There are a few days when I wonder why I want to live to a ripe old age.

---------------------

Should I take this to mean that you ALSO don’t believe that the Houston Chronicle and other corporate media should have the full protection of the First Amendment, either, due to the fact that they are business entities and not people?

---------------------

Individuals and groups of human beings write editorials, report on or produce news or create blog posts, and those efforts are protected by the First Amendment.

Did the framers of the Constitution believe a corporation that employs a man who writes a libelous article should itself be sue-able for libel?

Did the framers of the Constitution believe human beings should be able to hide behind a legal shield called a corporation in order to commit actions without fear of personal consequence?

I personally have no quarrel whatsoever if a lobbyist for Grand Gamble Insurance Empire knocks on my door and tells me I should vote for Pete Olson for Congress or else my mandatory car, home and flood insurance rates will triple.

But if the Grand Gamble Insurance Empire puts that same message on each billboard between my house and Houston and runs a TV commercial with the same message on each Houston TV station every 45 minutes from now until the election – is that a matter of free expression?

Or does it mean that candidates to national or high state office are beholden to the corporation that has the most cash on hand?

I don’t think the framers of the Constitution meant to create a country controlled by a fabulously wealthy ruling elite. Quite the contrary, really.

And I find myself just as much against the idea that the Houston Chronicle’s corporate owner, Hearst, should be allowed to spend as much money as it chooses to buy a new set of FCC commissioners as I am against the Grand Gamble Empire buying off health care reform.

---------------------

That is not, of course, what is going on, Bob, and you know it.

You have stated that “the Constitution and the rights it imbues were created for people, not legal business entities”. Does that mean that “legal business entities” like the Houston Chronicle and New York Times (both corporate media) may be censored and suppressed by government because they are “legal business entities” and not people? And if the full protection of the First Amendment applies to those “legal business entities”, why not to GE buying billboards or sending out flyers? GE would no more be “hiding behind a legal shield called a corporation” than the Washington post is — and conversely, the Washington Post is hiding behind such a shield no less than GE would be.

---------------------

“That” is exactly what’s going on. Where have you been?

Can a corporation really be suppressed, or are individuals who work together as a group really the suppressees?

My belief is that this corporation-as-human tragi-comedy started in 1886 when the Supremes (with the help of a court clerk) erred in a California property tax case involving a railroad. From that time forward, the courts presumed, even though the Supremes did not specifically say so, that a corporation is entitled to all the rights of any American citizen.

I believe that is a crock, and has led to a plethora of problems that plague us still today. One of the offshoots of that long-past SCOTUS mistake is this mistaken ruling yesterday that corporations have the right, the same as individuals, to spend as much as they can to influence elections.

I guess you're suggesting that the Washington Post and New York Times are using the First Amendment and their special standing as news media organizations to influence the outcome of elections through their political "news" bias, so why would Goldman Sachs spending a billion dollars on friendly congresspersons' campaigns, in order to defeat financial regulatory reform (for instance), be any different?

Cynical though I am, and even taking Rupert Murdoch's media mutations into account, I still think there's a big difference.

So yeah, I continue to disagree.

---------------------

IMO, rhymes is using a red-herring to hide his disgust too.

---------------------

Actually, Bob, I’m pointing out that every dollar spent by the the Washington Post and the New York Times — including those spent to publish opinion columns and editorials advocating victory or defeats for candidates — is a corporate dollar. As such, it is no different than a corporate dollar spent by Citibank, Progressive Insurance, or Exxon to put up billboards or send out mailers.

Now, if you want to subject newspapers that are owned by corporations to the same limits that you think are appropriate to place on other corporate communication, then I’ll agree with you. But if you insist upon giving some corporate political activity (that by newspapers) a preferred position vis-a-vis the rest of corporate political speech, then I’ll simply have to suggest that you are either inconsistent or hypocritical (either that, or you are inconsistent in your hypocrisy or hypocritical in your inconsistency — but that starts to get too complicated!)

---------------------

The slippery slope has been well oiled by corporate interests since 1886, but this ruling finalizes everything. When the private corporate (HOAs folks) police (constables) come knocking on your door, you will not be their first innocent victim. It has begun…

Tea baggin won’t help us. We need intelligent and informed resisters, like our founding fathers, to overturn this corporate coup. Unfortunately, we have been “educating” people for cheap corporate products as well as expensive corporate propaganda, instead of educating thinkers who can reason. We are are almost certainly screwed, but don’t worry about it. Go play with your Ipod.

---------------------

I would also be interested if someone has the full text of the dissenting opinions.

---------------------

What can I say?

I am, in a way, dumbfound, but then, again, these bold attacks against the Constitution and the People, simultaneously, have been rearing its unattractive head for awhile, now—but, nonetheless, it stings and hurts to know beyond all doubts as it has been presently bestowed upon the backs of the United States of American people on yesterday, January 21, 2010!

Folks, we are in for a “really” bumpy ride! The Supreme Court has, indeed, shown itself for all to view in its full attire of omnificence!!!!-

The Supreme Court shamelessly made it known if we ever were in doubt that it is for the corporations and against the USA’s Citizenry—the People

---------------------

I know. It is sickening. We shouldn’t be surprised, though, but still, we are. Just sickening.

---------------------