Yeah, before this would have had UAW and SEIU logos everywhere. This decision simply allows corporations to exercise free speech and respond to all of the demagoguery against "big tobacco, or big pharmaceutical, or big banking" etc. that the left has done for years.
Yeah, Paine because corporations have such a hard time getting their message heard. Puh-lease. This decision is the most blatant example of judicial activism in US history. Bar none. Where exactly in the Constitution does it guarantee corporations the same rights as people? Oh, it doesn't. But I thought conservatives were all about "original intent." Guess when it comes to the judiciary, Exxon Mobil trumps the founding fathers according to right wingers.
And why aren't the Republicans backing the Democratic plan to pass a law that would ban foreign corporations from buying political ads? You're not going to say that you have no problem with some company from, say, France, influencing American elections, are you?
2 comments:
Yeah, before this would have had UAW and SEIU logos everywhere. This decision simply allows corporations to exercise free speech and respond to all of the demagoguery against "big tobacco, or big pharmaceutical, or big banking" etc. that the left has done for years.
Yeah, Paine because corporations have such a hard time getting their message heard. Puh-lease. This decision is the most blatant example of judicial activism in US history. Bar none. Where exactly in the Constitution does it guarantee corporations the same rights as people? Oh, it doesn't. But I thought conservatives were all about "original intent." Guess when it comes to the judiciary, Exxon Mobil trumps the founding fathers according to right wingers.
And why aren't the Republicans backing the Democratic plan to pass a law that would ban foreign corporations from buying political ads? You're not going to say that you have no problem with some company from, say, France, influencing American elections, are you?
Post a Comment