How can you not like this scotus verdict?
So ONLY the (documented ~80%) liberal media corporations should be able to give their political opinions in the final countdown days before an election, and no others?

Fuck, if a corporation has a lot of money, than it must be supported by a lot of people, one way or another (commerce, donations, etc.)...therefore I have no problem if their speech is "amplified" by those peoples' dollars, so to speak.

THE PROBLEM IS (1) WHEN GOV'T INTERFERES and (2) people are complacent.

Regarding (1), when people decide a corporation isn't worthy of their support ($$$), then that corp's loud voice gets quieted or shut-off alltogether...unless gov't interferes and props it up...cough-cough remember talks of gov't bailouts of certain newspapers? THAT'S complete bullshit and is a prime example of this problem.

(2) People get complacent, and ignore where their dollars are going (because, for example, they collectively allowed themselves to become smothered with the 2-income trap in the '70s and '80s, among other reasons)...and simply don't give much of a damn.
But guess what. Eventually, when it just becomes TOO fucking much, they actually do give a damn -- and they do something about it...witness Massachusetts the other day.
So, the "system" does work so long as it isn't fucked with (gov't bailouts), but maybe not on a timescale that everyone particularly likes.

I can't believe there's 12 fucking pages about this. TFers should know better.

----------

"I am a doofus and Belgium is my ultimate utopia. I hope to move there as soon as I can get the funds together. I will get along great with the elbow-rubbers of world government officials. Oh, and b