Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

Wes Mantooth · 01-21-2010, 08:06 PM

The biggest obstacle here is that it is a first amendment issue, essentially the decision says that the govt has no right to tell a corporation how they can and can't spend their money. In theory I agree, to do otherwise is a gross violation of the first. Aside from a constitutional amendment outlining the funding of elections (which would still theoretically violate the first) I don't really think there is any recourse here.

Its just a real shame that big oil (or any crop or group) can now spend billions of dollars on favorable advertisements for the candidate they like best while the opponent probably won't come remotely close to matching those funds. Unless of course they whore themselves out to another corporation by taking up their cause to get matching funds. Whats a candidates real concern going to be now? The average American gets overlooked enough in the election process as it is this is only going to make it a million times worse. The whole situation makes me sick.

Debate 2012: Barack Obama takes the stage with a Toyaota Prius logo across the back of his jacket and a tie reading Microsoft, Sara Palin trots out on stage with Shell written across the back of her skirt and a huge button reading McDonalds "I'm loving it". In the end what was said really doesn't matter as all anybody cares about is getting enough time on camera to meet the contractual obligations of their ads. Sure its an exaggeration but after this ruling whats the difference?

01-21-2010, 08:06 PM	#11 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	The biggest obstacle here is that it is a first amendment issue, essentially the decision says that the govt has no right to tell a corporation how they can and can't spend their money. In theory I agree, to do otherwise is a gross violation of the first. Aside from a constitutional amendment outlining the funding of elections (which would still theoretically violate the first) I don't really think there is any recourse here. Its just a real shame that big oil (or any crop or group) can now spend billions of dollars on favorable advertisements for the candidate they like best while the opponent probably won't come remotely close to matching those funds. Unless of course they whore themselves out to another corporation by taking up their cause to get matching funds. Whats a candidates real concern going to be now? The average American gets overlooked enough in the election process as it is this is only going to make it a million times worse. The whole situation makes me sick. Debate 2012: Barack Obama takes the stage with a Toyaota Prius logo across the back of his jacket and a tie reading Microsoft, Sara Palin trots out on stage with Shell written across the back of her skirt and a huge button reading McDonalds "I'm loving it". In the end what was said really doesn't matter as all anybody cares about is getting enough time on camera to meet the contractual obligations of their ads. Sure its an exaggeration but after this ruling whats the difference? __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”