Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

gone
Lv 7
gone asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

How do you feel about the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to fund our candidates.?

Update:

looks as though I got a bit happy with punctuation.

21 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I believe the courts have done a huge disservice to free speech rights by tilting the scales even further in the favor of corporations and lobbyist interests over the rights of individuals. Personally, I wish the Supreme Court would consider a "28th Amendment" (Tort Reform) that would strip corporations of their 'person hood', thus subjecting them to the same oversight that existed for the first 100 years of U.S. history. Only individual (NOT corporate) rights are enumerated in the Constitution, yet the courts have been consistently extending those same constitutional rights to corporations thus establishing "corporate person hood". For example... in 1886, the Supreme Court granted a railroad corporation equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (civil rights). For the first forty years after that amendment passed, there were 307 lawsuits brought, nineteen by African American men, the rest by corporations. We (the people) have the First Amendment right of free speech, but so do corporations. However free speech equals money, so those with more money have more speech.

    http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4245/our_town_...

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/24/20_years_aft...

    http://i2.democracynow.org/blog/2009/3/25/amy_good...

    I suppose it would be too much to hope that there would be a justice from anywhere across the political spectrum that would side with people's rights over corporate 'personhood'. This is an issue I wish would have been embraced by the tea parties!!

  • babbie
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Apparently the restriction forbidding this has been around since the 1900s, so I'm guessing it was put in place originally by the Progressives, the ancestors of the modern Liberals. Progressives (Liberals) hate corporations as they hate anyone making a profit. I think this was a great idea, and frankly I'm amazed that the Supreme Court would do it. They always strike me as being kind of leftists in the last few decades. Is the tide actually turning back to the original concept of the United States? We can only hope.

    Plus, it seems to have the very desired effect of scaring the bejammers out of the Liberals - on here, at least. Ooo, now the evil corporations can use their nasty profits to fund candidates who don't approve of government control of our lives! How will Obama sleep at nights?

  • 1 decade ago

    That promotes Bribery. How can I as a citizen compeat with that? Then they are others more well off. It might be better if all donations for either of the candidates, went into a single fund that was distributed equally and then a portion of that would go toward erasing the countries debt.

  • 1 decade ago

    Why not give the Wall Street's special interests a completely unfettered and now a legal way to elect our leadership? *sarcasm*

    This sucks big time! They may have revoked our right to vote with that same decision. It won't mean much anyways.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Johnny
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    They are doing it regardless. At least all the cards are on the table.

    Its kind of like making weed legal or when they started allowing professionals to compete in the Olympics.

  • 1 decade ago

    Umm, that should solve all of our problems. <sarcasm>

    This is probably the worst decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Each candidate should be allowed the same amount of money and it should be funded by the government.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think it is a travesty UN Ethical and Immoral . The Ethics of our country is starting to hit rock bottom.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    finally cant blame conservatives for evil corporations this time, goldman (ball) sacks was obamas biggest contributor, hmm jewish ran banks funding campaigns, nooo never

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don't like it, corporations are NOT citizens and they have too many rights as it is IMO. They are supposedly looked at as individuals in the eyes of the law, but when it comes to paying taxes, they don't pay as much! They are now like special citizens with special rights, more than actual human begins!

  • 1 decade ago

    I can see it now...Corporate naming rights for political candidates.

    "Ladies and gentlemen, presenting the AIG Republican candidate for the Goldman Sachs Senate Seat in the great state of Morgan Stanley Massachusetts...Scott Brown!"

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.