This is what the End of a functioning democracy looks like

[NCVol]

FWIW, here are two arguments by so called liberals who support the decision.  So if you want to argue the fine points of law, maybe next time you can go to one of these guys for your talking points.

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/

Both the Kennedy and Stevens opinions are very compelling and fascinating. The Kennedy decision does raise some questions over the sweep on his first amendment views and why any limits on campaign finances are constitutional. It also reintroduces the question of why corporations are treated as persons for the purposes of the first amendment.

I was sympathetic with Citizens United and the free speech groups. In the end, I have to favor more speech than less in such conflicts. While I would have written a concurrence and have difficulty with aspects of the majority opinion, I probably would have voted to support the majority in the result in this case. However, I do consider this to be one of the most difficult free speech cases to hit the court in decades. Many of my friends are on the other side and I understand that this is quite a blow. People of good faith can disagree on such issues. It really broke along a fine line.

I agree with that.  It's the impact that has me horrified, and that is what you have refused to discuss.  

Another civil libertarian is here:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html

Ultimately, I think the free speech rights burdened by campaign finance laws are often significantly under-stated.   I understand and sympathize with the argument that corporations are creatures of the state and should not enjoy the same rights as individuals.  And one can't help but note the vile irony that Muslim "War on Terror" detainees have been essentially declared by some courts not to be "persons" under the Constitution, whereas corporations are.

But the speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws.  I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people -- which is what corporations are -- from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood.

The predicted effect:

I'm also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process.  My skepticism is due to one principal fact:  I really don't see how things can get much worse in that regard.  The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests (Dick Durbin:  "banks own" the Congress).  Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions -- their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold -- and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can't imagine how it could worsen fundamentally.  All of the hand-wringing sounds to me like someone expressing serious worry that a new law in North Korea will make the country more tyrannical.  There's not much room for our corporatist political system to get more corporatist. Does anyone believe that the ability of corporations to influence our political process was meaningfully limited before yesterday's issuance of this ruling?

So I'm well aware that there are good faith disagreements on the legal issues surrounding the decision, and we can't add anything meaningful to it.  I heard a debate of sorts with Turley and the question was how does a corporation have "free speech" rights instead of its members. I'm sure as a constitutional scholar, he has a good argument, but he evaded the question. He also had no good answer yet for why the rules for an individual are now arguably more restrictive than for a corporation in some areas.  Or how a corporate person owned by, say, China can seemingly buy unlimited amounts of ads to influence elections, but a chinese citizen cannot contribute ONE DIME to a campaign.  Why does Bank of China get to influence our elections?  And if a majority foreign owned corporation cannot buy ads, why not?  Why should a foreign national, say King Abdullah, of Saudi Arabia not be able to influence elections here?  Where does it say in the constitution that FURNERS do not have free speech.  It doesn't.  And if you want to limit them, on what Constitutional authority?  

The point is there are dozens of unanswered questions and pretending that the only issue is whether the constitution itself it permitted a LIMIT on TeeVee ad buying is really not the point.  And continuing an argument that begins and ends there is pointless since it misses all the real issues this case presents.  Where, for example, does the Constitution say you can only contribute $2.400 tp a candidate and not $11 million?  Yet the courts have for 100 years upheld limits.  Why, how, on what basis?  

[NCVol]

BTW, I've said a lot.  Cherry picking a few points is fine, but unfair. 

And many of them dealt with the fact that money gets results in politics and this decision makes it easier, if just marginally, for money to find its way into the system. 

What is there to argue with?  You won't argue the issue since asking the questions, "does money drive elections, buy influence, affect legislation, and/or corrupt the political process" answers itself.  OF COURSE!!!!!  Only ignoramuses and idiots think it doesn't do all that. Allowing unlimited amounts easier access into the process worsens those impacts, IMO.  If you disagree, make that argument.  It should be entertaining.   

[Dementia_Madness]

My case has rested Nc you can continue to spew forth whatever talking points you like to justify your irrational fears and hatred...When you show us how this ruling was wrong, not wrong because of the supposed impact that horrifies you..but wrong because it was unjust based on law, not fears, on justice, not fairness...then we can talk about it, but the fact is the supreme court should not take racist, sexists, fear-mongers, or discriminating haters fears into consideration when making their LEGAL and JUST decisions...

The ruling protects both rich and poor alike form being discriminated against...for many disenfranchised the ONLY real voice they have is the voice of unity, and IF we say that because they stand together their united voice is any less important than the voice of the individual, on that day you will indeed see the end of democracy which is all about a united voice that although it may not represent every voice within it the same, it still offers the same freedoms and protections for those voices. The fact is that in America the individual has a voice, and so too does the masses, it is the freedom of both that we should all strive for...and not discriminate because we do not like some aspect of their being, be it inside them or outside.

[Dementia_Madness]

BTW I didn't "cherry pick" I took your entire initial post and broke it up into the umpteen talking points it was....

Corporations (and unions) able to spend whatever sums they deem appropriate in direct support of a Federal candidate for office.  

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=2&hp

If anyone really wants to know why "conservative" Supreme Court justices are such a big deal, this is it.  This is why campaigns matter, so the biggest money can purchase the right to do what they want.  In this case, to buy an election.  The thought that they give one damn about abortion is such a joke - THIS is what the money boys care about.  They just officially got the permission to buy the WH and Congress.  Congratulations, conservatives.  This is what you all have been fighting for.  

The "right" for a GD piece of PAPER to advocate for individual candidates using unlimited sums.  What do you think a favorable decision on health care is worth to UNH over a five year period?  They have a net worth of about $35 billion, so each percentage point of their stock price is worth 350 million.  You think they might spend $100 million to get a 350% return on their money?  Hell, what kind of actual investment can beat it?  There's your new "business" strategy thanks to "conservative" justices.

Two more things
1) I will throw up next time I hear someone explain that being conservative means standing with tradition, and that what they want from their SC is not to MAKE new law but to stay true to original intent.  These respecters of tradition just overturned a century of settled law.

2) I also hope this is the last time we ever have to respond to the question, 'Where is the right to healthcare in the Constitution?'  Yeah, where is it that a piece of paper has the RIGHT to any damn thing.  A corporation is not a person, it's a legal document, a fiction, evidence of an association of people.  But now this document has rights.  What a sad, pathetic joke.  

http://spsboard.com/SPS/index.php/topic,5532.msg69098.html#msg69098

That's not fair...you are using my own words against me...

Keep trying to justify yourself NC, it just shows for all to see exactly what you are all about.

[NCVol]

racist, sexists, fear-mongers, or discriminating haters fears into consideration when making their LEGAL and JUST decisions...

What the hell does that mean.  I suppose I hate jews because I don't like banks, too?  Idiot.  Seriously, there's no need to go there.  It's me and you on this topic and that's bullshiate. 

[Dementia_Madness]

What the hell does that mean.  I suppose I hate jews because I don't like banks, too?  Idiot.  Seriously, there's no need to go there.  It's me and you on this topic and that's bullshiate.  

Nope but just like the SC doesn't consider the rapists or the racists or the criminals arguments in their consideration of justice they too do not need to consider the fears of a discriminating hater like you.

Your irrational fear based on your hatred of wealth is of no concern to justice....nor should it be. Your desire and supprt for limiting the rights of others based on wealth shows that you are discriminating against them. So either you accept those words and understand who your bedfellows are...or you think deeply about just how far your hatred will make you go to justify itself.

Keep it up.... :) this 'dead" thread sure has allot of life.

[The One Man Gang]

It's been my experience that when the SCOTUS absolutely nails a decision the Left comes completely unglued.  See Exhibits "A" "B" and "C" above.

It's nothing new, when the Court pointed out that several of FDR's initiatives were unconstitutional, he introduced legislation to "pack the court" by adding up to six new members, who, natch, would be appointed by FDR. Watch for something similar here.

[Dementia_Madness]

The foolish thing that most people do not understand, when they give sway to their irrational fears based on discrimination and emotion, eventually the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, so in unbalancing the swing, though it may be a momentary benefit, and may momentarily harm your opponent, eventually can and will serve to do the same to you.

What people like NCvol fail to understand is that once you persuade people that it is okay to discriminate against others based on wealth, it is only a matter of time before that same argument turns to based on lack of wealth...or even may change to include you yourself into the ones considered wealthy and okay to discriminate against, as there is always someone with less than you and thinks you do not deserve what you have either. Either way, once we open that door and say it's okay...we all end up losing in the end.

The argument is put forth to instill fear in people that "big Corporations" will now be able to pour more money into ads and programming that will "unfairly" influence the uninformed public. However even though NC ignored the fact that I did address this http://spsboard.com/SPS/index.php/topic,5532.msg68871.html#msg68871 , the fact is one must ask one question to understand IF such fear-mongering is rational, and IF indeed people are worried about the evil power hungry rich organizations controlling their information..they simply need to answer this question...who owns NBC? Who owns CNN? Who own ABC? Really all the same question, the ONE important question, Who owns the media? Just who owns the information that you are being spoon fed on a daily basis anyway? If you are afraid that BIG Corporations are going to control the information you will be given, then give it up it's  to late they already do. All this really does is allow those corporations who do not control the media the same ability to be able to put forth the information they want you to know as well...so is the fears posited by some liberals rational, does this tip the balance of power...only for those that need to limit others in order to maintain power...and if that is liberals (it must be because they are the ones arguing it does) we must then ask, why must they do this?

[Sasquatch]

The appropriate response to this and all other Constitutional questions is:

Blah, Blah, Blah