Whcih Extreme Court ruling is worse, this current one on Corporate financing of elections

[Winterblues]

or Bush* v Gore? IMO I go with the latter but ????

[dgibby]

1. What difference does it make?

Prescott Bush started this, Poppy and Baby enabled it, and now the Supreme Court has finished it. The coup is complete.

[brentspeak]

2. The latter ruling allowed today's ruling to happen n/t

[tekisui]

4. Yep. Part of the same efforts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. truth

I quotes it.

[daleanime]

3. Bush v Gore...

even the 'Corporate Council' itself would like to forget that one.:puke:

[Deep13]

5. Conceptually, the new one.

In terms of actual damage caused to democracy, Bush v. Gore because it allowed Dumbass to replace two of the majority votes. And Bush' negligence on Nat. Security allowed the whole fear-mongering toward fascism to start moving quickly.

[Javaman]

6. shit rolls down hill...

moron* gets appointed, two supremes step down during his* term, he* appoints the new ones. The new ones give us this bullshit today.

I can't wait to see what morons* legacy of terror has yet to drop on us in the future.

[jobycom]

7. Bush v Gore. This new ruling isn't even in the top fifty, as far as i can tell.

So it lets corporations run issue ads before an election. They still can't donate to a specific candidate, and we still have our own corporations that can run ads, too. The NAACP or AARP or labor unions will be able to run issue ads, as well, and that will help our candidates. Yeah, it's a pain, but it isn't as bad as it seems. It will probably even backfire as voters get sick of the slick, polished ads that it will generate, just as they get sick of the robocalls.

Now, as always, our democracy is limited most by apathetic voters who don't care to learn the facts. That's the biggest problem.

Bush v Gore said that an election could be decided without counting all the votes. That's a death knell to democracy. It essentially says that the vote of the people only matters if the government says it matters. That makes corporate donations a moot point, anyway.

[KamaAina]

We have our own corporations?

Which Fortune 500, or 1000, corps would you consider "ours"? :shrug:

[jobycom]

12. The law doesn't just affect Fortune 500s.

There are plenty of corporations who donate to the left. Buyblue.org used to list a bunch of them, before the site shut down. In addition, groups like PETA and the Sierra Club are also affected by this ruling.

As for the leanings of each of the F 500, I don't know. Some corporations are more interested in individual issues than specific politics in the first place, so they may prefer conservative issues at times and liberal issues at others, depending on their own interests.

[KamaAina]

13. Of course. But who has the most $$$$$$$?

By definition, it's the Fortune 500/1000.

[brentspeak]

11. "The NAACP or AARP or labor unions will be able to run issue ads, as well"

That's a joke. Know of any unions today with anywhere near the kind of financial resources a major corporation has?

[FreakinDJ]

8. The 1 giving Corps the same rights as the individual

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. By themselves, the current one; the earlier one was specifically

worded to declare that it could NOT be used as precedent (which is bizarre in of itself, as that is the entire purpose of SC rulings, to establish precedent) - it undermines the very structure of the republic.

However, together, the earlier was worse because it made the current ruling possible.

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. Without the Supreme Court selection of the Chimp, there would be no Opie Roberts

Opie Roberts had not been a judge at all until 2002, and even that appointment was entirely political, because Roberts coached Ted Olson on how to present his case in the 2000 Florida Fraud.

He was completely unqualified to be on the Supreme Court at all, let alone Chief INjustice. And EVERY decision by this wretched son of a bitch has favored corporatism. :grr:

[B Calm]

14. Why can't congress pass a new law forbidding corporate financing of elections

[kenny blankenship]

15. Citizens United takes a Constitutional Amendment to overcome and reverse

Bush v. Gore was a rupture in the fabric of democracy, but could have been healed by time (and a new President with the balls to prosecute the abuses of Bush Cheney, which sadly we did not get). As the criminal Supreme Court said itself, Bush v. Gore was not to be considered as a precedent for any future case whatsoever. By contrast, Citizens United will make second class citizens of all of us merely human citizens in perpetuity - until it is overruled by a Constitutional amendment. That Constitutional amendment will have to pass over the campaigning and attacks of a corporate establishment of newly minted "supercitizens" that have now no limits on the money they can spend attacking it... They have all the money on their side; flesh and blood citizens can't compete.

"Citizens United" is clearly the worse decision in its implications for the democracy and people of the United States.

[spanone]

16. first one led to the second one.

[mzmolly]

18. Yes

indeed.

[Tailormyst]

19. This one- by far