It still blows my mind that the Supreme Court have allowed McCain-Feingold to stand. The only real reason I can think of for their having done so, is the same reason that the state SC here sometimes allows patently ludicrous anti-porn laws passed by the state legislature to stand: It's their way of telling the legislative branch, "You made the mess. You clean it up."

I'm very much in favor of free speech. I'm also very much in favor of the right to address your representatives, and make demands.

But at what point does it become bribery, i.e. "Here's $50,000, please change this zoning law for me"

Tangentially, I'm against the ideas that corporations should have exactly the same rights as people.

Isn't 1st. ammendment an INDIVIDUAL right? How is a union an individual? Or a corporation? If Murdock wants to buy space for an ad, he's welcome, as am I, though I obviously don't have money for that. Loopholes in that way are relative. It just depends on how you SAY it. General Electric supports X candidate? Yeah? Is GE an individual? But, the CEO of GE can say he supports a candidate, if he uses his own money...

am I thinkin' about this all wrong?

Corporations are legal persons, and I believe all unions are corporations, and that is how corporations (and unions) have the same legal rights as individuals.

The 1st Amendment, and all of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, confer no rights on anyone at all. Our rights are ours (and I mean all rights) by virtue of birth on this planet, and goverments suppress those rights. The Bill of Rights (along with all the Amendments) are restraints not on the people, but on the government's attempts to suppress our birthrights (and I'm talking about all goverments, not just the U.S.A.). The government does not confer rights so they cannot be taken away, just suppressed.

One thing about Ted Olson that some might forget, is that his wife Barbara, a FOX News reporter, was on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

hmmm, seems like we are playing both sides then. If a Corp or Union is not an individual unless a government makes it so [ie. Legally] then what kind of "rights" should it have? In that way, it isn't born with any, as are you or I. Why should they be conferred this protection? Esp. when that protection is for the express purpose of influencing the government that legally charters the Crops. existence? Why should a Corp have a say in that at all?

You can find all sorts of info on this subject in books or on the 'net. Unions might not be corps but they are legal persons. Wikipedia isn't without its faults, but you can start there and look at some of the links . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

And here are two excerpts from this page . . .

"Extension of basic rights to legal persons

[edit] United States

In part based on the principle that legal persons are simply organizations of human individuals, and in part based on the history of statutory interpretation of the word "person," the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that certain constitutional rights protect legal persons (like corporations and other organizations). Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is sometimes cited for this finding, because the court reporter's comments included a statement the Chief Justice made before oral arguments began, telling the attorneys during pre-trial that "the court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Later opinions misinterpreted these pre-argument comments as part of the legal decision. [12] As a result, because of the First Amendment, Congress can't make a law restricting the free speech of a corporation, a political action group or dictating the coverage of a local newspaper.[13] Because of the Due Process Clause, a state government can't take the property of a corporation without using due process of law and providing just compensation. These protections apply to all legal entities, not just corporations."

"Controversies about "corporate personhood" in the United States
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)
Main article: Corporate personhood debate

Since the mid-1800s, 'corporate personhood' has become increasingly controversial, as courts have extended other rights to the corporation beyond those necessary to ensure their liability for debts. Other commentators argue that corporate personhood is not a fiction anymore—it simply means that for some legal purposes, "person" has now a wider meaning than it has in non-legal uses. Some groups and individuals (including the American Green Party[16]) have objected to "corporate personhood."

In part as a matter of subsequent interpretations of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of "corporate personhood" don't necessarily want to eliminate legal entities, but do want to limit these rights to those provided by state constitutions through constitutional amendment.[17] Often, this is motivated by a desire to restrict the political speech and donations of corporations, interest groups, lobbyists, and political parties. Social commentator Thom Hartmann is among those that share this view.[18] Because legal persons have limited "free speech" rights, legislation meant to eliminate campaign contributions by legal persons (notably, corporations and labor unions) has been repeatedly struck down by various courts."

If you really want to have some fun, know that every government entity from local to national is a corporation and has to file a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which lists the reality of the real profits of government entities instead of the "we so poor" BS they shovel at us as they increase taxes, fees and the like. Again, here's a Wikipedia page on CAFRs with links, and a quote from the page . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_annual_financial_report

"Since 1998, with the CAFR being brought to the attention of the public by the efforts of Walter Burien, in (1999) GASB[14] transmittal letters, (starting with transmittal letter 31 in 1999 and now up to transmittal letter 46 as of 2007), changes have been made by this private association of GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board, whose guidelines for CAFR accounting are followed by local governments) resulting in claims made that such changes are calculated steps to hide massive domestic and international investment assets and authority "enterprise funds" from the general public's view, of which these showings of wealth could be seen more visibly outlined in the combined financial columns of 1999 and previous CAFRs, and changes are being done with a virtual black-out due to the money involved because of some media attention on these issues. In 1946, GFOA [15] (Government Financial Officers Association)a private association that started out of the City of Chicago, promoted to local governments, nationwide, for standardized accounting through use of the CAFR accounting.

While a budget might indicate that a specific government or agency has financial trouble and debt, because of excess spending or mismanagement within the select grouping of "general fund" accounts presented, the CAFR may indicate, in whole, the same government entity, has many facets possessing large holdings considerably over what is shown in a budget report or the "general fund" alone. A few examples from recent history include, Jesse Ventura's returning 1.8 billion dollars (from the 8 billion targeted by him) of the government surpluses to voters as governor of Minnesota. Another example, in 1994, Orange County California government lost about $1.5 Billion on investments in the now massive derivative market and claimed they needed to declare bankruptcy per their general purpose budget even while holding several billion(about 11.3 billion) in profitable holdings in their investment portfolios as seen in the CAFR. The University of Kentucky's holdings of 85% of CHA Health insurance stock was exposed in 2005 in the Lexington Herald Leader newspaper when CHA was sold to Anthem Blue Cross as part of the UK president's effort to raise a billion dollars to fund becoming a "top 20" research university an ongoing effort; to name a few examples."

Here is a link to the official California CAFRs of the recent past . . .

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_state_cafr.html

$34,969,000,000 was California's Net Assets from the 2008 CAFR (per the link on page 28 of the PDF). Not exactly broke to me.

Good work Jay J. Hector. Thanks.

Just one more plum for we City of Los Angeles residents. Here's the latest CAFR for the City . . .

http://ens.lacity.org/ctr/financial/ctrfinancial18257931_01292009.pdf

Poor broke L.A. with only $18,418,561,000 in Net Assets for Fiscal Year 2008.

You can see the CAFR for every goverment entity if you search, and that includes entities like animal regulation if it is a separate corporate entity. Check you local crybaby's assets. When we run short of cash for a month we sell an old pair of shoes, and government entities should do the same.