I do think that money can help buying a political spot. I personally don’t have any side taken in matters of political decisions, but been raised on a country were politics are don’t even taken serious and people even make fun of them I can affirm that sadly money CAN by a political spot.
In recent elections, most, if not all parties that won had substantial amounts of donations given in their favor. I see why it's such a topic worthy of debate for politicians to re plan their strategy of negotiation with corporations to give them that "edge." What was then considered illegal is now accepted, having the business a primary interest for the government and and the individual uninvolved. I worry of what would be when corruption will no longer be a word.
Corporations represent the interest of their shareholders, who are (sometimes) people. But they only represent the interests of people with money. The more money you have, the more shares you can own and the bigger your voice can be. Democracy has great potential but capturing the diversity of independent thought and opinion is necessary for full effectiveness. To the extent that corporate/labor donations will harm the democratic process.
Money equals Power. Money will always be the way for all corporations to get whatever they want. It has been this way since any of us can probably remember, and i wouldn't expect it to change any time soon. The government as well as high ranked corps are corrupt. Laws are created for all citizens to abide by, yet they seem to think they are some how exempt.
First of all, these people have a wrong definition of "individual". I don't know what makes them even think that a group of people can be considered as individual. In no way would corporations be protected under the first amendment if they had no money. This is a pure product of capitalism. Money corrupts the society so much that we are not sure of what might become legal tomorrow.
25 comments:
This isn't too surprising why would these corporations put THEIR financial futures in the hands of the masses? lol That's Corporate America for ya. Some would even argue that thats just the world we live in now overall.
Melody Rosado
This article made me annoyed I'm so exhausted of reading news about corporations and elections. Now they're in the news together. It's "corporate America for ya" it's true. We need to amend a lot of laws why not start on this mess. This topic doesn't appeal to me. I have to live my life one day at a time. Money is money and people take money too serious.
This is waay out of control in terms of reading into the constitution too literally. I am a firm believer of supporting and instilling the Amendments so that we don't get lost in Politics, however this seems to do just that!! In my opinion it is supporting and funding the unfortunate reality that money makes the world go round. It's disturbing that now it's almost protected by government who should be there to stop such devious political tatics and protect and inform the people of such doings. If it is so hands off, then the people should be well informed of this!! I mean inquiring minds know, but all of the blind folk out there voting because theior pastor or fox news told them so NEED THE TRUTH!! Very tricky indeed. If Adam Smith were Alive and well, I believe he would rewrite his "invisible hand" statement to fit this catastrophe accordingly..
After being accused of being a "liberal" (I do not affiliate myself with any political party) for my stance on this subject I decided to research this topic more in depth. I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Courts decision was accurate when pertaining to the 1st amendment. My thoughts and opinions regarding the decision are irrelevant.
The first amendment basically protects free speech. It does not differentiate individuals, groups of individuals, or between the rich and the poor. The first amendment does not exclude individuals because they are incorporated, which may be in the form of corporations, unions, or the media.
Every decision made must first and foremost be based upon the constitution and amendments themselves. If precedents were etched in stone and all subsequent decisions were based upon them, the constitution would eventually be unrecognizable.
If we do not agree with these decisions then we should seek to "amend" the constitution. Seeking to arrive at decisions based on the skewering the actual and original wording would eventually render the constitution meaningless.
David Acosta
Just when you think things are a bit better we get hit with this ruling which will corrupt our government more than it already is. What we should do is change the law on appointing justices and have there terms changed to say every 4 years or so. although I agree about freedom of speech and less government, this inequality between the people and corporations is out of balance leaving the little guy at the mercy of corporations.
Well, at least let's acknowledge that there is a difference between incorporated individuals (Inc I.) and a single individual. The former is more financially more powerful, thus commands more political clout. In terms of equilibrium and fairness, is the right of speech of Inc I. the same of a single individual when it comes to political campaigns? When Inc I. can exponentially multiply the individual's financial power and influence politics and legislation? I think the answer is obvious.
Corporations themselves are disgusting institutions and representative of what kind of society we are becoming- we are a mass, faceless, devoid of individuals. This is an exaggeration of course but it is hard not to feel that way sometimes, especially when I see this sort of blatant conditioning, be it in the political realm or simply an advertisement on TV, begging me to BUY BUY BUY from this company or that. Our government is a corporation like any other, and it does not surprise me that the Supreme Court would rule it fair for another corporation to sponsor it.
We as american people should rethink the way law and politics co-exist. We should focus on making laws defend the people it was created to defend. The people how desire the american dream which is not wealth, power or control but is the pursuit of happiness which simply mean oppurtunity which is the opposite of allowing corperation to play the political game.
I think this decision shows the ever-growing power our capitalistic society has given to these corporations. I try not to be a pessimist, but when we see our national debt growing larger every day, and the economic balance shifting towards other countries like China, one must wonder...Maybe Marx had the right idea?
Mariana Trentini
I think this is just one of the examples that our governments do to kind of work around laws that they themselves have created. I feel that there will always be strings attached to anything regarding the government. People also get greedy, and the whole money issue ties in with equal rights. Politics is definitley not one of my favorite topics, I remember voting for a change, not more nonsense.
The reality is that our "capitalistic society" has grown this way because of our need to get bigger and better things. In order for this to change, many people will have to go without many luxuries to even out the wealth and power. Sadly, no one wants to cut back and I believe that corperations should get what they deserve. Corperations should be able to back up a political party only because it is their choice. If someone has a problem with that, they should go and do the same thing with the other party. This is how a good capitalistic society should run.
-Sara Estopinan
Professor Triff, I understand that it is unfair. I do not agree with companies using financial means to gain political clout.
But as I understand it, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
The enhanced ability over the average individual to get a message or information out, is not an advantage enjoyed only by Corporations. It is enjoyed by persons of wealth, persons of note, celebrity, fame or position, and the government. The greatest advantage is enjoyed by the media, who decide what we hear, how often we hear it, and how it will be presented. With the advent of the Internet, average individuals now have a fairly effective means to be heard.
It is our responsibility as citizens and voters to research and sift through as much information as possible in order to make informed decisions. To give the government the ability to decide who we hear, what we hear and how much we hear, is a power our government should not have. The unabridged freedom of speech trumps the alternatives and ensures our freedom.
It is our responsibility as citizens and voters to research and sift through as much information as possible in order to make informed decisions.
True. But see how much our diet habits have changed since the 1950's. Was it because people wanted to eat fast food? Do they really like it? Or was it a combined slow process of capital allocation, food processing, advertising, food prices, etc, etc? So, in 2010 a young person like you (or anyone else) eats at McDonalds and think he or she is making an informed decision. Got it?
Attempting to recognize a corporation as a person with inalienable rights is devastating to our society. A Corporation is allowed and should only be allowed the right to the pursuit of any legal endeavor they wish to pursue and engage in “any lawful and legal business” for the financial benefit of its owners. This decision smacks in the face of precedent well established over 100years.
The reasons these laws were created and enhanced as the needs arose were to prevent the constant prying of the corporations to find new loopholes. The argument placed by Alito also went far beyoned the case being tried anyways. This is also within itself disturbing since many of our legal rights protect us against corporations and government itself was established to protect the individual against a powerful corporate and government culture.
Any company could now legally own a town through the very act of funding every single candidate into the body politic. Even candidates that seek to do well will find themselves frustrated and having a to pick a corporation to help them exercise his political will, having candidates come lapping at the feet of the corporations that have the resources, capital and wherewithal to propel them into political office.
Now there will be no need for candidates to fight their way and prove themselves on local levels and otherwise. Finding the right company would be enough to start. Allowing the “military industrial complex” to mechanize the very wheels that turn the political process is in all essence the culmination to the now prophetic words of President Eisenhower. He saw the power and influence that was just beginning to corrupt the political process to new levels never seen before and offered stern warnings. It is probably advisable now we start dusting our copies of “1984” or buying one of our own.
Why should we stop the “Military industrial complex”? So far every time a precedent that has been established for years as good legal common sense is removed, disaster for the people follows. Our last Glass, Stiegel Act established in 1933 to prevent the manipulation and creation of false markets. Come
From what I have read so far most people think the topic is not in favor for the people. The way I see it with out having much expertise in the subject things are the way they sould be. The strong (Corporations) controlling the weak. Are the coporations going to have that big of an effect on us in this life time? Is the big deal that people are losing freedom or the choice of the next presedent that was never directly in the voters control anyway.
With all due respect Elizabeth, and allow me to jump in, read the other four discenting decisions before continuing to speak on the matter. Then also read the original law that was repealed and why it was. Alito just put us back 100 years in legal time.
This isnt a simple case, every year thousands of cases are filed to get to the highest court, this one got jammed in right after Sandra Day O'Conner left her seat last year. Alito went beyond the normal by not only deciding on the case, but then reopening the complete issue.
Now, take a sruvey of who were the justices that favored the decision, and who were the presidents that vetted them.
you will see who this new decision really favors.
To be quite Honest, I am quite indifferent towards this topic. However I am confident that more than likely actions such as these have taken place before the Supreme Court ruled and made this public. Unfortunately, in the society we live in the phrase ‘money talks’ prevails all.
Jen Ruiz
There is any number of reasons I might choose to eat a 550 calorie Big Mac, but because I believed it was the healthiest choice available, is not one of them. I appreciate people or the government trying to save me from myself and I have no problem with requiring the disclosure of ingredients, calories etc.
On the other hand, upon reaching adulthood, I have chosen be responsible for my choices and not simply trade in my parents for a nanny state. At what point does the desire to protect me from myself end? Am I eventually required upon entering my house at night, to remain there for eight hours because some study indicates that the average person should get eight hours sleep for optimum health? If I run the risk of living only to 80 as opposed to 85 because I chose a moderate lifestyle as opposed to eating only raw vegetables, I want that choice just as I want the other person to have theirs.
I would rather accept responsibility for my choices and their consequences, than to not have them. Nor would I dream of begrudging anyone of their freedom of choice.
I don’t mind you jumping in Gabriel, but I do resent your attempt to marginalize my opinion by implying that you have familiarized yourself with the issue more than I have. I assume you have also read the concurring opinions which address many of the dissenting issues.
Yes the five concurring Justices are republican. Your implication is that Republicans will benefit more than Democrats. This remains to be seen. It is worth noting that not all corporations are owned or controlled by republicans. It is also worth noting that the most recent surveys indicate that the majority of wealth in this country is now owned and controlled by democrats.
Perhaps the split between the Justices, more accurately reflects a divide between strict constructionist and activist judges. In any case, it appears we see things differently and we’ll have to live with that.
Simone Miranda Mueller
I am not quiet sure why "free speech" gives the corporations the right to contribute large amounts of money for political campaigns?! However, corporations shouldn't be considered as individual first of all, because they don't represent neither the majority nor the individual. Second, corporations are used to conduct business and business should not be involved in politics. Thinking about elections, contributing money to the favourite party has always influenced the government. Those companies get favours back for donating large sum and this is corrupt. Meaning, the more money I have, the more rights and influence and freedome of speech I have. If I dont have money, I am just one faceless individual. I know that is not the world most people wanne live in, but unfortunately most people wont give a voice to speak, it only the rich who rule the world. I wonder what "benefits" the Supreme Court are getting out of it.....
I do think that money can help buying a political spot. I personally don’t have any side taken in matters of political decisions, but been raised on a country were politics are don’t even taken serious and people even make fun of them I can affirm that sadly money CAN by a political spot.
Natasha Urvina
In recent elections, most, if not all parties that won had substantial amounts of donations given in their favor. I see why it's such a topic worthy of debate for politicians to re plan their strategy of negotiation with corporations to give them that "edge." What was then considered illegal is now accepted, having the business a primary interest for the government and and the individual uninvolved. I worry of what would be when corruption will no longer be a word.
Cristopher Dollar
Corporations represent the interest of their shareholders, who are (sometimes) people. But they only represent the interests of people with money. The more money you have, the more shares you can own and the bigger your voice can be. Democracy has great potential but capturing the diversity of independent thought and opinion is necessary for full effectiveness. To the extent that corporate/labor donations will harm the democratic process.
Money equals Power. Money will always be the way for all corporations to get whatever they want. It has been this way since any of us can probably remember, and i wouldn't expect it to change any time soon. The government as well as high ranked corps are corrupt. Laws are created for all citizens to abide by, yet they seem to think they are some how exempt.
First of all, these people have a wrong definition of "individual". I don't know what makes them even think that a group of people can be considered as individual. In no way would corporations be protected under the first amendment if they had no money. This is a pure product of capitalism. Money corrupts the society so much that we are not sure of what might become legal tomorrow.
Post a Comment