Donors pulling funding from soup kitchen over Paul Ryan photoshoot

[Kasz216]

noname2200 said:

Kasz216 said:

You can just outright read the decision if you want.  It's available somewhere. 

I read it... that's more or less it.  Well that and it mentions how essentially making it legal more or less makes it legal to censor the press as well consitutionally.

It's all very well founded and reasoned.  No reason to actually get upset over it.

Rest assured, I intend to read it. Although, being a Supreme Court decision, it's probablyy 100+ pages long...

And I heartily disagree. Seeing as how I have to actually live in this country, I do indeed see reason to get upset over it. It's rather important.

183.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

The question is... why?

Like, in what way could you actually disagree that they got it wrong.  The whole basis of the first ammendment is to protect all speech.

If it's your problem that people in companies have legal protections but are still allowed free speech through their corporations... your problem would be with governments giving people such protections.  The supreme court is meant to arrive to the correct decision.  Not a popular one or one that covers for other laws one might consider stupid.

Though in my opinion that would be a stupid complaint to levy, espiecally when you consider the fact that political sceince research on campaign funded is divided into two camps.  

A) Excessive Campaign funding follows popularity, not vice versa, so increased funding actually follows a candidates chance of winning.

B) Excessive Campaign funding only helps the challenger, and does not completely outweight the incumbant advantage.