tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180764321069319458.post6582678310983583033..comments2024-01-07T07:40:29.133-05:00Comments on The WMRA Blog: Why?Most of Martha Woodroof in one placehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14628461346931946238noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180764321069319458.post-64432468149299302182010-02-01T16:49:19.163-05:002010-02-01T16:49:19.163-05:00Citizens United and Swiftboat Veterans for Truth w...Citizens United and Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were groups formed for political purposes -- a phenomenon I haven't thought too much about in considering the impact of the Supreme Court's decision. In this context, the free speech argument seems more plausible to me, despicable message aside. It's the idea that any big and rich corporation, national or multi-national, may use funds from its treasury to launch political attack ads and that political candidates can be bought with corporate money that seems so evil to me. <br /><br />And I don't understand the logic b/c big business shouldn't be involved in politics -- the people should be. Whose voice is represented by a corporation? Certainly not the majority of shareholders (as opposed to the majority shareholder), and certainly not that of the workforce. What on earth can be the justification for allowing money -- without any acknowledged person or human responsibility behind it -- to speak in the political process?dogwooddiaristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14620645607630640331noreply@blogger.com