You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
What part of "free speech" does the Montana Supreme Court not understand?
What part of "free speech" does the Montana Supreme Court not understand?.... What part of the historical legacy of graft does the US Supreme Court not understand?
CU is like a town hall meeting where the rich guy gets a megaphone and the rest of us sit in the back row. It was and is and always will be antithetical to free speech. You cannot have free speech when a few voices are so loud that others are effectively muted.
Funny how only the extremely wealthy, corporations, special interests of all kinds, have the vast resources to be able to afford this so-called "free" speech. And how is the author so certain of the amount of contributions when a large portion of them have not been disclosed. A government run of the oligarchs, by the oligarchs, for the oligarchs; when money equals speech, a few loud groups and individuals can drown out the voices of the rest. If CU didn't matter, why is the money contributed greater than any election prior? But with all of the billions for influence looking for a home, I expect we will be hearing and reading much more from the bribery apologists.
When are states' rights proponents going to speak up on Montana's behalf? In 2010 Citizens United affected local and state races at the legislative, executive and judicial level across the nation with nary a peep of angst from states' righters...
Corporations are not persons. They are exempt from almost all of the legal restrictions and responsibilities that cover real human persons. I'd like to see an amendment to the Constitution that says something like "The word 'person' as used in this document shall apply only to human beings and not to any voluntary group or association or partnership of human beings or to any abstract entity."
Re: "The word 'person' as used in this document shall apply only to human beings and not to any voluntary group or association or partnership of human beings or to any abstract entity." Would you consider adding a clause which defines "voter" as "one person" rather than "one share," pdxtran?
Another editorial that panders to our right wing and one with its facts in error. The Montana legislature never passed the Corrupt Practices Act of 1912. The citizens bypassed the legislature and passed by referendum themselves. Why the Chicago Tribune would not have done a little journalism and checked their facts first is troubling.
And Montana is a pretty strong red state, with the exception of time Ross Perot almost took the state. It's amusing to hear their own preferential party downplay the effects of the Citizens United and this ruling.
mcjoe1 - That's why the state's two senators and governor are all Dems. Guess to a liberal that's a strong Republican showing.
I get it, many people hate the rich but should having money limit your free speech rights? At what point do you remove the right to freely speak your mind on any platform you choose? I wish people would use logic and reason instead of emotion when it comes to the Citizen's United case...you don't give up your rights when you become rich nor should you. Don't let your hate blind you when it comes to free speech rights.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks