So, with the Supreme Courts ruling that Corporations can

[TheDebbieDee]

give directly to election campaigns, will candidates starts wearing sponsoring corporate logos during appearances and stump speeches, like NASCAR drivers? I mean, at least we would be able to tell who's sponsoring the candidate.

Hmmmm.

[Jim__]

1. They should make that mandatory.

At least we'd know who owns which candidate.

[kudzu22]

2. You might want to read it again

The limits still apply to direct donations to campaigns. The ruling today says they can spend as much as they like on advertising for or against candidates by name. Maybe not much difference in effect, but it is an important distinction.

[madinmaryland]

3. An important distinction, but also moot point.

Since the corporations can now advertise in any fashion that they want, they really don't need to make direct donations to the candidates.

[leftstreet]

4. !!

...they really don't need to make direct donations to the candidates

OOPS!

Politician heads exploding...

:rofl:

[MrsCorleone]

5. Direct donations are less important now. Multinationals can now buy

Multi-billion dollar ad campaigns for or against those running for office. Say goodbye to the peoples' representatives. Say hello to the representative Exxon-Mobile and Senators Monsanto or Goldman Sachs.