Supreme Court: Corporate limits lifted

that's it.

canada, are you accepting applications?

And the corporate takeover of America continues. Thanks a bunch, SCOTUS.

Will Congress be convening on K Street or keep up appearances by continuing to meet on Capitol Hill?

Democracy RIP.

Money can move mountains, especially Corporate funds. Just look at what it has done to America and the hacks on the Supreme Court. You may not be able to buy your self love, but you can sure buy your self a country. Well, America, your chickens are coming home to roost. Now, to make the coup complete, let's change the national anthem to :" For the Love of Money " by O'Jays
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

This is the kind of ruling that Hoffman would have written while he worked for Rhenquist on the Supreme Court

It is now official, we are a Corporatocracy. The individual no longer matters.

While I'm a Republican, I disagree with this ruling/change. I fear significant abuse by some of the Corporations, who will do anything for a buck!

This just a little more bad news for freedom in the good old USA!

Hmmm.....there was probably a good reason why this was law for over 100 years.

I'm sure we'll remember what that reason was come next election.

"A day that will live in infamy" the end of free speech for us and the end of Democracy and the consolidation of corporate oligarcy. Corporations are not citizens, They are creatures of statute. They are NOT persons. They have only the powers the Legislature gives them. The court has no power to imbue them with citizenship or the right to buy elections. Lord have mercy on us all.

Finally- free speech for all, not just statist lackeys.

One step closer to fascism. Love that Scalia!

The Supreme Court upholds Free Speech.
No wonder Leftists are going bonkers!

The wealthy shall prosper, the weak, sick, old and poor shall become enslaved and will perish at the hands of corporate America. Lord have mercy on us all.

This decision won't change much in my mind. The corporations have been contributing money to campaigns all along through PACs and such. This may affect the middlemen though. I wonder how the lobbyists feel about this decision.

Incredible! More like the Supreme Corporatists. Let's face it; Corporations already decide elections this just makes it easier.

Now it's official!

This country has been sold!

the corporations can spend money to persuade the public, but they cannot MAKE you vote in any particular manner.

do your due-diligence and vote on your own terms, not because a corporation like PepsiCo says so. what's the matter with you?

Supposedly for a Democracy to work it is suppose to be for the people and by the people. Many a nation has fallen due to corruption and greed. America is one big sell out. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Supremes surrendered independence when it (s)elected Dubya, why should the majority Republican appointees stop benefitting the bosses who control their thoughts.

"We have the best government that money can buy" - Mark Twain (about 100+ years ago)

Obama is at war with Corporate America. It will be interesting to see how much financial support the Democrats get from them in the future. Bets are, it will be little or none.

This is horrible for our country. Ironically, the name of the organization that brought the suit is called "Citizens United." The parties now influencing elections hardly have the interest of "Citizens" in mind. Pathetic.

These comments are amusing. Liberals have been using the media to broadcast their beliefs for the last decade (Obama, global warming, health care), yet are now upset that corporations are allowed to purchase time to support their causes and/or candidates.

I'm not sure this is a good thing, but I know this: Compared to when this law was written, there is far more communication and far more sources of information that there were in 1907. Roosevelt was battling large monopolies that controlled huge swaths of the economy and the media. Much has changed, but we will see if the population has learned how to vet information they see and hear.

What about the freedom of speech of non profit religious organizations in endorsements of candidates?

Only those brainless sheep will let others dictate what they do, how they act and more importantly, let their vote be swayed.
Study the issues, people and decide on you own. That's called free will.

Companies are not people and have no "right" to free speech.

The Constitution should ONLY apply to individuals. A Corporation can not vote, but it gets the loudest voice. Let's start a drive to amend the U.S. Constitution to make it apply only to individuals.

What about the shareholders of these corporations that do not agree with the way the corporation is spending its money? Seems ripe for some stockholder derivative lawsuits.

First it turns out that the most promising president of our time turns to mush when the going gets tough.

Now this.

Great.

Where in the Constitution does it state that an organization, such as a corporation, union or other group, is a PERSON? The rights the American people enjoy are also responsibilities, and I don't believe the intent was to allow some organization to be protected as an individual.
Whose speech is it when a corporation makes political endorsements? Individuals decide whether to join a party, or contribute their own money to a candidate or party organization. I'm not aware of shareholder votes, or polling of every individual within a particular union - this is just another way to allow powerful people to use other people's money to further their own interests.
We've got to re-establish the fact that organizations are not people, and they should not be legally given the rights and protections granted to individuals. Only individual people are allowed to vote, it should be the same way with advocating for a particular candidate or party.

And, the biggest corporations who are likely to make to biggest contributions are also the most likely to be owned or controlled by foreign interests.
Way to go justices, who were as the article states, "Republican presidential nominees."

Let's see now, Exxon-Mobil's profits were how many billion and how much do they want to spend for political ads? Hmmmm..........

It is refreshing to see the outrage on many boards about this ruling. However, since the United States is no longer a democracy, and has not been for many years, the public outrage makes no difference whatsoever. This is how things work in a non-democratic society; the best interests of the citizens of the country DO NOT COUNT FOR ANYTHING.
Get used to it America. Democracy has not existed in our country for quite some time. Corporations, many of them with majority foreign interests, own every inch of this country, and every inch of what used to be our freedoms.

Yes we still have our vote. It's just that most Americans won't see anything other than what these giants inundate us with over the TV. Due diligence? Like buying a house?

It's a sad day when the most "liberal" members of the U.S. Supreme Court are violently arguing against American's free speech rights. One wonders if they are liberals at all or just communists that want to put all power in the hands of the central government.

WoW!!!! Since when was the Bill of Rights written for Business? I cannot believe this? Welcome McAmerican!!! or United States of Walmart. Are these justices insane? If you follow their way of thinking since they are protected under freedom of speech so they should also have the right to vote?

Welcome to the Corpoation of the United States of the Republi-cants. More Bush/Cheney politics to follow.
As a citizen of a 3rd world country, I will be looking for charity hand-outs from the rest of the world. Places like Haiti be damned.

For the coonskin wearin teabaggers.....what corporation funded the tea party?

Thanks to the Supreme Court, giant corporations will bombard TV with propaganda. Supposedly they are required to reveal who pays for the ads, but we know they will hide behind subsidiary, dummy names. They will use their well-honed marketing tools to confuse us into voting for their puppets, and in a couple of election cycles, they will complete their ownership of Congress.

Today’s decision results from the Court’s first mistake when, in 1886, it ruled that a private corporation was a “natural person” under the Constitution. Earlier, when corporations had won political power by funding the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln warned, “. . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Contemporary conservatives bought the bill of goods Big Business has been selling, and now we all get to live in the Corporate States of America. Oh, and we can kiss the environment goodbye. Profits today matter more than a livable world tomorrow.

Where in the Constitution does it state that an organization, such as a corporation, union or other group, is a PERSON? The rights the American people enjoy are also responsibilities, and I don't believe the intent was to allow some organization to be protected as an individual.
Whose speech is it when a corporation makes political endorsements? Individuals decide whether to join a party, or contribute their own money to a candidate or party organization. I'm not aware of shareholder votes, or polling of every individual within a particular union - this is just another way to allow powerful people to use other people's money to further their own interests.
We've got to re-establish the fact that organizations are not people, and they should not be legally given the rights and protections granted to individuals. Only individual people are allowed to vote, it should be the same way with advocating for a particular candidate or party.

Posted by: bf chicago | January 21, 2010 12:45 PM

Your asking the wrong questions--- the constitution, by not explicitly giving the government the right to restrict this type of speech, means that the government does not have the right to restrict...The more accurate question would be;
-
Where in the constitution is the federal government given the right to restrict corporation’s right to speech?
-
You won't find it- which makes this ruling the right thing to do.

And the BushCo collateral damage continues......

The fools have sold AMerica to the CHinese, Saudi's,Wal-Mart and whomever else has a bag of money to throw around Washington, I hope Canad is looking for a few pissed of Americans that are looking to move.

while I agree with a company having a right to do whatever they want to get a candidate elected/defeated, it's a bad idea so long as the administration keeps fulling tax dollars into individual companies to keep them afloat.

"Free Speech for organizations" with deep pockets pretty much nullifies "free speech for individuals". Especially since many of these corporations are very international/foreign controlled.

A VERY SAD DAY for democracy. Our founding fathers are turning in their graves!

Who says you can't buy a judge? Looks like corporate world just did.

Your asking the wrong questions--- the constitution, by not explicitly giving the government the right to restrict this type of speech, means that the government does not have the right to restrict...The more accurate question would be;
-
Where in the constitution is the federal government given the right to restrict corporation’s right to speech?
-
You won't find it- which makes this ruling the right thing to do.
Posted by: heartburn | January 21, 2010 1:25 PM

Thanks for the polite, thoughtful reply – always welcome on news forums. My questions are to the point of how did it ever evolve that organizations gained the rights of individuals in the first place? The legal thoughts behind it are incomplete. When a newspaper endorses a candidate, they at least point out that it is the editorial board stating the board's (presumably) majority decision towards one or another.
But "speech" and "advertising" should be seen as two different things – corporations, unions and others can advertise, but political speech is different, and to pretend that the money that can be put into this kind of advocacy doesn't sway public opinion is dangerous. I know that corporations (unions, churches, etc.) currently enjoy the protections of this legal fiction, but should we be allowing it to apply to areas beyond the strictly commercial operation of the entity? If the entity isn't allowed to vote, it should not be allowed to help decide who is in the running for an election. (And no, I'm not pushing for corporate suffrage!)

The Supreme Court upholds Free Speech.
No wonder Leftists are going bonkers!

Posted by: Former Democrat | January 21, 2010 12:05 PM

Once again, a wingnut proves his stupidity! Number one- the rule was championed by a Republican- stated in the story!
Number two- unions also have money, usually benefitting Democrats, so why would leftists go bonkers? Get a brain!

Reading the amazing ignorance of liberals is truly enlightening.

Now that ANY organization, of any form, can say what they want, it is the end of the world!!!!!!

How DARE corporations like GE say what they want! Oh, wait GE owns NBC! (at least until Comcast finishes the deal) So if management at GE dictates to NBC what is "news" that is perfectly OK. NBC can have "entertainment" shows ridicule Christians or Jews, can mock conservatives, even though the first Tuesday of November, and THAT is perfectly OK.

Disney owns ABC - So Disney can dictate what comes from ABC. Does any news hack at ABC dare question what Disney does? you think they dare? Why should the folks on "the View" get to say whatever they want at any time, while those they attack can't respond? Oh, that's right, only liberals can say whatever they want, and every one else should shut up.

Viacom owns CBS - you think CBS is not directed by the folks that run MTV? These are people that think calling a 9 year old a "whore" is a joke.

So now the Supreme Court has eliminated the false dichotomy about what passes as news.

Since places like GE and Disney and Viacom can say whatever they want through their "news" organs, now others can do the same.

Since corporations now have free speech do they also get one (or more) votes, independent of their individual membership?

That's AMERICA!

Brought to you by the Company Corporation.

The Constitution belongs to us. We can amend it. Change it. Toss it and replace it, if we choose. I say it's time to amend it. These kinds of manipulations of the process need to be fixed. And while we are at it, term limits for the senate and the house. If SCOTUS can't get it right, we'll do it for them.

Only those brainless sheep will let others dictate what they do, how they act and more importantly, let their vote be swayed.
Study the issues, people and decide on you own. That's called free will.

Posted by: John Q. Public | January 21, 2010 12:28 PM

I can't agree more with this statement the only problem is... we are a country of sheep. We're lazy, we need our information spoon fed to us in 60 second sound bites and pop up ads.

Posted by: bf chicago | January 21, 2010 1:58 PM

The issue stills speaks to the core intent of the bill of rights- restriction of the national government, through the concept of enumerated rights. Their is no right given to the fed regarding restriction on speech-individual or corporate. So I don't see any evolved power-since there should never have been a restriction to begin with- remember, the restriction was put in place a century after the constitutin and subsequent bill of rights were ratified.

I know John W. is out there somewhere- always good to hear is take - he is always able to coherently clarify what I am stumbling through here...

Roosevelt was battling large monopolies that controlled huge swaths of the economy and the media. Much has changed, but we will see if the population has learned how to vet information they see and hear.

Posted by: elginbrian | January 21, 2010 12:25 PM

Oh, yeah, y'know, monopolies. Nothing like that exists today *cough*Comcast*cough*

Notice how it's the "Corporations" that are attacked, but not the unions who will almost certainly be allowed to spend more freely in political campaigns.
Liberal philosophy- Business bad, unions good. (even though if there is no businesses, there are no workers to form unions)

How DARE corporations like GE say what they want! Oh, wait GE owns NBC! (at least until Comcast finishes the deal) So if management at GE dictates to NBC what is "news" that is perfectly OK. NBC can have "entertainment" shows ridicule Christians or Jews, can mock conservatives, even though the first Tuesday of November, and THAT is perfectly OK.
Posted by: Dan C | January 21, 2010 2:08 PM

I guess that's the difference between you and I. While the right has been complaining about all these rights lost ynder Obama......I don't care whether the corporation is liberal "or" conservative.......being able to buy agendas is bad for America. May the biggest wallet win!

"Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office." ---J. P. Stevens
I would have thought that a Supreme Court Justice would have known what I learned the first week of Business Law: A Corporation is, by definition, a Legal Person. But then again...

So, in 2012, the GOP will be the majority party again. From there America turns into a one party state. The Democrats who aren't corporate suck-ups disappear, leaving pro-corporate Dems in place.

Looks like America's going back to the 1890's, people.

They'll do what the Soviets did and keep up the appearance of a democratic society, in the meanwhile, America devolves into Third World status. We'll still have elections, but it really won't matter who you vote for.

Get comfortable with shanty towns, too.

And we can forget about any forward movement on important civilization saving environmental policies.

How did we let things get to this state?

I used to make political contrabutions until I was laid off now I can't but the company that laid me off? still can so they can fight against my unemployment , health care, etc and I and millions of others have no money to fight back

Some thoughts;
Welcome to the new Gilded Age.
Worst decision since Dread Scott.
Instant funding for the Neo-Tea-bagger Party.
A key to turn America into John Galt's secret island.(we can all go do Becky's lawn for him)
Republicans win another one.
Coward Dems soon to do right wing shuffle.
The viscous negative feedback loop that is modern America just got a steroid shot.
If every individual is = to a corporation, where are our corporate tax loopholes? Where are our property tax exemptions?

This is the day the Republic died...see Rome.

In ten years the United States of America will cease to exist . It'll just be something old folks talk about in whispers . No more Declaration of Independence . No more Constitution and it's Bill of Rights . Just Corporate policy .

The issue stills speaks to the core intent of the bill of rights- restriction of the national government, through the concept of enumerated rights. Their is no right given to the fed regarding restriction on speech-individual or corporate. So I don't see any evolved power-since there should never have been a restriction to begin with- remember, the restriction was put in place a century after the constitutin and subsequent bill of rights were ratified.
I know John W. is out there somewhere- always good to hear is take - he is always able to coherently clarify what I am stumbling through here...
Posted by: heartburn | January 21, 2010 2:27 PM
I understand that one intent, and a key one, was to limit the government. I still have the issue with "individual speech" being applied to what is obviously not an individual. It is the evolved notion of granting personhood to what is really a collection of people. Individuals will presumably balance their commercial interests against their desire for clean air, decent public services, etc. rule of law, etc., but a corporation can be single-minded in its goals and its advocacy without suffering other consequence, and can do so with a much larger checkbook than real people tend to have. I'm no scholar, either, so if John W. has two cents, I'm willing to listen (provided he's not really John W. Inc.!)

With Obama at war with Corporate America, it will be interesting to see how much financial support he receives from them.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Put your tv controller down, along with your cell phone…..I am declaring a Boston Tea Party! In the last week, the have faced the most unusual situations – back to back – I have ever seen. There is the tragedy in Haiti and many people are sending an avalanche of money to assist the residents. Good for them. But, historically, none of us will ever see any accountability of those funds!

Similarly, Dorothy Brown – who is the Cook County Clerk AND running for office on 02-02-10 – is in the news for charging her staff $2 or $3 per day that they wore blue jeans. This has taken lace over a number of years. Ironically, she is more educated than you and I (including a Certified Public Accountant) and well experienced. Yet, she cannot provide the media with any documentation for the destination of these funds….which we are told went to charity. That said, does she apply the same professionalism principles to the County funds she handles?? Wave your Bible at the pastor who is in custody for what he did to children, before trying to commit suicide.

VOTE HER OUT OF OFFICE….NOW.

Now we are given unique financial information regarding House Speaker Michael Madigan. Carefully read the various articles in the Chicago Tribune and open up the various documents from 1972 on. Read the article: TOOTSIE ROLL/FORD CITY MALL in the Chicago Tribune on 01-20-10. It begins: “In 2003, Madigan sponsored legislation sending $3.5 million in state money to the city of Chicago for "all costs associated with road, water, sewer and lighting improvements on 76th Street and South Kostner Avenue."

That legislative language directed money to a privately owned stretch of pavement that leads to the properties of two Madigan clients in his Southwest Side district.

The targeted stretch of access road runs along the rear entrance of the Ford City Mall and ends at the back edge of the Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. headquarters, according to grant documents…..” (David Kidwell, John Chase and Ray Gibson Tribune staff reporters)

Sam Zell investments was one of the major beneficiaries. Yet, no politician had the gusts to report this legislation. The beat goes on.

VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE….

Today, the Supreme Court OVERTURNED a century old restriction denying corporations from contributing to sway public elections! Their logic is freedom of information!! Do you begin to see how our collective lives are changing…for the worse??

Finally, in Chicago’s Millennium Park…at the north end.. there is a large fountain where person after person throws a coin in and makes a wish. Two years ago, I was walking by the fountain and noticed two men shoveling coins into large plastic containers. I spoke to them and learned they worked for the City as plumbers and shoveled three times a week. Asked where the money went, I was told they take it to the park’s management office (where the grill is located) and they told me this management was suppose to have it counted by the bank and…..are you ready….donate it to charity! Show me the documentation! Public workers are doing the work – show me the chain of receipts. What are the odds that the money – filling up nine very large buckets a week – was not skimmed?? (Tax free income for someone). Shortly after this conversation, the manager who was selected by the Mayor, was unable to renew his contract to manage the park. There was a good deal of questions that never got answered.

Vote on 02-02-10 and take the time to select new individuals. And do not forget the end of the ballot…with all the Judges! Have you been told what type of cases they try? How long they have been on the bench? Their educational background? VOTE NO TO ALL….until we are better informed.

The general public is being kept in the dark and is growing dumber by the day!

Your asking the wrong questions--- the constitution, by not explicitly giving the government the right to restrict this type of speech, means that the government does not have the right to restrict...The more accurate question would be;
-
Where in the constitution is the federal government given the right to restrict corporation’s right to speech?
-
You won't find it- which makes this ruling the right thing to do.
Posted by: heartburn | January 21, 2010 1:25 PM

heartburn - The 9th Amendment says "rights not specifically enumerated within the constitution are reserved to the states and people," not "states, people and corporations."

The 9th Amendment, therefore, stops me from saying "you have no right to X." But at the same time, it DOESN'T give me cause to say "I have the right to be paid $3 million per year."

It doesn't specifically enumerate any right, and so cannot be cited as a legal basis for a right.

This ruling by the Supreme Court is long, long over due. As we sit and watch president panty waist's presidency crash and burn before our own eyes, we can also see the wise decision President Bush made with nominating Roberts and Alito.
Even though President Bush has been out of office for over a year, these two wise decisions will continue to protect our free speech...in fact, with this ruling, you could say... Bush has done more good for our country this year than panty waist has done in the past twelve months.

Paulo

superlib1908 wrote:
It seems to me that, regardless of the legalities, this is a dangerous court opinion. And it has nothing to do with party. From what I have read today, there is NOTHING that will now prevent FOREIGN based corporations from stacking as much money into the accounts of pols as they care to.

The reality of life is that the average American believes what they read and what they hear. Our elections are already stacked with PAC money, 501's (or whatever they call themselves) and other assortments of cash. This ruling will make it all but impossible for incumbents to be beaten. I do not think I am over reacting when I say the very Constitution itself is in danger of being perverted.

I say we need to amend the Constitution to rein in this goofy hodge-podge of election funding laws once and for all. And while we're at it, term limits on the house and senate. We already have it for the President and it's time to do the same for the folks at the other end of the street.

If there was EVER a modern day THREAT to our way of life, this is it.

Maybe the corporate money can also go for Supreme Court Picks. Corporate money can be used to buy a place on the court.

The funny thing is, America, there isn't a thing we can do about this ruling. It's a done deal. Just take a look at what Corporate Ameria is doing to President Obama's presidency, from the slanting of the news by the Corpoate Networks to the funding of goon squads to stifle real, democratc free speech, concerning Healthcare. Today's ruling was merely the headstone, being put into place over our dead or dying, citizen's rights. Come on, America, we all knew that, didn't we? Wasn't that one of the reasons we elected President Obama and Vice-Presidet Biden?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

The beginning of the end. Your vote means nothing. It is time to protest in a peaceful manner. Only a show of the masses will produce change. It is time the people get off their couches, put down all the handheld devices and take back their country. You are all about to lose your freedom of choice that corporate America thinks should lie with them

The 'study the issues crowd' are making light of a real problem pointed out in the dissent.

Domestic corporations can and are owned by foreign interests. There is nothing to stop a group of Germans, English, Mexican, Saudi, Communist Chinese, from setting up investment groups to buy corporations. Their corporations would have just as much right to exercise free speech in elections as any one else.

We voters are going have to spend hours researching every corporation to determine whether the persuasive treaty on free trade comes from a Chinese corporation, or the chain e-mail in support of immigrant rights comes from a Mexican owned corporation, etc.

Funny, I thought the right were the ones saying it is the liberals who are trying to give the country away to the U.N. Apparently if the foreign interests come to us under a corporate hat, they are alright.

What are people complaining about. Look at the current office holder, you can't get much worse than him.
He was elected with a bunch of foreign contributions so,
if it comes between our corporations putting people in office or a bunch of foreigners and bums - I'll gladly take the corporations!
More Change! Gotta love it!

All those that are freaking out that we are Corporate America and such. Where have you been while Unions poured money into Democrat elections? Hmmm?? Where were you? Oh, only when it benefits liberals, you are ok with it. But when the playing field is level, you blame the GOP. Good. You should be scared. Liberal days are numbered.

Wow! Now GE can run political ads against candidates!! Oops, they have been doing that for a few years now, through their MSNBC and NBC television stations, pretending they were news programs or commentary programs. GE isn't really a news organizations. they have this slant to the left in the "news" programs, like Meet the Press, and Nightly News, as well as, their commentary programs like Maddow and Olbermann. This organization should be treated as such and not given the same rights as other real news organizations.

Enough of the cynicism, the unions have been donating and running political organizations for years, but corporations were not allowed to do the same. SEIU, AFL/CIO have been heavily involved in electing PROGRESSIVE candidates for years. The playing ground has now been slightly leveled to counteract these evil union organizations.

heartburn - The 9th Amendment says "rights not specifically enumerated within the constitution are reserved to the states and people," not "states, people and corporations."

The 9th Amendment, therefore, stops me from saying "you have no right to X." But at the same time, it DOESN'T give me cause to say "I have the right to be paid $3 million per year."

It doesn't specifically enumerate any right, and so cannot be cited as a legal basis for a right.

Posted by: nka | January 21, 2010 3:06 PM

Your looking at it from the point of view that somehow this ruling grants a right of free speech where it didn't exist before, it doesn't-SCOTUS cannot "grant" free speech rights. This ruling restricted the government from continuing to prohibit free speech by corporations.
-
OR- Governments restricting a corporations right to speech cannot be found in any constitutional language so it is not specifically enumerated in the constitution- so therfore the government has been granted no right to restrict it.

The issue is if the restriction placed on speech was constitutional or not- the court ruled it wasn't.

The corpo-fascist takeover is now complete. Your vote means nothing and the powerful corporations such as
Exxon and Haliburten will own
our elected officials legally.

While the r-cons proclaimed
socialism to be the enemy of freedom and democracy, they brought fascism right through the front door.
This is a tragic day for freedom loving Americans.

The 'study the issues crowd' are making light of a real problem pointed out in the dissent.

Domestic corporations can and are owned by foreign interests. There is nothing to stop a group of Germans, English, Mexican, Saudi, Communist Chinese, from setting up investment groups to buy corporations. Their corporations would have just as much right to exercise free speech in elections as any one else.

We voters are going have to spend hours researching every corporation to determine whether the persuasive treaty on free trade comes from a Chinese corporation, or the chain e-mail in support of immigrant rights comes from a Mexican owned corporation, etc.

Funny, I thought the right were the ones saying it is the liberals who are trying to give the country away to the U.N. Apparently if the foreign interests come to us under a corporate hat, they are alright.

Posted by: Tom | January 21, 2010 3:45 PM

The source of the information has nothing to do with the right of free speech--

Your argument supposes that we should somehow be able to legally restrict the free speech of Chinese tourist's in this country solely on the basis that they are not from here?

Why would the source of the information change your opinion on the merit of it's substance? A bad opinion coming from a multi-million dollar ad campaign can be ignored as easily as a bad idea posted in the Swamp..( no malice intended)

Corporations free speech is not hypnotism- you hear it and base your opinion of it's message on it's merits... then you choose to ignore it or react to it..

So put the same restrictions on people, too. Wouldn't that solve it?

The US has never been a democracy, we are a republic. Now the representatives of the citizens may be influenced by anyone or anything, such as corporations. It will be quite interesting to see the direction of government. Will there be relaxing environmental regulations, or increasing foreign trade by increasing import tariffs, or funds moving around with limited tax liabilities? Seems there is opportunities for both benefits and detriments, but who will now be accountable?

I USE THINK I COULD TRUST MY SUPREME COURT TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS, WHAT A JOKE.

FOR SALE:

1 spacious country
260 million lemmings

. . . all apparently ripe for the pickin's!

Buy now!!

In the 70's there was a prophetic though forgettable John Ritter movie entitled, "Americathon".

. . . maybe that movie wasn't as forgettable as I thought.

America is a JOKE!!!

Don F. "Today's ruling was merely the headstone, being put into place over our dead or dying, citizen's rights."
WHERE in this ruling has ANY of your rights been taken from you?
Justify, please!

Funny hearing all the democrats crying over the courts decision, yet they never questioned where obama's funding came from. And the obama campaign refused to answer.
This is great stuff, shows what pansy they elected or,should I say, the saudi's elected!

Where in the constitution is the federal government given the right to restrict corporation’s right to speech?
-
You won't find it- which makes this ruling the right thing to do.
Posted by: heartburn | January 21, 2010 1:25 PM

Heartburn is correct in that the federal government has no right to restrict corporate speech, but money is not speech! If a corporation or union wants to put out a public statement that they favor one candidate over another and why, that is just fine. But donating giant wads of cash to the campaign of someone who will be friendly to their interests is quite another. We already have our news filtered thru the interest of the corprations that own television, radio and newspapers. But now we face the proposition of "documentaries" and feature films being produced for the specific intent of influencing elections under the guise of being informative. The wrong-headedness of this decision is something that could bring the left and right together as the left does not want undue influence by corporations and the right does not want undue influence by the labor unions. Let's stop letting ourselves be exploited by politicials who "divide and conquer" Complete public funding of all federal elections as well as term limits would make this all a mott point.

We the corporations, in order to form a more perfect union...
One nation, under corporate rule, with liberty and justice for none...
My country 'tis of thee, sweet coporatocracy...
What corporation would you be willing to wear a uniform, fight and die for?

Now the business community is on a level playing field with every ambulance-chasing & bottom-feeding trial lawyer and organized labor.

Commisar Schumer says "nyet." I say "tough feces."

My name is Coca-Cola and approve of this message.

The answer is simple: don't tax the corporations, and don't allow them to influence any voting.

EVIL CORPORATIONS!!!! The mantra of Hugo and other dictators! The Progressive movement has been trying to vilify "corporations" for years, starting with their original movement, just prior to WWI. After been dormant for decades, the Progressives are now trying fundamentally change the U.S. Whether it is Saul Alinsky, George Soros, several members of Congress, or Barry Obama, these Progressives want to change the U.S. into their vision of what is typical of a benevolent dictatorship.

This is ridicules!!! The Supreme Court judges are either blind or incompetent by ruling in favor of big corporations...

Conservatives and republicans do not care about anything except corportations and the rich. They don't care about the poor, minorities, Haitians.... basically anyone who is not protected by corporate interests.

Posted by: Steve Lobber | January 21, 2010 4:32 PM

S.lobber...so the biggest wallet wins? and you're worried about dictators?

What is good for George Soros and moveon.org, the aclu, the daily kos, etc., should also be good for the rest of America. Deal with it.

Does this mean that Tobacco companies can bring back Joe Camel and cigarette commercials?

Living proof that the GOP and conservatives don't care about main street. What a scam. The tea party is for corporations. The only thing they are against is a black president.

Diane Borgic:

"Thanks to the Supreme Court, giant corporations will bombard TV with propaganda. "

I think you left out "alsol" The corporations now ALSO will be able to bombard TV with propaganda right alongside the government, TV, newspapers, and Hollywood, who have been doing it all along. But only if the liberal media will give them the airtime. "Earth 2100," indeed.

You may be surprised to learn who was among Obama's top contributors:

Goldman Sachs
Microsoft
Google
Citigroup
JPMorgan Chase
Time Warner
IBM
Morgan Stanley
General Electric

Just Mom n Pop stores, eh?

The best government money can buy.
Is there any doubt we live by the Golden Rule in this country? Those who have the gold make the rules.
But I'm sure the Tribune corporation is ecstatic over this ruling. Think of the advertising revenue!

always good to hear is take - he is always able to coherently clarify what I am stumbling through here...

Posted by: heartburn | January 21, 2010 2:27 PM
;
You're stumbling because you're making this up as you go along. The First Amendment as it appears in the Constitutions Bill of Rights uses the word 'People'. If the Framers wanted First Amendment protections to extend to corporations they would've used that term. The Constitution is not a living document! We must not interpret what we think they may have meant but base rulings purely on what it says!!!!!. Activist scum.

Coming soon to a White House near you, a whole new season of "Who Wants to be a President?"! Brought to you by BigOilCo and Haliburton. Oh. Wait. We already tried that.

bill r:
For the coonskin wearin teabaggers.....what corporation funded the tea party?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it depends on the issue which the corpo-fascists want defeated that determines how much they manipulate the 'baggers....issues such as "tort reform" are high on the list.

"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."

-1830

Want to make sure I understand all the angst. It's OK for eastern European George Soros to use his ill-gotten billions to influence US elections, but it's not OK for US corporations which employ millions to influence elections?

It is amazing that the party whining about Obama and transparency and backroom deals now supports the worst threat to America ever. Talk about campaign reform. Hey let's look at the bright side...my vote is now available to the highest bidder.

It bothers me that the collective voice of the left is so strongly in favor of censoring free speech. They used to be about freedom; now they're intent on denying others their civil rights because they may disagree with their viewpoint.

Thankfully, the Supremes have struck a blow for freedom.

Absolutely one of THE worst decisions SCOTUS has EVER made! Obviously, all those Republican-appointed justices are determined to advance their party (which will no doubt benefit most from this ruling) with no concern for democracy or the ordinary citizen.

Ther ignorance of wingnuts like Dan C. is stunning. The Constitution protects people, not corporations. And liberals also serve in corporations, dummy!

Special interest groups? You mean like unions? Well, we certainly wouldn't want unions to influence national policy, right???

This ruling allows organizations to BUY elections, pure and simple. I don't see how you conseervatives don't see that.

As the article mentions, it gives Unions more power too. And I don't want them influencing my elections any more than Tobaccco, Oil or Insurance companies.

ALL PACS should be illegal as well. Only "individual" contributions should be allowed. The constitution has every right to restrict and regulate "commerce", that means "business", incase you moron republicans don't unserstand that.

Teddy Roosevelt was a republican by the way. Of course, that was before they were bought and paid for by corporate America.

Shareholders, directors and executives at a corporation have been perfectly free to express their personal political opinions. The same applies to union leaders and members. Collectively their opinions are not likely unanimous, and even the majority could be overridden by an executive decision to fund a political ad campaign. The legal fiction of a corporation as a person is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind when they placed the freedom of speech in the bill of rights, nor what legislators considered when describing a corporation. The bare majority of justices who overturned a century of precedence do not seem capable of envisioning the larger picture that judges, legislators and ordinary citizens have seen clearly for so long. A different type of politician, who knows how to climb a corporate ladder, and not actually found a business enterprise, is the kind of person who will be completely running this country, if that type is not already doing so. The eighteenth century enlightenment’s ideal of a democratic republic has been devolving over the years into a new form of feudalism in which senior corporate executives are the incredibly rich lords and the rest of us the serfs. I call on Congress to immediately initiate a constitutional amendment prohibiting corporations or unions from funding any political advocacy. But never suppress our right to speak freely as individuals.

Gee. I didn't think major corporations could "grease the skids" in the Supreme Court. But I guess this proves that all parts of the US government are for sale.

If a corporation is a person, let's see if it bleeds.

I would suggest that these tea bagging kooks have allowed their personal hated for one man - the President - unions, liberals and all the other tea bagging icons to obscure their judgement. They are willing to put our system of government at risk, IMHO, in the name of "teaching us a lesson" and "leveling the field." Well, if you want to "level" the field, I offer that permitting FOREIGN corporations -- often OWNED by FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS to have an unlimited and undue influence on the political process of this country is a lousy way to do it.

I am a liberal. I make no apology, any more than the right wingers do for their position. And I don't second guess SCOTUS on the law. But if the conservatives won't defend this country, I think the rest of us will. This decision today has the promise to be devastating in the wrong hands. And, I'm no fan of unions, frankly, but at least they are fellow Americans and not some faceless corporate type half a world away.

As for those who hate the current President, give it three years and you'll get another shot. In the mean time he's the guy we ELECTED. I never voted for a foreign corporation.

I thought it was bad enough that the UAE owned and operated many of our sea ports but now they and any other foreign company that owns a business in our country can have a say in our elections!!! I guess they weren't thinking about that when they came up with this wonderful decision...

Before you all scream and yell a bit more about the Obama and the companies and labor unions that the evil Democrats in Illinois favor, this was a Republican led conservative decision.

“Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader who filed the first lawsuit challenging the McCain-Feingold law, praised the court for ''restoring the First Amendment rights'' of corporations and unions.

The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday.”

So when Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, “The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation,” he’s not talking about the Democrats, who were taught their lesson about doing all of their undermining on Tuesday.

And I guess the Republicans can now filibuster away any more “liberal” judges.

Scott Brown will be welcomed in DC with robes on the ground and palms waving in the air.

People at ad agencies are rushing to the phones. I guess this is what the Republicans mean about creating jobs.

Heartburn: Your reply to my earlier post about foreign owned U.S. domiciled corporations makes no sense. Foreign individuals in the United States have no rights under the United States Constitution. Whatever rights they have are contained in treaties between the United States and their respective countries. The right to Free Speech is not among them.

Answering those who suggest the ruling merely puts corporations on equal footing - wrong. Corporations and unions have always been able to lobby, donate to political efforts, form PACs, etc. This ruling means that both unions and corporations will be able to launch whole scale political campaigns in favor of an individual, party or cause with no legal restrictions put on them by Congress. A right neither have had for more than a century.

Maybe the corporate money can also go for Supreme Court Picks. Corporate money can be used to buy a place on the court.

Posted by: John | January 21, 2010 3:21 PM

already happened my friend

Soooo, corporations have the right to free speech, not based on person-hood but based on the limits of government, and these same corporations, not based on limits of government but based on lack of person-hood, have an easier time getting away with environmental crimes. So all the trappings of a person minus the bleed part?

Seems we should be checking out the bank accounts of a few Supreme Court justices.

There is no mention of corporate rights in our Constitution period.

And just what idiot spoke on behalf of the government defending existing prior law, some first year law intern?

Dan: I believe that we see eye to eye on this. SCOTUS has also apparently upheld the individual right to bear arms in Heller v. DC; perhaps it is time for the human "persons" to exercise that right.

SPEAKING OF FREE SPEECH, BUH BYE ERROR URRR AIR AMERICA. THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH LOONY LEFTY LIBS TO FUND THIS THING. NO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PBS OR NPR.
*
Air America Ceases Live Programming, Will File for Bankruptcy
*
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/21/breaking-air-america-ceasing-live-programming-this-afternoon/

Wow, there is some really funny stuff here. First off, if congress passed a constitutional law there wouldn't be an issue. All this deriding of the desicion is misplaced, the law as written surpressed free speech by treating a MEDIA corporation different from any other corporation. Lest we forget and has been metioned here, NBC/CBS/ABC are all owned by corporations with agendas... why should other corporations be exempt. If anything this will allow Media to become more responsible because their slanted views will be subject to debate if a corporation should wish to do so. I really have to laugh at the tired Marxist message of the 'evil' corporation and the 'good' government... this is one of the single most dangerous lies ever told. Corporations pay for government, through providing jobs and commerce as well as support for candidates, now this support can occur on an even playing field as it should.

Since when are Corporations the same as People??? Do they breathe, eat or bleed like a person??Who is looking out for OUR rights??I guess not the Supreme Court. I do know Justice Clarence Thomas came from a big corporation. How can he vote in this decision?? If he was a judge in a court of law it would be called a conflict of interest - yes? Guess rules for the Supreme Court are way different - they sure don't care for the little man. Teabaggers - you don't like "socialism"? Boy, are you in store for a wonderful government in the future run by Corporations & foreign countries. & you call yourselves Americans? You deserve what a government like this but the rest of us don't

So wait, now all corporations have free speech and not just media corporations? No wonder the left is screaming. They never could stand a level playing field.

Let's see if I get this right:

Libs are whining because corporations can now buy time in the two months before an election. That's terrible! That means that Oprah and Spielberg and Clooney and Streisand and Soros and Eisner and all those people like them will be able to get even MORE exposure for their ides, not just the news and programs on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, Telemundo, The History Channel, USA Network, TNT, HBO, Showtime, AMC, TBS, The Family Channel, Spike, MTV, VH1, and Nick.

And the ones who complain the loudest think that all these other networks pushing their agenda and political views are not enough.

I know, do what that Great Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, did, and pass a law making it illegal to say anything against the president or his policies!

Heck, why not just set up camps for anyone who disagrees with you. It is something liberals love to do, and have lots of practice setting up. Call them Great Urban Locations And Guesthouses, or GULAGs for short.

Once again, the perverts of Capitalism have subverted Democracy. Definition: perverts of Capitalism--those who relish the power money gives them without thoughts of equality or morality; greed; averice. Democracy--remember what you learned in school?...equal voice for everyone?.

A commentator on another site pointed out how many of "our" corporations are foreign owned. This is truly frightening. Foreign countries will be controlling our elections.

Big deal- Look how the Union and secret interest have bough out Barrak Obama, no wonder he is furious as he has completion now.

kleenex:

Soooo, corporations have the right to free speech, not based on person-hood but based on the limits of government, and these same corporations, not based on limits of government but based on lack of person-hood, have an easier time getting away with environmental crimes. So all the trappings of a person minus the bleed part?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
any bleeding is quickly remedied with a massive taxpayer funded bailout.

next on the corpo- fascist laundry list: tort reform.

thats right, folks. the powerful corporations do not want to be held responsible for their medical-pharma errors and now that they have flexed their muscles in our halls of congress, they want to move onto the courts by denying you your rightful day in court.

Get ready.

teabaggers, expect to receive talking points and marching orders.

"I really have to laugh at the tired Marxist message of the 'evil' corporation and the 'good' government... this is one of the single most dangerous lies ever told. Corporations pay for government, through providing jobs and commerc.." Tell that to Bolivia or any other Third World place "sold" by a World Organization based on its poverty (minority) level to a major company (bid) only to have them bed the guys in said place government and rape natural resources belonging to the people of the said place at nada compensation, screwing them and global future generations. You know what's sad-- the conservative apathy towards the power of global demi-gods, and hate towards large and largely ineffective stuck in time and partisan politics federal governments. There's nothing like being screwed from one end (taxes) and the other end (cheap labor, natural resources, poor quality product). Long live corporations over government, hell, long live corporate hegemony over countries! How long before Canada and China gets to vote? Media is in the business of news. Coca cola is not in the business of news. If you think the media has too much influence over political runs (first prove that they have an "agenda" and don't just happen to be covering the news, nature of the business), why would you think the corporations wouldn't have as much if not more influence with the "thinking" public? They've got enough money to give exit polling a new twist. Isn't it enough that the media covered who buys their coffee at Starbucks and who buys their coffee at Dunkin Donuts or what party shops at Target and what party shops at Walmart? Aren't we tired of being statistics yet? That is all we are when big business comes to town and drives the little business away.

The unholy trinity of Government, Big Business, and Religion is almost complete. Government abandoned the average citizen with bailouts for businesses, and a supreme court ruling today that gives business the ability to buy any seat in congress , then banks and Big businesses responded by denying loans to small business, ignoring the foreclosed and unemployed, and awarding big bonuses to their own.The final nail in the coffin for our sociey will be when Religion joins the conservative agenda and abandons concern for the poor, the disenfranchised, and the economically manipulated, in favor of dogmatic arguments about who's right, abortion, and sexuality. Wait... that's what has happened!! WE ARE IN TROUBLE

This about sums it up for my feelings on the matter:
"If corporations are capable of making the public do their bidding, then why isn’t everyone driving their Edsels to Circuit City to purchase Betamax video recorders?

The answer, of course, is that Americans are not imbeciles who mindlessly succumb to corporate advertising campaigns. We are fully capable of evaluating corporate speech on its merits; thus, we do not need “protection” from it." - Bert Gall

That a corporation has the same voice as myself or any other American not only is ludicrous but the death of democracy. Notre Dame has a lot to be proud of, but NOT this Supreme Court Justice! A government not ruled of the corporation, for the corporation, and by the corporation! Liberal, conservative, marxist, socialist, communist, libertarian, Nazi, or etc. this is surely not what the founders wanted! They knew the wrath of the ruling class that controlled England and wanted to avoid that by a democracy! What has lasted for over 200 years has been undone by idealogues! May God have mercy on the United States of America!

Corporations have already taken over our country through lobbyists and the election process (which is more a contest in fundraising than qualifications to serve the people). Would love to see any of the deluded Constitution thumpers here try to run for office without bending over to their corporate pimps. This just gives them a bigger tool to sway already feeble minds. There will be no safeguards to control their content leaving them to put out whatever 'swiftboat' lies they choose to. They have us too strung up by the kahunas with what little morsel of employment they might throw our way to keep us beholden and fearful. What a pathetic lot we are.

i'm done, i give up. i had so much hope after the last elections. i didn't realize what whimps the dems are. repub/dem all the same, just trying to keep their jobs where they do absoulutly nothing to help anyone but themselves. can we have a do-over with the political system?

"Perverts of capitalism." I gotta admit, that's a new one.

Since most politicians are nothing but hookers in suits, you might as well let them service the corporations. I mean they do anyway. And, you'll still vote for them because the have a D beside their name. Don't forget Wall Street is populated by Democrats.

This decision will do more harm to America than anyone will realize, until they look back on the wasted landscape Edward Gibbon-fashion in 1000 years.

Heavily financed special interests have been slowly eroding our government for the worst for the past 120 years. A corporation can act with impunity, marching towards profit at the detriment of the common benefit. It has no conscience. It cannot mourn or feel sorrow. It does not fall in love. It only feels these emotions through its human actors, and we all know how easy it is to ignore something when it does not affect one directly.

The influence of foreign actors, which was greatly feared by the founders, cannot be underemphasized. Further, the importance of minimizing the ability of one group to control the electoral process is imperative to the success of a democracy. While you can argue that people are free to make their own decisions, this is out of step with reality and ignores the fact that many people have no other source of information beyond what is spoon fed to them.

Under current law personal political speech is regulated to assuring faith in the democratic process. For example, a civil servant may not send an email from a personal account on a lunch break that indicates support for or disparages a particular candidate without being in violation of the Hatch Act. Certain federal court employees cannot engage in political action beyond voting - even display of a political sign in ones home is prohibited by the rules.

The corporate form as it currently exists did not even exist at the time of the bill of rights. Corporate America has done a fabulous job of conflating its issues with the mantra of personal "rights" to sneak its agenda past the unquestioning passificm of the masses.

I see enough corruption with the system in its current state in my job. It is certain to degenerate further.

Lastly, it is interesting that the judges themselves have no restrictions on receipt of gifts from coroproate interests. I'm sure they want to keep the juices flowing. All they have to do is report the donations. Justice Thomas received a $19,000 bible, a $15,000 bust of Abraham Lincoln, a $5,000 check to pay for a relative's college expenses, $1200 worth of new tires. I sure wish someone thought so highly of me. The corporations obviously already know where to put their money - in a place where the American voter has no vote. And these valued "reporting requirements" eschewed by the majority opinion as the balance to the now unlimited funds corporate america can throw into elections certainly are working in this context, aren't they.

Because this ruling is constitutionally based, it will be difficult for congress to react to it in any meaningful way. At a minimum, there should be a complete restriction on overall election spending - from any source.

Lady Justice certainly shed a tear today.

When the Bill of Rights was written, corporations were not legally considered to be persons. Such an odd notion was not enacted into law until 1886, apparently with the understanding that it was a limited but convenient fiction for certain legal matters. Our founding fathers certainly did not consider a corporation to be an individual who would speak and vote with a moral and social conscience. The only real interest of those in control of corporations is maximizing profits so that ultimately their own compensation can be maximized. Our founders would be dumfounded by today’s incredibly irresponsible ruling by the Supreme Court that could literally mark the end of our country as a truly democratic republic. We must urge Congress to introduce and pass a bill that denies a corporation is a person, ASAP. History will be our judge.

Actually, under the 14th amendment, institutions aka corporations have the same rights as a human. Theoretically, they can can vote, run for office and what not. Thank Mr. Nader for this information.

The hacks on our Supreme Court have pounded in the final nail in our democracy's coffin. Corporations are not citizens, they are not individuals, therefore, they cannot have constitutional rights bestowed on them, by an activist Supreme Court, making laws as they go along. If we must, serious considerations should be entertained, in the impeachment of some of these hacks. They are not defending our constitution, they are rewriting it. Didn't the Bush Clowns promise that they were going to follow the Constitution not rewrite it? I thought I heard them say something to that effect, but what is their word, they are from the same gang as Bush&Cheney.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Guess Johnny R thought this would be a good week to slip this clunker out, what with Haiti and Brown getting all the press attention.

So now corporations can spend as much as individuals can on Super Bowl AND political ads.

Just like the majesty of French justice, allowing rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges of Paris.

John Paul and Ruth may, like Teddy Kennedy, believe they're immortal.

But they aren't. Better let Barack replace them before Senate majority is diluted any further. Unless of course they want to be replaced with more Scalitos.

Time to change Senate rules.

Time to change corporate governance and proxy rules big time.

Time to nationalize the banks if, as expected, there's another aftershock from the 08 crash.

Obviously the 5 man majority on SCt will stop at nothing in turning back the clock to 1930.

Handwriting is on the wall, Dems.

Couldn't be clearer.

O, and can we have the Truth Commission NOW?

WoW,
It's a new tune in Amerika;

'March of the Tea-Shirts'

Heartburn: Your reply to my earlier post about foreign owned U.S. domiciled corporations makes no sense. Foreign individuals in the United States have no rights under the United States Constitution. Whatever rights they have are contained in treaties between the United States and their respective countries. The right to Free Speech is not among them.

Answering those who suggest the ruling merely puts corporations on equal footing - wrong. Corporations and unions have always been able to lobby, donate to political efforts, form PACs, etc. This ruling means that both unions and corporations will be able to launch whole scale political campaigns in favor of an individual, party or cause with no legal restrictions put on them by Congress. A right neither have had for more than a century.

Posted by: Tom | January 21, 2010 6:40 PM

Tom- our government does not have the right to restrict anyones freedom of speech -regardless of their citizenship-the bill of rights has been clear that the rights of an individual are inherently.

Corporations -since the law was enacted- have been restricted from free POLITICAL-speech unless they had a media outlet... this ruling eliminated that condition. Example: GE’s ownership of MSNBC provided GE with a channel for political speech that was not restricted- while the plaintiff in this case- was restricted because they did not have the unconstitutional “media” exemption.
-
To your comment that they haven’t had this right for a century is moot- a right is not granted, nor can it be taken away by the government. The previous law-now determined to be unconstitutional- mandated that the government should stop violating the 1st amendment rights of the corporations and unions- basically restoring the rights of free speech to corps and unions. This was the only constitutional decision that the court could have arrived at if they are acting on and reading the 1st amendment as it was intended. Surprisingly enough there were 4 justices that have trouble with a relatively simple concept like freedom of speech..
BTW - corporations are taxed and regulated by the government... why should they not have a voice?
-
Would you really believe that a union and corporation members should have their speech limited solely on the basis of how they choose to organize themselves?
-
Interestingly- if you read through some of the details – in oral arguments in this case the government actually took a position that if the political speech that was being challenged was in book form – the government believed that they would restrict that as well. Would you support that as well?

Now the Corporations have the same power the unions and 527s have. I did not like how it worked before and now I hate it. Its time we stop the money from Corporations, unions, and 527s.

While the tbaggers talk of the "average joe" please explain one good reason, just one, why this is beneficial to the "average joe"?

While the tbaggers talk of the "average joe" please explain one good reason, just one, why this is beneficial to the "average joe"?

Posted by: bill r. | January 22, 2010 11:09 AM

Removing an unconstitutional restriction on 1st amendment rights is one---

Corporations are groups of average joes- whether they are stockholders or employees---Why would you restrict their rights because of the way they choose to organize?

BTW- "tbaggers" is a homophobic term-- can you find a more mature way to express yourself?

One can only wonder how far we are from the ideals set forth in Max Barry's "Jennifer Government" - where the world is no longer run so much by governments, but instead by companies. Citizens take on the name of their company as their last name, which gives them identity (ie. Janet McDonalds, Joe Tribune). It's not so sci-fi/fantasy after all....

What a ludicrous comparison, Big Business and the unions. What is the present number of union members in America? According to the latest statistics, there are 17.6 million workers in unions, 12.5% of the workforce in America. Now, the "clever", Republican-Libertarians come along and want to prop up, an illusion, "Big" unions, pure fabrication, against " Big Business ", in order to hide the fact that the hacks on the Supreme Court, just threw " Big Business" a bone, America. Not only did Big Business invite our government to destroy unions, it has now given total control of America's elections to the Corporations. I know the Bandits in the Boardrooms and the Weasels on Wall Street just ordered a few more filets anda few more casks of caviar !! Way to go, Bush&Cheney fringe, you did it again. Now, it is our electoral process you have sent down the tubes, due to the political hacks you appointed to our Supreme Court.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, LIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Oh please heartburn....an unconstitutional restriction that has been there for 100 years? Sounds more like it was the rule of law till overturned by the bush/co appointments. Your average Joe arguments hold no water what so ever. They have the same right as every other "individual". Not to mention that the corporation chooses, not the employee. Tbaggers named themselves, not me....but if it is a crusade for more mature posts...don't let bias get in the way. maybe Libtard, and some could use a dose.

Posted by: bill r. | January 22, 2010 1:13 PM

Read the history bill- the new ruling only overturned precedence from 1990 and 2003- by saying that corporations have a constitutional right to free political speech... It ruled that it is unconstitutional for FEC to decide what corporate speech is "acceptable” or not-are you really OK with a federal bureaucrat making decisions like this?

--
The 100 year old language (your rule of law) where corps are restricted form directly funding a campaign are still in place.

What the HELL! Chief Justice John Roberts is one of many POISON PILLS LEFT BY GEORGE BUSH FOR THIS COUNTRY TO SWALLOW! This ruling which overturns a centuries old restriction on election limits is UNAMERICAN!! First of all a corporation is not a person, second, a public owned corporation has many facets, not one. The present ruling allows too much freedom, now the corporations, health care, insurance, wall street, pharmaceuticals, media and all the others will be able to buy their own representative or senator. Let us take FOX NEWS AND MEDIA. They will be able to spend and put their own representatives and senators and presidents in office, by contributing their unlimited donations, YET THE OWNER OF FOX IS NOT EVEN A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, SEND MURDOCH BACK TO AUSTRALIA! whiteagle38

iran number 1, russia number 1, usa supreme court number 1 fascists in world today

Sorry, R J.

Rupert is a US citizen.

He got it so he could acquire broadcast media.

Though maybe his file should be reviewed for misrepresentations......

C Span has this fixation on architecture, particularly the Roman forum style so popular in Warshington.

The "documentary" on the Supreme Court building is a case in point.

I can see why Justice Brandeis did not like the building and never moved his office there, prefering to work out of his bedroom.

But one important point that program made: there are plenty of extra offices in that building, e.g., for extra Justices.

As in: during Civil War, Supreme Court had 13, rather than 9.

Not that I would advocate going to 13 Justices.

Eleven would be a better number.

"Removing an unconstitutional restriction on 1st amendment rights is one---

Corporations are groups of average joes- whether they are stockholders or employees---Why would you restrict their rights because of the way they choose to organize?
"

Posted by: heartburn |

So when the Corporation decides to raise your Healthcare cost by %50.00 that is what the average Joe wants? So when the Corporation decides to kick you out of your healthplan because you are a risk to their profits, I guess that's what the average Joe wants? Nice concept.

So, when the Oil Corporation decides that you should pay $200 per barrel- that must be what the average Joe wants because afterall Corporation are just made up of average Joe's who wants to choose how they organize.

Wow. . .that is a very disturbing explanation. I guess the next thing for Corporation is: setting wages back to 10 cents an hour- because that's what the average Joe wants!

I apologize for entering the fray a bit late, but I have an excuse. I wanted to read the Supreme Court’s opinion(s) in this case before taking sides. (The Supreme Court’s site was overloaded by those looking for the slip opinion, so I have only now had the opportunity to read it.) I think it would have helped some of you had you done the same. It’s good to know what you are talking about.
.
Given the Supreme Court’s actual ruling, many of the negative posts here as simply expressions of hysteria. The Court’s ruling does not constitute the end of democracy; nor does it permit corporations to “buy” a candidate. And, no, the sky is not falling. The Court simply held that the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from censoring political speech, including partisan advocacy, by corporations, unions, or any other association or group of people. Corporations are still barred from making direct contributions to any candidate’s campaign.
.
And, contrary to some of the views expressed here, this ruling does not constitute a break with past law. Some of you point to the hundred year old federal law banning advertising or advocacy for or against a federal candidate. The First Amendment to the Constitution, which is more than 100 years older than that law, states in relevant part, that: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” That 100 year old law clearly abridges speech because it attaches criminal and civil penalties for speech involving political advocacy. In Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 215, 220 (1966), and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 39-59 (1976) the Supreme Court held that laws which attach criminal penalties to direct political advocacy (i.e. urging specific votes on candidates or issues) violate the First Amendment. Likewise, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 775-786 (1978), the Court held that a state law could not, in a manner consistent with the First Amendment, abridge political speech simply because the speaker was a corporation. Certainly, the 100 year old federal law is just as burdensome (if not more so) than the laws under consideration in Mills, Buckley, and Bellotti. That is exactly why the Supreme Court ruled as it did in the case under consideration here. Given the holdings in these latter three cases, I have been wondering for some time now why the Court did not strike down the anti-advocacy provisions of the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) a lot sooner.
.
So, let’s all take a step back and take a deep breath. Is that better? Good. Now ask yourself the question: If direct political advocacy by corporations is so evil and so likely to undermine democracy in this country, then why hadn’t it already done so? There was an interval of twenty four (24) years between the holdings in Buckley and Bellotti and the passage of the BCRA (in 2002) - when corporations had every right to engage in direct political advocacy. Why didn’t the sky fall in the interim? Why didn’t one party have a monopoly on politics during that time? (Two Democrats held the office of President in the same time period.)
.
Maybe the sky didn’t fall, and democracy didn’t end in that interval, because voters still exercised their intellect and discriminated between valid and invalid political arguments - regardless of the source. The counter argument - i.e., that direct corporate advocacy in an election is a threat to democracy - requires one to assume that the voting public is so dull minded and incapable of independent thought that people will be persuaded to vote a particular way by the volume of advocacy, rather than its quality. If that is the case, and the federal law provided the only “thin blue line” between democracy and corporate driven anarchy, then we have been in deep, deep trouble for some time already. Democracy requires intelligent and discriminating voters. It is our duty as voters to digest the information disseminated and determine its truth and justice (or its lack of it). If we don’t have voters that do so, we are without democracy now. If we have those voters, then the source of the advocacy shouldn’t matter as long as people do their duty. That’s especially true since corporations (i.e. those with media outlets among their corporate assets) have been exempt from the federal law against direct advocacy all along. And you know that corporate owned media outlets engage in direct advocacy all the time. (Do Fox News and MSNBC ring a bell?)
.
Some of you are annoyed by the fact that the Court has granted First Amendment protection to corporate speech. You claim that corporations aren’t natural people and, thus, have no constitutional rights. That is the wrong view of the matter. The First Amendment protects more than an individual’s right to free speech. In fact, its wording indicates that it is directed at prohibiting a specific governmental activity (i.e. censorship) for the purpose of promoting the free flow of ideas in our society - regardless of the speaker’s identity. If the government can abridge speech simply because it comes from a corporation, union, association or any other assembled group, then it can effectively cut off a significant amount of speech in the market. Most publishing houses, newspapers and internet providers are owned and operated by corporations. It is through this media that most people exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech. If a government could cut it off simply because it comes at the hand of a corporation, then free speech will be valid only for those who speak from soap-boxes or print newspapers and pamphlets in the garage behind their house. Thus, by protecting all speech regardless of its source, the Court has protected the free flow of ideas in the marketplace in a manner beneficial to all. The foregoing is the precise rationale the Supreme Court used in the Bellotti case and last Thursday’s decision to strike down the laws against direct political advocacy by corporations.

John W. First I think you over estimate the American people. I believe the fact that there are a good percentage of people who still believe Obama is a Muslim is a great indication. Then there is the death panels and other issues. One question.......Does free speech belong to the one who can most afford it most? If free speech is afforded to corporations like individuals, then why shouldn't they also have a vote?

John W - as usual, very well written.

BillyR,

"First I think you over estimate the American people." Am I understanding your post correctly that because you think the American are so stupid that they need the gov't to regulate the political messages they receive?

Those that think that BO is a muslim are offset by those that think 9-11 was an inside job.

bill r.,
.
You can point to teabaggers and all kinds of weird ideas about death panels and Obama being a Muslim. On the other hand, I can point to the election of Barack Obama in a year of hotly contested elections. Are you willing to admit the American People made a mistake when they elected him to serve as President? Unless you are willing to make that admission, then you should consider the possibility that you underestimate the American People’s ability to discriminate and discern political speech.
.
In any event, if I have overestimated the American People then all of this stuff about free speech and election campaigning is moot. If what you are saying is true, then we already lack democracy, corporations are no more dangerous with speech than without it, and free speech is totally unnecessary. Don’t worry, be happy.
.
To answer your first question: No, the right to free speech doesn’t belong to the one who can afford it the most. Every nickel, dime and dollar spent on Barack Obama’s campaign by his contributors went to purchase a great deal of free political speech (“free,” at least, in the sense of being free from government restriction). The amounts collected were substantial; so much so, that one should doubt that many corporations would ever be willing to match them. However, to the individual supporter, even his or her few dollars saw his views adequately expressed in the MSM. How, then, faced with this stark reality, can you suggest that free speech belongs only to the highest bidder?
.
You see, the Supreme Court’s decision, itself, provides the answer to the dilemma that pseudo-liberals can’t resolve. In the free marketplace of ideas, the remedy for bad or incorrect speech is more speech of the correct and good sort. The remedy should never be censorship (which is what the BCRA effectively accomplished). The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized that the collective efforts of corporations, unions, and other associations have historically been very effective and proper means of political expression. Associations like the NAACP and the ACLU have long been on the vanguard of political expression. Do you remember the ACLU’s campaign against the Communications Decency Act? Thus, if there is danger in collective or corporate efforts, the answer is for citizens to band together to oppose them collectively with their own speech. Political parties, associations, PACs and non-profit corporations (like the one that sued in the case under discussion) are effective at doing so. I have a hard time believing that corporate speech of the kind that might threaten democracy would go unchecked by such large, well funded groups.
.
To answer your second question: There is no necessary correlation between freedom of speech and the right to vote. Children today have First Amendment rights, even at school; but they don’t have a right to vote. Legal aliens have the right to freedom of speech, but they don’t have the right to vote either. In the days before the 19th Amendment, women didn’t have the right to vote, but they certainly had the First Amendment rights to free speech, free press and to peaceably assemble. So why do you think corporations are supposed to have the right to vote simply because political speech from a corporation has First Amendment protection?
.
The second answer to your second question is: Actually, they do have a right to vote. Every board member, officer, manager, and worker each have the right to vote as long as they are otherwise qualified to vote. The fact that they associate in the form of a corporation doesn’t change this.

I read your post on the USSC decision. I was going to ask you the same thing. Where have you been the last eight years or the past election? You assume people are capable of independent thought. It's just an assumption. How do you explain Americans having to chose between the lesser of two evils (we start off with intelligent arguments reduce down to 30 second moments that make or break a candidate)? How do you explain Americans having a bunch of white guys monopolize the top position in the country thus far? How do you explain the only recent and very real possibility of a woman or minority for these top level positions in our country (part country trends, part media covering existing country trends as novelty fest, a self feeding loop propelling our culture forward by tiny increments, decade to decade)? Principles are nice, but reality, or principles in practice, have proven to be more than black and white. People are swayed by everything other than their own mental processes because there are people out there who make a living researching ways that tap into those human subconscious tendencies. I wouldn't build my life on an assumption, but I can understand why building a free society on the independent thought assumption causes less harm. It is important. Freedom is important. You can appreciate the ruling, but by accepting this as a point for free speech, you have to appreciate that we do live in a hierarchy and just because everyone has the same say in principle it doesn't mean that some, more then others, will enjoy its intended purpose in practice; to be heard. This may not be grounds to deny individual rights to freedom, but it still remains a real concern for those who refuse to stick their heads in the sand. On another thread, wow was exercising independent thought, you are advocating status qua. Conservatives believe in independent thought until thinking otherwise helps to lemming-nize their opponents. Conservatives assume that liberals chose the the D over the R because they are incapable of thinking or deciding for themselves what is right for them. Conservatives assume people like wow chose concern for the power of corporations over free speech. It doesn't have to be exclusive. "In the free marketplace of ideas, the remedy for bad or incorrect speech is more speech of the correct and good sort." A guarantee of speech or more speech does not guarantee an increase of more speech of the correct and good sort. The social networking boom is a prime example. By the people and for the people. Wikipedia is another example. By the people for the people are the results more speech or better speech? The fact that access to formerly inaccessible communication channels made the difference between an old kind of candidate (older schooled experienced veteran typical background of those who normally turn out to vote) and newer kind of candidate (younger schooled less experienced novice unusual background reflecting those who do and don't normally turn out to vote) shows there was an acce$$ issue before and it makes a big difference after its introduction. One could argue it is the antidote to corporate ads and gov control. One could argue for corporate speech (ads), no gov limits, as long as you provide others with the same tools and opportunities (via new communication methods, becomes tricky as long as the corporates don't start to own and indirectly mess with your expression when it proves to be profitable, gov can't).

The second answer to your second question is: Actually, they do have a right to vote. Every board member, officer, manager, and worker each have the right to vote as long as they are otherwise qualified to vote.
Posted by: John W. | January 24, 2010 2:28 PM

That would be the same with free speech. Each member has the same...please explain who was denied free speech. Anyone who believes the opening of flood gates for more money and influence from where ever in our elections is flat wrong. It is the opposite that should happen.

Those that think that BO is a muslim are offset by those that think 9-11 was an inside job.

Posted by: Terry | January 24, 2010 12:46 PM

Unless of course we can find more money on one or the other to influence their beliefs.

BillyR,

Welcome to Freedom.

The solution is easy: pass a law to require that if you are advertising ads, then you should put your name on it. I have seen ads with: "Citizens for Candidate A," when 90% of his funding came from a Utility company! What a sham! The people need to know who is supporting this ad so they can decide!

bill r.,
.
You ask, “[P] please explain who was denied free speech[?]” In asking, it appears that you erroneously believe the First Amendment only operates when government action threatens the free speech of an individual. That is simply not true. The Supreme Court said so in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), and I quote:
.
“The court below framed the principal question in this case as whether and to what extent corporations have First Amendment rights. We believe that the court posed the wrong question. The Constitution often protects interests broader than those of the party seeking their vindication. The First Amendment, in particular, serves significant societal interests. The proper question therefore is not whether corporations ‘have’ First Amendment rights and, if so, whether they are coextensive with those of natural persons. Instead, the question must be whether … [the law] abridges expression that the First Amendment was meant to protect. We hold that it does.
.
… The speech proposed by appellants is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection. [¶] ‘The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment. . . . Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.” (Citation omitted; bracketed material and paragraph markings added.)
.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. at pages 775-776. The Court made numerous elaborations on this point. (Particularly at pages 777-778, and footnotes 12 and 14.) I commend the case to your reading. (The whole opinion can be found at http://supreme.justia.com/us/435/765/case.html .)
.
So, as you can see from the case cited, the Court has taken the view that “everyone’s” First Amendment rights suffer whenever speech is censored, regardless of the source. This was the same view taken by the U.S. Supreme Court when it just struck down the limits the BCRA imposed on direct political advocacy by corporations. As I mentioned in my first post (above), this view is consistent with the language of the First Amendment which is worded more in terms of prohibiting congressional censorship than in protecting an individual’s rights. (Compare the language of First Amendment to that of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth.)
.
I suppose you might be seeing red at this point (because you don’t agree with the Court’s analysis), so let me offer a second answer: The corporation’s rights are violated by such censorship. In the above cited case, the Court also indicated that corporations have First Amendment rights:
.
“The Massachusetts court did not go so far as to accept appellee's argument that corporations, as creatures of the State, have only those rights granted them by the State. … The court below recognized that such an extreme position could not be reconciled either with the many decisions holding state laws invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment when they infringe protected speech by corporate bodies, … or with decisions affording corporations the protection of constitutional guarantees other than the First Amendment. … (Fifth Amendment double jeopardy); … (Fourth Amendment). …. (Numerous string citations omitted.)
.
Bellotti, 435 U. S. at page 778, footnote 14. In that footnote, the Court cited ten of its own decisions for the proposition that corporations have protected speech under the First Amendment. Thus, the view that corporations have no constitutional rights, or First Amendment rights in particular, is simply untrue.
.
I am not trying to confuse you, but there is also a third answer in many such cases – namely, that the censorship infringes the rights of the corporate officers responsible for promulgation of the speech. The board of directors of a corporation is normally required to approve political advocacy and any expenditures for it; board members are often the same people who come up with the ideas for particular advocacy; and the same board members and/or principal corporate officers are the people who go to jail in the event of a criminal prosecution for the speech (as was true with the BCRA). Certainly when their ideas are prevented from the marketplace, and they are threatened by prosecution, it is they who suffer the greatest injury by government censorship.
.
Remember: Not all corporations are huge businesses with thousands of employees and vast material assets. A corporation is merely a business form recognized as a “person” created by law. A single individual can incorporate himself and/or his family business under the laws of many states. That is a valid incorporation as long as corporate functions and formalities, imposed by law, are carried out. Likewise, a handful of people can incorporate as a non-profit corporation for the very purpose of engaging in political advocacy. (In fact, the plaintiff in the present case was and is just such a corporation.) I know two attorneys with seven employees that incorporated. If those two attorneys were barred from practicing law, their corporation would cease to exist. When a corporation consists of a small handful of people like that - board members, principal officers and employees included - it is patently ludicrous to suggest that abridgment of their corporate speech doesn’t infringe their individual rights as well.
.
I have little to say about the balance of your comments. A free society must both welcome and accommodate freedom. You are unwilling to believe that our society can accommodate the freedom of people functioning in corporate form when they expend money for direct political advocacy. We will simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

* * * * *
Posted by: brown | January 24, 2010 6:22 PM
.
Where have I been “the last eight years or the past election?” I was right here in California - where I have been for most of the last 50 years. And, no, I do not merely assume people are capable of independent thought. I have seen numerous examples of it over the years, including the last election.
.
In 1992, when corporations had every right to engage in direct political advocacy (because the BCRA did not exist), Americans elected Bill Clinton President, at the same time turning out the incumbent Republican administration. Despite a nasty media blitz in which Bill Clinton was depicted as a hillbilly, a disaster waiting to happen, and a “tax-and-spend” Democrat, the American public was still able to discern his favorable qualities and decide that he was better than the incumbent (who had presided over a flat economy and who didn’t keep his promises not to raise taxes).
.
California is reliably three-fifths Democrat, and it has been that way for as long as I can remember. However, Californians have often crossed party lines to elect Republican governors, senators and congressmen (or “congresspersons”). Three of the last four governors have been Republicans. In the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Californians actually recalled a previously popular governor (Gray Davis) to put Arnold in office. This is the same reliably three-fifths Democrat state that helped to elect Barack Obama.
.
Obama carried both New Jersey and Virginia in the November 2008 election. Last year, both of them elected Republican governors. In the case of New Jersey, the election resulted in the loss by the incumbent Democrat who supported Obama.
.
In the last special senate race, the People of Massachusetts (a state that is reliably three-fourths Democrat) elected a Republican to fill the vacancy left by the death of Senator Kennedy.
.
In all of the instances cited above, voters had to go against their prior political affiliations and inclinations to elect the particular candidate. This was often done in the face of substantial propaganda from all parties to the elections. Had voters not exercised independent judgment and discrimination, one could safely assume they would have voted for their own party candidates and/or incumbents. Therefore, the fact that they voted as they did, and crossed party lines, is strong evidence that voters do, in fact, exercise independent judgment in making political choices. I’m surprised you don’t see it that way.
.
How do I explain Americans “having a bunch of white guys monopolize the top position in the country thus far?” That’s simple. There are still many more “white guys” in this country than there are non-white “guys” - and that is doubly true for the percentage of candidates for office. Similarity means familiarity, familiarity engenders trust, and voters vote for whom they trust. If you ask me if I think racial discrimination has a lot to do with it, I would tell you: You betcha. Then again, the election of Barack Obama is a good example of how the voting public consciously overcame that racial hurdle.
.
I wouldn’t make such broad generalizations about conservatives. Conservatives assume liberals (or those who describe themselves as liberals) will vote Democrat because so-called liberals and Democrats identify with each other and have an agreement upon the issues. This is not a matter of “lemmingization” (if that is a word). It is only the result of drawing lines and categories. In any event, Democrats, too, are guilty of casting their Republican foes in the role of lemmings, ‘knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers,’ and other various and sundry cavemen, for not being able to see through the false propaganda of the right. None of these characterizations are particularly valid. (For the record, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, although I once was a Republican.)