With opening the doors to Corporations being able
to give campaign money, I can’t see any good of this.
How did the court find that this was a stifle of freedom
of speech? I don’t get that… this was not talking that
they would be liberating…but money. There wasn’t
anything saying they couldn’t talk and have done so.
But what I do see is triple play here. Now they have a
third voice. The first one is the people who work for
those corporations/unions have the right to vote as
they see. (and sometimes those corporations will
lean on those employees).And sometimes there are
unions with in a corporation, so there is a double deal
right there… The second voice they have is thru the
lobbyist. And now third, they will have an opportunity to
throw money at any candidate or cause they want.
What I find disturbing about this is… the money will flow
even more across state lines. New York corporations who
want a say in Idaho or Iowa or where ever. Bring in Senators
of their choices in other states to have laws taken away or
put in service for their benefits.
I do not view this as a good thing… and for the life of me
I don’t understand how the courts thought it would be.
count down..... 9 more days
5 hours ago