O'Connor Worries Corporate Cash Will Taint Judicial Elections

Reader Comments
Back to article

How easy it is for moneyed interests to get their message out, and how difficult for the average American to do so. It's the difference between millions of dollars at one's disposal and but a vote at election time. It's the difference between buying influence and having none at all. And, unfortunately, it's the difference between being an American in 1950 and being an American in 2010.
Justice O'Connor is correct to fear an increase in the influence of money. Just look at what it has done to health care "reform" and to the overall electoral process in the U.S. The most money wins too often, too easily and without debate, in the race to persuade the easily fooled. Corporate America knows there's a sucker born every minute, and there's no hesitation in the rush to take advantage in defense of "the bottom line."
Three cheers for Justice O'Connor and her willingness to call it as she sees it.

Ron W. Smith of UT 10:42PM January 29, 2010

Five conservatives in robes equals corporate fascism.
And just wait until those magnificent individuals known as corporations really buy the government thanks to those Supreme Court Injustices. Wal-Mart is now the biggest employer and is the blueprint for the future. You will be lucky if you can work 12 hour days until you die on the job as there will be no Social Security or benefits. You will work or be destitute. It will be every man, woman and child for itself
Want to know the plan then read this important new free book,
Low Wage Capitalism
http://www.lowwagecapitalism.com/Low-WageCapitalism-lores.pdf
Rusty Wilson
Facebook, Twitter and
http://groups.google.com/group/bnooz_2007

Rusty Wilson of NY 2:39AM January 29, 2010

So if, as the Supreme court now says, corporations are now people, with the same rights as people, one is left to ponder certain things. Can a corporation vote. I mean, does it get an absentee ballot to cast. What if McDonalds wants to take over say, Burger King. Since they both are burger joints wouldn't that be gay marriage. What about if, Wal-Mart moves to your town and eliminates your local hardware store by aggressively undering selling that hardware store, wouldn't that be murder. And if so, who goes to jail? I spoke to our local university political law professor and he summed it up rather pointedly. He said what the supreme court just did was grant extended rights to corporations while not allowing people the same rights as corporations. We have a 14th amendment which grants equal protection under the law, but as he reminded me, in this case there are two laws. Take a moment and read this decision and it's implications. This could become very damaging to the every day citizen. This is also only part one. Part two is to address if corporations can donate directly to specific politicians and how much. The door has been opened for that to weigh heavily againts We The People.

JDZ57 of WI 10:38PM January 28, 2010

OBAMA CALLED OUT BY EVEN THE NYT!!! WOW!!
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/?scp=5&sq=supreme%20court&st=cse
LESSON FOR OBAMA:
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU LOSE MORE CREDIBILITY! LEARN TO TELL THE TRUTH!

GrannyCares of DE 5:25PM January 28, 2010

This is judicial activism on steroids.Just last summer Justice Sotomayor was vigorously grill by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Commitee about being a judicial activist. She voted against the Supreme Court. decision. The five conservatives who voted for the John Roberts inspired decision are hypocrits at best because they were suopposed to represent judicial restraint.Free speech, baloney! This can only lead to corporate fascism. Democratic and Republican politicians alike need to protect their freedom to vote their convictions and not get scared by special interests..

Jack Golding of KS 3:35PM January 28, 2010

Sandra Day O'Connor was the arrogant moron who swung Bush v. Gore in favor of Bush. Bush gave you Roberts and Alito. Skip asking Sandra what she thinks of the now-abominable Court decisions from the bloc of five Catholic men. She caused them. Oh, we should celebrate Reagan for putting that first woman on the Court? Uh, no. She was/is one of the most colossal disasters in the history of the United States of America.
As for whether voters are dumb? Yes, they (we) are. You will see corporations using not so much "negativity" in coming elections, but rather they will purchase endless saturation of repetition in all media. And, then they will win. Remember, we buy insurance from geckos and ducks in this country---and corporations know that.

Muser of NM 3:02PM January 28, 2010

The hysterical outcries from liberals and those who have the media pulpit assume that voters are too dumb not to be persuaded to change their votes because of the usual onslaught of political ads preceding an election. In short, they think most voters are as dumb and gullible as they are. I certainly don't need self-appointed elitist gatekeepers to sift through the political propaganda so that I can vote for the best (or least worst) candidate.

RetFed2k of CO 2:24PM January 28, 2010

This is about giving more power to corporations so they can over-power an individual voter---so they may think. We have seen many times over that no matter how much money an individual puts into his campaign, if the voter does not like, respect or trust the candidate, he will reject him. In Illinois there were several candidates who thought they could buy the election and after throwing millions into their own campaign, they lost. Perot also thought he could buy the election and after wasting millions, he lost. I still think the few judges who wrote for and overturned a decades old legal precedent, did so with ulterior motives. Apparently, the Supreme Court Judges who decided for the corporation are attempting to install an oligarchy, putting power into the hands of a few wealthy morons. They still don't get it---it will NEVER work in the USA. These judges may deny it, but it is quite obvious where they are taking this. Any dummy knows and understands a corporation is an entity not a voting, working,thinking individual. This only shows these "conservative" judges will never look to protecting the rights of working Americans but are probably on the take and in the pockets of corporate lobbyist. It won't be the first time we see judges taken down for being corrupt. We definitly need term limits for judges and politicians.

A. Geary of IA 1:48PM January 28, 2010

Wow, I wonder if "hillary the movie" talks about all the money the clintons took from the communist chinese government. Remember when Algore took a wad of cash from a chi-com connected buddist temple (didnt know it was unseemly). I dont care how many trillions anyone spends, I will vote how I'm going to vote. Someone just mad cause their companies can't make a profit, unless they get loot from the treasury. I mean, who is going to buy a dung-powered tofrutti blender? Hemp lotion butplug salve? Yeh, thats a big seller. Solar powered parasol? 100% certifiable organic water? What pathetic losers buy this crap?

Chow Hound of CA 3:03AM January 28, 2010

The Court has made a monumental error.
Corporations and chartered organizations are "persons" under the law, but they do not have the right to vote, or cast ballots in elections.
The Court should have ruled that ONLY persons who are eligible to register to vote, or who are registered voters have the right to contribute to political organizations or spend their funds on political advertising.
Since those "persons" are not flesh & blood humans, they do not deserve, nor should they hold the same level if rights.

Greg of ID 5:50PM January 27, 2010