To those of you who bring up the corporations vs. individuals argument, here's what Justice Antonin Scalia noted the decision: "the individual person's right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons."

It also must be nice to have the perks of being a corporation, but the protections of the Constitution. I notice no one is suggesting that these 'persons' start paying at the individual tax rate, for example. The idea that these corporations are persons came under the category of "legal fiction", when I was in law school. Seems like that's becoming less fictional these days.

The underlying concept that a corporation is a person with Constitutional rights is absurd because they can exist in perpetuity, they have no soul, and do not know what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness even is. They are soulless entities much like Conservatives.

Not talking about our laws, I was responding to what you said of the UK rules; doesn't make since to hold the media responsible for the ad. Should be the purchasing agents responsibility to accuracy.

It's similar to our 'republication of defamation' laws. Some version of that, anyway. Our system doesn't allow broadcast companies to 'censor' political ads--and as long as that's true, our brodcast media has at least some protections...see, sec. 895.052, Wis.Stats.,for example.

Not sure why the media is held responsible for the accuracy of the political ad? I guess in my little world of being responsible it should be the responsibility of those who pay for the ad to ensure accuracy...and they are the ones that should be held accountable.

RAF--I used to think that too. (Kriky, that makes twice we've ever agreed...) But, it turns out that the U.K. has something like that, which has resulted in the media being so afraid of a law suit (for republishing) that they allow very little of ANY type of that kind of advertising to be put on the air. While I might still appreciate that, I'm not sure our brodcast media would like it....but, the idea of somehow holding public figures accountable for what they say is very appealling.

mls--not true about the unions--exactly. They could only use a portion of the collected dues for political purposes. I suppose, theoretically, a union could decide to use 100% of collected dues for political purposes, but that's not real practical. Let's say they did, though. Total available union funds PALES in comparison to total available corporate funds.

GE is much more than a defense contractor. Over the past 20 years their donations have pretty much been split down the middle, as a whole corporation. The individual affiliates of the parent corporation are not so evenly divided.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary....

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/affiliat...

I think the ruling makes a level playing field. Before only Unions could spend unlimited amounts, now business can too.

GE is a defense contractor which gives most of it's support to Republicans

Actually one of the reasons given for this ruling was to level the playing field because of the corporations that own media outlets form peoples opinion's but corporations that are not media based can not. I'll use the Blue side...NBC is owned by GE and GE has plenty of Green contracts with the Gov and guess who they supported and still do to this day , the Dems so it goes both ways.

Yours is a good example of Media driven coverage, owned by corporations, that was not part of the original ban. As you said yours is only from one outlet and most do it, under the guise of opinion and news.

My idea is to regulate future ads and require them and all politicians/parties/501c's/and others to live under the same false advertising rules we expect from the rest of society. I know this will never happen, but it would be nice.

RAF
Our last President...
Not sure if all of this was him, his campaign or his lack of courage to stop it but during his to campaigns...
.
Smeared John McCain http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/07/22/wh...
.
Swift Boat - Did nothing.
.
Just 2 quick, off the top of my head, examples.
.
BTW, what is the #1 cable news channel? Fox News. What channel did more to focus on the swift boat accusations? Fox News. Who had those same guys back on promoting a smear book on candidate Obama? Fox News. That book was so discredited even Fox eventually stopped promoting it. heck even hanntiy stopped...
.
So why do we tolerate it? I have no idea but our last president and the republicans are great at it. Fox now employs the scumbag who smeared J. McCain.
.
yes, i only focused on one side but those are my top examples. And yes, i fell for the swift boat accusations and Fox News Fair and BS'ed coverage and voted for GW twice. maybe that is why I wasn't fair in this analysis.
.
one last example...where, according to Fox, hannity, beck, etc...did President obama's political career start?
.
Yeah, more BS smear by the #1 cable news channel.
.
So you asked, why do we tolerate it?
.
I say we don't just tolerate it, we flock to it.

I'll try a different tack... Confucius might have said, "One cannot suppress the speech of something unable to speak." (Still waiting for someone to explain how a stack of papers is able to speak.)

Incidentally, I have a box of corporate papers now legally old enough to vote. Should I see about getting it registered in time to vote in for the next election? What about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Couldn't that cardboard box be considered false imprisonment?

Their recent ruling also says Judges do NOT have to recuse themselves from cases involving Corporations who contributed to their (Judges') campaign coffers. Justice for sale; we bought the blind eye.

Does this mean that the ACLU, ACORN, et. al can also do their own commercials? I'm afraid the next elections are going to make television viewing almost impossible.

I have to disagree with your friend's "first step" assertion, lakennedy. I submit that many people already personify corporations to the point of believing they are living, breathing entities.

It seems to me that there isn't much material change in the recent decision. Instead of creating a PAC or funneling money through it, the corporations/unions can simply create their own ads. I agree it's very difficult to follow the reasoning in the text of the decision. It appears to be a narrow interpretation of free speech and I have to agree with the undelying principles, but I still hate all the issue ads.

I doubt there will be any more or less drivel to wade through during the election season. At least now we might actually know who is really behind the message.

No right in the Constitution is more clear and absolute than the 1st Amendment. Yet, the government has spent more time on legislation trying to supress 1st Amendment rights than on any other right. What are they afraid of? The Supreme Court finally got it right. It is a victory for the people; not corporations. The decision further guarantees all 1st Amendment rights from legislative supression. Let's be clear: it does not allow corporations or unions to contribute directly to candidates. It allows them to spend operating funds on political advocacy. Why should they not be allowed to do so? CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc. all are corporations and all are allowed to spend operating funds shaping opinion, advocating, and influencing politics and process. Why should not all corporations be allowed to do so? Any person who states that political speech must be regulated favors suppression of free speech. What next--banning books, websites, and newspapers from political coverage?

Remember one thing: neither unions nor corporations can cast a vote. That is where the true power lies in the people.

I've been discussing this decision with a lot of people, some of whom agree with it and others who do not. I definitely do not. One of my more astute girlfriends had this to say:
+
"You see this is just the first step in admitting that we are no longer "we the people". We are mere subjects in a Corporate culture manifested in a failing Capitalistic system; due to its failure, adjustments must be made in order to strengthen its clench beyond mere financial gain and indirect political influence to a more totalitarian society disguised as democracy."
+
I couldn't agree with this statement more.
+
On a personal level I'm disgusted by this decision because I don't have that much faith in my generation's ability to...for lack of a better word: think. I understand that unions have enjoyed these rights for years, but to those who offer that reasoning as their sole argument in endorsing this decision, I ask you to compare the nature of a union to the nature of a corporation. They are two entirely different creatures.
+
Justice Kennedy's opinion is difficult to get through..I guess all USSC opinions are difficult for me to get through, for that matter...I have read it three times and still cannot follow the argument. There is one sentence that particularly bothered me:
+
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. The Government has “muffle[d]" the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.”
+
I refuse to believe that a corporation is a "voice that best represents the most significant segments of the economy." I see the actual PEOPLE who create the corporation as such...and they have voices that aren't "muffle(d)."
+
Indeed, this ruling will have far reaching consequences.

Two points: First, the First Ammendment applies to all the people, not just those deemed by "government" as valid spokesmen.

Second: Corporations, unions, and other special interest groups have a finint amount of money to spend to promote their views. This decision shifts the direction of that money from Washington DC to media thus removing a measure of power from Washington and giving in back to the people.

What I expect is not as much a deluge of unviewable/unlistenable advertising as a reduction of the influence of Washington "spin". In my view, the more issue ads the better I will understand the issues and players and the less chance of our "representatives" controlling the message.

Can anyone here answer a couple of questions for me? One, why do opinions on this ruling seem to align by political party and, two, how can a piece of paper possess "rights", much less "speak"?

[In the interest of full disclosure, FOTH owns a corporation.]

It is important that government regulate speech, especially speech around election time. In fact, the government rightly stated that books would also be banned under current law if those books were critical of legislators. If the constitution isn't there to allow the government to ban books about laws and legislators, what IS it there for?
Banning books and regulated speech? Where do you live? The constitution protects us from these very things. We all saw what happened when this law was in effect. The 527's just jumped in to fill the space.

Bad move, Supreme Court. Now lets hope the candidates will respond by openly announcing they don't agree with this decision.

Anyone who thinks legally treating a corporation like an individual has probably never personally been in conflict with a corporation or institution. This decision is another nail in the coffin of "We the People" democracy.

The correct decision.

If you're worried your political representative can't function in a sea of influence they shouldn't be in Washington anyway.

In my opinion the only restriction to this type of speech should be limited to defamatory and inaccurate claims; the same restriction in place for normal advertising.

A better question is why do we tolerate candidates to make false claims of each other during a campaign?

While I don't agree with the decision, those people that made it are much smarter than I am, and probably understand the law a little better then me........

It is important that government regulate speech, especially speech around election time. In fact, the government rightly stated that books would also be banned under current law if those books were critical of legislators. If the constitution isn't there to allow the government to ban books about laws and legislators, what IS it there for?

Personally, I can think for myself and don't need the government censoring information for my own good. Privately funded campaign ads that spread lies and misinformation have an effect on me opposite what the individuals that put those ads out had intended.

Business or unions....it's wrong on both ends.

What everyone fails to say in all their ramblings is that not only do big business now get to give a lot of money. But unions get to do the same. Why is it that most of the things you read only talk about big business? Unions will now give to the democrats and big business will give to Republicans. And if no one thinks that unions don't have clout in Washington. All we have to do is look at the deal that was cut between big labor and Obama on the health ins tax. I wonder how much money the unions paid to have that kind of clout.

There is so much wrong with this decision, it's hard to know where to start. The Court worked very hard to convince the public, if not itself, that this was the right decision. It cites speeches by Truman, and prior decisions by the Warren Court--traditional bastions of liberal politics--in an attempt to suggest that evey THEY would even agree with this Court's decision. They ingored, or simply wrote off such long standing judicial principles as stare decisis, and not deciding a case on constitutional grounds when it can be decided on other grounds--just to mention just two. But the part that bothers me most is that originally, this wasn't even the issue that was the basis of the appeal. The court ordered the parties to brief the question/issue the Court wanted to decide--an issue NOT litigated in the court below (another ignored judicial 'principle'). In short, they couldn't rule the way they wanted to with the original appeal, so they changed it. If this isn't 'activist', I don't know what is. It makes Bush v. Gore look like a legally well reasoned opinion, and underscores the importance of electing a president that puts people on the bench that are beholdent to the Constitution, not political views. Shameful.

Folks absolutely have to go rent Michael Moore's latest movie. He certainly hit the nail on the head way before this Court decision. Once again, the clout of big corporations in controlling the politics of our nation has been increased and the voice of the average citizen has been marginalized. A very sad state of affairs for our nation.