It is ridiculous to think that money equates to free speech. Will corporations start raiding already depleted retirement funds to campaign against candidates? Or will they reduce the Big Boy's and Girl's Pay?

Obviously the former, because they still paid well even when the companies were run into the ground. And now with all the griping about how the gov't was telling GM how to do business, GM will not be able to pay the gov't back. Will GM be able to run campaign ads against the people who bailed them out?

Will the Supreme Court Republicans Of The United States (SCROTUS)
give Corporate Personhood the ultimate weapon over us mere mortals?

........... and they have the gall to call this a democracy?

The most activist court in US history, whose ideological firebrand thinks the maxim "stare decisis" ("let the judgement stand") applies only to those rulings favoring the few over the many, will now reconsider whether it was too successful in restricting the rights of the few to remodel our perceptions.

To allow these black-robed sophisits to call themselves "conservative" doesn't pass the laugh test.

The legal fiction of "corporate personhood", which is the foundation for all justifications of corporate "rights" to free speech, must be ended once and for all.

If the pro-corporate justices on the court vote, as expected, to give even more power to corporations, they should be impeached for being such extreme constitutional deformers that they are actually violating the constitution they swore to uphold. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say corporations are human persons entitled to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

If they rule for more corporate influence on elections, that will be one of the last nails in the coffin of our dying democracy.

Apparently, these mental mutants think they don't already have enough control over the bogus election process in the US? It's another attempt to strengthen the already fascistic grip on the US political system, plain and simple, but dressed up under the rubric of "free-speech rights".

What horseshit. Mussolini would have been proud.

As Jefferson said, government should be a bulwark for the common man between the monied and powerful interests, not an enabler of the latter against the former.

You wonder just what it will take to get the People off of their asses to remove these overweening thugs from their comfortable and privileged hiding holes - yet another of Jefferson's now-forgotten invocations.

The CONGRESSIONAL CORRUPTION AND GREED, in conjunction with the corporations that feed it, which has emerged in the past few years has finally morphed into a fatal disease for our country. The Constitution has been shredded by the congressional shills who have completely handed over our country to the Coporatocracy.

The Supreme Court should not consider nourishing this fatal illness that has befallen our country, but rather should exert every effort to return it to the health of a functioning "DEMOCRACY," which is completely SEPARATE from the Corporatocracy.

How could any rational human look upon a corporation as a CITIZEN and give it the rights of one???? There is no commonality between the two.

To the contrary, the Supreme Court should totally deny "personhood" to any entity whose sole function is to amass huge amounts of money for no other purpose than its own self-enrichment with no communal obligations but to itself. Not to do so is to insult every single real person in America.

While the rest of the citizenry of our country is tightening its collective belt in the face of an economy that is falling apart, these corporations, who have been responsible for the catastrophy, are handing out billions of dollars in bonuses. This is not the behavior of a "concerned citizen" but rather an entity that thinks it has the right to whatever it can garner by any means, regardless of the effect it has on the citizenry.

Only thinking individual citizens (not collective Boards of Directors) can understand the extreme importance of keeping America a country governed by the "rule of law" and NOT by the irresponsible pursuit of wealth and power such as we are witnessing today by indiscriminate corporations!"

I'm sorry but the appointment of Roberts, Corporate America's most favorite go-to corporate trial, to Chief Justice courtesy of both parties in the Senate along with other corporate shills by both parties these past 20 years makes it highly unlikely that corporate spending will undergo any serious reform other than create more legal loopholes.

I noticed that some people brought up valid points about corporate "personhood". I don't expect that to be taken seriously by SCOTUS either. Did you know by the way that Robert Bork actually opposed corporate "personhood"? Ted Kennedy was dumb on this one to not pay attention to that issue. Instead, like most pols, he focuses on abortion, religion, affirmative action, and other social issues but rarely on the economic issues which most cases consist of.

The only way we'll get a SCOTUS to actually reform corporate spending is to elect pols in both chambers of Congress ala Kucinich, Feingold, Sanders, etc ... and to elect presidential candidates ala Nader and Mckinney.

A title with less pretense of objectivity and more descriptive accuracy would be helpful here.

Conceivably someone on the Court will indeed "analyze," but that is not at all the substance of the article.

The Court will consider gutting the small protection American elections retain.

If any reason exists to imagine that their decision to do so will have anything to do with an analysis of the American Constitution, no indication of it appears here.

It is one warm-bodied American pitted in votes against what are essentially thousands of cold-bodied robots created by the Corporation.

You don't stand a chance. You have lost your country.

if they can go back to 1907 when they made laws saying corporations should not be able to influence elections, then they need to go back further to discover that there never was a ruling that said a corporation is a person

see thom hartmanns book 'unequal protection"

So you guys are finally catching on to the corporate personhood farce ? That's awesome ! You may recall that once upon a time there lived an ordinary community of people who found it absolutely necessary to separate the corporate C.E.O. of the east india trading company from profits gained through the politics of unfair tax practice. The Boston tea. Now check out ultimatecivics.com and help separate the corporate person from its hood. Spread the word. And the truth shall make you free ;) (:

free speech belongs to people not to corporations

corporations are not people

shame on roberts and all the others who would even consider ruling that they are

So you guys are finally catching on to the corporate personhood farce ? That's awesome ! You may recall that once upon a time there lived an ordinary community of people who found it absolutely necessary to separate the corporate C.E.O. of the east india trading company from profits gained through the politics of unfair tax practice. The Boston tea. Now check out ultimatecivics.com and help separate the corporate person from its hood. Spread the word. And the truth shall make you free ;) (:

SCOTUS will not be deciding on corporate personhood. They will only rule on free speech rights of the corporations. They have already agreed that corporations have rights. They have not ruled that corporations are persons but through "stare decisis" they rule as if corporations were persons.

Corporations are not Federal level actors. They are chartered by states to do business within a state.

As corporations have congress in their pocket it will be very hard to get SCOTUS or congress to address corporate "personhood". However, we the people can by voting locally to not recognize corporations as persons within your town, county, or state.

This is very doable. Get off your ass and "make it so".

Government by, for and of Money. The trouble is that money isn't worth what it used to be. That is probably why the really rich are worried.

The truth and logic of these brilliant jurists is so plain and beautiful, it brings tears to the eyes of patriotic Americans:

1) A business is a human being;

2) A dollar bill is human speech;

3) Any questions?

A corporation is a person as Jesus is God. It's a matter of faith, not logic.

Progressive people need to put concerted effort into restoring campaigns regarding campaign finance and electoral reform. We will not have the right people in office, or the right government, until we change how campaigns are funded and candidates elected.

Progressive people need to put concerted effort into restoring campaigns regarding campaign finance and electoral reform. We will not have the right people in office, or the right government, until we change how campaigns are funded and candidates elected.

Progressive people need to put concerted effort into restoring campaigns regarding campaign finance and electoral reform. We will not have the right people in office, or the right government, until we change how campaigns are funded and candidates elected.

It's being reported RIGHT NOW that Sonia Sotomayor favors overturning the law that restrains corporate speech.

Like Obama, she's wasted no time in turning her back on progressives.

We were supposed to get a lefty equalizer to Scalito.

This sucks.

Why all the fuss? Nothing could be more reasonable and justifiable and true to the Merkan spirit (as embodied in that "goddamned piece of paper") than allowing the corporate conscienceless (a corporate officer is subject to removal if the officer allows a conscience to interfere with maximizing profit), remorseless, profit-seeking automaton, uh, I mean "person," to use a megaphone (bought with corporate cash) to drown out the speech of flesh-and-blood human beings. I am sure that brilliant young man John Roberts thinks so, or at least he does if he knows which side his bread is buttered on. And his fellow class warriors Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are sure to concur. And Kennedy will probably make five. Maybe even Sotomayor will make six?

When in Cuba a few years ago, I was told that it is illegal for anyone to spend money on their election campaign. This seems rather outlandish, so please clarify this if I'm wrong. The Cubans feel that they have free elections and mock the "free" elections that are held in the US. In our 2004 elections an average of 7.5 million dollars was spent on the election of each senator, and $850,000 for a house member.

Cuba’s election process is thoroughly a bottom-up process. No candidate needs to come up with millions of dollars to get elected. They do not have to come up with any money at all. No billionaire, as in the case of New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, can get elected solely on the ability to pay for the position. Of course, Cuba has no billionaires.
In January, Cuba held general elections for the National and Provincial Assemblies. More than 8 million people voted in that election, which represents 95 percent of those eligible to vote—one of the highest rates in the world. That is a stark contrast to the U.S., where about 30 percent of those eligible to vote actually do so.
According to Arnold August, a Canadian who has been studying Cuba’s elections, “1.2 million citizens were consulted to work out an initial basin of over 55,000 pre-candidates.”
The vote concluded a process that had begun in September 2007. Campaigning is low-key but candidates spend many hours visiting workplaces and communities, talking to people. Voting is secret and not mandatory and the counting of votes is public.
There is no such thing as having to “register” to vote. You just identify yourself and vote. No one is denied the right to vote—as in the U.S., for example, where 5.3 million people either in prison or with a prison record could not vote in 2006. (The Sentencing Project) The minimum voting age in Cuba is 16, lower than in the U.S.
Cuba’s president of the National Assembly, Ricardo Alarcón, said about the election process, “The main requirement for candidates is that they be proposed by others and approved by the collective.”
Cuba's 2008 election was a landmark. Women will make up 43 percent of the National Assembly and almost 42 percent of the municipal assemblies. That places Cuba third in the world in percentage of women representatives. The U.S. ranks 71st in the world, with only 16 percent of Congress being women.
Black Cubans make up 36 percent of the assembly. More walks of life are represented there, such as workers and artists. For example, Jorge Gómez Barranco, the coordinator of the well-known music group Moncada, is a member of parliament.

Frankly, I see the allowing of corporations to give cash directly as a big break for our side. Currently voters don't see the connections between these PACs with fancy names, but they will see the corporations that are funding their politician. I don't see the money increasing, I see better disclosure. I see the public getting madder faster, and greater pressure for optional public funding of campaigns.

Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net

First, the law being questioned does NOT prohibit the corporations or unions or non-profits from expressing their views, except during the last sixty days of the election cycle.....

Corporations have other means of getting their opinions out there to the public, buying off MSM "journalists" being at the top of the list. These "journalists" then go after, or protect whichever candidate they're directed. Corporations also can "buy" opinion polls, which every media prints as "news".

Unions are far less effective at this, though they have the 'web' from the national down to the locals. The basic problem with the union's opinion, is that when it gets down to the "local" we find both progressive and conservative members who don't like to just follow the party line.

As I see it, the ones most effected are the non-profits with PACs. I've supported Public Citizen for several decades, have my name on at least two of Ralph Nader's corporate charters, but feel that they are wrong on this issue.

What is needed is TRUTH in advertising legislation, not more laws to limit the ability to speak. IF what is being expressed is the TRUTH, it should not matter if it is 61 days, or one day before an election, nor should it matter if it is a corporation, union, or individual citizen. "Opinions" and "insinuatons", and "lies" need to be considered in a different light. Just my opinion.

I personally have a hard spot with "opinion polls" being broadcast as if they are "truth", since those partaking of said poll may not have a clue as to the reality. But that is just me.

"Supporters of the restrictions said the court could unleash a flood of corporate money into the U.S. political system"

We already have such a flood. This would turn it into an ocean.

Grover Norquist wants to reduce government to the size that can be drowned in a bathtub. At the same time, these folks would like to drown the rest of us in an ocean of corporate lies and influence-peddling.

The Article is Farcicle! It fails to mention the myriad ways for corporations already bribe politicians legally without doing it via direct contributions with their letterhead on them. The fount is limitless as it is. Only the accounting would change.

PAC's; Lobbyists pushing shopping carts of cash up and down the aisles of congress. Nonconsecutive serial numbers only please! Also by targeting for defeat their man's opposition on his way up.

Cheney may not have been elected much in DC, his meteoric rise to power was shaped by more than his little boyhood jack-off dreams; he was selected and then potentiated in exchange for allegiance LATER, and via these arterials of cash that flow like blood in the halls of power. Always.