This is the danger of conferring the rights of an individual upon a collective. Graft is now officially considered protected speech.

Now, although Rupert Murdoch would still be subject to individual limits, News Corp can now give whatever it wants to a campaign.

(And don't we all love the "campaign / candidate" shell game. If you don't know what I'm talking about, recall when the RNC sponsored the Harold Ford "call me" ads. Corker disavowed all involvement in them. Right.)

____________________________

Calling to the underworld. Come out of the cupboard, you boys and girls.

By corollary, I hereby claim the right to limited liability.

Wonder if American business will try to protect itself from the government of Barack Obama? Maybe by "investing" in a new House and Senate?

So here's a fun story. In 1886, some asshole court reporter - a former railroad tycoon - doctored a SCOTUS decision's supporting documentation. Without even a glint of reasoning or explanation, he inserted a random brainfart from oral arguments that corporations deserve Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Thus was the animating principle behind dozens of skeevy thinktanks and thousands of glibertarian blowhards, and the vital fluid of the New Grand Old Party, given birth.

Statement from the President on Today's Supreme Court Decision:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

You know, I think it'll likely be even worse than graft: a free-floating, interminable, unspoken understanding that everyone should stay in line or get nuked.

...since Russ Feingold + 58 other Senate Dems + John McCain = 60?

I didn't find this "stunning" - I saw it coming long ago.

And yes, it stems from the idea that corporations are persons - something that, as Sven points out, wasn't even a real SCOTUS decision.

What a fun week it's been - ingrown toenail surgery, the Brown victory, and now this. I'm not sure which is more painful.

Also, let's not forget that this opinion comes from the intellectual giants and guardians of free speech who said that a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" can be squashed because it can "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."

…Disclaimer and disclosure requirements enable private citizens and elected officials to implement political strategies specifically calculated to curtail campaign-related activity and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights.

…Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—“the advent of the Internet” enables “prompt disclosure of expenditures,” which “provide[s]” political opponents “with the information needed” to intimidate and retaliate against their foes. Ante , at 55. Thus, “disclosure permits citizens … to react to the speech of [their political opponents] in a proper”—or undeniably improper —“way” long before a plaintiff could prevail on an as-applied challenge.

--Clarence Thomas

(link...)

He's referring to sections 201 and 311 of the BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a/k/a McCain-Feingold). Thomas thinks that the requirement to disclose campaign contributions constitute a chilling effect on free speech and should therefore be eliminated. He's arguing in favor of prior restraint of campaign disclosure. Sunshine laws make it possible for you to attack your political opponents in near real-time on the Internets! This is unfair!

____________________________

Calling to the underworld. Come out of the cupboard, you boys and girls.

Gee, thanks Ralph.

Yeah, there's really no difference between Gore and Bush. Right.
We have to suffer from the SC Bush legacy for years now.

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

This Supreme Court ruling literally scares the hell out of me. It could do more harm to the political scene in this nation and negatively affect the freedoms of it's citizens more than what any terrorist ever could do. Am I wrong to fear that by giving corporations this much power over our election process, that in the worse case scenario, our laws will be totally controlled by these corporations and eventually slavery wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities.

Sorry for the late comment but I have been literally incapacitated over the last few months. This ruling somehow slipped by me.