If corporations want to be treated like people, with rights to free speech, campaign donations, and civil and criminal protections, then let them be treated like people!
If they kill someone, they get broken up and everything gets sold to the highest bidder. Profits are distributed by the government to the victim's family. Sorry shareholders. If they harm someone, their executives and directors are fired, and all profits for a certain number of years are used as tax revenue by the government.
Stop making it a money issue. If a person steals from a corporation, they go to jail. So why is it that if a corporation steals from a person, the corporation pays a small fine?
FEEL FREE TO COPY AND PASTE THIS EVERYWHERE. GET IT IN PEOPLE'S MINDS SO OUR POLITICIANS WILL HAVE COVER TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
I agree we need balance. We desperately need some balance on the SCOTUS. Too bad it's SOOOO far right now we'll be f**ked for decades. America is lost, the GOP is driving it into the ground as fast as possible, and those in power abuse it - absolutely, from a level of corruption not seen since the end of the 20s.
This isn't America any more. And corporate leeches such as yourself, who kiss-ass to your overlords will realize, only after it's too late, you backed someone who will only stab you in the back later.
The GOP has played a brilliant game. They exploited dimwitted Christians with moral values, while practicing absolutely morally corrupt policies.
So basically AOL/Huffington Post thinks the majority of voters are mindless idiots that will vote based on which TV commercial message they see the most? Why such contempt for the electorate?
What's funny is that some of you think we actually chose who is elected in this country. With the starting price for a campaign being in the millions... your choice is made before you ever cast a ballot. It's called Plutocracy.
I read the article... Where do the matched funds come from? If it comes from the State of Arizona, then I agree with the decision, it is not the States place to "match funds". I'm not sure where else it COULD come from, but if it was from a private source I would be more against the ruling.
Not the majority, but a minority large enough to sway many elections. Remember that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
If the corporations pay for a lie to be repeated often enough on TV, some people will come to believe it. At the very least because they are not attentive or inquisitive enough to research both sides of the story.
Remember, advertising works. If it didn't work, businesses wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it. And political advertising is still advertising.
You think Steve Jobs spends billions on Apple ads just for fun? Or is he doing that because he knows that it will bring him more consumers? And consumers are equivalent to voters in the political world.
Thank God for this decision. The last thing I want is my tax dollars going to support a candidate I don't like just because their opponent has more money.
Listen stupid liberals, this ruling doesn't necessarily help Republicans either. Pelosi, Kerry, and dozens of other Democrats have hefty bank accounts that can squash any rival.
Why is it that so many sophomorically partisan statements accusing the non-existent in reality opposition of any given number of behaviours, are in themselves typically guilty of said behaviour. It's not a product of a single partisan douchebag of which the opposing partisan douchebag is innocent, it seems to be infused with the very nature of that sort of silly, childish, and utterly incoherently irrational unrealistic and non-constructively smug lexicon of partisan barbs.
Accuse opposition of whining, and to quit it, then whine in the exact same manner you are criticising your opposition for.
You know who needs to deal?
I don't. Who are the actual real human beings who need to deal, vs. the charicature stereotype contrived conveniences that represent the opposition for you?
I mean, it's weird, it's like you have absolutely nothing of value to say in terms of pragmatic and considered political context, but your utter lack of meaningful content bears absolutely no influence on your desire to make a statement. You'd think having absolutely nothing of true value or original or constructive or throught provoking or at the very least NON-f**kING-SMUG to offer would accordingly affect how much and what you say. But it really doesn't, it's like you could be replaced with a simple script that just posts partisan talking points from an RSS feed with the subject matter dropped in as a variable, and nobody would even notice you weren't the one typing.
I'm convinced you are actually a human being, what I am not convinced of, however, is that you have ever stopped for one f**king second, david, to consider that the people to whom you are speaking are also human beings. Jesus dude, is this what you want for your life, for your public record on the internet? Do you really think that from the majority of what you have to say, compared to similar googled statements from anyone of the same partisan ilk, the remainder from those two cancelling each other out actually results in any sort of character, personality, or identifiable individual?
It's sad, all the effort you put ion to sounding like dyou're not even remotely a unique person with something to offer the world, and every day, you simply add to that record, of how unremarkable you are, of how infected by smug partisan dickery you are, and how, the more you invoke this bulls**t, the less and less there is an actual identifiable person with something valuabkle to say for themselves behind it.
This is your life, on the internet, and it's utterly depressing to watch you.
Don't save us from you, Dave, save your god damned self.
Spending campaign funds is a not so subtle way of buying the news media. The candidate gets to pick which news organizations he pays to runs his ads. When I say buy I mean bribe, at least potentially.
Campaigns spend a lot of money, and overall aggregate party spending must be stratospheric.
Goldman Sachs just outsourced 1000 banking jobs to Singapore.
Look out, some of our U.S. multi-national executives might be leaving the U.S.
They are contributing to and expecting a collapse.
hillsfarJun 29, 2011Buried
If corporations want to be treated like people, with rights to free speech, campaign donations, and civil and criminal protections, then let them be treated like people!
If they kill someone, they get broken up and everything gets sold to the highest bidder. Profits are distributed by the government to the victim's family. Sorry shareholders. If they harm someone, their executives and directors are fired, and all profits for a certain number of years are used as tax revenue by the government.
Stop making it a money issue. If a person steals from a corporation, they go to jail. So why is it that if a corporation steals from a person, the corporation pays a small fine?
FEEL FREE TO COPY AND PASTE THIS EVERYWHERE. GET IT IN PEOPLE'S MINDS SO OUR POLITICIANS WILL HAVE COVER TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
hexiadetrixJun 29, 2011Buried
The rich do not create jobs. Demand for services or products create jobs. In that sense everyone is a job-creator, including the rich.
sstephensJun 29, 2011Buried
This court is ruining our country.
bcarl314Jun 29, 2011Buried
I agree we need balance. We desperately need some balance on the SCOTUS. Too bad it's SOOOO far right now we'll be f**ked for decades. America is lost, the GOP is driving it into the ground as fast as possible, and those in power abuse it - absolutely, from a level of corruption not seen since the end of the 20s.
This isn't America any more. And corporate leeches such as yourself, who kiss-ass to your overlords will realize, only after it's too late, you backed someone who will only stab you in the back later.
The GOP has played a brilliant game. They exploited dimwitted Christians with moral values, while practicing absolutely morally corrupt policies.
mrteflonJun 29, 2011Buried
Plutocracy here we Come!
That is the way our Once great country is heading. Sell out to the highest bidder with the most cash. Equality under the Law is dead.
barackalypseJun 29, 2011Buried
So basically AOL/Huffington Post thinks the majority of voters are mindless idiots that will vote based on which TV commercial message they see the most? Why such contempt for the electorate?
spectecjrJun 29, 2011Buried
They've not been doing that much of that lately though, have they? Even with record profits and skyrocketing CEO pay.
vilestruJun 29, 2011Buried
What's funny is that some of you think we actually chose who is elected in this country. With the starting price for a campaign being in the millions... your choice is made before you ever cast a ballot. It's called Plutocracy.
imurphsJun 29, 2011Buried
I read the article... Where do the matched funds come from? If it comes from the State of Arizona, then I agree with the decision, it is not the States place to "match funds". I'm not sure where else it COULD come from, but if it was from a private source I would be more against the ruling.
deanestJun 29, 2011Buried
They come from voluntary $5 contributions from electors in the candidates' districts.
I wondered the same thing... the money does come from private sources.
elimgarakJun 29, 2011Buried
Not the majority, but a minority large enough to sway many elections. Remember that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
If the corporations pay for a lie to be repeated often enough on TV, some people will come to believe it. At the very least because they are not attentive or inquisitive enough to research both sides of the story.
Remember, advertising works. If it didn't work, businesses wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it. And political advertising is still advertising.
You think Steve Jobs spends billions on Apple ads just for fun? Or is he doing that because he knows that it will bring him more consumers? And consumers are equivalent to voters in the political world.
cdw070Jun 29, 2011Buried
Thank God for this decision. The last thing I want is my tax dollars going to support a candidate I don't like just because their opponent has more money.
Listen stupid liberals, this ruling doesn't necessarily help Republicans either. Pelosi, Kerry, and dozens of other Democrats have hefty bank accounts that can squash any rival.
graehJun 29, 2011Buried
Why is it that so many sophomorically partisan statements accusing the non-existent in reality opposition of any given number of behaviours, are in themselves typically guilty of said behaviour. It's not a product of a single partisan douchebag of which the opposing partisan douchebag is innocent, it seems to be infused with the very nature of that sort of silly, childish, and utterly incoherently irrational unrealistic and non-constructively smug lexicon of partisan barbs.
Accuse opposition of whining, and to quit it, then whine in the exact same manner you are criticising your opposition for.
You know who needs to deal?
I don't. Who are the actual real human beings who need to deal, vs. the charicature stereotype contrived conveniences that represent the opposition for you?
I mean, it's weird, it's like you have absolutely nothing of value to say in terms of pragmatic and considered political context, but your utter lack of meaningful content bears absolutely no influence on your desire to make a statement. You'd think having absolutely nothing of true value or original or constructive or throught provoking or at the very least NON-f**kING-SMUG to offer would accordingly affect how much and what you say. But it really doesn't, it's like you could be replaced with a simple script that just posts partisan talking points from an RSS feed with the subject matter dropped in as a variable, and nobody would even notice you weren't the one typing.
I'm convinced you are actually a human being, what I am not convinced of, however, is that you have ever stopped for one f**king second, david, to consider that the people to whom you are speaking are also human beings. Jesus dude, is this what you want for your life, for your public record on the internet? Do you really think that from the majority of what you have to say, compared to similar googled statements from anyone of the same partisan ilk, the remainder from those two cancelling each other out actually results in any sort of character, personality, or identifiable individual?
It's sad, all the effort you put ion to sounding like dyou're not even remotely a unique person with something to offer the world, and every day, you simply add to that record, of how unremarkable you are, of how infected by smug partisan dickery you are, and how, the more you invoke this bulls**t, the less and less there is an actual identifiable person with something valuabkle to say for themselves behind it.
This is your life, on the internet, and it's utterly depressing to watch you.
Don't save us from you, Dave, save your god damned self.
vilestruJun 29, 2011Buried
Plutocracy here we are... and have been for some time.
johnnysoftwareJun 29, 2011Buried
Spending campaign funds is a not so subtle way of buying the news media. The candidate gets to pick which news organizations he pays to runs his ads. When I say buy I mean bribe, at least potentially.
Campaigns spend a lot of money, and overall aggregate party spending must be stratospheric.
darthseussJun 29, 2011Buried
Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one.
Nom_AnorJun 29, 2011Buried
It's the Dem way. The nanny state rules and tells us best how to live our lives.
ren1999Jun 29, 2011Buried
Goldman Sachs just outsourced 1000 banking jobs to Singapore.
Look out, some of our U.S. multi-national executives might be leaving the U.S.
They are contributing to and expecting a collapse.
m0ddedJun 29, 2011Buried
You'll notice that nowhere in the article does it mention Democrats or Republicans. It mentions the rich. Your point is moot.