As far as mindlessly following corporate advertising campaigns, I'd have to jusr poinr out all those who mindlessly follow everything Ipod (Apple) puts out, Starbucks, and many more. Yjere are many who mindlessly follow, because it would take to much of their Tweet, Facebook, etc. time, to find out for themselves.

I don't support this either way, I just think if these campaigns take the money, fine, just quit trying to hide it, be truthful, about who you are accepting donations from.    

So does this mean that all forms of speech are allowed again?   'Cause I'd love to tell my boss off without getting fired.  And I really dislike going to jail for yelling 'fire!' in a crowded place.

Afterall, if you are punished for doing it, then it isn't a freedom.

The bottom line is that wealth dominates the media and the broader public sphere in the United States - and all over the world.  That the state reinforces this arbitrary power of wealth - locks us into a vicious cycle - where we have certain liberties - but we are not empowered positively to participate fully in the public sphere, in the management of the economy, and in that sense - over our own lives.

Unless liberty is meaningfully positive and empowering - then the system system provides a 'safety valve' - where liberties in our personal lives distract from our real lack of eocnomic and political power.

Here, a limited democracy - characterised by strict limitations on the bounds of debate and public discourse - managed by hegemonic monopoly media - provides an illusion of popular empowerment.  

But the real power lies with wealth: and we need to confront this with open eyes; and criticise the system honestly - as a starting point for real change.

(What..?  Libertarian?  What's that?  Uh, huh.  I see. Oh.)

So you're saying the millions, nay, billions of dollars spent every year to advertize products are totally wasted because "everyone [isn't] driving their Pontiacs to Circuit City to purchase HDDVD players?"

Just look around you!  Millions of brain-dead zombies won't put a teaspoon of water into their mouths unless it now comes out of a store-bought plastic bottle.  Any fool idea can be ramrodded into a significant portion of the population if someone has the bucks to make it so!

Nope.  Not buyin' it.

Slaves to the "free market," says I.

(Funny how when corporation buy votes in the Senate and the House, some folks think they're paid-for lackies and hypocrits, eh?)

Bye-Bye to the last, sad remaining pretense of government for the people, by the people says I.

Faulty, You have the ability and the freedom to tell you boss off. Nothing is stopping you except the consequences of your actions. Freedom and responsibility, remember? You can't have one with out the other. Your employer enjoys the same freedoms  

Probably.

... Are Americans more apt to follow as mindless sheep the face they see MOST on the television or in papers??

Probably.

... Should the Supreme Court act as the entity to stop this madness??

Shit no.

I've said it before-- your average citizen cares more about American Idol, or So You Think You Can Dance, than ANY political race.  However, the overwhelming campaign to GET OUT AND VOTE!!! (see below) has given millions of Americans a sense of obligation.  Obligation to fill in an oval in a voting booth... and that's about it.  

http://www.southparkstudios.co...

We're a nation following pied pipers--beautiful music leading us toward what's "right."  

--Beautiful music being promises, winning smiles, or (as in the case of Limbaugh and Beck) loud, screaming voices.

Although the largest campaigns may be the true voices on either side-- when EXXON begins funding the candidate against cap & trade, who's to say that on the other end, an environmentally conscious agency (Walmart?)--funds the other candidate?  

You all say this is wrong-- and that your contributions won't matter anymore.  And maybe you have a point-- But really, is the Supreme Court supposed to be the voice of the people-- or the voice of the Constitution??

Use your power to boycott and vote, and hope that MSM picks up on ANY wrong doing stemming from this (and you know they'll be all over it...) ... in the end I think huge funding from a "group" supported by EXXON may send a more powerful message against a candidate than any amount you or I could donate.  

Free speech really does mean free speech, and the laws that the "Citizens" ruling overturned directly and heinously restricted the stuff. Forget for the moment the broad characterization of the ruling -- such as The New York Times claim that it "sweep[s] aside a century-old understanding" -- and drill down to the individual case in question.

Citizens United, a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit that has funded a dozen political documentaries over the years, produced a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton in 2008 entitled "Hillary: The Movie." By a decision of the federal government, which was enforcing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known more broadly as McCain-Feingold), this piece of political speech was banned from television.

--snip--

You don't have to be a First Amendment purist to intuit that political speech was, if anything, the most urgent subcategory covered by the First Amendment's "Congress shall pass no law" restrictions. And you don't have to be a Hillary-hater to imagine the shoe on the other foot. What if MoveOn.org's 501(c)(4), Campaign to Defend America, had been blocked by George W. Bush's Federal Elections Commission from broadcasting "McCain: The Movie"? Wouldn't that stink, too?

I think that is a very true statement. He continues...

As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, "The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations -- including nonprofit advocacy corporations -- either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. ... If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

We are living in a fragmented media age in which many nontraditional sources are producing journalism, even and especially of the advocacy variety (my opinion magazine, Reason, is funded by a nonprofit 501(c)(3). Why should nonprofit journalism producers -- like the Sierra Club, say -- have to ask for the government's permission to send a political documentary across the airwaves?

--snip--

Even if you just can't bring yourself to believe that people who take civil liberties seriously have long-held serious civil libertarian criticisms of campaign-finance laws, or if you simply think they're all wrong, I'll offer this last salve: It has never been easier for groups of citizens to swarm together and flow money through the Internet toward campaigns and candidates who excite them. Ask Ron Paul -- or more relevantly, Barack Obama -- what's more powerful: $10 million from Dr. Evil Industries, or $10 each from 1 million people who can actually vote?

I understand people being afraid but honestly I would be much more concerend about government dictating what can and can not be done. Regulating free speech can be a rather dangerous road to go down.

Smells stinky to me.

And you will come back with ,No, not true,but,think about what you may have signed, and what they may state as to your behavior, and what you say, when you are not on Company time.

cause as it stood I always thought, these rights were for Individuals, not Corporations, at least until yesterday.

I'd like to hear what Scalia, and Alito, Roberts, and the other two, will come up with to justify that. as well as our own resident "zealot", his description of himself, not mine.