With respect to corporations having free speech rights: utter nonsense. Only individuals persons have rights. If five Supreme Court justices think corporations (or unions, or boy scout troups, etc.) possess rights distinct from the rights of the people making up those organizations they are clearly wrong. We hire them to think, and to follow the Constitution (and by implication the Declaration). If some previous Court said up is down, they need to point out that is patently ridiculous and make a sane ruling. What is the impeachment process? (Oh oh, maybe we left something important out of the Constitution…!)

“Frightened that Jerry Brown’s campaign coffers aren’t rich enough to battle a billionaire to become California’s next governor, three separate Democratic and pro-labor groups are poised to raise more than $40 million to start trashing GOP front-runner Meg Whitman.”

Oh, look over there is that Exxon lurking?

Didn’t you study “We, the corporations…” in school? no? Well, it’s time to start teaching it to our kids, because this decision is merely a formality. Corporate money has been controlling our government for a long time, and this just makes it official. The large sums necessary to participate in elections are only available by tapping into the assets of a very large group of people (preferably untaxed). And it’s even cheaper if they use government money! The “W” administration, for example, used government money to pay newspaper columnists to write stories favorable to their policies. Do you really think they stopped there? Why were taxpayers even paying Rove’s salary? And his staff? Who paid all those “journalists” to plant false stories about the Iraq war? (Jessica Lynch, etc.) It’s appalling the way corporate money and misappropriated government funds are controlling the media and the political process. Banks were previously able to buy off enough congressmen to pass the bailout bill, supposedly transferring Congressional spending power to a single man, Hank Paulson. But this makes it legal! Why bother with all the hearings and negotiations and time-consuming rigamarole when it’s so much more efficient to make politician buying legal? I’m sure new and uglier consequences will be revealed daily, but it’s time for Americans to realize the kind of political system we really have. We should build a new monument on the Washington mall to Ken Lay, who symbolizes the founding of this new political system.

I am as disgusted with the way money has corrupted the political process as anybody, but let’s not put all the blame on corporations when other organizations are even worse. The playing field should be level for all organizations regardless of their structures. How about a law that resticts contributions to $100 annually for any entity or person? That would level the playing field more than a foolish ban on corporate spending.

Lost in the shuffle, this case was about the government, through the courts, banning a movie put together by a small group of people who formed a corp to produce the movie vs Hillary the candidate. (Inquiring minds would be interested to know if a lower court would have stepped in if the movie was directed at Bush or a Cheney or John McCain.) When questioned the gov admitted books could be next using their own logic. Boy there’s a memory, cold night, books in a fire….

While I realize I have no hope of changing partisan political minds I would suggest, on your own in secret of course, that you peruse Reason.com to hear alternative views on this subject. At least Bill Moyers did. He even did a show on it.

That’s close. The truth is actually a little more complicated, and most elegantly summarized by Art Earthmann: corporate personhood “… was caused by the Clerk of the Supreme Court casually writing said idea on the header of his notepad in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Case in the US in 1886. The court never issued said opinion, but the informal comment was subsequently used as precedent …” Yup, some clerk wrote it down and it has been treated as law ever since. True story.

Now, the ramifications are fascinating. Corporations pay lower rates of income taxes than a lot of people. Corporations between the ages of 18 and 25 don’t have to register for Selective Service; people (or maybe just guys; I can’t remember) in that age range do. Corporations don’t get to vote; people do. I see all kinds of 14th Amendment (equal protection under the law) issues arising from this.

Anyway, you’ve got a good point, but not a point with any legal standing. In this country, if you see a blue sky and Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas see a purple sky with pink polka-dots, well, the sky is purple with pink polka-dots. Try not to get a headache.

All the same, the discussion of strict construction is pretty shallow. It was the attack ground when the court allowed married individuals to use contraception in Griswold v. Conn. It has been 45 years that we have lived with this ruling ( a right to privacy in our bedro0ms). Do you really feel the holding clashes with your sense of what is protected by the bill of rights? I certainly am comfortable thinking that the government has no place making birth control between a husband and wife illegal.