Michael Pollan: Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling “Not Good” for Food Safety

The government doesn't challenge the corporations on ___ very much. Insert your own word or cause and it still fits. Corporations already had enormous influence on government policy decisions. This decision could only have been worse if... Honestly can't think of a way it could be worse.

well not good! perfect classic

big biz you are my god now make a big ad to tell me that to think

Soft money to a political party has never been regulated, you always have been able to donate that money in whatever amount you choose. I don't think the supreme court decision will have too much of an affect.

They don't .

Lol.

Well, if they were to start thinking about something, maybe this could bring them into the reality-based community, eh?

The ruling isn't good for anyone, outside of big business.

that question is a contradiction in terms.
tea parties don't think.

Look. Some of those people protesting are active in political matters and care.

All attempts to get them fighting for any good cause so far have failed. They serve Republicans.

If we could introduce them to reason and to actual beneficial activism we'd all benefit.

Insulting them won't do it.

unlimited disastrous consequences

please sign a protest petition
(w......) freespeechforpeople (dot ) org

I don't think that's fair-
You had libertarians, constitutionalists, paleoconservatives, etc. who always protested government policies like this, and (in the case of libertarians and some constitutionalists) generally had a logical, cool-headed argument for them. It isn't their fault a bunch of ignorant neo-cons, who do whatever the talking heads at FAUX suggest, took the protests over and turned them into one big populist lynch mob. Saying none of us are reasonable isn't fair.

I was with them in the beginning, when some independent thinkers were still involved. When the Rethuglicans joined us, though, they destroyed the free-thinking and replaced it with a version of the groupthink we were fighting. I'll give it to you that the Tea Parties turned sour quickly; just wanted to put it out there that some of us had a valid argument that we had held since the Bush days, and that some protestors were in fact capable of independent thought.

The court got this right. Money donation is a means of expression and protected by the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law abridging free speech" was directly aimed at political speech. The key in a free society is full public disclosure so that a candidate's sponsors are put out on the front porch instead of the back room. Good ideas should never fear the competition. And besides, Ross Perot and Steve Forbes can tell you how easy it is to buy an election. No good can come by bad means

"Good ideas should never fear the competition". Oh, that sounds so sweet. I'm sure thats exactly how it will happen, now that we've furthered the unconstitutional fallacy that corporations are legally individuals. Only the goodest of ideas will float to the surface. Only the purest of intentions will be promoted to the world.

@phatbrady1017, I'm delighted to hear that. I live in DC, and I saw with my own eyes how quickly the tea parties devolved, so quickly I never saw the independent start you claim. Maybe by the time they hit the capital, they were Republican/Fox Newsized. I'm glad to know there were some people out there interested in real political ideas. Maybe you can save the right wing and help not drive us into a corporate slave state.

I should like that- I went to the first Tea Party here in Memphis and was a bit sceptical- most of the speakers just made emotional appeals and ranted about welfare, but there were a few that seemed to make sense. As soon as I heard that Glenn Beck was doing fundraisers for them, and watched some of the Tea Parties going on elsewhere on the web I just had to distance myself. They turned civil discussion into a chance for an angry mob to rant.

Perhaps you should concern yourself with results instead of intentions. Good ideas can only float to the surface in an environment in which no voice is excluded--religious groups, special interest and those of us who revere our heritage of liberty. If you are arguing that people are too dumb to decide what is best for themselves, then your true enemy is liberty itself. In that case, openly stand up for tyranny by the state.

Wow! In this video the vegans and raw foodies have actually given their messiah a pulpit from which he can deliver his proclamations.

"The court got this right. Money donation is a means of expression and protected by the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law abridging free speech""
Corporations are not "a person".

"The key in a free society is full public disclosure so that a candidate's sponsors are put out on the front porch instead of the back room."
If only, but unfortunately it does not happen. Not everyone has a BS meter to know which politcian is a shill and which is not :S

Pollan isn't a vegan or a raw-food advocate.

The decision will stand.
The government might not tho.

And you don't see as access (or the denial of) as exclusive? Owning the media which is used to deliver the message doesn't strike you as a good way to choose what good messages people hear? I'm gonna bet you're also against net neutrality.

Wow! You have no idea what you're talking about! GO AWAY.

It is still against the law for foreign coprporations to make political contributions to US political campaigns, this guy, Barak Obama and the rest of you are ignorant of the law.
"Nit wits on Parade"

thumbs up from me. It is true that few things are black and white, and painting huge groups of people with a single wide brush is almost never fair to all involved. kudos for your discerning honesty and collaborative tone. ;-)
Peace