How many times must this be argued?
With the most recent Supreme Court ruling, which can be found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html .
Here we can see the official document as presented by the Supreme Court:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf
For more info check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission.
If you agree that corporations are people and "they"should have as many rights as you do then vote for this guy:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/warren-blasts-romney-corporations-are-not-people
>>>> Mitt Romney.
This case is a complete disaster for the people of America and proved to the whole world that the U.S. no longer has a competent Supreme Court and by competent I mean one which understands American law, civil duties, and capitalism.
A corporation is a corporation (geez, really?). They have what is called "Corporate Personhood" which entitles them to sue, and to be sued as a whole.
Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. "
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Now the recognition and separation between a corporation and a living, breathing human-being was well established and well recognized for the last seventy or so years. It is with the SC's most recent decision that this is now reversed, through the action brought to light by the state of Montana, which already had a law in place that forbid unlimited corporate funding for political process of any candidate. This act was called The Corrupt Practices Act.
Montana's supreme court then ruled earlier this year that such a law is well-founded and is completely ethical and necessary to have a fair election process. With the recent Supreme Court decision, this act is now null and void with the claim that corporations are people, and people have no limit to how much they can donate to a political party or candidate.
This is wrong not just morally, but ethically, and democratically. This is simply not how things are done in a democratic republic that has laws established to protect its people.
What does this mean for Americans?
We can still vote for anyone we want. Our freedom to vote has not been affected per-Se. But in order to vote for the candidate we believe best represents our ideals we must have all the facts, right?
Well typically the candidate with the most money wins. This is a standard much less a rule. Now take Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has established ties with several different lobbyist groups on K Street in Washington. Wal-Mart just like every large corporation keeps an eye on politics and they will attempt to influence any politician that presents a "pro-Wal-Mart" view on things, even if said politician is a direct supporter of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart enters into an agreement with said politician and agrees to pay such politician X amount of money in return for "pro-Wal-Mart" legislation. This extends to politicians in all fifty states and cases are not isolated. Meanwhile, they're forking out millions of dollars to lobbyist groups on the Hill that exert influence over current Senators, law-makers, representatives, etc.
So instead of a corporation having to pay fair wages to folks, perhaps they can exert enough influence on the Hill to re-write the law so they don't have to.
Remember, a business is a business, and they exist to make money. They have no obligation to me, to you, or to our friends and family. They exist to make money. Huge corporations exist to make money for their investors, and those investors will squeeze every cent they can through any means. That's the beauty and curse of capitalism.
Now, companies can donate an unlimited amount of cash to political candidates (and they will only donate to those who represent their ideals, obviously) which means more advertising and marketing for that candidate which translates into more support, which in turn means that candidate can afford to thrash his/her opponent more.
If said candidate is financially supported by a large corporation who has the right to donate unlimited amounts, isn't that candidate likely to be bought and paid for by the corporation and then representative of the corporation's interests and not the peoples? True.
If Microsoft offered Mitt Romney $200 million in return for supporting a bill or policy that allows Microsoft to dump waste in fresh water streams and lakes, do you think he would turn it down? Likely not.
And now our Supreme Court has failed at their most basic civic duty which is to protect the people. We now enter the gilded age of corporate America.
