If you are not allowed to vote, then you shouldn't be allowed to

[johnaries]

influence the vote. Period.

Campaign contributions should be limited to those who are legally registered to vote.

When one person or group is allowed to exert more influence than another, Democracy is compromised. It is unConstitutional.

Period.

[frazzled]

1. Well, I'm not sure that's the right argument for this case

Because if what you say is true, then we shouldn't have had the massive immigrants rallies that occurred several years ago. The one here (Chicago) had 500,000 people marching and chanting Si, se puede. None of those people could vote, but I'd defend their right to influence the vote.

But they're people.

It still goes back to the corporations are not people issue.

[MercutioATC]

2. Just jump in your way-back machine and rewrite the 14th Amendment.

...that'd be a start.

[Quantess]

3. Careful what you wish for.

Watch, next corporations will be granted the vote.

[ArcticFox]

4. Not quite

Actually, they'll get to vote as proxy for each of their stockholders.

[Quantess]

5. What does that mean?

[slampoet]

6. There is a person w/ a HILLARY sticker on their car and Ontario License plates that parks .....

in an obnoxious place blocking all the handicap access to the sidewalk in front of our local synagogue.

This person pisses me the hell off and the cops never give them a ticket.

[inna]

7. relevancy?

[slampoet]

8. This person tried to influence our election and can't vote here and still doesn't respect our laws.

[FreeJoe]

9. Just a note...

...for those that still haven't read the ruling. It didn't change anything about campaign contributions. The ruling said that corporations can now run their own independent advertisements, publish books, or otherwise engage in activities we call "speech."