SCOTUS overturns 100 years of speech law

[kandrathe]

I'm really bent outta shape about this. Called my Senator (one is retiring), called my Congressman, called most of my friends and relatives and (most shocking of all) made my first serious facebook update... :ph34r:

Not sure what else I can do other than try to mobilize people. As marginalized as I feel now in the political process, I feel I would be completely inconsequential should this persist. The idea of a multi-national company owned by a foreign government paying to elect/squash a candidate is chilling.

Cheers,
~Frag:(

Here some questions though. If Congress can regulate corporations, tax corporations, and bail them out, shouldn't corporations have 1st amendment rights to address grievances against the government.

2nd, if ABC, NBC, CBS (TV) get 1st amendment speech rights, Gannet Media Corporation (Newspapers) get 1st amendment speech rights, Unions have 1st amendment rights, and book publishing companies have 1st amendment rights why wouldn't any other incorporation get speech rights? What is it about incorporation that suddenly strips one of their protection by the bill of rights?

3rd, if congress had nothing to sell, corporations and special interests would have nothing to buy. People with money can buy government access, because Senators and Representatives are willing to sell them access. Should we be blaming the ones doing the buying, or the ones doing the selling?

4th, due to 527 corporations, McCain/Feingold is bypassed anyway. The rich finance the 527 organization, who then in the name of a special interest group non-profit 501c3 corporation funds advertising against political positions held by their opponents. Hence the lawsuit against, "Hillary: The Movie" in the first place.

5th, what is the difference between "Hillary: The movie" available on demand from a website, and "Hilary: The book" available on demand on Kindle from Amazon? Wouldn't the internet be considered "press", and shouldn't media on the internet be protected? Just because at the time of the framers, "press" meant crushing ink onto paper, doesn't mean that it is how we think of "the press" today. Isn't Daily Kos, or Huffinton Post considered "the press" in constitutional terms. In that regard, why shouldn't the Lurker Lounge forum be protected free speech?