Comments about ‘A victory for free speech’

"Corporations already are hugely involved in campaigns for high office. It's just that the rules have forced them to funnel money through indirect ways, such as political action committees."

Such as the: "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?

They have also donated a lot of money to “NOM”, National Organization for Marriage, which was highly involved in California and Maine.

No wonder the Des News applauds this decision.

This reporter seems to be of the opinion that allowing corporations, with all of their immense capital, to directly campaign for their candidate of choice is a simple question of free speech. I am forced to wonder if the practical side of this ever occurred to him.

What would have happened to the Valdez oil spill if Exxon had been able to personally finance the campaign of their choice officials at the federal level? Is not a politician who was put into office through an oil company more likely to shrug off penalizing them in that situation? What happens when this is the case for every office?

The government should be beholden to the people's interests, not those of whomever -- or whatever -- has the deepest pockets. This decision has made it all but impossible for the people to elect who they support, since they have no hope of competing with the now unlimited influence of major corporations. Free speech is curtailed when it presents a clear and present harm to individuals or society. This decision clearly does that, as it removes the will of the people and replaces it with the will of the corporation.

Why not print an editorial decrying judicial activism, by ignoring precedent and striking down more than 100 years of law. Or is it only judicial activism when you don't agree with the decision? They ruled on an issue that was not brought before them by litigants but rather "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law" -from the dissenting opinion

This is not a left right issue, this is an issue of democracy. If you don't believe that corporations can buy senators then I invite you to look into that bodies history.

Corporations are not individuals, the idea that they are is absurd. They cannot vote, nor bear arms. The bill of rights does not guarantee their rights including the first amendment. Their speech can and should be regulated. Corporations also do not need to be owned or operated by American citizens which gives a lot of political power to non-citizens.

The Deseret News editorial staff is yet again showing that they are a complete joke.

My $10 to my candidate will now be matched by $10 million EACH for the other guy from Exxon, GE, Walmart, banks, and insurance companies. Now that's democracy in action.

If Corporations are given the rights of a "Person" with the rights and restrictions of real persons, why should then a corporation be allowed to contribute more than $2400, the limit imposed on real citizens?

I guess that means that more money you can spend more free speech is yours.
Corporations or unions can elect their representatives as long as they can pay for "their" free speech or bonuses?
Hooray for "your" free speech!
We know you have us, ordinary people in mind, or do you?

Leszek

You are kidding right - You really want big insurance companies and big banks and big corporations to now be given even more to buy your politicians and ultimately control your life???

They've proven to be such good stewards of the healthcare system and the financial system that we should let them strike even more deals with politicians to darken the airways with their crafted message? Do you seriously think this is a victory for anything more than more corruption?

We need to be moving in a direction away -- not towards the corruption of our politicians. We need to be moving in a direction more towards citizen - not corporate empowerment.

Because you are so happy that these poor repressed big companies can finally have their message heard....I think you should simply send your next pay check to the CEO of one of the large banks or insurance companies. You are going to be sending at least that much in taxes, unchecked fees etc passed by bought politicians.

You are out of your mind if you think this atrocity has made speech freer. Indeed it has made speech much much more expensive. Now the expense of money will determine who's speech is heard, and who's is not. That is not free. That is not freedom.

Dave Hansen is right (you call it curious, but the fact that you can't understand it is more curious). Candidates will lose control of their message, especially in the last few weeks of a campaign. With no controls, dozens of different ads from different corporations will flood the airwaves. Some of these will be tasteless, distortions, or outright lies. The only people who benefit from this are corporations (they now buy people outright), the media (ad prices skyrocket before elections), and lawyers (an increase in libel and slander suits). Do you really think foreign corporations like Sony, Toyota or CITGO (owned by Hugo Chavez) give a crap about the issues facing America? No, they'll care about the 1 issue that affects their profits, and then attempt to buy the right person.

This decision is a violation of the general welfare clause because it opens the door even wider for favoritism of special interests, or should I say, to allow corps to write their own legislation. The idea that they would have done it anyway is no reason to remove all limits. The argument that corporations might not seize the opportunity is quite weak. Corporations are not individuals. Many of them are well known for putting profit above human life including those of their customers as well as legislating away their competition. Thus they cannot be trusted not to further soil our republic. Bribery is not good for democracy. This is not rocket science. For a publication that is supposed to be respectable to term those that disagree with its editorial as "naive" is an example of the unethical media practices in the LDS Church's recent statement "Journalistic Integrity and the Compartmentalization of Ethics". In light of our corruptibility as human, the means to bankroll a political campaign is free speech like a gun in an armed robbery is saying "pretty please?".

The founders understood human nature and wisely made provision for government power to be checked and balanced in that context. What we have now is a situation wherein corporations have formed an unaccountable, unchecked, unbalanced 4th branch of government. You can't argue that the founders were wise to try to limit power in government and say that in business there should be no limits at all - because the two run together. Benjamin Franklin warned that a commerce-based economy was a bad idea because commerce is mostly cheating. We ignored him and now we are suffering the consequences. The constitution truly hangs by a thread.

Yep, that's what's wrong with America; too much free speech. Sheesh, what is the matter with you people? Rather than whine about who might be paying the bills for an ad or a politician why not look into it and make you decision on who to vote for as an informed member of the electorate. We don't need less speech. We need a smarter electorate.

here we come.
agree w PM - you're kidding right.
corps the same as individuals and according the same protections? get serious.
the voice of the people will now be drowned out by the interest of the corporation, whose primary (even only) goal is to make money.
what a wonderful world this ACTIVIST bench will have created. a decision w more import than Bush v Gore.

Corporations with the same rights as people=absurd

I thought progressives were for free speech. Silly me. Editorial right on.

The Democrats are crying loud and long that corporations have the same rights as their Unions to speak out at any time on any subject.

The Democrats would limit free speech to anyone who opposed them.

They would limit free speech to anyone who offered any other plan or program.

They must think that the American Way can be defined by them and their Unions.

They think that having one party in power and keeping that party in power at the expense of free-speech is acceptable.

They think that might makes right - no matter what liberties are sacrificed.

Yes, they believe in free speech - as long as the only one speaking is someone they want to hear.

President Abraham Lincoln must be spinning rapidly in his grave as the right-wing conservative-lead U.S. Supreme Court is changing lines in his Gettysburg address to:
". . .that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom . . . and that government of big corporations, by big corporations, for big corporations, shall not perish from the earth."

I agree with the point that companies really aren't impeded by these laws, given PACs. But companies are legal constructs, not citizens. They are entities, not people. They do pay taxes, however. I guess we'll just have to see how things go. I don't necessarily believe either party will have an edge.

But individuals will have to defer to companies. We will be a country of the company, by the company, and for the company. But the editorialist would have us believe that we already are... and that that's OK.

Calling this a victory for "Free Speech" shows how clueless you really are. This is just another nail in the coffin of democracy, courtesy the conservative "activist" judges appointed by the right. They won't be happy till this country is bankrupt.

Congrats to the Desnews for breaking ranks with other newspapers in defending free speech for non-media organizations.

A corporate CEO may have money to spend, but so do others with opposing views, and that CEO still has only one vote. A corporate ad won't make me or any other commenter here suddenly stupid. We shouldn't assume less for other voters.

Let's not be afraid of getting too much information or hearing too many opinions.