The recent supreme court decision that equates corporate political contributions with free speech is remarkable, but not as remarkable as Alioto’s head shaking and mouthing “not true” to President Obama’s State of the Union remarks.
Consider Roche, a Swiss company, and Zeneca, a Swedish/British merged company, or Novartis, merged Ciba/Geigy/Sandoz, also a Swiss company. Think that these overseas interests or other myriad companies with overseas management will restrain their U.S. subsidiaries in their support of candidates favoring their business interests? Or consider U.S. companies incorporated offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. Will they restrain their U.S. subsidiaries from contributing to candidates favoring their interests?
True the supreme court didn’t rule on this specific issue but it does allow business interests to contribute unlimited funds under the guise of free speech.
Only in America would such a monstrous equivalence be established. Money= free speech, more money=more free speech. No wait, I do recall a book that noted “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”–perhaps foreshadowing the U.S. model.
George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945)
Medicynical Note: Add this to my previous views on U.S. quirkiness.