The Supreme Court Votes Against Innovation

I'll beg to differ.

The mainstream media -- huge conglomerates -- were able to issue whatever political messages it preferred without restraint.

A non-profit like Citizens United, which this case involved, was not. The filmmaker was subject to being jailed, which is a complete and unconstitutional disgrace.

Saying certain groups of people, in this case corporations, were prohibited the right of free speech while other groups had no such prohibition was an illegal dimunition of the liberties our Constitution protects.

Amen, Doug!

For as long as I can remember, the biggest congolmerate - or, more accurately, oligarchy, in American history - the media - has poured its venom, resources, and capital (in the form of selective exposure) with an implicit carte blanche imprimatur. Now that the rest of us might choose to exercise the same notions, those "old-guarders" are awash in righteous indignation. Hogwash.

If two buddies and I opt to form a corporation for the purpose of fomenting political momentum of our own choosing, the monopolists on the other side now realize they no longer have 20 years of misguided judicial opinion as a cover for their efforts to preclude it.

This isn't about how corporations funnel money to political campaigns; its about how the "little guy" can organize himself and his peers into their own "Corporation of Force."

Bravo SCOTUS.

I disagree with you Bruce. I believe the SCOTUS decision was about free speech and the first amendment.

Speaking of corruption: would you prefer, instead, a ban on Union contributions to political campaigns?

I believe that the biggest obstacle to innovation these days is low investor confidence in the President's economic policies.

As your own company, Bloomberg, put it today: "77% of Investors think that Obama is anti-business" http://j.mp/ctbloom

I agree with Mr. Nussbaum. The Bush appointed supreme court has struck a blow for big business against the average citizen. We will now go back to the open buying of politicians which greatly favors the Republican party. In other words, it's back to the situation which got us in the mess we're in now.

Are corporations really persons?

Do corporations think?

Do corporations weep?

Do corporations fall in love?

Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?

Do corporations have loved ones?

Are corporations even capable of loving?

Do corporations sometimes lose sleep at night worrying about disease, violence, destruction, and the suffering of their fellow human beings?

Do corporations feel your pain?

Is a corporation capable of having a sense of humor? Is it capable of laughing at itself? (EXAMPLE: "So these two corporations walk into a bar....")

If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: "It")

Has a corporation ever walked into a voting booth and cast a ballot for the candidate of its choice?

We all know that corporations have made a mountain of cash throughout our history by profiting on the unspeakable tragedy of war. But has a corporation ever given its life for its country?

Is a corporation capable of raising a child?

Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?

Has a corporation ever written a novel or a dramatic play or a song that inspired millions?

Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?

Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or a Tony? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or a Polk or Peabody Award? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

Has a corporation ever performed Schubert's Ave Maria?

Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?

Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising in the horizon?

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?

Should corporations kiss on the first date?

Could a corporation resolve to dedicate its vocation to being an artist? Or a musician? Or an opera singer? Or a Catholic priest? Or a Doctor? Or a Dentist? Or a sheet metal worker? Or a gourmet chef? Or a short-order cook? Or a magician? Or a nurse? Or a trapeze artist? Or an author? Or an editor? Or a Thrift Shop owner? Or a EMT worker? Or a book binder? Or a Hardware Store clerk? Or a funeral director? Or a sanitation worker? Or an actor? Or a comedian? Or a glass blower? Or a chamber maid? Or a film director? Or a newspaper reporter? Or a deep sea fisherman? Or a farmer? Or a piano tuner? Or a jeweler? Or a janitor? Or a nun? Or a Trappist Monk? Or a poet? Or a pilgrim? Or a bar tender? Or a used car salesman? Or a brick layer? Or a mayor? Or a soothsayer? Or a Hall-of-Fame football player? Or a soldier? Or a sailor? Or a butcher? Or a baker? Or a candlestick maker?

Could a corporation choose to opt out of all the above and merely become a bum? Living life on the road, hopping freight trains and roasting mickeys in the woods?

I realize that this is pure theological speculation on my part but the question is just screaming to be posed: When corporations die, do they go to Heaven?

Our lives - yours and mine - have more worth than any damned corporation. The Supreme Court's decision on Thursday was beyond wrongheaded. Not only was it obscene - it was an insult to our humanity.

http://wwww.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

I also agree with Bruce; The consequence and outcome of this landmark 5-4 ruling is indeed a sanctioning of the "pay to pay pit of corruption." This seems to guarantee the most powerful voice in Washington won't be the people, but whichever special interests have the deepest pockets.

Jefferson saw this country as "the American Experiment" and I'm wondering if a few other places around the world aren't now more successfully imbued with this spirit of experimentation and innovative problem-solving?

Fail to solve enough problems for a long enough time, and "failure" will begin to take hold as a permanent core reality – for any culture, country, government, organization, etc.

Bruce, given that we as individuals don't have the power to make a change we have to remain hopeful.

You said it yourself - it's old vs. innovative ways of thinking. If democracy is at risk then people must adapt and organize ourselves in innovative ways to make our voice count.

This is the moment of truth for innovators. This is exactly a time when innovative thinking must rise up to the challenge and find new ways to keep democracy alive.

As a blogger for a large publication you have a leadership position. You also have the burden of remaining positive and remain inspired that innovation can help us.

I'm with you, Mr. Nussbaum.
For the naysayers, I am curious how the argument "big media gets to rear its ugly head" provides justification for opening the road for more of the same practices you claim to loathe. Isn't this a manifestation of the "two wrongs don't make a right" rule we all learned in elementary school?
I, for one, am concerned about what the ruling means for our politics in the future and imagine a time when we are even less of a priority for leaders than we are now. A doomsday vision indeed, I fear the day when politicians no longer feel the need to even pretend they are interested in the needs of the citizens – why should they, when the big business execs are footing the bill in a money-is-power world?