What are your thoughts about the Supreme Court hearing arguments to de-limit corporate political spending?

Question

This all involves the Hillary movie but it could just as easily involve a McCain, Palin, Romney, Obama movie.

"But in an unusual development, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the case to re-examine 100 years of precedents banning corporations and unions from spending their general treasury money on federal elections. Re-arguments were ordered and heard in a rare special session last week.

It will probably be a few months before the Supreme Court issues its decision. A broad ruling in favor of Citizens United could remove virtually all campaign spending limits, making it easier for big business to buy politicians. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy have previously indicated that they favor overturning the precedents, and they may be joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. The other four justices appear ready to uphold the District Court panel and the FEC, seeing the corrupting influence of big campaign contributions."
http://www.examiner.com/x-1300-Detroit-National-Politics-Examiner~y2009m9d14-Will-the-Supreme-Court-allow-more-legalized-bribery

Answer 1

I think it is ridiculous that corporations are considered people. I also think this could be disastrous for democracy. It will cease to be a government by the people and for the people. Instead, we will have a government where no one who makes or has less than so many millions of dollars will be heard.



Edit: To the person above me, I don't see where he was saying anything in defense of unions having policy changing or public power. They would be the same in my opinion.

Answer 2

Would like to see all corporate campaign contributions (and that would include special interest groups, religious groups, lobbying groups, and even unions) banned. I hope the Supreme Court rules that such organizations are not persons and do not have the same rights in our political system. Campaign finance reform I hoped is addressed in the near future.

Answer 3

if political speech isn't free speech when done by a corporation, why is it that a union can spend its members' funds promoting political candidates and parties in defiance of the wishes of the members?



are the situations not analogues?



If they are, then they should be treated equally. If they aren't, pls explain why a union isn't like a corporation. [both enjoy limited liability for debts with their owners being not personally liable. both are run by boards elected by the owners. sounds pretty similar to me.]

Answer 4

the lobby industry is TOTALY CORRUPT



fact