I know this is a political topic, but its too serious not to make everyone aware of. Today the supreme court ruled that corporations should have no restrictions in deciding political campaigns. They are free to make ads, they are free to campaign for their candidate, and they may also be free to soon contribute directly to politicians with unlimited funds.

This is IMHO disastrous for our country ,allowing corporations free reign to influence elections when their treasury is endless compared to that of the people. This was judicial activism at it worst and its a sad day for our country and our judicial system. I don't know of anyone on the right or the left who believe corporations should not have restrictions on campaign financing. There is enough evidence out there that demonstrates the negative effects of corporations when no such restrictions are made and enforced. The question here today is not if this is a horrible decision, but if we can ever recover from it.

In an age where we need more restrictions on lobbyists and big business influence on politicians, we get a worse case scenario, an undoing of the long held restrictions already in place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZeNRrWNxIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJnncaId494
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IKQe1-fox4

It could be disastrous but maybe it won't. Maybe it will just balance out with the labor unions having no restrictions. Maybe corporations are not the evil some think they are. They do after all employ a huge amount of people. when corporate America is doing good the country is doing good. People have good jobs and the standard of living improves for everyone. So I don't really know, could be good, could be bad. But it was probablely done to allow Soros to be able to do more.

But as far as political topics goes I can't see how this could be more important than the health care debate (thankfully should be in the toilet now), climate change (finally proven as a hoax), Cap& Trade (should be dead, definitely on life support) and a ton of other things.

Maybe it will just balance out with the labor unions having no restrictions.

Well the labor unions now have no restrictions because of this ruling, not the other way around. Corporations and labor unions both have possibly no restrictions. Before this ruling, both labor unions and corporations had restrictions.

Maybe corporations are not the evil some think they are. They do after all employ a huge amount of people.

I don't think corporations are at all evil, the question is should an institution designed to profit have influence over who gets elected. The obvious answer to me is "hell no". There is also question as to who runs these corporations, to assume American entities, or american ideals are behind corporate soft money is foolish at best, in fact a recent story just emerged that the AIG bail out money was something France heavily pushed for. Why should France have a huge say in who gets elected?

So I don't really know, could be good, could be bad.

These are plenty of case studies when the Soviet Union broke up and all these communist countries switched to capitalism. In every instance where restrictions on corporate money was not put into place, massive government corruption resulted. We already seen how the insurance companies have been negatively influencing the health bill already to the point where its now a bad idea to pass it. I cant see that and think it may be a good idea to have no restrictions for corporations.

But as far as political topics goes I can't see how this could be more important than the health care debate

I'm hoping this bill dies myself. Without a smart robust public option this bill is not worth passing. This bill is an example of how big money influences our government to our detriment, and to the advantage of companies to make money. This is a far more important issue because make no mistake about this, our political system will never be the same again and will dramatically transform how politicians get voted in, and how bills get passed.

OK, So actually read about it now, my 1st reply was done with out knowing any of the details.

Now that I've read it, I'm really starting to think. Whats the big deal? The change has nothing to do with the lobbying that already goes on with legislation. The only thing I see changing is that the comercials we see at election times are going to say this message was paid for by __________ instead of ________.

The big deal is the new precedence it sets. It creates a new and powerful way to question and challenge all forms of restrictions from direct contributions to even lobbying.

Its not as simple as "its only a commercial", not even close. For the short term the conservative party will benefit from this ruling because its no secret the republican party is butt buddies with big money, not to say many Dems don't get a lil corporate curious as well and get in on that action like the blue dogs and liberman. But I hope that does not temper the outrage for republicans and conservatives, since this will only help their party for the short term, for the long term every politician will be competing for big business contributions which will dwarf any other contribution routes whether its grass roots or even donating directly to a politician.

I don't see that at all. This won't benifit either party over the other.

Even if Big Biz was behind Republicans, The Unions are behind the Democrats, The Minorities are behind the democracts. It balances out.

But the biggest thing that is going to help the Republican party and conservitive movement in this country is the Democrats. They took control in 2006 and took unstopable control 1 year ago. They've done everything you can think of wrong in the past 3 years. When they lose in November they have no one to blame but themselves.

Yeah woot, Palin for President!
Obama's guarantee of a second term.

But the biggest thing that is going to help the Republican party and conservitive movement in this country is the Democrats. They took control in 2006 and took unstopable control 1 year ago. They've done everything you can think of wrong in the past 3 years. When they lose in November they have no one to blame but themselves.

Off topic, really I see this supreme court ruling as something that goes way beyond right vs left and the typical rhetoric, if you are ok with corporations having more influence over who is elected, then that's your position and perogative, I just don't understand how you can think that would somehow be a good thing considering the facts and the evidence of corrupting influence of greed.

as for your rhetoric, well unstoppable is hardly accurate considering they haven't actually done anything. I'm still waiting for them to do something I voted for, and so far I haven't seen them take any steps to fix the mess that the previous conservative administration has created, (+ $10 trillion deficit, lol @ fiscally conservative republicans)

BTW, did you know the health care bill would reduce the deficit? Always designed to, and would have been a fiscally responsible direction to take. Did you know that by wanting to kill the health care reform bill, you are essentially trying to stop reducing the deficit? That fact is kinda hushed on the right side.

I don't really feel the need for political discussions here unless it relates to WWII. I have yet to see any real good come of this type of activity on the forum. I do understand that we would like to share our views with those who matter to us, and it can be done privately.

It won't be long before a Corporation is allowed to run for office. It may sound ridiculous and unlikely now, but I'll bet it will happen within our children's lives, maybe sooner.