Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Campaign Corruption.

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns. Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states. The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others. "In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added. Prior to the ruling, Bob Edgar, president of watchdog group Common Cause, warned against overturning McCain-Feingold. "Money has already corroded the discussion before Congress," he said. "It'll open Pandora's Box."

TPJ: This ruling undermines democracy by yanking away what little democratic power the people hand. So, corruption of the heart of our political process is covered by the first amendment? What about murder? Is that a first amendment right now, because the law is infringing upon my freedom of expression? They claim campaign donation restrictions prevent their freedom of speech. No, it puts them on the same playing field as the average American who doesn't have that much "freedom of speech" in their wallet or purse. As a historian, I highly doubt that the founding fathers meant for the first amendment to grant control of our electoral process to a few rich elite business men and women. This ruling is basically putting a price tag on democracy and gaming the system so that it is the rich and powerful have the final say, not the populous. If it isn't obvious to you that we live in a plutocracy that borders on fascism then you need to wake up.

A plutocracy is defined as rule by the wealthy, which thrives off of economic inequality and limits social mobility. This includes controlling the masses through campaign contributions, refusal by the wealthy to pay their share in taxes, which is ensured by using their money to buy access and control of the levers of government. As well as, threatening to move profitable businesses elsewhere, which is an act of holding the country's economy hostage to gain yet more profits and control. A corporation who has that much power is one that believes in the continuation of the company over the country. It is a total lack of economic patriotism. That kind of wealth allows one to drain one's home country of money and power because fear of living in a collapsed country is mitigated for them by the money that have accrued, which can be used to live anywhere in the world. Does this all sound familiar? It should if you live in America today because that is exactly what is occurring. Yet we are powerless to stop it because in a plutocracy the people without the money become the slaves. This is borderline fascism; the technical definition of, which is a government run and owned by corporations.

---End of Transmission---