The recent Supreme Court decision regarding campaign donations confirms my objection:

[olegramps]

No one should have a lifetime appointment to such a powerful institution as the Supreme Court. Our Forefathers didn't envision that the criteria to win appointment would be sole based on the appointee's political ideology. That five justices could conclude that corporations have the same rights as human beings in regard to free speech is beyond the pale and could have only been imagined by George Orwell.

[HillbillyBob]

1. True and in those days a life time appointment was not all that long.

There should be term limits on all fed offices just like there is on the presidents office term.

[elehhhhna]

18. And NEVER name anything after a living person...

Kenneth Lay YMCA, exhibit A

[Faux pas]

2. ...

:patriot:

[jberryhill]

3. So, you sided with Nixon in New York Times Co. v. US - Pentagon Papers

In the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme court found that the New York Times Co. had First Amendment rights, just as it did in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

You were on the side of Nixon, yes?

[jgraz]

4. Wow, did you get that wrong.

The SCOTUS decision there was about freedom of the press, not freedom of speech. No one is suggesting that limiting corporate campaign money should in any way impinge on freedom of the press.

[jberryhill]

7. But the Scotus case is not about "corporate campaign money"

The case is about whether corporate communications, separate from the campaign, count as "campaign contributions" or count as "speech".

I'm not sure you know what THIS case was about.

Here's the deal... You run a campaign. I am a big corporation in state X. I decide to blanket my state from end to end with flyers, direct mail, TV commercials, etc. promoting your candidacy. Because of my effort, you don't have to spend in my state, and you use your campaign money elsewhere.

Now, you tell me, have I exercised my First Amendment rights, or have I made a campaign contribution?

[gorfle]

9. If you use your first amendment rights politically,

You have made a campaign contribution.

[jberryhill]

14. Which brings us back to.....

New York Times Co. v. US

and to:

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Can the New York Times Company criticize political candidates under the First Amendment or not?

[gorfle]

15. Sure.

The difference is, The New York Times is a NEWS corporation.

NEWS corporations should be able to express their First Amendment rights, including criticizing the government.

[jberryhill]

16. So, let me see if I understand the Constitutional distinction here....

A Corporation does not have First Amendment rights unless it is a "NEWS" corporation.

Okay.

General Electric owns MSNBC. Is General Electric a "NEWS" corporation?

Or are you saying that if any corporation wants to publish a television program or printed publication, then they can only do it if they are a NEWS corporation?

Can they form a separate wholly-owned corporation that publishes news?

If Exxon buys the New York Times Co., is the NYT still a NEWS corporation, or does it become some other kind of corporation?

And, btw, what, in your mind, was Citizens United - the corporation in question in this case?

[gorfle]

17. distinction.

General Electric owns MSNBC. Is General Electric a "NEWS" corporation?

No, NSNBC is a news corporation.

Or are you saying that if any corporation wants to publish a television program or printed publication, then they can only do it if they are a NEWS corporation?

No, I'm saying that if any corporation wants to publish a POLITICAL television program or printed publication, they can only do it if they are a news corporation.

Can they form a separate wholly-owned corporation that publishes news?

As long as the subsidiary is not controlled by the parent, sure. For example, I used to work for a defense company owned by a foreign corporation. There were strict limits on the relationship for national security reasons.

If Exxon buys the New York Times Co., is the NYT still a NEWS corporation, or does it become some other kind of corporation?

The NYT is still a news corporation.

And, btw, what, in your mind, was Citizens United - the corporation in question in this case?

My understanding is that it was a political organization.

[whattheidonot]

5. not fair.

if the corporations had a spokesman in a debate type setting that is one thing. To be able to bombard people with carefully crafted ads is another thing. Defeating corporate candidates will now be an insurgency type thing. organizers against this will have be on the ground going house to house. The power of corporations to slickly persuade in many forms will impossible to meet. This will take serious thinking to defeat. The timing is good though . people are tired of this and may just revolt. that is what this going to take. Corporate candidates will be easy to spot.

[Vincardog]

6. Wrong they should be appointed for life to avoid them being pressured to make bad decisions. They

should be vetted and denied appointment if they are Corporatist Fascist Criminals.

[DKRC]

8. Too late to close that barn door

The "Corporatist Fascist Criminals" have already smiled & lied their way through the vetting.

[Vincardog]

10. And the DLC let them through

[DKRC]

13. No argument from me

I'm not a fan of the Damned Lying Corporatists who have hijacked the Democratic Party.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. The Supreme Court Five are not consistent.

They rule in favor of police rights in search and seizure issues -- especially if it impacts minority neighborhoods; but when it comes to controlling extreme corruption which is destroying this country, they cave in under the guise of free speech.

[anonymous171]

12. Forget 1984, this is moving into Brave New World territory.