US Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Donations

[fuga]

Is anyone else disgusted with this decision?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/01/21/national/w070501S29.DTL

A bitterly divided Supreme Court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions Thursday by freeing them to spend their millions directly to sway elections for president and Congress.

In my perfect world, only registered voters would be able to make contribution to elections, and every one of those registered voters would have an equal voice of $10, something everyone could afford if they so chose. At least all this makes is easier to track the corruption and buying of politicians and democracy. The power should be in the vote, not in the dollar.

-pete

[Steve James]

Yep, totally disgusted; but completely unsurprised who voted for it. Money now talks, legally. Personally, I don't believe that institutions should be treated as individuals.

[Bill]

The court's decision was based upon the premise that corporations are identical to real persons. Therefore a corporation should now be able to run for and hold office. Monsanto for President!!!

[fuga]

Can we also execute a corporation? Can gay corporations marry? Can a corporation get drafted?

[shawnsegler]

MMMMMM...might makes right....mmmmmmm.....bleh.

[Steve James]

Can gay corporations marry? Can a corporation get drafted?

Maybe not, but corporations can sure screw people.

[shawnsegler]

I have this very bizarre, anthropomorphic picture of two corporations sodomizing each other.

S

[klonk]

That's called a merger.

[shawnsegler]

Hehe...the DC merger! That's kind of like a Cleveland Steamer, right?

S

[klonk]

I don't get it. The what?

[yusuf]

..if corporations are treated like people then can all board memebers be equally at fault and held liable for crap like the Bhopal Disaster

[shawnsegler]

I was being crude. Pay it no nevermind.

[klonk]

Right-ho. Something tells me that's best.

[Michael]

..if corporations are treated like people then can all board memebers be equally at fault and held liable for crap like the Bhopal Disaster

Nope, at least not in the USA. IIRC, there was an 1876 US Supreme Court decision when Shaitan was the substitute justice and corporations were given equal status and rights to persons, but none of the responsibilities and risks. In the olden days, you couldn't just make up a corporation, you had to get a charter from the federal or state govt. The first central bank in the US was given a 10 year charter and its failure to be renewed just happened to coincide, wink-wink, with the War of 1812. The federal government was incorporated in 1871 and DC has its own constitution of sorts, but that's another topic. States like Delaware an Rhode Island began to permit corporations without the need for renewing their charters toward the end of the 19th century, and now any schmoe and a couple of buddies can elevate their status by operating through one, but it wasn't always so.

[Steve James]

Hmm, if a corporation has free speech, does that mean that non-living things also have that right?