economix.blogs.nytimes.com — Following the Supreme Court decision implicitly granting corporations the right to free speech (by determining that political spending is a kind of speech), a corporation has decided to take what it believes to be ?democracy?s next step?: It is running for Congress.
Feb 3, 2010 View in Crawl 4
fiatjustitiaFeb 5, 2010
Shinra for President, Ultor for VP.
johnnysoftwareFeb 6, 2010
Google is throwing Microsoft's IE6 overboard to prevent future shipwrecks. IE is the new Flying Dutchman for the information age.
yondFeb 6, 2010
If you don't understand what's going on a good place to start might be the link in this article that was been posted.<a class="user" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22sc ...</a>Also you can listen to the supreme court audio tapes and read their statements. After you take a look at that let us know what about it you don't understand and we will be happy to clear it up for you.
thuktunFeb 8, 2010
"It's up to Congress to change that if people don't like it, not the courts (who's job is merely to interpret the law, not set policy"And interpreting the Constitution in this way strikes many people as irrational. This looks very much like a obvious dropped ball.
killerchihuahuaFeb 10, 2010
@JohnnySoftware : Depends on your definition of "running". Comic figurehead might be more apt.
skztrJun 6, 2010
And why not? I'd love the chance to elect an organization which admits that it is an organization, and that the "representative" is just a mouthpiece for that organization. People elect what they think an individual stands for, not an individual, and I would be perfectly okay with electing what an organization stands for.