WOW! the level of misunderstanding is hilarious and why I don't post political talk on vgchartz. LOL
This case was brought before the supreme court, they decided it, the 5 who made corporations people whre put on by republicans. Thank god the youth is overwhelmingly Democratic. I will not post again.

Really? I thought it was because it inevitably got you permbanned because you don't know how to listen to a differing opinion without going berserk.

I made one other account last november which got banned, all I posted on was platform wars. So the Misinformation continues. This account I have owned since 2007.. I never commented to you either, as you are a instigator and only post negative comments. I also have seen you post this same post to many, many others. So you assume a awful lot.

Given how many of those accounts are currently permbanned for being alts (basically all of them) my assumptions have been awfully correct. And don't you take that tone with me for accusing you of having alts when you admit to having had alts, young man.

but but its different... because reasons!

and i knew the thread content and posting style seemed fimiliar. i know who this is, i just cant remember the name.

its bugging the crap out of me, what's the alts name?

Since he concedes to making an alt for console warring that makes it rather likely he's had alts for political warring so I'd be pretty surprised if he's not spaceguy. His political leanings and writing style, poor use of capitalization, employment of Facebook style "share if you like this!" pictures, Xbox devotion, enthusiasm for trashy tattoos, petulance in the face of disagreement, and particular dislike of Kasz all point to it. The only thing throwing me is that he doesn't spell Democrats "democrates" (which sounds like an obscure Greek philosopher) like spaceguy and friends did, but it's possible he learned after I pointed it out to him that it was constantly giving him away.

It shouldn't really be about the law. It should be about consequences.

Does letting corporations spend millions of dollars on politicians' campaigns create a desirable society for human beings? Not really.

I have no problem with apparently artificial and restrictive rules on political financing so that politicians feel responsible to people via their votes (which you only get one each of) and not via their chequebooks.

Donation caps help the establishment, not the other way around.

Independents have no party funds to draw from, so they have to raise all their own money. People running and Republicans and Democrats can draw funds from their parties. Ergo, independents would be more reliant on large donations from few donators. Similarly, the parties themselves won't open the purse strings unless the candidate follows the typical party platform - look at how the GOP shafted Cuccinelli in the Va. guber race, had his policies been more like Romney's or Christie's, he would have had full support from the GOP.

Incumbents also tend to benefit from donation caps versus challengers, as most donators will just chip in a few bucks, and so they can get a huge number of donations through name recognition alone.

They can't, though. Not directly, at least. Sure, they can take out their own ads that basically echo a campaign's own attack ads or whatever, but there is a cap on direct donations and collusion is still strictly illegal (though I'm sure it happens, of course).

The problem is that it's exceedingly arbitrary to say that a corporation like the New York Times Company can essentially spend millions of dollars on campaigns by taking an editorial stance on a particular issue or endorsing a particular candidate, but a corporation like Koch Industries can't. Freedom of speech and press belongs to everyone, not only to some properly anointed priesthood of so-called journalists.

Obviously not, but that's not the issue. Both the right to free speech and money stem from property rights. You have the right to free speech because you own your mind and your body, and you can use it as you wish. You can spend your money as you wish because you used your body and your mind to earn it, fairly simple stuff.

You have the right to assembly, and assembled groups of people also have property rights.

It all stems from natural law, which you may or may not accept as a moral principle. However, these were the principles of many of the founding fathers, and these are the principles that are the basis for the U.S constitution. The Supreme Court was trying to find out what was constitutional, which is not neccessarily what the constitution should mean but what it does mean.

Otherwise, the Supreme Court would be "legislating from the bench" which is a large power grab from the courts. The Supreme Court decides what is and isn't Constitutional, not what it thinks is or isn't right.