In this case the court ruled that a corporation spending its money on campaign ads was political speech, protected by free speech. That means that the spending of all money on political campaigns is political speech and is therefore free speech. That means that when it comes to the financing of ads the corporations now have, because of the removel of all restrictions, a vastly deeper, almost unlimited, and disporportinatly larger voice in terms of political speech (money) than do the average citicen.

The welthiest person as an individual, were they to file to establish themselves as a corporation would not have the resources to compete in terms of political speech (money) with the largest corporations. We’ll take your favorite George Soros as an example. If he were to incorporate himself, and use his personal forture for the publishing of campaign ads, would he be able to match the contriputions made by the oil industry. The answer is obviously no. Exon Mobil anlone has posted well over $40 Billion dollars in profits in a given year, just one company. All of the oil companies may draw upon all of their profits to publish ads now. If Mr. Soros advocates for the Democrats, and the oil industry for the Republicans, who has the louder more robust voice. The answer is the corporations. Unlimited spending on campaign ads when defined as political speach means that corporations now had a disporportinatly louder voice, and in terms of dollars, the majority voice in American politics. The voice of the people in the public debate now leading up to an election is now the minority voice.

Your opinion of the Hillary movie is just that opinion. It was not a 2 hour long campaign piece. Moore is allowed to do hit pieces all the time, but you would not allow one about Hillary? Hypocrite.

As for spending on political commercials when was the last time an average citizen bought a commercial to expouse his views? Squelching the speach of citizens? The only voice we have is with our vote. When Joe Sixpack runs and ad about politics I’ll eat my hat. (And it doesn’t look tasty.)

Further to your point, Free speech is not an absoulte freedom, we do place limits on speech. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theater. Their is also the exemption whem it comes to speach that specifically insties to violence. The classic example is you can not rethorically whit a crowd into a frenzy and then say the bag guys are over there, lets go get them.

The existing laws did not prohibit the speech (money) of corporations. It places a responsable limit. The money must come from PAC’s, not from general in house money, and it can not be used for ads 30 days out from primaries or conventions, and 60 days out from general elections. In this instance the same type of limitation on speech (money) exists for the private citizen. They are limited to $108,000 per election cycle, and have a cap on how much thay can give at one time. Not a prohibition, but a responsible limit. You may speak your mind on any topic without fear of government reprisal, but you may not cause a panic in a crowded place. You may donate to a candidate, but if you have vast resources, you may not use those to overshadow the average citizen i.e. you may not give $1 million dollars when the average citizen may only be able to give $1,000, but you may give $10,000.

Don’t get me wrong I do not believe that this is a GREAT thing. However, when it comes to freedom of speach it’s a constitutional issue. You can’t simply DENY speach to one group or the other and not do it for all. And I will remind you this decision came about because of a movie. Are we to stop Michael Moore because he is a business from making his movies that are anti-republican? Where does it stop? When you give away a freedom you seldom get it back.

Explain this. How is a corporation, something created by an act of legislation, something that is nothing more than a set of legal forms equal to a person. How do the individual rights granted to every living breathing walking talking thinking citizen of the United States apply to a corporation. Is a corporation, a legal filing the same as a person, and if they are equal to a person, do they get to vote, does a corporation get called for jury duty. Why does a legal filing deserve the same rights I have, and you have.

The Constitution starts “We the people” , Peaple, not corporation. The individual people who make up those corporations already have all of the individual rights of a citizen.

According to this ruling, money equals speach. If that is the case, what happens to my $10 of speach, or $50, or $100 when a large corporation can contribute 100 times that. The individual people become the minority voice.

I find it interesting that it is a conservative group that filed this lawsuit and that it was conservative justices who chose to interpret this status out of the constitution and reverse years of judicial precedent from a multitude of courts. The Constitution left what could be considered a “grey area” because corporations did not exist at the time it was written, so they were not specifically addressed, and the conservative justices of the court drove a mack truck through it.

Point taken. However, again it comes down to free speach. You can’t have it for some and not others. Until corporations are constitutionally seperate from citizens then they have the same rights. That’s called equality under the law. Something civil rights has been advocating for decades.

Madison Avenue spends 24 hours, 365 days a year thinking of ways to invade our psyches and deliver the desired message and has for about 100 years now. The average American spends far less time dissecting these messages, if any at all. We watch at least an hour of commercials a night- do we spend an hour examining them for their merits? We Americans complain about the little bit of time we have to think about already…don’t ask us to use our brains any more, especially with the deck stacked against us.

Please- the average American against the whole of corporate America and their subsidaries. That’s a David and Goliath scenario if ever there was one.

I should have more faith in my fellow citizens? According to Pew Research, only 18% of adults knew that the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that was working on Healthcare legislation was Max Baucus. Only 56% knew the public option was part of Healthcare reform. 33% knew Ben Bernanke was chairman of the FED, and only 23% knew that “Cap and Trade” was part of energy legislation. Now we both know that polls are far from spot on accurate, but if these numbers are even in the general neighborhood then most of these people are only vaguely aware they are on planet Earth. Have faith in my fellow citizens? If these people are representative of our fellow citizens I wouldn’t have faith they could get a coffee run correct.

Yes advertising sways opinion. Mostly though it is seen through. You should have more faith in your fellow citizen. You are assuming just because one company runs an add that another won’t run a counter ad. All this means is there will be more garbage on tv. Just look at cspan.