How long before the SCOTUS rules that you have to pay a huge fee in order to vote?

[Orrex]

Because, really, isn't that what the ruling establishes?

[Vincardog]

1. NO NO NO NO you will only have to pay a fee to have your vote COUNTED

[MercutioATC]

2. Not at all.

The ruling simply gives corporate persons (which is what they are, legally) the same campaign contribution rights as private persons.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[ananda]

3. Yes, and that money is nothing more and nothing less..

.. than your money in corporate hands.

Think about it.

[MercutioATC]

I'm not saying that it won't have repercussions.

I'm just stating the legal point.

[NoNothing]

4. Not even that

Corporations still cannot contribute to campaigns like indviduals can. It simply gives them the same freedom to spend independently.

[Orrex]

5. The hyperbole of my OP aside...

I guess I just don't understand why corporations should have any such "rights" at all.

[MercutioATC]

6. "Corporate personhood"

The legal fact is that corporations are viewed the same as individual people are, legally.

I agree that this can lead to some undesirable situations, but it's been that way for quite a while. If decisions like this bother people, they need to change the law...not get upset when the SCOTUS renders a decision that is reasonable based on that that law.

[Orrex]

7. I can't quote verse and chapter, but...

It seems that corporations are expressly denied certain rights of personhood, such as the right to vote, for one thing. There's no material reason why corporations can't equally be denied other rights of personhood.

It's my understanding that the current ruling is phrased in such a way as to preclude legislative restrictions on corporate rights, so that Congress can't go back and say "by the way, they can't buy candidates, either." That seems like overreaching judicial activism, whether it technically is or not.