posted June 22, 2011 06:43 AM            

We knew that Corporate America had superseded the average american in importance, clout, and voice.

Banks too big to fail? They are even bigger now.

Wall Mart too big to sue?

posted June 22, 2011 09:56 AM            

What has leftist panties in a bunch is that the Supreme Court restored those rights to corporations...and others...which the McCain/Feingold bill took away.

It is always unconstitutional...and always should be unconstitutional to curtail 1st Amendment rights to free speech...at least in the United States.

O'Bomber is a liar...and not just on the issue of overturning McCain/Feingold. But, when O'Bomber said foreign campaign contributions could now be used to influence US elections...he lied through his teeth.

For those who believe in government shutting up those who disagree with them; there's Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Vietnam and other meccas of Socialism.

posted June 22, 2011 01:56 PM            

quote:

---

A lot of critics are saying that this decision has created a new rule: Some companies are simply too big to sue. But that's only half the story. The other half is that in the court's eyes, sex discrimination is simply too pervasive to be a problem.

---

posted June 23, 2011 10:23 AM            

Once again, O'Bomber is proved to be a liar.

"The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA, bans election-related expenditures and communications by American corporations. Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to produce and advertise a movie critical of a 2008 presidential candidate and sued to argue that BCRA’s speech restrictions violated the First Amendment. On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court agreed. “If the First Amendment has any force,” the court said, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

That is what the case was about. Here is what it was not about: This case had nothing to do with contributions by anyone to political campaigns. The ban on such contributions by corporations, originally enacted in 1907 as the Tillman Act, remains untouched. This case had nothing to do with campaign-related spending of any kind by foreign individuals or corporations. The ban on such spending is similarly still in place.

Federal law prohibits “foreign nationals” — such as foreign individuals, corporations or any “combination of persons” — from making either campaign contributions or other expenditures in connection with federal, state or local elections. Just in case some might remain confused, the Supreme Court actually said that its decision did “not reach the question whether government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our nation’s political process.”

This crystal clarity renders Obama’s State of the Union attack on the court completely baffling. He said that “the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections” and made possible the bankrolling of American elections by “foreign entities.” That claim brought Democrats to their feet and has inflamed the Democratic political base, but the claim is patently false.

If the “century of law” that Obama mentioned refers to the 1907 Tillman Act, he is flat wrong. The case did not involve campaign contributions at all, and Citizens United did not challenge the Tillman Act. Neither Citizens United’s legal briefs nor Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion even mentions it. The only reference to the Tillman Act is in Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissenting opinion."
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=901F856D-18FE-70B2-A88B35904CC9857B

But, since you raised the issue of multinational corporations having their headquarters in the US and incorporated under US laws...making campaign contributions; let's talk about international unions spending dues money collected in foreign countries to elect Socialist demoscats...like Barack Hussein O'Bomber.