BREAKING: US SUPREME COURT OPENS FLOODGATES OF CORPORATE MONEY FOR CAMPAIGNS!

[Land Shark]

In Live blogging starting today at 10am EST, in what law.com called "a rare if not unprecedented Thursday session" of the US Supreme Court, the court issued a 5-4 decision in Citizens United totaling 176 pages in length for all opinions (the longest of this term and in a while...) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Scotusblog.com says this in live chat from the Supreme Court: "The Court's decision overturns the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections."

on edit: The partial dissent by Thomas complains about the one part of the majority opinion upholding disclosure requirements.

The five justice majority opinion, written by Kennedy, effectively declares that corporate treasury money has a constitutional right to be used in an unlimited fashion in campaign politics because it is proteceted by the First Amendment. This reverses approximately a century of congressional and state regulation of campaign finance. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

The US Supreme Court case Austin v. Michigan (494 U.S. 652 (1990)) is overruled.

The part of McConnell v FEC (US Supreme Court, 2003) upholding limits on independent corporate expenditures is overruled.

Stevens, in partial dissent, writes 90 page dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Ginsburg and Breyer. Exactly what "Partial" means has to be sorted out still since this is breaking...

TECHNICALLY: The Citizens United case is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. However, the affirmed part is only as to requiring disclosure by Citizens United, the reversal is much bigger and strikes down any right on the part of the government to regulate corporations like Citizens United in any campaign activity.

Thus, non-voters, non-citizens and non-human beings in the form of corporations, with foreign money, or mob money, or you name it, can take to the airwaves and contribute directly to candidates in an unlimited fashion. And, they are only about one vote away, perhaps two, from making these unlimited contributions SECRET so we the people don't even know WHO is talking at us so long and loud, or who's funding it...

This is a revolution against democracy, because We the People are being handcuffed and rendered helpless (by the courts) to have any kind of order in campaign finance. Rights are supposed to protect We the People from our government. Now the Supreme Court has weaponized the Constitution for use against We the People in elections of representatives to hold OUR power.

The First Amendment applies to government powers but elections of CANDIDATES are totally unique and special because they do not make law. Corporations, where they have legitimate business interests, live to fight another day. They are not harmed even by total exclusion from financing candidate campaigns. Yet the Court has opened the floodgates so that every representative can be considered bought and paid for - NO MATTER WHAT THEIR POSITION OR VOTE IS. In the probably rare event such position is progressive, it's bought and paid for by progressive rich folks...

I will probably edit this post as more becomes available and start additional threads.

Make no mistake: The court thinks discrimination on the source of funds is unconstitutional, but using corporate treasury funds instead of PAC donations from individual officers means Someone else's money is being used -- either consumers who didn't consent to part of the purchase price funding politics, or shareholders who are almost never consulted about political activities or lobbying: they too are compelled into forced speech against their will.

It's all about attempting to entrench corporate rule: But now it's all in the OPEN like never before.

Post-Script: The Supreme Court went way out of its way to do this. After oral argument in this relatively minor case, they asked for a special round of briefing on the subject of overturning Austin v. Michigan and another case. So much for the doctrine of "constitutional avoidance" which holds that cases ought to be resolved on non-constitutional grounds if possible. Legal bloggers have pointed to several ways the case could have been resolved non-constitutionally, and in nay event overturning Austin et al was not an issue raised by the original pleadings before the court.

[Triana]

1. Please look before posting. This has already been posted.

I guess we'll be seeing repeats of it all day because people don't look before they post. Ever gander at the "Greatest" page? Edit: Sorry for being a nitpicker but I mean, it's RIGHT THERE. Search doesn't always turn up a duplicate (understandable) but this one is just SO obvious.

[Peacetrain]

I never look at the greatest page myself.. so I am glad to see it posted here

[HughMoran]

19. You mean the "Hatest Page"

:)

[Peacetrain]

32. ...

Got that right ;)

[Land Shark]

4. This story merits more than one post; the bulk is not the link but my comments.

Please look. Thanks.

[cali]

16. I agree, and I posted the first one on this. yours is not the same as mine.

[Peregrine Took]

38. Its a huge story and the idea it s/b limited to one post is ludicrous. n/t

[Peregrine Took]

40. How did Sotomayer vote?

[Land Shark]

43. She joined the partial dissent with Breyer Ginsburg and Stevens (written by Stevens) n/t

[change_notfinetuning]

56. Yes, your comments are in bold, so they are clearly more important. Kind

of like ads in political campaigns from people/craporations with more money - clearly more important.

[change_notfinetuning]

57. BTW, I agree with your comments. I'd just rather see one thread discussing

this than many threads that dilute the discussion.

[Land Shark]

76. Understood. But I think multiple threads amplifies rather than dilutes discussion on a BIG issue

like this. If it were a smaller issue, dilution might well be the greater effect, so in those cases you may well be right, but I don't think in this one. Plus, this gives my comments (if they are presumed good) much more exposure than simply replying to a thread.

[change_notfinetuning]

81. I understand completely. I've felt the same about a simple reply to a thread,

especially an older one, as opposed to starting a new thread. Your take on the subject, though, is undeniable.

[Stand and Fight]

15. There are no rules that say a topic cannot be posted on more than once.

First thing I did when I read your post was check to make sure this wasn't in Latest Breaking News. It's not, so this poster did not and does not need to check anything before posting. Especially since the majority of the post is their opinion.

Good on them. Once more, unless it is Latest Breaking News, there are no prohibitions in place for posts on the same topic. Please see the DU rules.

[Mira]

20. It was important to me to read what the poster had to say.

Content and comment are both important, and this is a big one, way less weighty stuff gets repeated around here.

[Raster]

49. It appears this posting differs from the post you are referring to.

Thank you for helping with housekeeping, although I think this should be posted in just about every forum on DU. It really is that important.

[Obamanaut]

71. Like many others, I don't go to the GP at all. My DU opens up on

GD. Besides, this is worth more than one post, don't you think? Michael Jackson, Balloon Boy, even American Idol got multiple posts, and those topics don't really affect a single one of us.

[donheld]

116. This way I get to recommend it more than once

:bounce: :applause::bounce: :applause::bounce:

[rhett o rick]

117. Give us a break. This is important. What does it hurt if posted more than once? nt

[csziggy]

2. This is depressing - even more than the Brown victory

I feel as though we have lost this country completely.

[Democrat_in_Houston]

135. MUCH more depressing. My kids and grandkids will live with this ruling.

This is truly the day I mark as "the end."

With this ruling, we have no hope as far as I'm concerned.

[Romulox]

3. Remember when Kennedy was the "swing liberal"?

:rofl:

[MrCoffee]

46. Kennedy is the worst Justice on the bench

At least Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are ideologically consistent. Kennedy's just a whore.

[Peacetrain]

5. Okay, I think this is as bad as it gets.. is the right wing Supremes giving Corporations rights

of individual citizens. Did I miss that in the Bill of Rights?

[Raster]

51. Corporations are already defined as "immortal persons." This is the next step to bestow full human

...rights to corporations. This is a huge loss.

[Sanity Claws]

52. They are defined as "artificial persons."

There is no limit on their life so they can be immortal but they are not defined as immortal persons.

[Raster]

68. Point taken. Artificial persons. Immortal or artificial....either way, it sucks.

[spanone]

6. the day democracy died

[TexasObserver]

7. Let's be clear: This guts campaign finance reform entirely.

[Land Shark]

11. Thanks for your clarity. Consider that part of the OP. n/t

[TexasObserver]

26. I'm trying to reinforce your OP.

This is a decision that threatens every election in America. It allows anyone to create any corporation, fund it however they wish, and remain largely if not completely invisible. It allows the funding of candidates to be hidden behind walls of organizations.

Before today is out, there will be shelf corporations being formed for the sole purpose of funneling money to selected candidates in the primaries and general elections this year. They'll be pulled off the shelf and used as needed, leaving barely a vapor trail that leads to the Secretary of State's office of Delaware or some other state. Some mid to lower level lawyer in some law firm will be listed as the incorporator.

I do not know how we can hope to contain the overwhelming influence of money in campaigns, with this ridiculous conservative Supreme Court.

[Land Shark]

44. Agreed. Nevada corporate law "the Delaware of the West" keeps shareholders secret. n/t

[TexasObserver]

48. And then, there's the off shore captive organizations.

You know how they're labeling all the stadiums and arenas these days? The Toyota Center (NBA Houston). Minute Maid Park (MLB Houston).

In a few years, congress members will be like that. From Houston, the "Haliburton/KBR" congressman - Randy Republican!

[PATRICK]

8. The bright side

could be that the gaming of regulations and controls is over as a palliative and compromise. Now it has to be reform that cuts off financial influence at the roots- as most democratically minded citizens have always wanted in the first place. Wistful thinking perhaps but real reform has been no better off while these regulation games have gone on to nowhere, some good effects notwithstanding.

Also the SCOTUS choices have to be freed for the money game influence as well which a democratically elected government would see to as a matter of due course.

Or everybody starts shooting at everyone else while the rich abscond with the Treasury to their hideaways.

Or we simply live and die like fools in an America easily tyrannized by its moral dregs.

[Land Shark]

14. There's no bright side except this: they've taken OFF THE MASK. It's open corporate rule now.

That's positive, to know who we're up against (for those that don't already know or have residual doubts)

[PATRICK]

18. That's my point

and not my actual opinion that any actual glimmer of change is coming from this. The boot on neck pure and simple at this point in time.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Open Schmopen

The flood gates have always been open.

SCOTUS just refused to throw a life preserver to drowning democracy.

[Land Shark]

17. It's already been raining for days, so let's dump huge barrels of water on our heads

Yeah, there've been big loopholes for some time but I don't think that makes opening all the valves and holes wide open a non-story or a yawner.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. I'm not feeling apathetic...

...just despondant.

Is 9am too early to start drinking?

[Land Shark]

28. Good. Hitting rock bottom is needed before decisive changes of direction, so don't be too bummed

That being said, I'm not going to stop you from having a drink if you choose to do so. ;)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. OK, but...

...I don't care how drunk you get me I'm not going to a private chat with you.

:toast:

[Land Shark]

31. Tis fine for now, I'm "going public" on this one! :)

But your comment is suggestive that private chats with you are worthwhile. Is that an accurate statement? :rofl:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. If I do anything it is worthwhile.

It's all just a matter of what I'll do.

[Land Shark]

90. Not having a private chat is what you'll "do"

So, I hope that non-chat was as good for you as it was for me. :rofl:

[8brightside8]

110. Excellent point.

I can breathe now. Thanks, I needed that.

[Land Shark]

132. I am quite happy to be of service in that regard!! :) n/t

[FreakinDJ]

10. "The Day Democracy Died"

[flyarm]

12. On MSNBC Stevens was against it....it was a 5-4 ruling. eom

[TornadoTN]

13. Another massive blow to the people of this country

It's not as if the corporate dominance of our country has disappeared - it's completely entrenched itself into every facet of our lives. Now, it's getting drilled further into our way of life.

[bdamomma]

21. crap.

it's all about greed.

[closeupready]

87. When it is illegal NOT to put the financial interests of shareholders FIRST, then yes, of course it'

all about greed.

[Romulox]

22. I've told people 'til I'm blue in the face: it's silly to argue precedent and doctrine

--the SCOTUS is an arena of raw ideology; the justifications for these decisions are left for clerks to scrape together post hoc.

[Land Shark]

27. Yes, many of the precedents and doctrines are now fullly ideological statements. n/t

[blm]

23. Hey GOP voters - Thanks for making America a full-on Fascist country, you focking morons.

And FOCK those fake, 'triangulating' Dems who helped them do it the last three decades.

[8brightside8]

115. I can't wait to hear John McCain's response

[zazen]

25. I don't care what it takes or the precedent; impeach a Republican Justice NOW

But our wimpy Senate won't. No. Fucking appeasers. Surely one of them was involved in Bush's era of crime.

This is TOO important. I don't care about the precedent. Get rid of one now. Stonewall everything else until it's done. Squeeze the money out of every Repub district and senator's little pork stream until they comply. Investigate the fuckers until one of them retires.

This is war. If we don't stand up now, we're done.

In three days, a leading champion for financial reform now has his seat at risk. He's already lost major corporate donations in NC as a result of his work, no thanks to Obama. They'll target him now for sure, pouring hundreds of thousands of Bank of America funding into the state to unseat him. I don't want to name names to help the Republican trolls get one more day ahead on their work than they already are.

[arthritisR_US]

62. +1!. n/t

[liberal N proud]

30. This land was your land

This land was your land
This land was my land
But now it run by
Big corporations

Like Eli Lilly
And A I G
This land’s being robbed
From you and me.

[Land Shark]

33. But no matter how much or how long they steal, it's still Ours.

Just like one's stolen diary is still theirs no longer how long they're deprived of it...

[2 Much Tribulation]

85. +1

[FailureToCommunicate]

88. "As I went walking, I saw a sign there. And on that sign it said "Corporates Rule"

As I went walking, I saw a sign there
And on that sign it said "Corporates Rule"
But on the other side - it said the same thing
That sign was made by corporate greed


(Sorry Woody)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

35. The same Supreme court that stopped an election recount, said it couldn't be used

as precedent and delivered us to Bush?

The Same Supreme court that said we have "special criminals" that are not afforded the same 4th Amendment rights as anyone else?

The Same Supreme Court that said private land could be seized by on the behalf of other private entities and handed over to them?

That Supreme Court? I wish I could say that I am surprised but of course I am not. 5-4. How does Justice Kennedy sleep at night?

This is going to let loose full-on Fascist/Corportism.

I have never thought of emigrating, but I'll give serious consideration to spending my retirement years if and when they finally get here someplace else.

[BlueDemKev]

36. Actions have Consequences

This is another direct & catastrophic result of hard-core liberals voting for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore back in 2000.

A 5-4 vote. Roberts & Alito, both Bush appointees, made the differnce today. Imagine if those vacancies had been filled with judges selected by Gore.

When one reaches too high, they often fall further back. Folks, please think about this the next time you're tempted to "dig in your heels" because a Democrat isn't being progressive "enough."

[liquid diamond]

118. This is one of the most profound posts I've read here.

We warn people not to tear down a democrat for not fulfilling their pet issue. We warn them that a republican could be their replacement. In response, we are told to stop fear mongering. A republican is now a senator in the bluest state in the union and now corporations can buy their republican slaves into office. Are you crybabies afraid yet?

[Land Shark]

139. We've tried the "centrist" route for decades, it didn't work. n/t

[City Lights]

37. I shall now refer to my country as The Corporate States of America.

Fuck you, Corporate States Supreme Court!

[robinlynne]

39. shit. shit. shit. shit. I'm speechless. Thank-you Landshark. Supremes, go to hell!

and Kerry, by NOT counting the votes in 2004, you handed the presidency to Bush, allowing him to appoint 2 of these traitors.

[branders seine]

41. This undoes every gain in human rights since the Magna Carta.

This is an EPIC event in the destruction of our civilization, species, and perhaps planet.

[MilesColtrane]

42. They own most of the politicians,

the voting machines, the media, and now they'll own the mind of every low information voter in the country.

The final nail in Democracy's coffin

[Trillo]

45. "Amendment XXVIII"

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/amendment

Section 1 The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, no corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation shall enjoy the rights of free speech and expression protected for the people by the First Amendment.

Section 2 Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity in public election activity.

Section 3. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

via reclaimdemocracy.org

[eShirl]

47. Talk about activist judges. n/t

[Land Shark]

50. No kidding. And they reached out to grab the "opprotunity" as well. n/t

[arthritisR_US]

53. wtf happened with stari decisus? During confirmation of Alito and Roberts they

both said they would uphold precedence, this utter BS!

[NorthCarolina]

54. Can this be corrected by Legislation? Or would any legislation that attempted to

change this back be ruled as unconstitutional and therefore invalid?

[Land Shark]

59. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL ruling that invalidates current and future legiislation!!

It's not appealable. Even 100% of House and Senate can't overrule it.

The only thing that can be done is on the margins. Perhaps certain kinds of "foreign" money can be prohibited, but that would only put lipstick on the pig.

[NorthCarolina]

67. Didn't Alan Grayson introduce some legislation a week or so ago

that addresses this particular issue? I'll have to go back and see what that was all about as I guess I must have taken away a wrong interpretation of what was introduced.

[LongTomH]

79. Alan Grayson has already commented on the SCOTUS ruling

There are two press releases on his blog. From the first press release: Grayson Condemns Court Ruling

(Washington, DC) – In a 5-to-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations have the "right" to spend an unlimited amount of money to influence and manipulate federal elections. The decision overturns more than a century of law and precedent. Rep. Alan Grayson (FL-8) immediately condemned the decision. "This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case," Grayson said. "It leads us all down the road to serfdom."

The court decision completely ignores the likelihood that corporations will spend money to elect officials who will do their bidding, and punish those who won't. It allows unlimited election spending by all corporations, even foreign ones. "The Supreme Court has decided to protect the rights of GE, Volkswagen, Lukoil and Aramco, at the expense of our right to good government," Grayson added.

Congressman Grayson was in the courtroom when the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision. Grayson circulated a petition yesterday, saying: "Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale, and that the law itself will be bought and sold." Within hours, more than 10,000 people had signed the petition. Rep. Grayson delivered those petitions to the Court this morning.

Rep. Grayson also has introduced five bills, the Save Our Democracy package, in anticipation of the Supreme Court's ruling. When he introduced the bills, Grayson said, "if this goes unchallenged, then you can kiss your country goodbye."

Rep. Grayson has introduced a package of bills entitled: Save Our Democracy

[KoKo]

73. I thought that Supreme Court Decisions could be overuled...

They have been in the past. Why not this decision? What is different in the language? Could you explain further?

[2 Much Tribulation]

80. The Supreme Court is the final authority on what the constitution means

If they anchor a decision on an interpretation of the Constitution, only a constitutional amendment will change that decision. (the other "option" if there is one is to find a hole on the margins of the opinion in which regulation is still permissible, but that doesn't overturn the decision in any way)

[KoKo]

83. Hopefully some legal minds are working now to find a loophole or another

way of working around this. Further legislation that limits Corporate spending in another way? There must be a way to work around this without a Constitutional Amendment which wouldn't pass because of the very same influence of corporations. Right Wing always seems to find a way around things. It's our turn.

[2 Much Tribulation]

84. Think of it as a Roe v Wade for corporate America, used to strike down legislation

[MilesColtrane]

93. The only way this gets overturned is with a Constitutional amendment, or...

if the Supreme Court itself changes the ruling.

[Moochy]

113. http://www.movetoamend.org/ Corporations are not people. If you agree sign this.

http://www.movetoamend.org

[MilesColtrane]

122. Done

[The Wizard]

55. Fascism came to America

dressed in black robes.

[Raineyb]

58. Mark the date. This is where we officially die as a democracy. n/t

[Peacetrain]

60. That's how I feel.. this is the day the individual lost and the constitution is now for

corporations

[earth mom]

61. Stick a fork in this county. It's done. The Corporate Gangsters OWN the place now.

I wonder how much money corporate america paid those "justices" for that vote?

Justice my a$$!!! :puke:

[zeemike]

64. Will this be enough for progressives to take to the streets?

No probably not....we could miss the next episode of American Idol,, and that would be a tragedy.

[nc4bo]

72. Joe and Jane average would have no clue what this decision really means.

And we can't count on the corporate media conglomerates to help educate the masses, for obvious reasons.

So that leaves KO, Maddow, Schulz and maybe Stewart to do the job for them.



Man, we are so royally screwed.

[zeemike]

86. And a hundred or so liberal organizations that will use it to raise money

but little else.
I say take it to the streets and demand a constitutional amendment that makes person hood a thing applied to people.
Stop being scared and start to fight back.

[earth mom]

74. It's been pitchfork time for a long time, but people are too weighed down with personal

obligations, debt and fear.

Things will have to get really really really bad before people take to the streets.

[Land Shark]

91. Fewer and fewer that way. More and more people ready to act. n/t

[tango-tee]

119. We're both wondering about the same thing. Bought and paid for.

I returned to Europe to take care of my aging and ailing mom, and had planned on joining my son and his family in Texas again once my mom passes away. Not so sure any more. The SCOTUS decision, plus the pending evisceration of Social Security - it is frightening. I don't want to become a burden to my children.

[JohnnyHardhat]

63. This is a tragic decision

that will destroy 38 years of federal campaign finance law, not to mention make a shambles of state's laws. There is a compelling government interest to limit corporate contributions. In the not so distant past, corporations completely dominated funding elections. In some cases candidates only needed a few very wealthy patrons (Rockefellers, Morgans, Guilds) to doll out enough cash to run a viable campaign. Imagine whose interests those candidates represented once in office?

Currently, even with campaign reform measures and limitations, corporations have done fine funding political action committees and lobbyists. If anything Congress needs to limit them further. This ruling obviously goes in the wrong direction and calls into question whether limitations can be enacted at all.

Something the Court seems to have forgotten is that Elections are about the People, the individual, not corporate monoliths. This abhorrent ruling is a game changer allowing greater corporate control of elections. It is terrible for democracy and terrible for the common American voter.

[kiranon]

75. Agree. Need to change ruling that a corporation is a person. It's not.

[rucky]

65. I am officially preparing to move overseas.

There's no fixing this country.

[krabigirl]

98. Moi aussi. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

66. Well, if we weren't screwed before,

we definitely are now. This isn't surprising, but it still disappoints.

[wisteria]

69. A very oninous sign of things to come in my opinion.

I don't like this ruling at all, I think it is bad to have so many rich, agenda driven interests involved in the election process. This just squeezes the little guy right out of the mix. I suppose we will need to form a corporation representing "the people" just to protect our interests.

[marmar]

70. Even the facade of democracy is gone now.....

The United Corporate Fascist States of America

[Moostache]

77. Time to start over...

The basic framework is clear - corporations have won their penultimate victory. The right to secret control of the campaign cash is the lone remaining hurdle to true rule over the government.

This is NOT what the founders had in mind when establishing the Constitution. We, the people, have been marginalized and shoved out of representative government for years, but this ruling essentially seals our fate. There is no salvaging this going forward, there is only revolution and starting over. The founders revolted against tyranny, taxation without representation and a ruling monarchy that was not responsive to the people. Well, sadly, we have traded one king for hundreds in the form of CEOs that now hold the keys to all future elections...

[2 Much Tribulation]

78. 'weaponizing the constitution" -- using it against We the People. Yup. n/t

[Flora]

82. I'm speechless..

:wtf:

[Land Shark]

89. People are Property (Dred Scott) Properties are People (Citizens United) what's not to understand??

[AndyA]

92. Corporations are just groups of people. All of whom have the ability/right to vote.

So, those who are well positioned in corporate America actually have more valuable votes than everyone else. In essense, their votes carry more weight because they have the money to make it so.

This is absolutely unconstitutional.

[Land Shark]

95. They get double voices, double contributions & then some (they use OUR purchase money for THEIR ads)

[MilesColtrane]

94. I wonder if this decision also lifts the limitation on political contributions from...

individuals?

Maybe at least George Soros could buy a couple of good Senators.

[Land Shark]

96. That's where it really gets CORRUPT: limits on candidates and PARTY contribs remain

THE UNLIMITED SPIGOT IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD A FULL FLEDGED AD CAMPAIGN!!

[MilesColtrane]

97. Of course, why would it be otherwise?

We are truly and deeply fucked.

[Duende azul]

104. Don't rely on Soros. He bought some orange "revolutions" overseas.

Soros isn't to different from corporate money, isn't he?
This is all about representation. If your representation depends on the charity of some well meaning member of the ruling class, you're screwed.

Strange, how Americans including liberals cheered all those bought governments abroad as a spread of democracy.
Yes, to those folks US money is foreign money.

Finally the chickens come home to roost. Isn't it ironic?

[ctaylors6]

136. this decision didn't change any laws about contributions

Corporations are still prohibited from contributing directly to campaigns, and the individual limits didn't change.

[Gregorian]

99. What could possibly go wrong?

It's classic. Almost as if the Supreme Court justices who voted for it have SHIT FOR BRAINS.

So now the corporations will have more control than before. And certainly more voting power than the citizens.

What would George Washington say?

[Odin2005]

100. We are fucked.

[Land Shark]

108. Does that mean fight back? n/t

[8brightside8]

109. Ah-Ha! Now it all makes sense! Sarah Palin for President?!?!?

Talk about a vast right-wing conspiracy.... This is getting scary.

[fascisthunter]

101. our Democracy has been Privatized

now run by an exclusive elite who only represent wealthy interests. In a Democracy, each individuals vote was worth the same... with this, there is no democracy, just bribery.

Welcome to fascism you antisocialist conspiracy rejects.

[Usrename]

102. Now is the time to start an impeachment movement against Scalia.

He went on a sleepover with the defendent in a case that was currently before him, and then refused to recuse himself when confronted about the impropriety of having overnight visits with defendents.

[2 Much Tribulation]

103. +1

[DisgustedInMN]

105. This is the End Game of Capitalism.

Fascism.

We have arrived.

This day has been coming for many years, most refused to see it.

Our Democracy is on it's death bed.

We will now see who is and who isn't a true Patriot, who is and isn't truly in favor of freedom for all.

This CANNOT stand.

[Land Shark]

106. kick this opinion off the advance sheets. n/t

[glinda]

107. Prez and Dems better grow a spine asap. If they are stupid to wait on this we are done for.

[madville]

111. Will our Democrats refuse the corporate money?

Corporations will more than likely spread the money out among most politicians and on both sides to cover their bases. Does anybody think the Democrats will refuse/return any corporate money in the campaigns this year? What if more corporate money lands on the D side, do we work against anyone who accepts such donations?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

112. It's time to get the fuck out if you can...I'm going.

[midnight]

114. Didn't quite think about the mob money angle...

[creekboy]

120. The only reason this ruleing happened is...

A few thousand people on the left in Florida, voted for Ralph Nader.

This is Bush's work.

These are same people on this board, already giving up on our president.

You're all ready to hand Rush and Roger their great victory.

We are making great progress, our economy is in recovery, we have the strong majorities in congress. we have a brilliant young President and you go soft on a public option.

YOU DON'T LIKE THIS RULING?

JUST WAIT UNTIL PRESIDENT PALIN GETS THROUGH WITH THE COURT.

IF YOU KILL THIS BILL, YOU WILL KILL THIS PRESIDENCY.

Fox and Rush and the Chamber of Comerse will take over.

[Moochy]

123. go soft on a public option

as in, I never campaigned on it?

[DissedByBush]

121. And union money

Don't forget that.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

124. This is what it will be like and who we will need

[OnyxCollie]

125. K&R. nt

[vssmith]

126. I thought Republicans didn't like legislating from the courts

[Land Shark]

131. This was like the ULTIMATE reaching out to seize conservative activist opportunity! n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

127. That's strange... the respective judiciaries of corporatist states, such as d

fascist Germany and Italy - totalitarian states, generally, of right and left, have always done the bidding of their masters.

Its an iron-clad rule. There are no exceptions. How could there be?

[Vidar]

128. K&R.

[fasttense]

129. The Supremes have just put us on the path to fascism. n/t

[Locrian]

130. this is so blatant

Seems to me the mask is coming off. I mean this is so obvious attack on democracy that they must know they have all the power and dont care what we know anymore.

[2 Much Tribulation]

133. yes, seems the mask IS off now. n/t

[blindpig]

134. The flood gates have been opened for quite a while

They're just knocking down the dam, don't need it any more.

[stellad]

137. The worst, most destructive Supreme Court ever - And we're paying their salaries FOR LIFE

[rhett o rick]

138. Welcome to fascism the last stage of capitalism. nt