Corporations Gain Rights of Individuals

[RobertMac]

Tex, if this ruling when the other way, would corrupt politicians be any less corrupt??? Free speech is not the problem, but free speech should come with full discloser.

This could be a win for Democrats. In an odd sort of twist, companies that might support Sarah Palin (good Lord), might actually come out of their proverbial closet. I might be able to win the argument with my Republican friends to not vote for her because Exxon is paying for her so they can bilk them on gas later.

Doesn't this defeat the argument against the ruling? If the voters know who the corrupt politicians have sold out to, don't they stand a better chance of being kicked out of office?
Wouldn't term limits be a big help to this problem too????

 

[PORKER]

Tex, So is Big Ag's Good public policy being hijacked with this money ?

 

[Tex]

Tex, if this ruling when the other way, would corrupt politicians be any less corrupt??? Free speech is not the problem, but free speech should come with full discloser.

This could be a win for Democrats. In an odd sort of twist, companies that might support Sarah Palin (good Lord), might actually come out of their proverbial closet. I might be able to win the argument with my Republican friends to not vote for her because Exxon is paying for her so they can bilk them on gas later.

Doesn't this defeat the argument against the ruling? If the voters know who the corrupt politicians have sold out to, don't they stand a better chance of being kicked out of office?
Wouldn't term limits be a big help to this problem too????

Yes, I know the arguments. If some of these politicians were as courageous as well, Dave Letterman or John Travolta and there was a law against blackmailing them, maybe. As it is, the whims of politicians rests on their public image which, under our current system, costs money.

There could be many ways in which the truth is bought and sold with the highest bidder often gaining advantage. I look to the period just before the Great Depression and see many of the same things going on now as went on then. The difference between now and then is that businesses have PR companies to help them manipulate public opinion.

An example of this are the Monsanto adds that praise the American farmer. Unfortunately Monsanto has done and is doing some unsavory things to keep and expand their monopoly on their round up genes and what they are doing to other seed companies who might compete with them. Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court was a Monsanto lawyer at one time and wrote the ruling opinion on the patents of seed companies. Monsanto will say that it wasn't them in the case and that Clarence Thomas was one of their lawyers a long time ago but the truth is still there. Monsanto has been the largest beneficiary of the ruling. It is the same as the two step they have in their commercials praising the American farmer and at the same time crushing, oftentimes illegally, their competitors that keep them from taking all of the profits from the farming community they can with their market power.

Corporate money is only spent to allow the company to make more money or protect the ways they do it currently. It has no conscience and no morality as we have seen with the financial sector. All of the money spent is self serving to the extent that it can and does push good public policy towards their interests and often in very sneaky and unsavory ways.

Monsanto, the Missouri-based agriculture giant, ranked dead last in the Covalence ethical index. The company, which leads the world in the production of genetically-engineered seed, has been subject to myriad criticisms. Among them: the company is accused of frequently and unfairly suing small farmers for patent infringement.

Tex

 

[MoGal]

Well Robert Mac- I still haven't found the part of the Constitution that says corporate entities are entitled to individuals rights...Can you show it to me..
..

I've run into this in different places for over a year now..... I realize this is a 67 page pdf file and he's talking about what type of citizen a person is,....... http://citizensfortruthingovernment.org/WhyANational.pdf

but OT if you will at least look at page 12 and on the left side is numbers go down to 28, 29, 30. where it says a corporation is a resident...........

Does this apply to your question or am I totally misunderstanding this document? He does give references to court cases, law, etc.... but I don't understand legal jargon and yes I do understand that's he's explaining that there are three meanings of United States citizen.

You see, OT, the constitution may not say it, but when judges rule over you that the people do not elect, these judges can interpret and make rulings that the people would not vote in or go along with if it were left up to them.