Corporations as people: the blog roundup

You’ve heard the news, you’ve read our previous blog postings, you’ve (hopefully!) signed the petition for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, but the blogosphere continues to flow with stories about the devastating Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

TalkingPointsMemo’s Zachary Roth writes:

Rich Masterson, a Republican political consultant whose firm, CampaignGrid, develops internet ad campaigns, said his phone had been ringing off the hook with potential clients whose eagerness to develop campaigns for the 2010 election was given a major boost by Thursday’s ruling.

Andrew White of the Daily Kos said:

Opening the door for the court to consider issues not brought before is a very wide barn door indeed. It would seem to me that there would have to be a good, sound logical path from the issues presented back to issues already decided and agreed upon in order for the court to expand its investigation into those matters. In my view no such logical path has been presented… other than the clear pre-determined desire of these 5 men to eliminate corporate electoral spending regulations.

Firedoglake’s Michael Whitney adds:

There’s some talk of allowing shareholders of corporations to exempt their shares from political use, similar to how union members can opt out of having their dues fund the union’s political activity as a fix to Citizens United.  That would hardly level the playing field, as those activist shareholders will be in the minority.  Regardless, it’s clear that corporations have the potential to spend much, much more than any union in this brave new world of campaign finance.

We cannot let corporations have more of a voice than people–you know, the ones who are supposed to be protected by the First Amendment. Sign Public Citizen’s petition. Encourage a friend to, as well. Call your lawmakers and tell them that the Citizens United v. FEC decision needs to be overturned.

Let’s use our freedom of speech to actually convey words, not money.