As you may have heard, last week the Supreme Court of the United States made a ruling, by a bitterly divided 5-4 majority, that overturned over a century of established precedent.

In "Citizens United v. FEC" the court ruled that there is no legal basis for limiting corporate campaign donations in the U.S.

The implications of this ruling are vast and may prove devastating to American democracy. No longer will Senators, Representatives, Mayors, Judges, or any public official be elected by the voters; they will be purchased by corporate interests to do their bidding.

I wish I could write eloquently enough to make it clear to you that this ruling could be a death blow unless it is countered by the very parties that will soon be completely eliminated from the democratic process: you. A lot has been written about what a horrible decision this is. I urge you to do a search online to read and watch as much of this commentary as you can; watch enough (or even a little!) and you will be as horrified as I am.

Immediately after the decision, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) released a set of House resolutions (grouped under the title "Save Our Democracy") designed to counteract and neutralize the decision. There's a petition online that I urge you to sign, at http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/acti...mp;tag=redirect

I would also urge you, if you're the letter-writing type, to contact your own representatives to support Grayson's initiative.

Briefly, the resolutions propose the following:
1) Implement a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
2) Prevent companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
3) Prevent for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limit the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
4) Require publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
5) Apply antitrust law to industry PACs.

Disclaimer: I copied and pasted these five bits from Rep. Grayson's website at http://grayson.house.gov/2010/01/grayson-s...democracy.shtml

But I need no disclaimer to state that I thought up and drafted this message on my own, and am posting it with my only intent being to protect democracy in this country and to keep corporations from assuming Constitutional protections reserved for we, the people.

Best regards, and in hope for the new year,
Gerry

I know political topics are very touchy, but I'm with you on this one. As with everything else, the limits are being pushed way too far and we need to speak up. I will look at the petition you mentioned and put in my 2 cents.

Eric

I signed the petition

Outrageous stuff - I'm with you, Gerry

the most charitable thing we could say about that ruling is that they seem really intent on putting theory over practice.

I think Grayson's #1 and #2 wouldn't stand up to a court challenge now that the Court declared corporate political spending is protected speech.

We really need a constitutional amendment but imagine what a political football that will be.

2012 is going to be an interesting year! Traditionally campaign are won base on fear, and they try to make you fear of not voting for the other guy or else chaos will happen, or your country will be in danger from this whatever enemy at that time will be. Now with unlimited corporate backing for the next election, just multiply that fear mongering propaganda by the billions of dollar of one corporation and then again by the number of corporation. Not to mention the 2012 end of the world from the Mayan calendar. Like we really need that going at this time! Welcome to USA incorporated!

"You have nothing to fear but a multi billion of dollar back by corporation fear itself"

says it all


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axnCMV-on9Q

Wow, great video Jason. thanks for the link.

GERRY --- "Protect democracy in this country and to keep corporations from assuming Constitutional protections reserved for we, the people."

You guys need to pull your head out of the sand. The politicians are bought and paid for by the "CORPORATIONS" (That's called special interest groups) . All of their decisions are based upon staying in office and not on whats right.

So let TAX all business 1000% daily so that will not have any money to spend else where... All business should be GOVERNMENT OWNED AND RUN. so there will be no profit.

You guys don't say anything about our wonderful UNIONS who's only job is to take as much money from anyone anywhere any time. Just look at California with all of its unions in the government. Buena Park Police department will spend 40% of its 2009 budget on pensions and every year that percent will rise. 42% ON PENSIONS WHERE WILL IT STOP... I could go on for weeks about how California is being destroyed by Unions. Don't get me started on how unions and the democrats which made Detroit what it is today. I could go on and on with more cities.

If you go after the "CORPORATIONS" then you must also GO AFTER THE UNIONS and any NON-PROFIT that contributes to any political cause.


RUSCULAR --- "2012 is going to be an interesting year! Traditionally campaign are won base on fear"

My Mother is a Democrat and she has been in fear all of her life by what the Democratic party has told her about the Republican party.

If all of you are so bent on CORPORATIONS then why do you buy their products. NO MORE DELL or APPLE because they too are CORPORATIONS. NO MORE TYSON FOODS.... NO MICROSOFT, NO BOEING, well I could keep going on and on.

We the people started the corporations, remember that.

Government is like a big private community with all of its rules and regulations to tell its home owners what toilet paper we should use to wipe our ass with. (Because the politicians tells us they know better).

In closing... I first of want to say that I like all of you guys on the Hash forum. I love to discuss life and politics. But discussing politics and then pushing political ways on others is two different things. I only responded to this because I could not take the one sided view anymore. I can't believe people would be so mad at "CORPORATIONS" who was created by the people for the people. But NOT GET MAD at the politicians who DO NOT VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE but only for CORPORATIONS and what will only keep them in office. you just have to follow the money trail of each politician to see how they vote.

So I hope that my opinion will not hurt me here in this wonderful forum and lets not waste our time here with political discussion when there are thousands of blogs devoted to that very thing. Lets use our energy to do positive things like animation and helping other with animation.

Tony.

I think that the Supreme court got it RIGHT.


And since the supreme court is the last word, what is the point of writing your congressman? Instead form a corporation!

the good old USA!
Of, by and for the Corporation!
lol.... there's no changing things anymore, it costs too much to do so

On the whole, however, I'd prefer we avoid political discussion here.

I doubt anyone's mind ever been changed by what someone else wrote on a forum.

It's hard enough just to convince people to use the keyframe filters right.

I am with you robcat2075.....

A quick comment on this....
As long as there are corporate lobbyist padding the pockets of elected officials the people will never have real power in the elections.
Corporations and 3rd party organizations such as Move On and Swift Boaters should not be allowed to campaign on behalf or against any politician. Religious groups that use their temples, churches and pop tents should pay taxes if they decide to campaign or influence elections (separation of church and state).
All funding should come from the private sector because it is the people that vote, not companies or organizations.

There was once Truth in Advertising laws that people should be enforced to shut down the slam ads done by all parties and people running those ads should be liable for slander. This should include taking text out of context and fact twisting.

Once the people gain control of the system then we will only then have a true democracy for the people by the people. Don't count on that happening in our lifetime since the majority of the lawmakers refuse to bite the hands that feed them.

The padding of pockets has been an ever present reality in American politics.
The U.S. government works 'despite' this.

This ruling appears to have primarily reversed earlier rulings that missed their mark and likely overstepped the provisions of the 1st Amendment. In short, from what I can tell, the Supreme Court fulfilled their duty and in resetting the balance made the correct decision.

Surely there are other laws that can effectively deal with corporate excess.
If this ruling in any way were a danger to democracy we likely lost it already before this decision.

While some speech would be best unuttered, long live the First Amendment.
This ruling definitely isn't a threat to democracy... it strengthens it.

All the ruling will do is increase the Slam Ads.
Big danger of allowing corporations a voice is it opens the doors to other countries to influence our politics.

This is exactly why they should enforce Truth In Advertising laws and hold anyone liable should they decide to slander, mislead or take statements out of context in order to push their propaganda.

The people of this country deserve at the minimum, the truth.

I still believe that because entities can't vote they should not be afforded the same free speech rights.

Take a close look at how France holds their elections since our government was modeled from theirs to some degree.

We want the truth, you can't handle the truth.... LOL where did we hear that one.... Well the truth starts with our NEWS, TV, RADIO AND PRINT. Fix that first so the people can get the real news not KNN or MSNBC crap. all of the others just follow KNN (CNN)

There will always be someone who will disagree. But to out right lie to us as a nation, that has to stop. I thought our current President was going to do that.... But he has proven he is just like all of the past Presidents.

You say that like its a bad thing.

The beauty of the American political system is that regardless of initial agendas (right, left, up or down) most tend to gravitate toward the middle. This is not unlike the art of animation where the exaggerations are found mostly at the extremes. While the extreme may be out of sync and even dangerous it isn't likely to remain in the public view for any extended duration.

I for one appreciate EVERYONE'S comments on this thread.

By golly I'm glad I'm Canadian, at least here we have no government, well we do, but it's always on vacation

CNN (controlled news network) Faux News and all the rest are financially driven and often push political views on their viewers based in many cases on a financial basis rather than factual reporting.

Many channels follow the masses and tend to lean towards the largest groups in order to draw in better advertising. MSNBC and Faux News tend to be much more extreme than the others.

This is why any entity or institution that is not a person that can legally vote should not make any endorsement, advertisement or financial contribution to any official running for any political office.

We see our jobs going over seas and the measly industry that this country thrived on for the past 25 years was mostly based on housing. Even much of the tools and materials we once produced for that industry has moved offshore.

Big business is purely profit driven and has no ethics or conscience, it makes no sense to have them in charge of our lives and destiny. As their influence grows our jobs and freedom dwindle. Soon we won't be any better off than the slave labor that goes on in China.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/10012...free-speech.php

Is it fair that Corporation have unlimited resources for campaigning, while citizen have a $2000 cap per quarters for campaigning? Is it also fair that a corporation as a institution have the same rights as breathing living citizen under the constitution.

After the banks received the tax payer welfare relief, and then turn around and gave several billion dollar bonuses, and billions in lobbyist in fighting against fair wages for its employees, I think you have to ask isn't this counter productive to reward corporation more rights than its own citizen in regard to having a voice of their own affairs.

John Stossel is a corporatist and have always spoke for the corporation and use a flaw argument base on the ruling that corporation are treated as a citizen under the constitution. I am in favor of changing that!

Citizens aren't going to have $2,000 cap--ALL caps are going away

Looks like regardless of freedom of speech technicality the new laws violates the bill of rights.....
Of course the current justices are for big business and are probably more corrupt than all of the politicians combined!

As far as I'm concerned, the point is moot. I've been directly involved in enough newsworthy stories, and then observed how the media reported them, to know that they couldn't accurately report the fact that water is wet. In the context of such thoroughgoing distortion - through incompetence and a predisposition for saying whatever they think consumers will pay attention to - the distortion added by corporate and union money will be like a fart in a hurricane.

okay, I see this is now will legally open the floodgate of multinational corporation to have influences of buying off our politician in Washington DC. We get admonish for using the CIA to meddle with another country, and this new ruling by the supreme court will allow foreigner to meddle with our policy that should be decided by the citizen of our country. It's bad enough that Robert Murdock, an Australian, have monopoly on most of the news. We are losing our democracy, and Obama was right in chastising the supreme court decision.

From a strict constructionist point of view sure there are no limits to the 1st amendment.

The Supreme Court has allowed a lot of limits over the years on free speech though.

There is the "imminent lawless danger" test (Brandenburg v. Ohio) which covers things like inciting people to riot and falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

There is libel and slander.

There are oodles of obscenity regulations related to all sorts of media related to the "Overriding Public Interest" test. Which also applies to cigarette and alcohol ad regulation.

There's parts of Schenk v US that still apply during war time for censorship related to the "Clear and Present Danger" doctine (yes not just a Harrison Ford movie).

There is copyright (no plagiarism).

Not to mention that there are oodles of laws that have been backed up by Supreme Court decisions allowing the government the power to control how, when and where free speech can be delivered. Most notably with protest permits and peaceable assembly laws.

So in short, the government has been regulating free speech for MANY MANY years. They have never said that you cannot say what you want, but they do an awful lot of regulating of where you can say it, what you can say (in the context of to who, when and where), when you can say it, how you can say it and to whom you can can say it. Why, to my knowledge, doesn't factor in a whole lot unless you want to go with intentional slander or libel I suppose. Actually ads in which the company lies about a product so they can more would be a why too I guess although somewhat secondary to the main issue.

All of that said. I repeat; the government has been regulating free speech for MANY MANY years.

In this, truly awful decision, The Supreme Court has decided in their infinite wisdom that regulating corporate involvement in our electoral system isn't important enough to override the free speech... of a corporation. Not even a real person. But a corporation. A created entity that exists solely and without conscience or morality for the purpose of profiting its shareholders.

Those of you who espouse the idea that this infringement on free speech was wrong because our first amendment says that speech should be free; you are a little off in your interpretation of the law. Sorry. It has to be said. They didn't set things right, they overturned a hundred plus years of precedent and a healthy chunk of the more recently passed McCain/Fiengold bill (basically neutering it) designed to protect the electoral process from undue influence from corporations and special interests groups. Something I personally believe is a pretty important public interest.

And yes, it wasn't much protection. They still seem to have a stranglehold on the political process. That said, they still had to deal with the politicians. They had to funnel the money into the campaign, pick a horse and back him. And once elected he did not have to be beholding to his former masters.

Now they can put as much money as they want behind any candidate that they want. They can have their CEO elected mayor of your town and don't be fooled if it suits their needs and they funnel enough cash into the election, they will.

I'm not suggesting it will be pandemonium. I'm sure the exchange of power will appear very orderly. But this is a very sad time for our representative democracy.

Our founding fathers also expected the Constitution to be a living, breathing, changing document. There have been only two amendments in my 39 years of life. One setting the national legal voting age at 18 in 1971 (when I was 1) and another regarding the timing of pay increases for congress in 1992 (when I was 22). The last amendment was getting close to twenty years ago. The process has become so onerous that a proposed amendment hasn't even been proposed in over thirty years (and that one expired before it was ratified by enough states to make it law).

Because this process is so onerous it is my belief that the Supreme Court (and this is all the judicial activism you hear folks whining about from time to time) has unofficially become a sort of national conscience. Using their lifetime appointment to rise above the political process they often force us to do as a nation what is best and good for us as a nation.

This court has let us down.

Time will tell how much damage it will do.

/diatribe

Well said Rob.... I bet you cant say that in under 100 words

Ugh! Story of my life. I really need a course in brevity.

take a lesson from this guy!

http://unclejayexplains.com/2010/01/24/unc...ns-jan-25-2010/

Oh I've seen that guy before. He's hilarious. But honestly isn't a picture worth a 1000 words? If he and I were to go toe to toe in wordcount (by translating hi pictures into 1000 words each) I think I would be doing a lot better than him.

I saw that potential! and I was thinking the same thing. But could you do it in a week?

I do a blog post every week at my site Remedial Comics.

They are often pretty long and sometimes I use pictures but I still think I could take Uncle Jay if we translated all his video to words.

The absolute truth on this matter is "only time will tell" It could go either way or stay the same, the troubling thing is that special interest groups in every ray of the political spectrum have their way of getting their message out regardless of this decision, The only possible solution is to have a govm't fund that politicians get their campaign money from and in equal amounts for opposing campaigns any monies or gifts taken from anywhere else should be a criminal offense... but this also would lead to other problems constitutionally not to mention where the money would be collected from.

That's my 20 cents worth, 2 cents just does not cover it anymore...