Freedom of speech??

[Sandi Egan]

Terrible news, to say the least.

“Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.”

Full article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60K3SK20100121

[XBoxBoy]

Put simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.

Bad news indeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Put simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.

Bad news indeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Put simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.

Bad news indeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Put simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.

Bad news indeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Put simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.

Bad news indeed.

XBoxBoy

[Arraya]

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

[Arraya]

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

[Arraya]

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

[Arraya]

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

[Arraya]

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

[briansd1]

I disagree with the majority ruling.

Corporations are not citizens. They are legal entities that survive in perpetuity.

For you Republican guys out there who agree with the ruling:

1) What if shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens? In today’s world, foreigners own a big chunk of US businesses.

2) What if the majority of shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens?

[briansd1]

I disagree with the majority ruling.

Corporations are not citizens. They are legal entities that survive in perpetuity.

For you Republican guys out there who agree with the ruling:

1) What if shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens? In today’s world, foreigners own a big chunk of US businesses.

2) What if the majority of shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens?

[briansd1]

I disagree with the majority ruling.

Corporations are not citizens. They are legal entities that survive in perpetuity.

For you Republican guys out there who agree with the ruling:

1) What if shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens? In today’s world, foreigners own a big chunk of US businesses.

2) What if the majority of shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens?

[briansd1]

I disagree with the majority ruling.

Corporations are not citizens. They are legal entities that survive in perpetuity.

For you Republican guys out there who agree with the ruling:

1) What if shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens? In today’s world, foreigners own a big chunk of US businesses.

2) What if the majority of shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens?

[Author]

Posts