Family Research Council: "The persecution of corporate citizens has come to an end" (Really)

[ck4829]

The Family Research Council hails yesterday's supreme court ruling as a victory for all of those oppressed "corporate citizens":

"Under the principles established by the First Amendment, nothing is more foundational than free speech. This is a win for free political speech and the right of corporate citizens to join the political process.

"The court's decision is a step toward restoring open political discourse in this country. Speech should not be truncated by government regulation; rather, transparency should be pursued. The standard of accountability must be full and prompt disclosure, not unconstitutional prohibitions on financial contributions.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/citizens-united-win-regular-guy

[dbonds]

1. This shows FRC is not really religious nuts...

They are corporatist nuts masquerading as religious nuts.

[AspenRose]

9. I am finding just about all of the RW religious groups are like that

They say they are lobbying about issues of "religious liberty" or some such nonsense. But when it gets to brass tacks, it's a front. They are using the money they take in donations from easily duped people to launch RW political agenda offensives. HSLDA is one such organization. If you are a liberal homeschooler, you do NOT want to join this organization, no matter how much other homeschoolers say you "need" to join them for legal protection.

http://hsislegal.com/causes.asp

[jaxx]

10. Sure they are, they've made gazillions being the FRC.

Religion sells.

[blm]

15. Christianity was the mask the fascist followers of Mammon wore...

.

[Wapsie B]

2. Cool! Then that means workers will have free speech in the workplace doesn't it?

*crickets chirping*



Amazing how they can paint the wealthy and powerful corporations that control the government as being oppressed. :eyes:

[Joanne98]

3. Heretics are going to Hell.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

4. Is foundational

a word? :)
As if corporate citizens had never participated in the political process....... :puke:

[dgibby]

13. Yes, it is

foundational
adjective
of, or relating to a foundation or foundations
fundamental or underlying

http://www.allwords.com/word-foundational.html

[Enrique]

5. can corporations form a family?

can they get married? Have kids? Go on trips?

[Initech]

6. I really hate these fuckers.

[bemildred]

7. "Citizens"? Corporations are citizens?

This is getting very Orwellian, in an "Animal Farm" sort of way.

[secondwind]

8. they've now given corporations the status of "citizen"...next, they'll give the zygote

the same "personhood"........we're being set up for a reversal of Roe v. Wade, just watch and see.

[OnionPatch]

11. What, exactly, is a "Corporate Citizen"?

I've never heard of such a thing. A corporation is a legal entity, not a citizen.

If these are the family values the right stands for, they have gone off the deep end.

[AspenRose]

12. I think a CEO or CFO, or some group of shareholders

comprises the twisted definition of a "corporate citizen." Someone can correct me on that.

Here was Mitch McConnell's quote yesterday:

"For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day. By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers. Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all."

John Cornyn:

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has acted to protect the Constitution's First Amendment rights of free speech and association. These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy. This is an encouraging step, and **it is my hope that political parties will one day soon be able to speak as freely as other citizen organizations are now permitted."** (emphasis mine)

"Citizen organizations?" :wtf:

[dgibby]

16. Here:

The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward Corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment in an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394. Some critics of corporate personhood, such as author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. <1> Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

more at link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

[Echo In Light]

14. Gotta love how these cocksuckers call themselves "Family Research Council!" lol