Supreme Court Allows Corporations To Run For Political Office

[Link]

You actually scared me there for a second.

I would imagine one could save greatly on car insurance by voting for Geico.

That's what they want you to think.

There are already two big corporations that put their candidates on the ballot every November:

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Technically, they're one hundred medium-sized corporations.

Actually, I'd be interested to see how they're all organized for tax-purposes.

Ha no way! First they would make all other insurance companies illegal and consficate their titties. Then they would jack up prices 100000000000% and mandate everyone have insurance. Atleast thats what I would do.

With the supreme court decision to allow corporations to dump as much cash as they want into campaign funding, isn't that pretty much the same thing?

I actually have seen some speculation where people want to test the laws by seriously proposing something like this.

Regardless of whether you think corporations should be able to dump unlimited funds into a campaign, justifying it through an individuals right to free speech is a terrible precedent to set.

I find it difficult to believe that such a well-tempered gekko would be capable of such a plan.

I demand that corporations be allowed to marry.

Well, no. Not particularly.

This is actually a very astute article, and points out the problem in the recent SCOTUS ruling. If the whole point of corporations having unlimited rights to spend money is based on them being considered "people," then why shouldn't they be allowed to hold political office (once they're beyond a certain age, of course, like everyone else...)?

​

Yup. The is the logical conclusion of that. Which supreme court decision was it again that initiated this process? Back in the 1870's, I think...

Async, I'm disappointed in you; that's not even close to what was argued. The decision was based on the idea that [-]campaign contributions[/-] independent expenditures are free speech and and that corporate independent expenditures free speech and free assembly issues:

See the other thread for more gems stemming from this ruling. There's some pretty choice ones in the dissent (which is half concurrence) too.

EDIT: that last paragraph (now deleted) was incorrect. Corporations and unions are still barred from direct campaign contributions. It's only independent expenditures that are allowed.

Unions?

Can fox use firefly to promote politiians now?

the question is how long until corporations realise that they can have 100% of the air time for a pittance (to them) and decide that Jenkins in accounting is a loyal empolyee and will rubber-stamp anything the board tells him to