Did the SCOTUS accelerate our decent into plutocracy today?

Yes, they did. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves tonight.

You know what would serve these pompous so-in-so's all right? We ALL ought to cancel our television service during election season. Let them spend their money for tv ads we refuse to watch. You know if we hit them in the wallets, they'll be forced to behave better.

We also ought to all collectively refuse to ever vote for an incumbent. Let them all have only ONE term, no more. That will nullify all that money for those who have a conscience.

I don't know about you all, but I'm sick and tired of seeing We the People lose our rights and our voices. These jackazzes desperately need to be reminded that WE own the power, not them. When will we all get angry enough to do something back to them?

##

No. This country has been a plutocracy for years. Health Insurance companies bought and paid for every vote they got.

Now they corporations are not required to take the back alleys, they can use the carpool lane instead.

This nation is also a republic, built on laws, good or bad. Not a democracy, where the will of the people dominate. How else can we explain the vote of 40 men and women, being more powerful then 60.

I think its a travesty of everything this country didn't want to stand for. England might as well still have influence. Corporations have no ties to the US, they can be international, therefore their loyalties can lie elsewhere. I mean if I was a foreign capitalist, and I opened up a branch in the US of company X, I could then fund whoever I wanted, and before you know it, South Korea is ok'd to own nuclear missiles. This is a wild example of this, but even if its something smaller, you'd be a fool to not see the implications of something like this. American people are now having to vote against not only big corporations, but anyone that has stake in the US stock market. Free markets should not include interests that are not America's, but if corporations are in charge, then I guess its just an oxymoron.

Truth in Wine: How do you see "death blow to equality"? Did you read the opinion? The idea that Person C could only say X but Person U could say 90x X ? If each person is equal under the Law, how could you say that some attribute of C make him less equal to U?

The court said that all person have the right to say A so long as they are expressing their views.

Speak should not be limited --- if your idea wins out then more people will accept it. This has been the historic case since Geo Washington to Nixon's Term. Look at the LBJ race. LBJ the incumbent president was shoved out of office by Eugene McCarthy a ill funded Minnesotan who was able to get his message out by taping the wallets of 5 or 6 very wealthy people. Back then the idea of limiting political speech to some fixed dollar amount was absurd. As it should be now.

What do you fear from this case? That balance arguments will again be aired? We have more speech now than we did in the 1950's or 1960's. Mostly due to technology, but also because more people can post their views cheaply. In the 1950's media was radio and 3 networks, who passed out political propaganda as if it were Holy Writ. Media reports (e.g. Walter Winchell) would report whatever his friend J. Edgar Hoover told him to say --- with career destroying ability.

Why do you think political races have grown worse since the Nixon era --- Congress members are more long lasting then some Federal Judges since their position have been so gerrymanders, redistricting is such a farce and the media will not tell you the truth about either. Investigate running for office --- most states have a Campaign Reporting Bureau where candidates have to complete form after form to comply with election laws --- Incumbents get their staff to do that and Incumbents get a by from these Bureaus since at the state levels it is the incumbents that see to it that the bureau is well funded and staffed with the best son/daughters/cousins/nieces that are available from the members of the Legislature or its currently employed staff.

A reporting error on finance by Sen. Dodd is winked at. Such an accounting omission by a defeated also ran would incur large penalties (total remaining funds) and or prison time (told you not to lose Idiot). Teacher's Union can give millions but a corporation is limite to 50,000 not fair.

Your speech should be as available as you can disseminate it. Just as must as GE (NBC NEWS/Prop), Disney(ABC Propaganda), CPB(ACORN news agency) get to speak much more than Walmark or the corner bank. Fairness should be visible in Law.

Well that is an overly well query. Many of the values which we have been taught might upload to a larger global were corrupted via the powers that be, for his or her possess attain. No query. That subject of scale has on no account been so huge. To placed it in it is viewpoint, consider of ways so much a ball participant makes. Scale that up ( seeing that the political elegance would possibly not wish to look inexpensive ), and you'll see the immense quantities getting used to shop for "entry". A important difficulty is the "statue of liberty" play. The politicians may have the inside track media going in a single path, whilst they're making plans a transfer within the different. The convenient entry to understanding is a truly chance. So assume them to be making plans a brand new "darkish age".

The part I don't understand is why SCOTUS regards Corporations and "one person" with the freedom to spend as much as they think necessary to seat a candidate. It makes no sense! Even though there are limitations to what they can give each person, they can spread it around where it will influence those who are easily influenced! This is Capitalism at it's very worst! I am so sick of the exploitation of the middle-class of America!

ADD: Wonder if SCOTUS considered that many corporations in America are foreign-owned. This ruling gives them the option of influencing our elections. THAT is just WRONG!

They didn't overturn all rulings. There are still limits on campaign financing. The biggest change will be corporations and unions can run adds up until the time of the election stating who they feel should and shouldn't be elected.

Yes but who are you to tell someone they are not allowed to express their opinion because they are rich. huh? What sense does that make?

If what you say is true, it seems to me the problem is that money can influence an election more than the message.