| Author: Larry Wallberg | Date: 2010-03-03 |
Email: |
Home page |
| I've yet to see a cogent argument against that Supreme Court decision. It will cover many organizations -- like the ACLU and NOW, to give just two examples -- that aren't exactly corporations.
Anyway, don't the richest corporations already own the American political process? Ultimately, the ruling will prevent the poorer, less possible groups from being deprived of their rights. The mega-wealthy companies always buy their way around the law. |
|
| Author: Larry Wallberg | Date: 2010-03-03 |
Email: |
Home page |
| Less "possible"? I meant to type "powerful." That's what happens when an old fart hasn't had a full cup of coffee.
And what snide innuendo is ReCAPTCHA making? "Reasonable execuses" indeed! |
|
| Author: marc | Date: 2010-03-03 |
Email: |
Home page |
| I would like to see the ACLU's annual budget compared to the propaganda budget of Exxon Mobil...
Of course, now I wonder if I should feel pretty, as the ReCAPTCHA says "be venus." |
|
| Author: Larry Wallberg | Date: 2010-03-03 |
Email: |
Home page |
| The budget discrepancy is exactly my point. Because of its huge wealth, Exxon Mobil will find a way to get out its political message no matter how many legal strictures are placed against it. But the ACLU is far more hampered by laws against "corporate" involvement. The Citizens United decision makes it easier for all groups to get out their messages. So, yeah, some groups we can't stand will be able to buy advertising -- but so will those groups we support.
More to the point, though, the decision disallows some bans on free speech. Any furtherance of the principle of free speech ought to be cheered by us atheists, even though we may not like the ideas of those who get to speak freely. Even "President Assorted" seems to agree with me, since I was urged to append his/her name to this comment. |
|
| Author: marc | Date: 2010-03-03 |
Email: |
Home page |
| I suppose I should read the majority opinion in its entirety before I get too bent out of shape. Assuming they aren't authored by Scalia, most Supreme Court decisions make some valid arguments (even if they are completely wrong). BTW, have you ever read any opinion by Scalia? Even in his official legal writings, he sounds like an undereducation asshole. | |
Records 1 to 5 of 5