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.
Trending News
With today's SCOTUS ruling, will non-citizens now have the ability to elect our government for us?
For example, does Honda now have enough influence (as they certainly have the budget) to elect a Senator from a state in which they are looking for cheap land to build a new factory?
Will BP now elect our Governors...perhaps the ones from Alaska, Oklahoma and Texas?
After all, those two indeed have a large presence and offices in the US, do they not?
Perhaps the Bank of China electing our Presidents soon? True, no presence in the US quite yet...but quite possibly in the future, indeed.
A question also if I may to those who state that they prohibition is only on advertisement for a political candidate of their choice (and bidding): aren't you the same people who said the government is evil and - once presented with a new law - will take it and expand it ad infinitum? So please tell me: what makes the corporations, flush with money, any different? Did you enjoy how they played with - and lost - your money? Perhaps you were overjoyed when they fired you without reason? Or maybe you relished the fact that they about brought our economy to its knees? Indeed, how can you say that the government will grab power and never relinquish it...when the big corporations do the exact same thing?
So...will foreign companies with a presence in the US be "helping" us elect our politicians soon? Or more correctly should the term be "plutocrats"?
Bethy: "They only said corporations can give money not that they did not have to report it" Oh? Please tell me exactly where that is written as law? Also:"If you dont like it vote with your VOTE". Oh once again? What effect will a common citizen's measly vote have against a corporation whose directors have more than one vote (a vote as a citizen...and the more powerful vote: that of cold, hard cash). Since the "common" citizens have lost a good amount of their voting power today, all I will say is: I wish my voted still actually counted for something.
MichaelL: "The ruling actually underscores freedom of speech". Now that is funny...just how did you arrive at such a decision? Fox doesn't have free reign to broadcast non-news? And regarding those you seem to think had access (i.e. unions, etc.) while others did not: so instead of reforming a system that is flawed currently, you are in favor of opening the flood gates to all now, making the situation much, much worse?
7 Answers
- Michael LLv 51 decade ago
The ruling actually underscores freedom of speech.
If you do not allow a corporation or an individual the right to broadcast anything of a political nature that they wish, whenever they wish... then what do you have?
You have only a select few corporations that are allowed to do so while others are banned from doing so. Case in point. GE owns NBC and MSNBC. Through those 'news' outlets GE gets to broadcast without restraint whatever they choose to under the name of news. Competitors of GE do not. Is GE not a company? What is the difference between GE and Archer Daniels or Federated Dept Stores, or Home Depot. They are all corporations, why does one get to broadcast political speech in the name of 'news' because they own news outlets while the others can not?
The ruling today makes everything a level playing field. Believe it or not.
The liberals do not like this because for so long the media outlets have been in their pockets, the unions have supported these candidates. Now that it is a level playing field they think it unfair.
It is not only corporations that get free speech but any individual or group of individuals can get together and raise money and broadcast anything they like.
It's called Freedom of Speech. And Freedom of Speech is meaningless unless you give freedom of political speech the most freedoms of all.
- ?Lv 71 decade ago
No matter how much money person A gets from BP they arent going to win against some one if every one knows that they got it
They only said corporations can give money not that they did not have to report it
Candidate 1 JIM -
890 corporate sponsors
Candidate 2 Mary
12 Corporate sponsors
If you dont like it vote with your VOTE
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No. The people will elect the government but you will be bombarded by tv ads paid for from every corporation on the planet.
- You Need Me!Lv 71 decade ago
You're still the one voting. Now you're just going to have more people telling you what candidate they think is best but it's still your choice.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You should be more concerned with your own president trying to buy Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson to get the monument to himself (obamacare).
- Ole Sinky FaceLv 71 decade ago
as long as it is still George Sorros you will be happy. Hope you have found this useful. Remember keep using Yahoo Anwers.com.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Last time I checked....that's how most Latinos get elected in California.