80% of Americans against the Freedom of Speech

[avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

What a sad story.

[DragonStryk72]

It's not really sad. Most people saw it as the SCOTUS saying it's okay for lobby groups to essentially "buy" a candidate. The politicians backed it because it gave them more campaign capital, and it helps ensure we take even longer at getting a 3rd party in the White House, since the two major parties can assemble war chests far beyond anything the 3rd parties can.

[revelarts]

It's not really sad. Most people saw it as the SCOTUS saying it's okay for lobby groups to essentially "buy" a candidate. The politicians backed it because it gave them more campaign capital, and it helps ensure we take even longer at getting a 3rd party in the White House, since the two major parties can assemble war chests far beyond anything the 3rd parties can.

Yeah i'm not that comfortably with that decision either. Just like "freedom of the press" is a right to everyone who owns one. Mostly the power Elitist. It seems as if representation in congress can now be openly owned by anyone who can own a congress persons campaign budget. Not sure how to get around the free speech bit without harm though either.

the founders did warn of the "moneyed interest" getting to much control over time, seems like that day is upon us.

[Mr. P]

It's not really sad. Most people saw it as the SCOTUS saying it's okay for lobby groups to essentially "buy" a candidate. The politicians backed it because it gave them more campaign capital, and it helps ensure we take even longer at getting a 3rd party in the White House, since the two major parties can assemble war chests far beyond anything the 3rd parties can.

What if contributions go to a 3rd party instead? Corps should be free to put their money where they want, right?

[sgtdmski]

I think the title is a little misleading. People are not against free speech they are against peddling influence. Unions, corporations and such use money to make sure politicians have their best interest in mind, for the majority of everyday Americans we cannot do that.

So level the playing field, put a cap on donations, regulate it, if a business or union wants to contribute then allow them, but hold them to the same standard as individual donors.

To say this is about speech is a stretch, it is all really about access to those in power.
dmk

[HogTrash]

I am one of the 80%.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137The groups mentioned above are not people but entities that have only one obligation and that is to turn a profit for it's shareholders and members and absolutely nothing to do with protecting constitutional rights.

They believe good government is one that makes policy that allows them to reap the largest profit and not what is best for America...Access to government by these entities is the #1 cause of our economical crisis.

Not to mention the corruption that it brings about with the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" of politics in Washington DC...The latest example is the recent political paybacks by Obama to the labor unions.

Only American citizens and non-profit organizations should be permitted to make political contributions.