This is Ridiculous IIKeith Olbermann's Special Comment last night about the Supreme Court Campaign Finance decision was ridiculous. What's the leftie term for wingnut? It's not DFH because there's no connotation of crazy. I'll keep my eye out for one as the reactions come in over the internets today.
There is way too much to even try to respond to, so I'll just provide one quote:
Be prepared for the end of what you're watching now. I don't just mean me, or this program, or this network. I mean all the independent news organizations, and the propagandists like Fox for that matter, because Fox inflames people against the state, and after today's ruling, the corporations will only need a few more years of inflaming people, before the message suddenly shifts to "everything's great."The New York Times feature Room for Debate provides less hyperbolic commentary. This Supreme Court decision is likely very bad for democracy, but this is ridiculous.
UPDATE: When I said very bad for democracy, I should have added that due to diminishing marginal losses, it's not that big a deal. As Glenn Greenwald says:
I'm also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. My skepticism is due to one principal fact: I really don't see how things can get much worse in that regard. The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests (Dick Durbin: "banks own" the Congress).Glennzilla has lots of other good points in that post, as well as in a follow up post, including this interesting item:
Most commenters (though not all) grounded their opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in two rather absolute principles: (1) corporations are not "persons" and thus have no First Amendment/free speech rights and/or (2) money is not speech, and therefore restrictions on how money is spent cannot violate the First Amendment's free speech clause. What makes those arguments so bizarre is that none of the 9 Justices -- including the 4 dissenting Justices -- argued either of those propositions or believe them. To the contrary, all 9 Justices -- including the 4 in dissent -- agreed that corporations do have First Amendment rights and that restricting how money can be spent in pursuit of political advocacy does trigger First Amendment protections.