Businesses are owned by private people. In the States, anyone can become a corporate owner under this presumption and pay to have his or her voice heard. As also stated, since corporations are seen as entities with rights, the ruling also applies to individuals with money, and also other organizations with money.
Unions will now have the same rights as well. As much as I despise unions (another subject), I 100% support their right to spend their money how they see fit to get their point across to 300 million people as well. Organizations like Greenpeace, whom I also despise (yet another subject), will also be ablet o preach their crap close to the end of an election, and I support that 100%.
I would MUCH RATHER these groups (any group, really) air their thoughts in public, than go behind the scenes and try to talk our politicians into doing things for them, and giving them little treats, vacations, what-have-you. PACs are much worse than what we are talking about here, but I don't see anyone decrying the end of the States due to these creations and they have been around a lot longer than the recent Supreme Court ruling that is in such dispute here.
You can't just "pick sides" and say "you over there get freedom x but you over here don't." That's not the rule of law. That's actually a dictatorship.
Do you guys even know what the ruling (yes Dudester, look up the word - that's what it was. Maybe you are too young yet to understand the concept of something like "precedent" and "rulings" work related to the law - in most countries, not just the US) was related to? It was at the bottom of the Huffington article Dudester linked to, but gee - Dudester, that's so much to read! I know it was tough for you...
A group of CITIZENS got together and made a documentary to show some of the things that they didn't like about Hillary Clinton. They wanted to show the documentary on cable channels. Some judge said "gee, that looks too much like a campaign add and it should be regulated like one."
Turns out that Hillary Clinton, being the idiot that she is, showed enough people wha she was really like that it didn't matter that the documentary wasn't aired during the compaign. But I want to see information on both sides to give me enough information to figure out who I want to vote for.
Does it mean that the information is allowed to be FALSE? Hell no! So who fears the truth? Only those who know the truth will destroy them. All others who are telling lies need to be brought to justice for their lies. There is nothing in that ruling that prevents that from happening.
Is it less than perfect? Is it possible that a lie could cause a problem with an election? Absolutely. But if such happens, the consequences should be severe.
But because it's less than perfect does that mean we should keep information from coming to the public by some arbitrary means like the court case in question? Hell no. That's censorship and limiting of freedoms.
But I don't expect unthinking idiots like Dudester to understand the difference anyway - certainly he is incapable of actual critical thinking.
If Dudester's not from the States, I give huge thanks because the more idiots like that in the States, the more likely the death of the States is to be true.
At least Orwellian, although in my opinion not right about some things, can argue a point without resorting to non-argument, child-like idiocies like Dudester does. But that's how children often act. Maybe he'll grow up one day, who knows?
It's funny - As far apart as Orwellian and I seem to be on some things, the ability to argue coherently has allowed us to see how alike we are in other regards, like the human global warming and AIDS fallacies as an example.
When people like Dudester open their mouths, it just makes matters worse because there is so much child-like temper-tantrum balled up in whatever he has to say.
But Dudester, I support your right to be an idiot and expose such idiocy in public speech 100%.
