surprise, surprise. Grassley votes against disclosure rules

[rurallib]

helping the rich and the corporate in their quest to buy elections while hidden in the shadows.
Please people, write some letters to the editor across Iowa about this
http://gazetteonline.com/blogs/24-hour-dorman/2010/07/28/grassley-and-disclosure

Grassley is just shielding his corporate buddies.

[Peacetrain]

1. I do not get this whole thing of corporations have freedom of speech

rights that Grassley and the right are pushing.. No one is saying they can't say anything they want..they just have to be like the rest of us and be identify themselves ..

[rurallib]

2. Is money speech? I think that is the nut of the question

The right sees giving money to political candidates / organizations / issue campaigns as an expression of speech.
The constitution famously guarantees 'free speech' to citizens.

So if giving money is a form of free speech and free speech is guaranteed to citizens is a corporation legally viewed as a citizen and therefore can give money to candidates et al.?

SCOTUS decided in January that yes indeed corporations are citizens and therefore allowed to practice their free speech without restraint. These are citizens who never die and amass HUGE amounts of money.
And so, should citizens involvement in an organization etc. be open to public scrutiny? I think so. Up to the point of voting, I think it should all be in the sunshine. If you believe in something you should be able to be {ahem} held accountable.

Target accidentally let some of their contributions out in the public recently and they are paying for it.

[Peacetrain]

3. Money talks.. Honestly walks...

Makes you wonder who is paying the SCOTUS.. well I am just being silly there.. but the fact that the Supreme Court actually can define a corporation as a "citizen" by giving it first amendment rights just floors me

[IADEMO2004]

4. One more last straw in a barn full of last straws.