I hear what you are saying, but a would argue (perhaps just for the sake that I like to argue, haha) that a corporation is hardly "faceless". Suppose, for instance, I am Rex Tillerman (CEO of Exxon Mobile) and it's 2000, and I look at the two candidates, and see that it is obviously WAY more beneficial for my company to have former oilmen Bush and Chenney in office then the anti oil, green guy, Al Gore.
.
So having the position of power as CEO of this corporate oil giant, I not only make a LARGE donation to the Buch/Chenney campaign on my own (keep in mind I am worth well over $100 million), I also urge all the members of the executive board to do so as well (all very well compensated as well). Then I go one step further, and send out urgent e-mails to ALL my shareholders (which is in the millions of people) urging them to support Bush/Chenney, and give as much $$$ as they can to their campaign ($$$, which I believe is still tax deductible). Siting in detail how it will be a huge financial benefit to them as a long term shareholder.
.
I would argue that my company is hardly "faceless", and in fact has a TON of political power if it wants to exert it. Do you support caps on what an individual could give then? I mean if it's about individual liberty, I should be able to give say $10 million on my own if I wanted then, right? Because my individual free speech rights of liberty should not be able to dictate how much I can give to any campaign.
.
I am not posing this as a "gotcha", or antagonistic question. This issue is just very complex complex to me, and why I don't have a real strong position on it.

To avoid filling up too many 300-character comment boxes, I am being presumptuous, Kiowamohican. This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_p...

Incorporation is merely a framework for ownership. A corporation isn't even a thing, much less a person, and this "thing" we all view as the conceptual embodiment of a corporation is nothing more than an illusion. I regard this to be a founding principle and an essential axiom of individual liberty.

I believe that, on some level, Russ Feingold and John McCain understand this principle. They simply broached it poorly and, in doing so, created a flawed solution that caused at least as many problems as it fixed. (Assuming it "fixed" any problems whatsoever.)

I think I'm getting your position, after reading it again...It's pretty late, and my mind is not all to keen at this hour. It appears you are very much against the ruling. I'll have to ponder it further. It's not something I have given a whole lot of thought to. Been some pretty compelling arguments from both sides of this one.

fool-on-the-hill:
I'm not sure I'm comprehending your position on this. Do you support this supreme court ruling or not? I was not trying to dodge anything. I said that I honestly don't have a real strong position on it. That is not avoiding, that is simply being modest.

kid:
The 10th amendment has been pissed on over and over; and in my mind has become pretty much a meaningless amendment today. The original intent of the founders was to have a governmnet that was to be federal, and not national. In other words, formed from the bottom on up, and not the top down. Where the vast power would come from the people of a community, and state, and the federal governmnet would simply provide a national defense to boarders, coin money, make foreign trade treaties, ext. Now the federal governmnet has become no different then any oligarch, monarchy, ext throughout history. As they are involved in EVERYTHING.
.
Obviously the feds should have no say in pot, gambling, prostitution, ext. It should be left up to each state. Then if you do not like the laws of that state, you can VOTE WITH YOUR FEET, and move out of the state to one where your ideals are supported by the legislation/laws of that state. The federal governmnet has become this massive blanket that screws everyone now. Federalism/states rights was always my argument with heath care to. Why do you even need Washington involved at all? If you are a big single payer supporter, then have your state adopt the rules, and funding, for that system. If you a big free market, anti governmnet run health care, then go to a state that has non governmnet run care. Why screw over everyone with the blanket of federal legislation? The original intent was indeed to prevent just that, but it has obviously failed miserably as the years have passed, and the federal governmnet has become as big as ever. The newest budget has federal spending at a near 25% of GDP! An INSANE number, and one that will eventually cause a complete IMPLOSION, as the governmnet simply becomes unsustainable. Most all great civilizations throughout history have all floundered to ruins, and to the history books, because the powers that ran them became to big, to corrupt, and to much in debt. It has happened throughout the history of man.

to bad the founding fathers didnt put something in the constitution to protect my rights to smoke marijuana...oh wait...they did. tell me again why we completely ignore the 10th amendment?? trout turds.

(...continuation)

Returning now to the fundamental question of this particular case: did the FEC violate anyone’s Constitutional rights? YES (DUH)! The FEC clearly interfered with the free speech of each individual producer, writer, actor, etc. who creatively contributed to the production of "Hillary, the Movie". “Citizens United v, FEC”? No. “Peterson, Troxler, Wright, et al, v. FEC”? Yes. [I suppose a good case could be made for the rights of Citizens United under the narrow scope of "freedom of the press" but that is another interesting discussion.] Within the limited context of individual Constitutional rights of human beings, Citizens United is only a box of papers with no thoughts to express and no mouth with which to express them. Best of all, the word "inalienable" prevents Citizens United or any other collective from buying, stealing or borrowing the Constitutional rights of any individual American.

You surprise me, Billnewbie and Kiowamohian. While we all agree there are many implications and facets of the SCOTUS ruling and McCain-Feingold to discuss, my firm conviction is that none is worth discussing without a clear understanding of individual rights in the context of the Constitution. So, while I give each of you credit for artfully dodging my direct question, I will, for the time being, treat both arguments as red herrings.

Through the efforts of many lawmakers and Supreme Court Justices, the meaning of rights has become so abominated that fewer and fewer Americans understand where rights come from and, more importantly, what makes something a "right" and not something else. Once the definition of rights has become sufficiently broad to encompass nearly anything, it then becomes entirely meaningless, both literally and figuratively.

In context, the word "inalienable" means that our individual rights, as enumerated and protected by the Constitution, cannot be sold, bought, trade or transferred. The Framers chose the word "inalienable" with forethought because, without that specific word, individual rights could become vulnerable to tyrants as commodities --sold to the highest bidder, taken by force or extorted by threat. In doing so, they intended to prevent the establishment of another monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy or any other tyrannical form of government. Since they had fought hard to secure our rights of liberty, I truly doubt they could imagine any scenario where someone would willingly and voluntarily relinquish their individual rights for the greater good of some collectivist group, club or organization. Fortunately, "inalienable" covers any transfer of rights whatsoever; Americans are unable to give them away or loan them out, even though some of us are willing and eager to do so. Therefore, no person can pool his or her individual rights, along with the rights of other individuals, by extension in a collective. In fact, such concept negates the very essence of individual rights. When people start believing that a corporation, trade union, PAC, political party, church or scout troop possesses Constitutional rights equivalent to those of each individual person, then individual rights become, quite literally, meaningless.

(Continued...)

Pananma Red,

The solution you proposes abridges free speech! Who is going to define what an outside interest is? Look at Senator Russ, every cycle he raises hundred of thoudsands of dollars from people in California and New York -should they be restricted in giving to Feingold? They dont have a local interest, clearly this would represent the outside interst you wish to silence is it?

fool-on-the-hill:
I honestly don't have a real strong position on it, or even know much about "corporate personhood". My only point was that it is the job of the Supreme Court; as written in the constitution, to simply interpret the constitution. I am totally AGAINST the nonsense of activist judging, or the constitution being a "living document". It should be interpreted by what is said in the current version, no matter what one may think personally. By the strict interpretation of the constitution this ruling was a CORRECT ruling. As there is nothing in the constitution, that anyone has shown me, that says money can limit your 1st amendment right of free speech.
.
I do think the campaigns are getting WAY out of hand with the INSANNE amounts of $$$$ that is being thrown into them; however. A while back when I worked as a pollster; I did a study once where I figured out how many people in this state voted, and the divided it by how much money was spent by both candidates (this was a Presidential election). A figure that is kind of ambiguous; as its hard to track all the $$$ with all the outside groups tossing $$$ in the pot.
.
It came out to something like $83 per person spent! When you figure 60% of the people voting are all ready DEAD SET on their guy, you are then basically throwing $207.50 (83 x 1/0.4) per the 40% of undecided voters! In which I always made the claim, that my vote should simply be up for auction if I am undecided. Just pay me $200 cash, and you can fill out my ballot! On a different blog, I actually made that challenge during the Obama, Mccain race. Said that the highest bidder can have my ballot, and I will take the $$$ and keep turning it over (playing the options market) and I will donate all the $$$ I make to charity in 4 years. I cynically said the charities will be needing it badly, after all the carnage is done in 4 years from either Obama or McCain.

One way of dealing with campaign finance that does not violate the constitution is to adopt campaign spending limits. A candidate could spend a fixed amount of money whether running for President, Senate, House, etc. The limits would include spending by the candidate AND spending by outside interests on behalf of the candidate. This would reduce the absolutely ridiculous amounts spent gaining election to an office that pays a fraction of the cost to actually get elected. Along with rules for increased transparency, it would also serve to curtail influence peddling.

McCain-Feingold, passed in 2002, represents one small part of hundreds of pages of campaign-finance regulations put in place over decades. The rules-upon-rules framework has created a flawed system that runs contrary to the First Amendment. The goal of these regulations is always laudable — that is, to reduce the influence of money in politics — but they've been impossible to enforce. No sooner does a rule pop up here than a new kind of political action committee or 527 organization springs up to mask special-interest donations.

Contrary to what Senator Feingold expects us to believe in this court case, the high court's decision is not bad. The ruling forces corporations to now DISCLOSE their financial backing of any political speech. They didn't have to do that before this decision.

The ruling correctly ended those laws that basically amounted to censorship. Lifting McCain-Feingold rules will allow greater freedom for political speech by everyone, small or big. It levels the playing field

The justices reversed a restriction on both corporations and unions from paying directly for television political advertisements in the days immediately leading up to an election. That limitation did not apply to other forms of speech, such as large scaled political rallies being covered publicly by national news media; or TV infomercials, such as that used by Barack Obama just before the election when his campaign purchased 30 minutes of time on all the major news networks, except FOX. Those restrictive forms of ‘free speech’ were clearly unfair.

So much money is being shuffled around behind the scenes that often voters have no idea who is really behind many campaign-style ads and efforts until months after Election Day. Sometimes never. Political experts and academics who have studied campaign laws since the Nixon administration have had a difficult time proving or finding any compelling evidence that big donations are as corrupting as skeptics expect us to believe.

The public always has to be vigilant. The high court's decision will make it easier to be so, as corporations, and foreign corporations, are most affected in this decision. They will now have to disclose their backing of ANY political speech. Such transparency will be a welcome change for voters. Today that transparency is masked and prevented by the existing laws.

This ruling is clearly a win for the voters. It should be welcomed, not criticized, by our President and our Senator, both left wing liberal politicians. Why do they fear transparency and open government?

'since I am opposed to the curtailing of rights for certain segments of the population in favor of other segments of the population'

your point of view doesnt make you a champion for the undeserving rich mr newbie. it makes you a hypocrite.

Corporations are associations, (there are many kinds of associations) of persons who are themselves endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator. Our constitution guarantees us the right to form and join these associations which amplify our collective resources both economic and political. Deny the rights of only certain selected associations, such as corporations, as Feingold-McCain (or is it McCain-Feingold) did and the effect is to deny equal protection under the law and to give an unfair, and, as the Supreme Court has ruled, unlawful advantage to some associations over others (such as political party PAC's that are formed to help elect re-elect party members that freely use anti-corporation rhetoric without regard to accuracy). The main group who benefited from that law were the very group that passed it, the incumbents of the U.S. Congress, who would prefer to keep such corporations silenced while they are used as whipping boys.

Does my position make me a champion of the undeserving rich? Perhaps indirectly, since I am opposed to the curtailing of rights for certain segments of the population in favor of other segments of the population, and the rich are the pariah du jour of the American political landscape. The argument that the rich have always oppressed everyone else is also no excuse for denying them rights either since "two wrongs don't make a right".

If Feingold, et. al. really want to level the political playing field, they should find ways to make it easier for "ordinary folks" to be heard rather that restrict access to the select and unfavored few.

Please tell me that you do not support the philosophy of corporate personhood, kiowamohican.

milojacks:
Feingold has made some pretty bold votes, that one has to respect in that he has not just toed the party line, or been bought off. Voting against the Patriot act was VERY bold (considering it was shortly after 9/11), and I think the CORRECT vote (he was the ONLY senator to vote against it). He also voted against the sham of TARP, which has made the giant banks go from near bankrupt to now turning record profits! He also had very serious questions to the sham of the stimulus bill (even though he did ultimately vote in favor). While he also voted for the Bush Supreme court nominees. Hardly just voting the Democratic party line, you have to admit.
.
Feingold makes some good points in this writing, but I think the supreme court has interpreted the constitution correctly, which is what they are suppose to do. If you want serious reform, the only way is to amend the constitution to campaign reform. It takes a near act of God to amend the constitution, but with so much outrage of political corruption, aided by big $$$$$, right now, it could possibly get lots of bi-partisan support.

Russ is one of a few Senators who is willing to think independent of party affiliation. And he is the ONLY Senator that had the guts to vote against "The Patriot Act" that subjected us to domestic surveillance and wire tapping without warrants.

“Now that you see the numbers are very close, you're reframing your argument, as usual”
-
Reframming, lol. As I have always stipulated, over the past 20 years the leading industry for donations is lawyers and their firms. Your math on the last 4 elections cycles is flakey; 2008 is the only one where people that donated and selected their occupation as retired contributed a cumulative amount greater than the legal community.

It is clear you fail to see how a group with smaller number (1/100) that donates the same dollar value, per group, has more influence; people from this same occupation currently make up ~36% of the congress/senate/white house.

Neither have I listed torte reform as one of my favorite reasons the health care bill is bad; reduction of personal choice and government involvement have always been my main reasons. The absence of tort reform in any of the bills says much about the influence from the legal community. Funny how retired persons have ~400 billion removed from Medicare in current healthcare reform and the legal community has no tort reform…so much for influence.

I want to be clear on your position before responding, Bill. Are you say that you, Billnewbie, believe with all your heart that corporations are indeed endowed with certain inalienable rights by their Creator, just like people? Or, are you simply making a point about legal precedent re: corporate personhood? (I have never denied the latter.)

ladies and gentelmen...thats mr billnewbie...a man for all americans rights...

From the United States (legal) Code, title 1 section 1 chapter 1,
" the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;". It seems that "corporate personhood" has more basis than just a single Supreme Court decision, the meaning of which is disputed by its opponents.

We tax corporations, much like a natural person. Corporations are recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by real people. They can sue and be sued, and yes, corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment in the 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad which had the effect of extending equal protection under the law to corporations meaning they can't be singled out for special treatment such as that in the Feingold-McCain act, even if people such as BrianS, Fool-on-the-Hill, Al Gore and others claim that was a misinterpretation of that decision and deny that interpretation. As the recent Supreme Court decision shows, corporate personhood has been reaffirmed,equal protection under the law included, at least as it pertains to what Feingold-McCain tried to do.

The fact is that any person (corporate included) can buy airtime. The only limiting factors are whether the media owners will accept your advertisement and whether you can afford to buy it. Personally, I can't afford to buy very much, but as those who read some of my musings know, I have a lot to say. Should our government be able to squelch the rights of those who can afford more than I so that our voices are equally heard? It has never been within the government's purview to guarantee equality of outcomes. But we also have freedom of association. Therefore I can form or join a group of like-minded individuals for the purpose of pooling resources, just like a corporation. In fact, that association can even be incorporated, if we so choose. So the political free speech playing field is much more level than Feingold-McCain assumes, even if it were in the government's domain to level it anyway, which the Supreme Court says it's not.

Feingold-McCain undermined the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court corrected that, as they should have and as Feingold and McCain should have realized when they wrote it.

Senator Feingold!

When you hear psuedo reformers (like you and Senator McCain) howl about the downfall of elections as a result of this ruling, consider that states like Missouri, Utah, and Virginia already allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political ads, and there’s no evidence that these states’ elections have been corrupted or overwhelmed by this additional political speech. And that is not surprising. After all, no matter how much money is spent to promote or oppose candidates, voters remain free to disagree with those views. They often do, as well-financed but failed candidates Martha Coakley and Jon Corzine can attest.

The Court’s ruling will simply result in a more diverse mix of political speech, and that is a good thing for American democracy.

Rasmussen, while respected, is also a Republican leaning polster.

PanamaRed, a better definition of "fool" might be someone who interprets the results of a Rasmussen poll to be any sort of indication of what FOTH thinks. ;~) I don't know anyone who believes Tommy Thompson will run for Senator. The Rasmussen survey is only a benchmark of voter attitudes. To me, this indicates that Feingold is vulnerable and could possibly lose his seat. His favorable ratings tend to support that conclusion.

FOTH, you really are a fool if you think T. Thompson would beat R. Feingold. Tommy would be embarrassed. Feingold only voted 74% of the time with his party. That makes him the most independent Senator in congress. We need more like Russ, and fewer yes-men like Tommy.
-
The issue isn't only one of influencing voters, it also concerns influencing candidates, as in "You don't bite the hand that feeds you."
-
Influence peddling has been intertwined with politics from day one and realistically will never be eliminated. What will help, however, is transparency [Who (what entity) is giving how much to whom (which candidate or party)]. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a "Citizens For A Better Tomorrow" appellation which in reality means "Corporations Out To Rake In Millions Unfairly". The only regulation imposed should mandate that campaign spending should be limited to ads which ONLY PROMOTE a candidate or issue. Ads which disparage other candidates or issues too often employ false accusations and contain misinformation (lies). ALL negative political advertising should be banned. Certain limits to free speech pertain only to what is said, not how much is said or who is paying to say it. You can talk all you want in a crowded movie theater but (legally) you can't yell "fire. Now, more than ever, States that use elections to seat Judges should end the practice NOW. Judges are NOT politicians and should not be elected.

BrianS: now don't go irritating one of the half-dozen or so other folks who happen to agree with you regarding corporate personhood. (Especially when I didn't make that statement you attributed to me. ;~)

Sorry, legislators WRITE the laws.

"When in reality lawyers and law firms have given more, purchased influence, in the past 20 years than a potential retired group over 100 times the size."

In the last 4 election cycles (which would include the last two Presidential elections), retired people contributed about $25 million MORE than individual lawyers and lawyer PAC's combined. Add in the previous two election cycles, and lawyers/lawyer PAC's spent about $4 million more than retired people. That's pretty close. Given an equal amount of money, I fail to see how a group with a smaller number of members could have more influence than a group with a larger number of members. Votes count more than dollars on election day, after all.

Now that you see the numbers are very close, you're reframing your argument, as usual. I've never said to ignore the string pullers, simply that your original argument about lawyers overwhelming influence, based on contribution amounts, doesn't hold water.

A hesitance to pass tort reform (one of your favorite reasons the health care bill is bad, and where this whole "lawyer" argument is heading), in any administration, can be attributed to the simple fact that a large percentage of legislators have law degrees. The legislators pass the laws. Tort reform wasn't passed during those 6 years of Republican control either.

Please, explain to me where it says, in the Constitution the money is speech? Why does someone with more money get to speak more loudly and more frequently than those less fortunate?

The entire premise of corporate person-hood is based on a clerical error in an 1886 lawsuit, Santa Clara county V. Southern Pacific Railway. Look it up.

Fool on the Hill, You are wrong about Feingold's finances in 2004. He wasn't in the top five, not even top ten and he was 33rd in PAC money.

Yeah, they scared themselves right out of contributions...great logic.

"lol, historically almost 60% percent of this money goes to republican's, why would they scare the hand that feeds them..."

Per your own link, the percentage of contributions have been increasing for Democrats, and that percentage is now almost even. I doubt politicians care about the 20 year avarage, when the trend is so obvious.

"100 times more potential influence than individual lawyers."
-
Yes potential, that is the argument used by those against this ruling also. When in reality lawyers and law firms have given more, purchased influence, in the past 20 years than a potential retired group over 100 times the size.

You were saying something about "scare the bejesus", scaring people based on potential in your eyes (possible corporation spending), is ok because it is potential...just don't look at the real dollar amounts; sounds like the ole Wizard-of-Oz movie, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain who IS pulling the strings now---lets be more worried about a potential string puller, maybe later.

Unlimited contributions will cost jobs for Joe Public (IMO).

"...a lawyer has over 100 times the influence, based on dollars, than a retired person..."

That's some odd logic. One dollar spent by a lawyer has the same influence as one dollar spent by a retired person. Retired people actually contributed more in the 2008 election than individual lawyers, and almost the same amount when you add in the lawyer PAC's. Nothing prevents 150 million retired people from contributing to a campaign, so retired people actually have 100 times more potential influence than individual lawyers.

Isn't this the same guy in the above article that has 3.5 million?

By the way, fool on the hill - Tommy won't run again because of several personal items, one of which is the groggy, sodden, incoherent address he made at Lambeau Field after the Packers won the Super Bowl ( "Ishn't it great to be a - hic - Packersh fan ). Don't worry, that footage is salted away. Tommy, who actually wasn't a bad governor, would have loved to have taken on Doyle when he ran for reelection, but - well, some things aren't worth it.

"Your fake question was about what Feingold didn't say (as if that's some evidence of fact), not about how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution."
+
What exactly is a "fake" question?
+
"Corporations are a far bigger threat to our election process than unions"
+
Is your evidence to support this statement forthcoming, or is this evidence of a "fake" statement?

Republicans, democrats, tea baggers, whatever - a pox on you all. This is what will happen - non-stop robocalls and constant attack ads on television. You talk now, but wait until election season - you will be so sick of the ads you will puke. The only people this benefits are media outlets. Limit ALL political advertising to thirty days before an election, or give a designated amount of airtime to all candidates, and otherwise keep them off the airwaves. You want to know what hypocrisy is - not adding political robocalls to the no call list.

bravo billnewbie. defending an individuals freedom to choose yesterday and now you are defending a corp's right to spend. yer a true american sargent newbie and dont let anyone tell you dift...

"You'll note that retired people contributed more in 2008 than individual lawyers, and almost as much as individual lawyers and law firm PAC's combined."
-
Great statistics. As with all thing envolving numbers, by including or excluding data they can prove many different things.

For instance, when you look at the number of retired people vs the number of lawyers (~150 million vs ~1.5 million) you begin to see a completly different picture; a lawyer has over 100 times the influence, based on dollars, than a retired person. But no reason to look at all the numbers...when people are just being scared.

So at what point do Russ and his supporters say that a person, or group of people, can be silenced? What dollar amount of accumulated wealth is the threshold? And isn't it convenient that the main group being "protected" in the political process by Russ's legislative efforts are incumbents, since they are the candidates with the attackable record? Oh, yes. We need to protect Russ from any advertisements that may say something disagreeable about the job he's been doing by people who are directly affected by the job he's been doing. We can't have people spending money trying to hold accountable our well-meaning incumbents. It may make it harder for them to be re-elected. And as Russ knows, what's really good for the country is well entrenched incumbents.

(I digress...) According to a Rasmussen poll, Tommy Thompson would beat Russ Feingold by 47% to 43% if the Senate race were held today.

"No wonder Republicans want to scare the bejesus out of retired folks."
-
lol, historically almost 60% percent of this money goes to republican's, why would they scare the hand that feeds them...

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/in...

You'll note that retired people contributed more in 2008 than individual lawyers, and almost as much as individual lawyers and law firm PAC's combined. Also, indivdual lawyers gave 12.7 times more than lawyer PAC's. No wonder Republicans want to scare the bejesus out of retired folks.

Since the Supreme Court shot down a portion of the bi-partisan McCain-Feingold Act, McCain isn't putting up much of a fight. His response? "It is what it is".

Call me cynical but I just can't help believing that those who support the SCOTUS ruling and those who condemn the SCOTUS ruling would not be swapping sides if, say, the case had been about "Dubbya, the movie" by Dog Eat Dog Films, instead of "Hillary, the movie" by Citizens United Productions.

SCOTUS created this controversy by extrapolating a ruling outside the scope of the actual case before them.

Russ needs to get the government back into the censuring business, and fast! I won't feel protected until the government decides what ideas I can be exposed to, and when.

Interesting how the party of Feingold and the current president sat quietly for the past 20 years collecting campaign contributions from the largest lobbying industry in the nation, lawyers and legal firms, of course it is a coincidence these two are both lawyers; collecting 3:1 on a billion dollars and they were silent on the powers of influence and money.

Now that this historic number one source for influence might be eclipsed there is an issue. Opening the flood gates for corporate America is bad but 1 billion dollars from the lawyers and law firms is good…

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/in...

Woo-hoo! Politically oppressed corporate entities will no longer be forced to sit in the back of the bus! I can't wait for the day when thousands of corporations --no, not boards of directors, executives, stockholders or employees but actual corporations-- march down Wall Street, the toddling SC's and tiny LLCs trailing morbidly obese members of the Fortune 500, paper clip in paper clip singing "We shall overcome!" I propose a federal holiday for all of the little schoolchildren. How about "Dow Jones Day" every April 15th? C. Montgomery Burns says, "Eeeeeexcellent..."

Glad to see someone is sticking up for those poor corporations though. Viva la Oligarchy!!!

Your fake question was about what Feingold didn't say (as if that's some evidence of fact), not about how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

Corporations are a far bigger threat to our election process than unions, but I'm all for limiting the influence both unions and corporations can have on elections.

"Maybe because unions have a mere fraction of the spending power of corporations."
+
Oh, is that how the supreme court interprets the constitution? Based on the amount of money you have dictates how much free speech you are entitled to?

Oh, those poor corporations. How will their PAC's be heard over the din of those powerful politicians?

"russ didn't mention that unions can do the same in spending as corporations. I wonder why?"

Maybe because unions have a mere fraction of the spending power of corporations.

Maybe if Russ had done his job well, and crafted a law that conforms with the constitution rather than insisting that the Supreme Court make the constitution conform with his law, this would not have happened. But the very idea of an elected official crafting election restrictions seems like a gross conflict of interest, anyway. When one considers the fact that some politicians campaign on the "us verses them" mentality of class warfare, using disparagement against the "rich" and the companies they own, for these same politicians to then try to muzzle the ability to respond with counterpoints on public airways by restricting their ability to purchase time and regulate content is unfair on its face.

If you're going to build a political career by attacking corporations as evil, you don't get to prohibit them from defending themselves, which election time advertisements allows them to do. All voices in our political system must be allowed to be heard, Mr. Feingold, not just the ones you approve of.

russ didn't mention that unions can do the same in spending as corporations. I wonder why?

Of course, this entire issue would be rendered moot if Congress was constitutionally prohibited from meddling in economic affairs. The reason railroads needed to be regulated was because the federal government had granted them overwhelming monopoly power in the first place.

The irony is that the largest and wealthiest corporations won't even have to spend a dime. The mere threat of overwhelming negative publicity is all it will take to inspire some nervous incumbent with marginal voter support to reconsider his or her true loyalties. All of this will happen over cocktails in Washington and none of us will ever be the wiser for it. Meanwhile, those who now say, "Simply not true!", will then be saying, "See? I told you that Supreme Court ruling wouldn't bring about a flood of corporate advertising."