The bitch slap heard across Corporate America: Montana High Court Rebukes Citizens United

The Montana Supreme Court just sent a chill down Corporate America’s spine. The state’s high court restored the century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees.

This stunning rebuke of  the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 that deemed corporations as people, which gave them constitutional rights to spend money on political campaigns is a win for democracy.

With Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney publicly stating that Corporations are people, perhaps he should take heed of this monumental ruling. This is clearly a sign of the times – the attorney General, Steve Bullock who defended the ban is now running for Governor.

Great Falls Tribune reports:

The corporation that brought the case and is also fighting accusations that it illegally gathers anonymous donations to fuel political attacks, said the state Supreme Court got it wrong. The group argues that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, passed as a citizen’s ballot initiative, unconstitutionally blocks political speech by corporations.

The lawsuit was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision from last year granting political speech rights to corporations. A lower court then ruled the state ban was unconstitutional in the wake of the high court’s decision.

But the Montana Supreme Court on Friday reversed the lower state court’s analysis and application of the Citizens United case.

The Montana Supreme Court said Montana has a “compelling interest” to uphold its rationally tailored campaign-finance laws that include a combination of restrictions and disclosure requirements.

A group seeking to undo the Citizens United decision lauded the Montana high court, with its co-founder saying it was a “huge victory for democracy.”

“With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy,” John Bonifaz, of Free Speech For People, said in a statement.

The Montana court agreed with Bullock’s argument that past political corruption, led by the famed Butte “Copper Kings” that dominated state politics long ago, gives Montana a compelling interest in regulating corporate spending. They pointed out also that corporations can form voluntary political action committees — subject to disclosure requirements — as a way to remain politically active.

People are listening to the ire expressed by voters that bad corporate behavior cannot be rewarded — people vote; not corporations.

Republican Presidential candidate Buddy Roemer has been outspoken as to how money is influencing the election process and he’s been campaigning with integrity. It’s rather telling that Mitt ‘Corporations are People’ Romney is out front in the polls, with Roemer garnering little support.

“I have a $100 donation limit, and won’t accept any money from PACs or super PACs,” he says. “Big money comes with strings attached, and a president needs to be free to lead, free to stand up to corporations and special interests, and free to listen to groups like the Occupy movement.”

Image: LA Progressive

  • http://nefariousnewt.blogspot.com NefariousNewt

    Let this be the first domino in a long series that ends with an Amendment to the Constitution banning corporations from becoming people ever. Nothing as reprehensible as the idea of “corporations as people” should ever be allowed to rear its ugly head again.

    • Curt4444

      Of course you want this to apply to unions, churches and non-profits also.

      • Baldrz

        Of course it does. A person is a person; a group is not.

      • Meh

        Unions by design and practice represent people directly. Corporations by design protect their profits. Let’s not lump apple in with oranges.

        • No

          A corporation represents its shareholders in exactly the same way that a Union represents its dues-payers. Your hated of profits (and by extension basic economics) doesn’t change the nature of these organizations.

          • Or…

            I could be mistaken but don’t unions operate democratically, while one’s power in a corporation (as a shareholder) is directly proportional to their number of shares? That would make them substantially different. The former being “one man one vote” and the latter being “one man X votes”

          • Jennifer Martin

            I think you’re taking things a bit far…corporations are democracies? I have no problem with unions making contributions (in theory). In practice, they have been taken over by the same scum that run our worst corporations. Too many unions won’t rock the boat.

        • No

          A corporation represents its shareholders in exactly the same way that a Union represents its dues-payers. Your hated of profits (and by extension basic economics) doesn’t change the nature of these organizations.

          • Or…

            I could be mistaken but don’t unions operate democratically, while one’s power in a corporation (as a shareholder) is directly proportional to their number of shares? That would make them substantially different. The former being “one man one vote” and the latter being “one man X votes”

          • Jennifer Martin

            I think you’re taking things a bit far…corporations are democracies? I have no problem with unions making contributions (in theory). In practice, they have been taken over by the same scum that run our worst corporations. Too many unions won’t rock the boat.

        • Kind_Sir

          Let’s not kid ourselves… Unions represent Unions. Any benefit to regular people is a by-product. Unions should be treated exactly the same as Corporations. Their members should be able to make contributions, but the Union itself should be banned from doing so.

      • Gary Lee

        The really interesting question will be how this applies to political parties themselves. They also must file under some form of legally recognized organizational structure. And yes, since unions, churches and other organizations are often filed as corporations (whether under for profit, non-profit or the strange “not-for-profit” IRS categories), this most likely also applies to them.

      • Asiafish

        Absolutely, and with regard to churches (one of the most profitable businesses out there) lets tax them while we’re at it.

      • Wiandy Mitch

        I’m an active, involved union member. If corporations weren’t allowed to buy influence, then we wouldn’t HAVE to try to compete (because the way it’s set up, it’s almost impossible for us to compete, anyway…). If I had my way, both parties would be given a set amount of taxpayer’s money and all private donations would be illegal.

    • Curt4444

      Of course you want this to apply to unions, churches and non-profits also.

      • Baldrz

        Of course it does. A person is a person; a group is not.

      • Gary Lee

        The really interesting question will be how this applies to political parties themselves. They also must file under some form of legally recognized organizational structure. And yes, since unions, churches and other organizations are often filed as corporations (whether under for profit, non-profit or the strange “not-for-profit” IRS categories), this most likely also applies to them.

      • Asiafish

        Absolutely, and with regard to churches (one of the most profitable businesses out there) lets tax them while we’re at it.

  • Brian

    A Corporation is a group of people with leaders. A union if a group of people with leaders. Why are unions allowed to donate and corporations disallowed. It’s free-speech for all or tyranny!

    • Marc Roelofs

      Because unions represent their members and corporations don’t.

      • Curt4444

        The people in the union get to voted and donate. Why should the union get to donate to a candidate that many of their members oppose?

        • Amanda MacPherson

          Then vote out your union reps. you can’t vote out a CEO because he moved your job overseas

      • IAmBrianBoru

        That is very debatable

      • Joh Hill

        Also, corporations represent employees and shareholders, not robots. They are PEOPLE, at least as important as union members. There should be an EQUAL voice, as Citizens United recognized.

        • Devnmckenzie

          They are people alright, who definately do not have YOUR interest in heart or Americas for that matter…hope they don’t outsource your job cause raising a family on unemployment is impossible, thank GOD for UNION support the weekly collections are keeping us alive…Oh yeah i’m sorry UNIONS are evil don’t mind the Corporation destroying everything OUR fore-fathers created and fought for…stay focused now unions are evil…and blah,blah,blah…Never mind the man behind the curtain…

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U7QNR7ZCZOVEDU7A7H2XLOOMVM Willy

          That’s nonsense John. I’m a CEO of a small business. If I spend corporate profits supporting politicians I’m speaking ONLY for investors, not necessarily the employees who made that spare cash possible. For that reason alone, I would never funnel our corporate dollars to politicians. Not to mention the silliness in attempting to compare the sheer volume of corporate money available to sway elections, compared to the miniscule presence of unions in this country.

        • no no no no no

          (sigh) CORPORATIONS are MULTINATIONAL.

          You allow FOX to vote and you are allowing a Saudi Prince (who owns a large share) to decide our elections.

          Corporations are not people.. not by a long shot – they are treasonous speech if they are speech.

    • LiberalNana

      Brian you make a good point on the surface but a Corp does not take a vote of it’s employees only of owners and Unions leaders are voted on by the entire group they represent and no member holds more power then another. Corps leaders are determined by who hold the most shares so the more you own the more power you have. Majority rules in a Union vote in a Corp vote the most powerful win.

      • Curt4444

        No they don’t. union leadership shops the candidates for goodies, then tells the membership how to vote. Even the election of union leadership is a joke. The executive committee hand picks the candidates and the winner.

        • IAmBrianBoru

          Amen to that, Curt4444!

        • Devnmckenzie

          i dont know what union your in? but its unlike any union i know of and been in…Argue against the real evil here gentleman…your distracted,fightn bout’ crumbs while the corps rape OUR country…WAKE UP ALREADY

        • Jen

          Cool story bro.

    • Devnmckenzie

      because UNIONS fight against Corporations…Unions are made of people who are fighting for people,for the rights as workers,Why do you think WE have weekends off,or sick days or any other right as a worker…because of UNIONS…corporations are made by people but they main purpose is to profit even at the cost of people…Verizon makes billions of dollars yet outsources AMERICAN jobs to other countries cause it more COST effective to there profit margin…In other words corporations put money in front of People,America,stimulus in front of EVERYTHING…Now UNIONS aren’t innocent either I consider them to be a necessary evil,if you will,but if your arguing about UNIONS…You just don’t understand who the real enemy is…P.S. corporations don’t donate, they buy there interest at a rate far,far,more than UNIONS do…like 1000x more and thats not donating,thats buying your politician, So put your fight in the right ring brother and stop questioning your neighbor…Take your issue to the top…Korporations are destroying this country!!!!

    • Dave

      Corporations are not NATIONAL – They are MULTINATIONAL.

      How hard is it to get this?

      If people from other countries vote in our election it’s called a CONFLICT OF INTEREST – and the founding fathers were very worried about just such a dangerous concept… if a multinational corps can sway our election they have a tremendous ability to cause regime change to their liking..

      Serious people.. how does this keep getting overlooked?? baffling.

  • Lupinesdad

    Thanks for this good news post – it really got my juices flowing, so please pardon what has become a much longer comment than I had initially intended. It is indeed a step in the right direction for a state supreme court to enter the fray on the side of the people. And beyond being the “first domino”, which suggests more of a cause-and-effect chain of events toward adopting a constitutional amendment on corporate personhood, I see it within the sea-changing context of a potentially OWS-type movement as the superpacs strut their stuff this election year.

    Iowa is the first guinea pig in the 2012 presidential sweepstakes, and on this, the day before the caucuses, the voters (and innocent bystanders) have been overrun by the negative ads borne of superpac money. And as always, folks will deplore the negativity of campaigns, while grudgingly acknowledging the effectiveness they have at winning elections. Any possibility of changing this gets dumped on the trash heap labeled “that’s just the way it is” – that is, until the volume is turned up past the threshold of pain.

    Just look at what happened in Wisconsin and Ohio and elsewhere once emboldened legislators and governors mistook their sweeping “conservative” victories as mandates to take extreme positions and impose extreme measures on an unsuspecting populace. The people said WTF? and rose up, and the political tides started reversing. The ill-won political gains from these out-of-step ideologues are finally under serious challenge and getting reversed themselves.

    Maybe we’re finally entering an era when OVER-REACHING by those in power may result in the long-overdue BACKLASHES they deserve. The pain levels have increased, and thanks to the inability of both the private marketplace AND the debt-ridden governments to provide for the general welfare of American householders, many people currently have lots of time on their hands and little left to lose.

    WE THE PEOPLE are fed up and waking up and standing up to the fact that the Game of LIfe has become rigged, And those with the money and the access and the airwaves and their devious entanglement in all the riggings will continue to claim most of the pie. Unless we reach a critical state, at that moment just before the proverbial last straw is placed on the camel…

    On this second day of the much anticipated year of unknown portent, 2012, could we be on the brink of something profoundly direction-changing? Maybe the Citizens United decision will once and for all push us over the edge with a state-by-state flood of stomach-turning campaigns that assault our longing for honest political discourse and leadership and further erode any semblance of ethical behavior we as a society might still possess. Maybe we will have had just about enough.

    You go, Montana! A fine place to tug on the legal thread and see how far we can go to unravel a particularly repugnant part of our nation’s social/political fabric.

  • http://www.facebook.com/denishajones Denisha Jones

    Love the title! Way to go Montana!

  • Paloma88

    Unions, love em or hate em, still are the last big representation of the ‘little people’ and even while there is some corruption, it is nothing like the disdain a corporation shows for the working and middle class. Corps are only in it to make themselves bigger, Unions are still working with real people and for the most part, representing their wishes. Unions are all we have (big $$) to counter act Corps. You didn’t see any Corps down marching at the Occupy sites… but there were Nurses Unions, Pilots Unions etc. When Unions support government, it is with their members votes and their members are the ordinary people that need support against the money and power grabbing Corps and most of the government, including the Supreme Court, which is tinged with corruption and owing favors…

    • John Hill

      Unions represent fat cats and overpaid bureacrats, not “little people”. What a crock. “Little people” can’t dish out $120 million in an election cycle, as the SEIU and AFL-CIO did in 2008. “Citizens United” leveled the playing field by allowing corporations – which represent employees and shareholders – to have a voice equal to that of the ultra-rich “1%” union bosses. The Montana Supreme Court got it wrong.

      • Zach

        Corporations DO NOT represent employees. That is delusional thinking. They also don’t represent shareholders. Corporations exist solely to turn a profit for investors. They represent nothing but a business agreement. A corporation is a piece of paper, (legal fiction) filed by a group of business people who don’t want to be personally financially responsible if their business model doesn’t pan out and incurs debt. It is a way to minimize responsibility and allow an idea to continue existing if the founder’s die or lose interest. If corps. actually represented people they wouldn’t use every legal loophole to get out of paying fair wages or taxes.
        We wouldn’t need minimum wage laws or workers comp. because the corporation wold actually represent the employee instead of subjugating and devaluing them to the point where they actually believe they are worthless and replaceable, and act accordingly.

        • Kind_Sir

          Poor misguided Zach… “Corporations don’t represent shareholders”? Really? Shareholders are the ONLY people corporations represent. And nearly every employee of every major corporations is a shareholder of the company for which they work. Somebody has been loading you up with a lot of nonsense. Let me break it down for you.. if a company goes ‘public’ and, let’s say they break the company’s ownership up into 1000 shares, theoretically, the company could be owned by 1000 different people. THEY decide who runs the company and makes decisions. Please stop with the melodrama.There is no conspiracy against the ‘little people’. Corporations represent their shareholders/investors and also their employees who own shares of said companies. Period. And to your last point.. we don’t NEED ‘minimum wage laws’. If a person excels at his/her job, they will make MUCH MORE than minimum wage and will climb the ladder you try so hard to destroy. Btw, I am part of the 99%, but I do believe in rational thought.

          • Sandals

            Corporations represent the majority shareholders. Minimum wage laws are there for a reason and that is protect employees from being paid third world wages. Im not saying these systems are perfect but you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you think removing minimum wage would even resemble a rational idea.

            If Zach is misguided, then you sir are naive.

          • Faceless Jane

            Do corporations ask their shareholders before donating to political campaigns? I don’t think so. Therefore, corporations are not representing their shareholders in this situation. Nice try.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GPQBAVHE2POUWTDVPSUD5DC3UQ get

        “corporations – which represent employees[…]”

        What color is the sky in your world?

        • Kind_Sir

          Hey get, next time you might want to read the entire sentence before regurgitating a tired cliche’ regarding sky color. The sentence stated that corporations represent employees WHO WON SHARES OF SAID COMPANIES (meaning, for all the “gets” out there, that they represent shareholders). “GET” it now?

        • Kind_Sir

          Hey get, next time you might want to read the entire sentence before regurgitating a tired cliche’ regarding sky color. The sentence stated that corporations represent employees WHO WON SHARES OF SAID COMPANIES (meaning, for all the “gets” out there, that they represent shareholders). “GET” it now?

      • Lovebug3585

        If you don’t know anyone personally that makes .20 (or less) an hour in horrible/dangerous working conditions without the promise of health care and other benefits….thank a Union. If you want to start making less then a living wage, give up your benefits are forced to work 80 hour work weeks, and denied vacation time…then by all means, dismantle the Unions.

    • John Hill

      Unions represent fat cats and overpaid bureacrats, not “little people”. What a crock. “Little people” can’t dish out $120 million in an election cycle, as the SEIU and AFL-CIO did in 2008. “Citizens United” leveled the playing field by allowing corporations – which represent employees and shareholders – to have a voice equal to that of the ultra-rich “1%” union bosses. The Montana Supreme Court got it wrong.

      • Zach

        Corporations DO NOT represent employees. That is delusional thinking. They also don’t represent shareholders. Corporations exist solely to turn a profit for investors. They represent nothing but a business agreement. A corporation is a piece of paper, (legal fiction) filed by a group of business people who don’t want to be personally financially responsible if their business model doesn’t pan out and incurs debt. It is a way to minimize responsibility and allow an idea to continue existing if the founder’s die or lose interest. If corps. actually represented people they wouldn’t use every legal loophole to get out of paying fair wages or taxes.
        We wouldn’t need minimum wage laws or workers comp. because the corporation wold actually represent the employee instead of subjugating and devaluing them to the point where they actually believe they are worthless and replaceable, and act accordingly.

        • Kind_Sir

          Poor misguided Zach… “Corporations don’t represent shareholders”? Really? Shareholders are the ONLY people corporations represent. And nearly every employee of every major corporations is a shareholder of the company for which they work. Somebody has been loading you up with a lot of nonsense. Let me break it down for you.. if a company goes ‘public’ and, let’s say they break the company’s ownership up into 1000 shares, theoretically, the company could be owned by 1000 different people. THEY decide who runs the company and makes decisions. Please stop with the melodrama.There is no conspiracy against the ‘little people’. Corporations represent their shareholders/investors and also their employees who own shares of said companies. Period. And to your last point.. we don’t NEED ‘minimum wage laws’. If a person excels at his/her job, they will make MUCH MORE than minimum wage and will climb the ladder you try so hard to destroy. Btw, I am part of the 99%, but I do believe in rational thought.

          • Sandals

            Corporations represent the majority shareholders. Minimum wage laws are there for a reason and that is protect employees from being paid third world wages. Im not saying these systems are perfect but you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you think removing minimum wage would even resemble a rational idea.

            If Zach is misguided, then you sir are naive.

          • Faceless Jane

            Do corporations ask their shareholders before donating to political campaigns? I don’t think so. Therefore, corporations are not representing their shareholders in this situation. Nice try.

    • Kind_Sir

      Paloma88, I’m not sure if you work directly for a Union or if you are just a shill, but you have it completely and utterly wrong! All major corporations are “publicly” owned. Therefore, anyone can buy stock and have a vote as to how the company is run. All “little people” who have 401-K’s or retirement plans own parts of corporations. You act as if the “giant corps” are aliens who have invaded our country. Most started tiny and grew (see Apple and MS) employing millions of Americans. What they do, they do for their shareholders (little people). Unions on the other hand are the most corrupt groups on the planet (hope Vito and Sal don’t come knocking on my door with lead pipes for saying that). But to be sure… Unions do NOT represent the “little people”. They represent themselves. Btw, Terence O’Sullivan, the president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, made $618,000 last year, PLUS bonuses. Watching out for the little people… I think not.

      • Jon Hudson

        If I may pick on just one point.

        Anyone who thinks that one person can decide they wish a company to do X can just go buy shares and suddenly steer that company toward doing X has not worked at enough corporations.

        Corporations cater to shareholders as kids cater to parents. Feign deference, feign undying devotion and tell the shareholders (parents) exactly what they want to hear so that the board and exec team can keep their jobs (allowance).

        No CEO believes that any company direction or business strategy should come from the shareholders.

        A common phrase you will hear is “a corporation is NOT a democracy”

        It’s a dictatorship. In some cases a Monarchy.

        Now when this results in profit for the shareholders, raises and bonuses for the exec team, raises and bonuses for the employees then it’s deamed “good” and in many cases it is.

        • http://kurtcagle.tumblr.com/ Kurt Cagle

          I think this is incredibly welcome news, and I hope that it forces a massive rethink at the Supreme Court about the Citizens United decision.

          On the subject of unions – yes, absolutely, they should be subject to the same restrictions that face corporations, just as should churches. Organizations should have the right to encourage that their members donate to a given political cause, so long as such encouragement does not fall into the realm of coercion, but they should not have the right to act in lieu of their members.

      • http://www.facebook.com/captainelectron David McGraw

        Of course the most despicable organizations of all are political parties. If it is illegal for groups of people to pool resources when they call themselves a “corporation” or a “union”, then it should also be illegal gang activity when they group in a political party. The great American experiment in democracy has spread all over the World, but it will remain horribly flawed until this gang activity can be brought under check somehow.

    • Kind_Sir

      Paloma88, I’m not sure if you work directly for a Union or if you are just a shill, but you have it completely and utterly wrong! All major corporations are “publicly” owned. Therefore, anyone can buy stock and have a vote as to how the company is run. All “little people” who have 401-K’s or retirement plans own parts of corporations. You act as if the “giant corps” are aliens who have invaded our country. Most started tiny and grew (see Apple and MS) employing millions of Americans. What they do, they do for their shareholders (little people). Unions on the other hand are the most corrupt groups on the planet (hope Vito and Sal don’t come knocking on my door with lead pipes for saying that). But to be sure… Unions do NOT represent the “little people”. They represent themselves. Btw, Terence O’Sullivan, the president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, made $618,000 last year, PLUS bonuses. Watching out for the little people… I think not.

      • Jon Hudson

        If I may pick on just one point.

        Anyone who thinks that one person can decide they wish a company to do X can just go buy shares and suddenly steer that company toward doing X has not worked at enough corporations.

        Corporations cater to shareholders as kids cater to parents. Feign deference, feign undying devotion and tell the shareholders (parents) exactly what they want to hear so that the board and exec team can keep their jobs (allowance).

        No CEO believes that any company direction or business strategy should come from the shareholders.

        A common phrase you will hear is “a corporation is NOT a democracy”

        It’s a dictatorship. In some cases a Monarchy.

        Now when this results in profit for the shareholders, raises and bonuses for the exec team, raises and bonuses for the employees then it’s deamed “good” and in many cases it is.

  • Anonymous

    Citizens United was not about corporate personhood or direct contributions to campaigns. It was about selectively-enforced *a priori* restraint on political speech. I suggest reading the ACLU amicus brief on the matter: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-aclu-amicus-brief

    There are many good reasons to curtail corporate influence over politicians. Enacting an overbroad statute that flies in the face of first amendment free speech protections, and enforcing it preferentially and selectively, is not the way to solve the problem.

    • don’t be ridiculous

      You are basing that off of what the ACLU says… what slant do you expect it to have? Surely one that isn’t biased…

    • don’t be ridiculous

      You are basing that off of what the ACLU says… what slant do you expect it to have? Surely one that isn’t biased…

  • schmuck281

    Businesses cannot make direct contributions to political campaigns. That’s been the law since the turn of the century.

    What Citizens United did was decide that third party’s (Corporations, Unions, Etc) can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to make “issue” ads. That is, they can support or oppose particular viewpoints, but they cannot do so in conjunction with political candidates.

    Here’s a link to the actual decision.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

    What they say is unobjectionable and it is not that corporations can make contributions to campaigns. That issue was last decided in Buckley back in 1971.

    But I am sure that it makes a good talking point and seems to have been uncritically swallowed by a lot of people.

  • anonymous coward

    I’d be considered a liberal by most people in this country, but I’d consider voting for Roemer any day.

  • anonymous coward

    I’d be considered a liberal by most people in this country, but I’d consider voting for Roemer any day.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PNG3DVFSGPP65XJXFZC25D3JRU Lan

    if you want to seek a younger woman or older man., you can go to ^^ágedáté, cm,

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PNG3DVFSGPP65XJXFZC25D3JRU Lan

    my friend
    is a 27 years old doctor,mature and beautiful. and now she is seeking a good man who can give her real love, so she got a sername Andromeda2002 on  Agedate.?òM, a nice and free place for younger women and older men,or older women and younger men, to interact with each other.Maybe you wanna check out or tell your friends.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43807781 Adam Profitt

    What is stupid is that “Copper kings” is used as a reason for the ruling. Its a fundamental right of people to rule themselves, corporations infringe upon this by having excess money that gives them “more speech” than a human being, and the fact that this is allowed to be used in politics. Law only concerns itself with the convoluted mess of shit that it is and rarely considers what is right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=43807781 Adam Profitt

    What is stupid is that “Copper kings” is used as a reason for the ruling. Its a fundamental right of people to rule themselves, corporations infringe upon this by having excess money that gives them “more speech” than a human being, and the fact that this is allowed to be used in politics. Law only concerns itself with the convoluted mess of shit that it is and rarely considers what is right.

  • http://fbt-hr.narod2.ru/ TDKS FBT

    Corporations are not people.

  • http://fbt-hr.narod2.ru/ TDKS FBT

    Corporations are not people.

  • Fake

    If you can’t legally vote for somebody in an election then you shouldn’t be able to give them any money.

    It’s a simple as that.

    Anything else is corruption.

    • LOL

      Simple as that eh? Ok, then I’ll take it a step further, if you can’t legally vote for somebody in an election then you shouldn’t be able to give them any money NOR SHOULD the government tax you as if you have a say like a normal citizen.

      • JR

        Tax is not a way to buy a ticket that allows you to vote.

        • KH

          You wouldn’t say to an individual “we are going to take 35% of your profit, and you are going to sit and shut up and let us run the country however we see fit” – you would obviously say “if I’m paying I get a say”

          Same logic for corps. No one said anything about voting, but if you are going to take 35% of their money, you best believe they should have a right to help get people in power who they feel will best be suited to oversea that money correctly. Otherwise they would be paying for their own destruction, as so many individuals feel one way or another to whichever political party is in power that is opposite to their beliefs and thus donate to their “side” in order to get the country “on track” per their own ideology.

          Same concept, but unfortunately the corruption of our politics blinds voters to talking points. Do corporation (along with Unions and many other points made above) abuse the system and can “buy” policy not in interest of the American people? Obviously, but you can see the pathetic ignorant views of freakoutnation using the word “bitch slap” in their article. People ignore logic as long as their side is winner, and in the end, the very RICH that people think they are fighting against, are still laughing on their high horse at our peasants cheering over items that won’t affect them in the end…

          • DDDDJJJJ

            So you’re saying that corporations should get TWICE the representation of an average citizen, for paying LESS in taxes? Yep, that’s right, you’ve got two fallacies in your argument.

            1. Corporations have no representation in the political realm. Oh really? What is a “corporation?” A corporation is an association of PEOPLE set up to conduct a business purpose. Corporations are generally held to only encompass those who derive their profits from the ownership or management of the company, not regular employees. So, each of those people has a voice that they could use to represent the best interests of the corporation they are a part of. What you’re saying is that the members of the corporation deserve to represent their interests twice…once as an individual and once as a part of a corporate entity.

            2. Corporations pay taxes “like individuals.” Also totally untrue. Sole proprietorships pay income taxes as individuals (I should know, I ownz myself one of these), but corporations pay a different set of taxes with different deductions, tax incentives, and rates. Even a sole proprietorship gets some additional write-offs for business expenses and commonly accepted accounting lines (such as depreciation). What gets taxed for a corporation is profit, which is most simply defined as revenue minus costs (including rent, utilities, equipment, salaries, bonuses, professional services, depreciation, etc.) minus tax incentives/benefits (depends on the type of company whether these exist/what they are). Seems fair enough to me, as the other revenue of the company will be taxed through the salaries of the company, the company’s suppliers, the company’s service contractors, etc.

            So, no, I don’t think that corporations should get to “speak twice” in the money race for their meager tax contribution (which, as we’ve seen for many of the country’s largest businesses, is actually negative).

          • Faceless Jane

            Out of 280 companies from the Fortune 500, “30 of them either paid no taxes or actually received tax rebates in 2008, 2009 and 2010. They also determined that 78 of the companies enjoyed either of those in at least one of the years.

            Those 78 companies reported a combined pre-tax income of $156 billion in the years they paid no taxes. With tax breaks they actually got back $22 billion.

            The corporate tax rate is supposed to be 35%, but these 280 companies averaged 19%. The lowest tax rate was negative 58% for Pepco Holdings.”

            ……

          • Jen

            “…to help get people in power who they feel will best be suited to oversea that money correctly.”

            That has to be the best Freudian slip I’ve seen all day. Granted, it is still early.

    • Wisethinking

      I for one will support this logic of thinking, as long as these judges come to the conclusion that if corporations are not people, and therefore should not be allowed to donate money to political groups because they have no say in politics or how the country is govern or run, then quit taxing corporations as if they are individual people, who get to have a say in the country? I bet every liberal out there would immediately have a problem with that. All of a sudden corporations are good enough to be taxed like people, but they just can’t help elect people in power that is in their best interest like people can. Again sad state of affairs, either people will ignore my point, try to find spelling mistakes, or go on and on about how unions are good, corporations are bad, but never will they give an answer to this question.

      • disenchanted

        Read all of your responses. Organizations should never have influence of any sort in politics. Period. Be it one I favor or not. I would rather let the mass majority of individual choice make the future instead of any organization. I vote once. For the person I feel would screw me over the least. Same should go for EVERY person (by that I mean one living breathing living soul, not corporation, group etc). When we let groups of persons combine to get their own perspective made into reality then we are losing.
        The individual should be the “person” and the group action of like minded people would be them voting. Not applying pressure and coercion and financing their desires in the political arena.
        It is a sham, a dog and pony show already with out the corporate entity controlling and manipulating our political future for THEIR gain and benefit.
        We need to bring the power back to the people, not the investor.

  • Fake

    If you can’t legally vote for somebody in an election then you shouldn’t be able to give them any money.

    It’s a simple as that.

    Anything else is corruption.

    • LOL

      Simple as that eh? Ok, then I’ll take it a step further, if you can’t legally vote for somebody in an election then you shouldn’t be able to give them any money NOR SHOULD the government tax you as if you have a say like a normal citizen.

      • JR

        Tax is not a way to buy a ticket that allows you to vote.

        • KH

          You wouldn’t say to an individual “we are going to take 35% of your profit, and you are going to sit and shut up and let us run the country however we see fit” – you would obviously say “if I’m paying I get a say”

          Same logic for corps. No one said anything about voting, but if you are going to take 35% of their money, you best believe they should have a right to help get people in power who they feel will best be suited to oversea that money correctly. Otherwise they would be paying for their own destruction, as so many individuals feel one way or another to whichever political party is in power that is opposite to their beliefs and thus donate to their “side” in order to get the country “on track” per their own ideology.

          Same concept, but unfortunately the corruption of our politics blinds voters to talking points. Do corporation (along with Unions and many other points made above) abuse the system and can “buy” policy not in interest of the American people? Obviously, but you can see the pathetic ignorant views of freakoutnation using the word “bitch slap” in their article. People ignore logic as long as their side is winner, and in the end, the very RICH that people think they are fighting against, are still laughing on their high horse at our peasants cheering over items that won’t affect them in the end…

          • DDDDJJJJ

            So you’re saying that corporations should get TWICE the representation of an average citizen, for paying LESS in taxes? Yep, that’s right, you’ve got two fallacies in your argument.

            1. Corporations have no representation in the political realm. Oh really? What is a “corporation?” A corporation is an association of PEOPLE set up to conduct a business purpose. Corporations are generally held to only encompass those who derive their profits from the ownership or management of the company, not regular employees. So, each of those people has a voice that they could use to represent the best interests of the corporation they are a part of. What you’re saying is that the members of the corporation deserve to represent their interests twice…once as an individual and once as a part of a corporate entity.

            2. Corporations pay taxes “like individuals.” Also totally untrue. Sole proprietorships pay income taxes as individuals (I should know, I ownz myself one of these), but corporations pay a different set of taxes with different deductions, tax incentives, and rates. Even a sole proprietorship gets some additional write-offs for business expenses and commonly accepted accounting lines (such as depreciation). What gets taxed for a corporation is profit, which is most simply defined as revenue minus costs (including rent, utilities, equipment, salaries, bonuses, professional services, depreciation, etc.) minus tax incentives/benefits (depends on the type of company whether these exist/what they are). Seems fair enough to me, as the other revenue of the company will be taxed through the salaries of the company, the company’s suppliers, the company’s service contractors, etc.

            So, no, I don’t think that corporations should get to “speak twice” in the money race for their meager tax contribution (which, as we’ve seen for many of the country’s largest businesses, is actually negative).

          • Faceless Jane

            Out of 280 companies from the Fortune 500, “30 of them either paid no taxes or actually received tax rebates in 2008, 2009 and 2010. They also determined that 78 of the companies enjoyed either of those in at least one of the years.

            Those 78 companies reported a combined pre-tax income of $156 billion in the years they paid no taxes. With tax breaks they actually got back $22 billion.

            The corporate tax rate is supposed to be 35%, but these 280 companies averaged 19%. The lowest tax rate was negative 58% for Pepco Holdings.”

            ……

          • Jen

            “…to help get people in power who they feel will best be suited to oversea that money correctly.”

            That has to be the best Freudian slip I’ve seen all day. Granted, it is still early.

  • Wisethinking

    I for one will support this logic of thinking, as long as these judges come to the conclusion that if corporations are not people, and therefore should not be allowed to donate money to political groups because they have no say in politics or how the country is govern or run, then quit taxing corporations as if they are individual people, who get to have a say in the country? I bet every liberal out there would immediately have a problem with that. All of a sudden corporations are good enough to be taxed like people, but they just can’t help elect people in power that is in their best interest like people can. Again sad state of affairs, either people will ignore my point, try to find spelling mistakes, or go on and on about how unions are good, corporations are bad, but never will they give an answer to this question.

  • disenchanted

    Read all of your responses. Organizations should never have influence of any sort in politics. Period. Be it one I favor or not. I would rather let the mass majority of individual choice make the future instead of any organization. I vote once. For the person I feel would screw me over the least. Same should go for EVERY person (by that I mean one living breathing living soul, not corporation, group etc). When we let groups of persons combine to get their own perspective made into reality then we are losing.
    The individual should be the “person” and the group action of like minded people would be them voting. Not applying pressure and coercion and financing their desires in the political arena.
    It is a sham, a dog and pony show already with out the corporate entity controlling and manipulating our political future for THEIR gain and benefit.
    We need to bring the power back to the people, not the investor.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GMD4MWL6CKBZAN3TO4VSJPSILM momoney

    Corporations are NOT people…

    …”money talks” is just an expression, but money is NOT SPEECH. Speech is a constitutionally protected form of expression, not money.

    • Womankind

      Anomaly, surely you could have found a less offensive title. As a woman, I resent the hell out of you using “bitch slap”. Please. I thought Occupiers were for ALL people, not just men.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GMD4MWL6CKBZAN3TO4VSJPSILM momoney

    Corporations are NOT people…

    …”money talks” is just an expression, but money is NOT SPEECH. Speech is a constitutionally protected form of expression, not money.

  • http://nowtweet.it/6if Cherri Dawson

    I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read, and all the friends I want to see.

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.e.b2 Paul Edward B

    Wow! Am I beginning to see a movement back to a classical Republican Party…one in which the neo-cons and Tea Baggers are marginalized? Montana has always been a solid red state but such a movement from within the state is very encouraging. It means that the base of Republican support is shifting. Can you imagine Eisenhower style Republicans on the rise, one in which fiscal responsibility AND good governance for The Commons is the centerpiece of their ideology? This will make the Democratic Party look even worse that what it has become.

  • Kind Sir

    Vote Mitt Romney in 2012!!

  • Kind Sir

    I voted for Obama in the last election, but not this time. He proved that either he cannot handle the job or wants to bring the U.S. to its knees. Too many lies, broken promises, and misdeeds.
    Obama MUST GO!

  • Norma

    I can only hope we can overturn the poorly named “Citizens United” judgment state by state. Unions are just that, people united for better working conditions. They stand in opposition to corporations that seek to take as much from their employees with as little compensation as possible. Actions against unions are actions against the back bone of this and every country, the worker. Let’s not confuse the two.

  • Norma

    I can only hope we can overturn the poorly named “Citizens United” judgment state by state. Unions are just that, people united for better working conditions. They stand in opposition to corporations that seek to take as much from their employees with as little compensation as possible. Actions against unions are actions against the back bone of this and every country, the worker. Let’s not confuse the two.

  • http://kurtcagle.tumblr.com/ Kurt Cagle

    I think this is incredibly welcome news, and I hope that it forces a massive rethink at the Supreme Court about the Citizens United decision.

    On the subject of unions – yes, absolutely, they should be subject to the same restrictions that face corporations, just as should churches. Organizations should have the right to encourage that their members donate to a given political cause, so long as such encouragement does not fall into the realm of coercion, but they should not have the right to act in lieu of their members.

  • Rider658

    So if corporations aren’t people (and I agree with that premise) then why are unions considered people and allowed to do the same ting the corporations are not allowed to do? And the answer that unions by design represent people is disingenuous at best. When I was a member of AFSCME that union spent absolutely no money on candidates that I supported.

  • Rider658

    So if corporations aren’t people (and I agree with that premise) then why are unions considered people and allowed to do the same ting the corporations are not allowed to do? And the answer that unions by design represent people is disingenuous at best. When I was a member of AFSCME that union spent absolutely no money on candidates that I supported.

  • Jennifer Martin

    I have great confidence in our Supreme Court. I’m sure they will do the wrong thing.

  • Heartsong

    At one point we had to separate Church from State. Now we need to separate Corporation Interest from State.

  • Womankind

    Anomaly, surely you could have found a less offensive title. As a woman, I resent the hell out of you using “bitch slap”. Please. I thought Occupiers were for ALL people, not just men.

  • Recycle

    Bitchslappin is fun, isn’t it? Lolz. Check out this video from Canadian comedian Josh Rimer which I found on YouTube! http://youtu.be/yDCk3NN_HAs

  • Recycle

    Bitchslappin is fun, isn’t it? Lolz. Check out this video from Canadian comedian Josh Rimer which I found on YouTube! http://youtu.be/yDCk3NN_HAs

  • http://www.facebook.com/captainelectron David McGraw

    Of course the most despicable organizations of all are political parties. If it is illegal for groups of people to pool resources when they call themselves a “corporation” or a “union”, then it should also be illegal gang activity when they group in a political party. The great American experiment in democracy has spread all over the World, but it will remain horribly flawed until this gang activity can be brought under check somehow.

  • http://myshambhalavillage.wordpress.com Paul Frank

    This is good . . . I think. I am getting that Montana claims a compelling state interest in denying corporate campaign contributions, and this compelling interest would override the competing claim from Citizen’s United. With this court, I don’t know what to think . . . Will they “clarify” and broaden the scope of Citizens United, or will they defer to states rights like good constitutional conservatives?

  • http://myshambhalavillage.wordpress.com Paul Frank

    This is good . . . I think. I am getting that Montana claims a compelling state interest in denying corporate campaign contributions, and this compelling interest would override the competing claim from Citizen’s United. With this court, I don’t know what to think . . . Will they “clarify” and broaden the scope of Citizens United, or will they defer to states rights like good constitutional conservatives?

  • confusedbyrhetoric

    So don’t tell us who shouldn’t be president and why; tell us who should be and why. And also tell us why anybody would want the job…

  • marvin nubwaxer

    “corporations are people my friend” and other memorable wit and wisdom coming to you soon on dvd from mitt romney. remember he still has 9 more months to grace us with cult of mormon and one percenter dispensations of wisdom.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YIYRALQPW6X6RRD3PSU3WEHBLQ Robs

    I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one

  • Surazeus Simon Seamount

    As commendable as this is, they will fail to change anything, because the definition is ensconced in the United States Code, although the term is “Person” not people. Until this definition is changed, every federal court will always rule that a corporation is a person. Here is the definition:

    26 United States Code 7701 – Definitions
    (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
    (1) Person
    The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701

  • http://twitter.com/olkennon Mac Kennon

    so you guys realize that corporations being considered a “person” in the legal sense is actually an amazing thing right? i’m not speaking in so much that they should be able to dump unlimited funds into political campaigns…that’s just unethical in my opinion. Corporations being ppl allows for investor liability to be limited to his or her investment, while at the same time allowing the government to tax the profits of corporations TWICE; once as income, and the second time as capital gains and or dividends. If corporations weren’t treated as “people” by the law, the government would lose out on revenues from capital gains and dividends, and the public investors would be personally liable for the company if it defaulted….

    Corporations being legally considered “people” is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself….its what we choose to do with this notion that is important; i say keep the good side of it and ditch the unlimited spending capabilities.

  • zevgoldman

    A state supreme court decision is meaningless if it runs counter to a U.S. Supreme court ruling on the same issue.l

  • ken

    Wow! All of those who posted comments make really good points. However, I think we have all missed the true evil that need change: “GREED”, by our Corps, politicians,bankers and probably a few of us. The 1% or the 99%, whatever side your on, you should be intelligent enough to see the problems in those percentages. I love this country but if we don’t get/demand drastic change and soon, all will be lost.

  • Brian

    A Corporation is a group of people with leaders. A union if a group of people with leaders. Why are unions allowed to donate and corporations disallowed. It’s free-speech for all or tyranny!

  • Marc Roelofs

    Because unions represent their members and corporations don’t.

  • LiberalNana

    Brian you make a good point on the surface but a Corp does not take a vote of it’s employees only of owners and Unions leaders are voted on by the entire group they represent and no member holds more power then another. Corps leaders are determined by who hold the most shares so the more you own the more power you have. Majority rules in a Union vote in a Corp vote the most powerful win.

  • Devnmckenzie

    because UNIONS fight against Corporations…Unions are made of people who are fighting for people,for the rights as workers,Why do you think WE have weekends off,or sick days or any other right as a worker…because of UNIONS…corporations are made by people but they main purpose is to profit even at the cost of people…Verizon makes billions of dollars yet outsources AMERICAN jobs to other countries cause it more COST effective to there profit margin…In other words corporations put money in front of People,America,stimulus in front of EVERYTHING…Now UNIONS aren’t innocent either I consider them to be a necessary evil,if you will,but if your arguing about UNIONS…You just don’t understand who the real enemy is…P.S. corporations don’t donate, they buy there interest at a rate far,far,more than UNIONS do…like 1000x more and thats not donating,thats buying your politician, So put your fight in the right ring brother and stop questioning your neighbor…Take your issue to the top…Korporations are destroying this country!!!!

  • Dave

    Corporations are not NATIONAL – They are MULTINATIONAL.

    How hard is it to get this?

    If people from other countries vote in our election it’s called a CONFLICT OF INTEREST – and the founding fathers were very worried about just such a dangerous concept… if a multinational corps can sway our election they have a tremendous ability to cause regime change to their liking..

    Serious people.. how does this keep getting overlooked?? baffling.

  • Lupinesdad

    Thanks for this good news post – it really got my juices flowing, so please pardon what has become a much longer comment than I had initially intended. It is indeed a step in the right direction for a state supreme court to enter the fray on the side of the people. And beyond being the “first domino”, which suggests more of a cause-and-effect chain of events toward adopting a constitutional amendment on corporate personhood, I see it within the sea-changing context of a potentially OWS-type movement as the superpacs strut their stuff this election year.

    Iowa is the first guinea pig in the 2012 presidential sweepstakes, and on this, the day before the caucuses, the voters (and innocent bystanders) have been overrun by the negative ads borne of superpac money. And as always, folks will deplore the negativity of campaigns, while grudgingly acknowledging the effectiveness they have at winning elections. Any possibility of changing this gets dumped on the trash heap labeled “that’s just the way it is” – that is, until the volume is turned up past the threshold of pain.

    Just look at what happened in Wisconsin and Ohio and elsewhere once emboldened legislators and governors mistook their sweeping “conservative” victories as mandates to take extreme positions and impose extreme measures on an unsuspecting populace. The people said WTF? and rose up, and the political tides started reversing. The ill-won political gains from these out-of-step ideologues are finally under serious challenge and getting reversed themselves.

    Maybe we’re finally entering an era when OVER-REACHING by those in power may result in the long-overdue BACKLASHES they deserve. The pain levels have increased, and thanks to the inability of both the private marketplace AND the debt-ridden governments to provide for the general welfare of American householders, many people currently have lots of time on their hands and little left to lose.

    WE THE PEOPLE are fed up and waking up and standing up to the fact that the Game of LIfe has become rigged, And those with the money and the access and the airwaves and their devious entanglement in all the riggings will continue to claim most of the pie. Unless we reach a critical state, at that moment just before the proverbial last straw is placed on the camel…

    On this second day of the much anticipated year of unknown portent, 2012, could we be on the brink of something profoundly direction-changing? Maybe the Citizens United decision will once and for all push us over the edge with a state-by-state flood of stomach-turning campaigns that assault our longing for honest political discourse and leadership and further erode any semblance of ethical behavior we as a society might still possess. Maybe we will have had just about enough.

    You go, Montana! A fine place to tug on the legal thread and see how far we can go to unravel a particularly repugnant part of our nation’s social/political fabric.

  • Curt4444

    The people in the union get to voted and donate. Why should the union get to donate to a candidate that many of their members oppose?

  • Anonymous

    That is very debatable

  • JohnHill

    Unions represent the fat cats who run them and the Democrat party in EVERY single election. They do NOT represent their workers’ political beliefs, as workers are FORCED to give donations to a union which donates to Democrat candidates 100% of the time.

  • Joh Hill

    Also, corporations represent employees and shareholders, not robots. They are PEOPLE, at least as important as union members. There should be an EQUAL voice, as Citizens United recognized.

  • http://www.facebook.com/denishajones Denisha Jones

    Love the title! Way to go Montana!

  • Curt4444

    No they don’t. union leadership shops the candidates for goodies, then tells the membership how to vote. Even the election of union leadership is a joke. The executive committee hand picks the candidates and the winner.

  • Amanda MacPherson

    Then vote out your union reps. you can’t vote out a CEO because he moved your job overseas

  • Anonymous

    Amen to that, Curt4444!

  • Devnmckenzie

    i dont know what union your in? but its unlike any union i know of and been in…Argue against the real evil here gentleman…your distracted,fightn bout’ crumbs while the corps rape OUR country…WAKE UP ALREADY

  • Jen

    Cool story bro.

  • Devnmckenzie

    Hey lets all get together and hang the guy who stole the bread…and dont worry about the other guy he’s just RAPING YOUR COUNTRY!!!!

  • Devnmckenzie

    Hey lets all get together and hang the guy who stole the bread…and dont worry about the other guy he’s just RAPING YOUR COUNTRY!!!!

  • Captainkirk449

    Actually, no one in a union is FORCED to give anything. Union dues are not used for politics. If a member wished to contribute, he then signs a check off card for (DRIVE). Those contributions are used for politics. To say that union members are forced to donate is nothing more than a LIE!

  • Captainkirk449

    Actually, no one in a union is FORCED to give anything. Union dues are not used for politics. If a member wished to contribute, he then signs a check off card for (DRIVE). Those contributions are used for politics. To say that union members are forced to donate is nothing more than a LIE!

  • one handed ninja

    Not 100% of the time. My State Senator, Eric Schmitt, District 15 in Missouri is a republican that was endorsed by most of the Unions in the St. Louis area. He works with the unions, as well as many other groups on both sides of the aisle, and subsequently won a senate seat in a very pro democrat district. And though I generally vote for the democrat, I will vote for Sen. Schmitt again because he has done a good job.

  • one handed ninja

    Not 100% of the time. My State Senator, Eric Schmitt, District 15 in Missouri is a republican that was endorsed by most of the Unions in the St. Louis area. He works with the unions, as well as many other groups on both sides of the aisle, and subsequently won a senate seat in a very pro democrat district. And though I generally vote for the democrat, I will vote for Sen. Schmitt again because he has done a good job.

  • Devnmckenzie

    They are people alright, who definately do not have YOUR interest in heart or Americas for that matter…hope they don’t outsource your job cause raising a family on unemployment is impossible, thank GOD for UNION support the weekly collections are keeping us alive…Oh yeah i’m sorry UNIONS are evil don’t mind the Corporation destroying everything OUR fore-fathers created and fought for…stay focused now unions are evil…and blah,blah,blah…Never mind the man behind the curtain…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U7QNR7ZCZOVEDU7A7H2XLOOMVM Willy

    That’s nonsense John. I’m a CEO of a small business. If I spend corporate profits supporting politicians I’m speaking ONLY for investors, not necessarily the employees who made that spare cash possible. For that reason alone, I would never funnel our corporate dollars to politicians. Not to mention the silliness in attempting to compare the sheer volume of corporate money available to sway elections, compared to the miniscule presence of unions in this country.

  • no no no no no

    (sigh) CORPORATIONS are MULTINATIONAL.

    You allow FOX to vote and you are allowing a Saudi Prince (who owns a large share) to decide our elections.

    Corporations are not people.. not by a long shot – they are treasonous speech if they are speech.

  • Anonymous

    Businesses cannot make direct contributions to political campaigns. That’s been the law since the turn of the century.

    What Citizens United did was decide that third party’s (Corporations, Unions, Etc) can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to make “issue” ads. That is, they can support or oppose particular viewpoints, but they cannot do so in conjunction with political candidates.

    Here’s a link to the actual decision.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

    What they say is unobjectionable and it is not that corporations can make contributions to campaigns. That issue was last decided in Buckley back in 1971.

    But I am sure that it makes a good talking point and seems to have been uncritically swallowed by a lot of people.

  • http://nowtweet.it/6if Cherri Dawson

    I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read, and all the friends I want to see.

  • Jennifer Martin

    I have great confidence in our Supreme Court. I’m sure they will do the wrong thing.

  • Heartsong

    At one point we had to separate Church from State. Now we need to separate Corporation Interest from State.

  • marvin nubwaxer

    “corporations are people my friend” and other memorable wit and wisdom coming to you soon on dvd from mitt romney. remember he still has 9 more months to grace us with cult of mormon and one percenter dispensations of wisdom.