|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
The Supreme Court recently voted 5:4 to grant corporations unlimited rights toward funding political activities.
Should this sort of right be limited to living breathing citizens of the United States or should any legally defined entity have that right?
In choosing your answer please consider that unions are, by and large, corporations too.
The Court's radical 5-4 decision ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as actual people and that laws restricting corporate political contributions are "censorship." This radical decision nullified the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate political spending, and reversed several subsequent federal statutes and legal opinion that had limited the influence of corporate cash on political elections. The decision also invalidated all state laws prohibiting corporate expenditures to support or attack candidates for state office. So much for states rights!
The five activist judges overturned previous Supreme Court decisions decided in 1990, 2003, and 2007. So much for Roberts' promise to respect prior Supreme Court precedents. This horrible decision is equally bad as the Court's decision in Bush v. Gore in ideological overreaching by the Supreme Court.
What can you expect from a bought congress and a bought president who placed the correct judges in place to shamelessly serve their masters.
This country has been in a world of s#&t because of the electorate playing along with the political hijinks of misinformation and misdirection. I just love it when they get up on their pedestal and tell us when blatantly corrupt policies and actions are for the good of the country and the dumb a$%ed party lackeys follow right along because of unfailing loyalty to the party.
We really do need to throw these slimebags out and find a better way to get the right people for the job installed.
I am and was very against this ruling. I would have to be on Obama's side on this one... probably not for the same reasons as I don't know his real reasons. But that means little.
What this did is put the power to influence elections through the media outlets in the hands of whomever has the most money to spend.
These media blitzes don't have to be truthful. And the money can come from anywhere on the planet. Outside influences on our country.
There was a time when Candidates for the Presidency were given equal time on the air. Now it's just whomever can buy the time.
This is a very bad thing as the real representation of a person will be pushed under the rug as the "other side - the money" side will be speaking for them... and surly in a negative way.
You either let the people decide or you change the rules of the game and let a few select individuals decide what is right for us. This is a big strike against the people in the name of free speech.
But there are all sorts of corporations out there. Not just 'for profit' entities. This ruling by the supreme court affects all corporations from unions to PBS.
Ordinary groups of citizens should consider registering as corporations and starting their own little $$ pot too wouldn't that help?
The I.R.S.which is the police force for the Federal reserve which is a private "CORPORATION" has control over who runs this country.All the other corporations are susidaries of the one that controls the money supply.We are all corporations according to the federal reserve,and we all pay "dues" to that union.
You may not know it,but if,you have a birth certificate,social security number,driver's license,marrage license,or any other license that "gives" you permission to be born,work,drive,and to perform other specific types of work requiring someone to know certain things in order to perform certain tasks such as driving and the certifications required by all sorts professions,most people don't understand ,or realize that they are giving up their soverignty when doing so.This is the price we pay for existing in our society these days.
According to the "government",or the "people",we all agreed to this.Did we really? Or were we coersed into going along with it?
All of the things you describe, with the exception of the social security card, are state issued. Unless, that is, you are a recognized American citizen born abroad. The social security administration issued card is NOT for identification purposes. It says so right on the card.
So by your lights it's the individual states that are at fault not the federal government?
Here's what you can expect--
How Wall Street Protects Wall Street
Published: February 12, 2010
To the Editor:
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
“Irked, Wall St. Hedges Its Bet on Democrats” (front page, Feb. 8) amazed me as much as anything I’ve read in years.
Three times over the last two decades, American bankers have messed up, requiring government (read taxpayer) bailouts. After the most recent bailout, they take the money, give themselves bonuses and speculate some more. They give very little money to promote jobs or stimulate the economy.
Yet now the bankers are unhappy because the president is looking to institute safeguards in banking that would protect the American economy.
The bankers now threaten not to give donations to Democratic candidates to show their displeasure. Instead, they will give more to Republican candidates.
Let’s see now. Warren Buffett compared derivatives to weapons of mass destruction; Jeffrey R. Immelt says his generation of business leaders is mean and greedy; Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, says the ATM machine is the most productive innovation the financial community has come up with in the last 20 years.
Washington, Feb. 8, 2010
The writer is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
To the Editor:
You quote a top official at a Wall Street firm, who chooses to remain anonymous out of fear of alienating the White House, as saying, “The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money.’ ” Then the official adds, “We are not going to play that game anymore.”
Have I missed something? I thought it was the other way around, that Wall Street, aided by the big banks, had kicked the taxpayers around and then expected to be bailed out, and was.
Without the slightest shame, these perpetrators now cast themselves as victims of those taxpayers. They threaten to cease supporting those who would dare to reinstate some of the regulations that were in place in an earlier, more stable time.
What is the message that Wall Street and the banks are sending to the country? This takes their actions to a new level and should be a call to action for those of us who might still have some faith in our government’s ability to heed the voices of the people.
Lelde B. Gilman
Portland, Ore., Feb. 8, 2010
To the Editor:
Your article about Wall Street’s donations succinctly describes what a travesty our so-called democracy has become, how utterly corrupt and undemocratic it is.
When politicians depend on nothing but money, the people do not matter at all. And that is where we are at as a nation as we begin 2010.
Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Feb. 11, 2010
To the Editor:
It really is sad to see how hard it is for some people to maintain their political values when their six-or-seven-figure bonuses on top of their six-or-seven-figure salaries are threatened.
We always hear how Wall Street drives our economy and how important it is for all of us. Well, maybe so, but perhaps things could be better for everyone if people (especially our young) saw the financial world more as a means to an end and less as an end itself.
Fairfield, Conn., Feb. 8, 2010
THIS LETTER BY ROSS LEVINE NAILS THE GOLDMAN-AIG ISSUE. THIS MAY BE THE BIGGEST ROBBERY OF TAXPAYERS IN HISTORY.
To the Editor:
Re “Testy Conflict With Goldman Helped Push A.I.G. to Precipice” (front page, Feb. 7):
Goldman Sachs argues that it did nothing wrong in betting that the mortgage market would crash by purchasing insurance against losses on collateralized debt obligations (holdings backed by mortgages) from A.I.G. while simultaneously packaging and selling mortgage-related securities to other financial institutions. Goldman says that the sophisticated money managers that run these other institutions have the capabilities to conduct their own due assessment of mortgage-related securities: they messed up, not Goldman.
Yet, Goldman argues that it has a right to receive payouts from A.I.G. even though A.I.G. failed. The implication is that Goldman did not have the capabilities to assess the viability of A.I.G. and now deserves to be paid by A.I.G.’s new owners, the taxpayers: taxpayers messed up, not Goldman.
While Goldman Sachs can ask the government for this money, the real issue is, Why is the government giving it to Goldman?
Providence, R.I., Feb. 7, 2010
To the Editor:
“Goldman Chief’s $9 Million Bonus Seen by Some as Show of Restraint” (Business Day, Feb. 6).
How marvelous Wall Street is when a bonus that exceeds what many Americans will make in their entire life is considered “restraint.”
Jamaica, Queens, Feb. 11, 2010
The writer is a professor at St. John’s University School of Law.
They should have just let it crash, let capitalism work. While granted we'd probably have 30% or 50% or more unemployment, maybe it would have gotten bad enough for the riots and stuff to bring down our lame government. We could have started over. Twenty or fifty years of suffering, a quick trip back to the semi-dark ages, to clean the slate and rebuild a more equitable system. I don't think the Chinese would take us over either in that time. Probably at least not with armies and stuff. We'd probably lose portions of the south to Mexico too, or maybe not if a war started up... not lose it but just create a badlands sort of thing. But then we could rebuild a perfect society where no one would be greedy or corrupt.
Your lame government is you! If it doesn't represent you it's YOUR FAULT. Yes yours.
Don't just vote and then sit around with your thumb up your keester complaining about how things are going.
Be proactive and state your grievances. First to your house representative and then your senator; these are the people you voted for (or should have had a say in the selection of) and you most certainly have a right to bitch!
So bitch to them.
A) You assume I don't write to them (which I do), not just national but state and local - and not just email, but real letters (although a smattering of email from time to time more recently). I put up the biggest fit of my life and went on a crusade (failing, no less) when these evil California bastards essentially outlawed FIRE for god's sake. That failure made me want to quit participating, and I did for about six months. They DON'T represent me, but I'm apparently horrifically outnumbered. "My" side somehow became a bunch of idiot evangelicals, racists and corporate thieves... and "we" are outnumbered by idiot Utopians and crooks pretending to be idiot Utopians. I can't decide who is worse, "my" side or theirs.
B) (more importantly)... You're eye for sarcasm was looking the other way I think.
by Sharon Stajda2 weeks ago
My question - In general, how do you feel about the right to religious freedom being used in this specific Supreme Court decision? Does one have the right to discriminate due to a religious belief? The...
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
Grassroots Gag OrderFellow Patriots,There is a movement underway right now to clamp down on our free-speech rights in way we previously couldn't imagine.I'm not kidding, this piece of legislation will have you spitting...
by Susan Reid7 years ago
Source: The HillSince this article is not long I decided to post the whole thing. Man, those SCOTUS justices have a tough job, don't they!Supreme Court finds AT&T isn't a personBy Sara Jerome - 03/01/11 12:44 PM ET...
by My Esoteric14 months ago
My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait. The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change...
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
FYIQ. Why does this title look so scary? A. The word socialism is very scary to the average US citizen who values his democratic republic.Q. Who pays taxes? A. We The People do.Q. Who is taxed the most? A. The...
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton has issued a statement that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is illegal. “Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.