Greenwald challenges claim that yesterday's Supreme Court decision gives GOP huge $$$ advantage

[Irish_shark]

GREENWALD (1-23-2010): "I'm even more unpersuaded by the argument -- seen in today's New York Times Editorial -- that this decision will "ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections." What evidence is there for that? Over the past five years, corporate money has poured far more into the coffers of the Democratic Party than the GOP -- and far more into Obama's campaign coffers than McCain's (especially from Wall Street). If anything, unlimited corporate money will be far more likely to strengthen incumbents than either of the two parties (and unlimited union spending, though dwarfed by corporate spending, will obviously benefit Democrats more). Besides, if it were the case that this law restricts the ability of Republicans far more than Democrats to raise money in election cycles, doesn't that rather obviously intensify the First Amendment concerns?"

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. It's not about which party benefits

It's about corporations being able to buy politicians.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Right--you end up with increased corporate control over ALL politicians.

Corporations are perfectly happy with Democrats as long as they pass legislation like NAFTA, lower corporate taxes, keep wars going, protect the oil supply, and deregulate banks. Democrats are free to pass whatever social legislation they want, as long as it doesn't adversely affect the bottom lines on Wall Street. Corporations have no vested interest one way or the other in same-sex marriage and the like.

[bemildred]

2. I think both parties lose. nt

[timeforpeace]

3. He's right, all the whining has claimed the repukes will get all the money. That's bull.

[bluestateguy]

5. It's good for the party in power

for now that is the Democrats. Corporations give more to the party in power.