Comments on: Citizens United

By: Bah

Bah — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:25:57 +0000

Damnit. I ignored all of the political context and just got really hungry for a McRib and a Shamrock Shake.

DAMNIT.

By: Jer

Jer — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:33:25 +0000

Some people have suggested that this decision is a victory for smaller corporations to enter into political dialogue, or that individual citizens can now form corporations for the purposes of generating political speech.

Really? Are there really people who say this? I guess I can believe it – some people will say anything if you pay them enough. Are there people who believe it though? The only people I would think could believe something like that sincerely are college students who have never had a job of their own and have never taken a single economics or poly sci course in their lives…

By: JCtx

JCtx — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:02:03 +0000

Is there any way to pass a law that says something to the affect of “if you can’t vote, you can’t donate”? To me, allowing corporations to get all politically at all is to allow the individuals that own and operate said corporations a double dose of political power that is not allowed for us normal schmucks.

By: Sofa King

Sofa King — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:19:14 +0000

“….Senator Floozits (R-Lockheed) will now rebut the words of his esteemed associate Senator Plumdid (D-Microsoft)….”

By: Aardy R. DeVarque

Aardy R. DeVarque — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:44:55 +0000

I heard one pundit calculate that, given the current approximate cost of winning a Senate race, for an investment of a mere 200 million dollars a year for six years (for a total of 1.2 billion), a corporation theoretically could blitz the airwaves enough to cause the candidates it wanted to win all 100 Senate seats and completely own the upper chamber of Congress (and thereby also any judges and cabinet positions nominated after that point).

Putting that number in context, Exxon Mobil made $45 billion in PROFITS in 2009 alone (and $7.8 billion in profits in just the 4th quarter).

(Of course, that wouldn’t happen in a vacuum; I suspect what’d probably be more likely is either a trust of corporations with similar ideals who agree to work together to spend/force everyone else out of the electoral process, or a bidding war/arms race when two opposing corporations go head to head. But wouldn’t it be entertaining to see Congressmen show up on CSPAN with logos of their corporate “sponsors” plastered all over their suits?)

By: Lucky Duckies | mooreroom

Lucky Duckies | mooreroom — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:11:04 +0000

[...] on a tangential note, MightyGodKing adds his two-cents regarding the Citizens United decision. Shorter: he thinks it sucks, but can’t muster the [...]

By: ps238principal

ps238principal — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:39:28 +0000

I say that, in light of this ruling, the term “corporate merger” should be legally referred to as “marriage.”

This is to be followed by the ruling that owning stock in a corporation is unconstitutional because slavery was outlawed in the U.S. by the 13th amendment.

I will now sit back and await my appointment to the Supreme Court, as my wisdom is wasted otherwise.