I’m sure y’all are aware of the 2010 SCOTUS ruling that gave corps 1st Amendment rights as entities when it found for Citizens United. This decision has spawned SuperPACs with the power to pour huge amounts of $$$ into political campaigns.
In the meantime, Montana has a 100 yr. old law passed because a Montana business man bought himself a seat in Congress. It’s basically an anti-corruption law that bars corps from involving themselves in campaign financing–iow, it’s in contradiction to the SCOTUS ruling. Corporations don’t like this, so they sent a lawyer to DC to ‘block’ the SCOM’s decision to uphold its law despite the SCOTUS ruling of 2010. In doing so, the SCOTUS has effectively kept Montana from enforcing its law during the general elections that are scheduled for June, 2012–and the Presidential election in Nov.
Does that mean the SCOTUS will hear the case? Not necessarily. It’ll be months before it decides what to do. In the meantime, corps are allowed to contribute campaign funds to whomever they choose in the Montana generals–and in our upcoming Presidential election.
I’m one of several thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people in the US who is appalled by the SCOTUS decision to give corps 1st Amendment rights by calling them ‘entities.’ With that in mind, I have some questions I’d like to put to the people of the US, in particular, and the people of the countries that make up ILP membership.
Do you think this will turn into a reversal of the 2010 SCOTUS decision? Do you think it’ll turn into an argument for State’s Rights–given the Constitution?
Do you think it’s ‘proper’ for corps to use stockholder monies (if that’s what they’re doing), to make decisions for the individual stockholder (which they may be doing), without allowing the individual stockholder a say in how her/is money is spent?