Supreme Court Just Threw Out 1 Man - 1 Vote: Foreign Corp Ads OK

The activist Supreme Court just threw out 100 years of law and has ruled that corporations, even foreign-owned ones, are people - and can run political ads. In other words, they just tilted the table towards the powerful and ended the American principal of "one man, one vote." And the party who brought the suit never even asked for that ruling!

People no longer count. Now it is the artificial "people" who will increasingly control who gets elected. Put it this way. If that was the rule when the automobile was first introduced, the horse and buggy people would have made them illegal and we'd still we walking. Now, coal companies with millions can stop wind and solar projects that would advance our future.

Under this, the new guy and the new technology will be buried by the old guys and old money. Who does that advance our country? We face a world where it is the control of new technology that makes the winners. Now the old, powerful ones will have even more power to kill the new.

As a result of this activist decision by an increasing one-sided court, now voting power is no longer a choice between men and women: instead it will go to the corporations with billions of dollars and the most powerful entities on earth. Now even foreign-owned companies operating in the U.S. can run a politician ad for or against a candidate. How nuts is that?

This decision will tilt the U.S. to become more like Mexico, where the powerful elites stifle regular people and competition. And you can see how Mexico has been a technical whiz under that system, right? Their top heavy system can't even produce jobs - so they send them to the U.S. rather than changing their system.

This was a bad 5-4 decision that ordinary people who don't control millions of corporate funds (like Wall Street banks, hedge funds, etc.) should fear the consequences whether you are a Democrat, Republican or a tea bagger. The court made a ruling on an issue that the Plaintiffs had not even pled. It should be reheard and reversed.

Activism by a court on the right should be as wrong as activism by a court on the left - especially one that throws out 100 years of precedent.