The Brainwashing of America, SCOTUS edition: Special Comment by my 72-year-old friend

By GottaLaff


My very caring, impassioned 72-year-old Twitter pal, who goes by the name 42bkdodgr, would like to share his feelings about the Supreme Court's latest jaw-dropping decision. I am more than happy to oblige.

But first, a personal note from 42bkdodgr:

Many of you may wonder why I chose to use the “ 72 year old friend” as the introduction to my Special Comments. I selected the moniker so readers could see that from my age and life experiences I give a different perspective to the issues of today.

Now for his Special Comment:

Brainwashing of America Part II

In my previous comment, I wrote about how the Conservative Republicans were trying to brainwash Americans by saying the 9/11 terrorist attacks didn’t happen on President George W. Bush’s watch.

Well, this fall you are possibly going to see the Brainwashing of Americans Part II, unless action is taken by Congress. I say this because yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government may not place any financial restrictions on corporations for spending on candidates in elections. In effect the Court is treating corporate speech the same as that of a human being.

Shareholders of a corporation are made up of individuals who maybe Democrats, Republicans, Independents and in some cases of people who may not be eligible to vote in an election. Yet the Supreme Court ruling will allow a corporation to use corporate general funds on a campaign even if their views may be contrary to the views of its shareholders.

Therefore I think its important for Congress to enact a law that would prohibit the use of corporate general funds on a campaign without first receiving shareholder approval.

In addition, Federal election laws limits the contributions an individual may make to a candidate; but the Court ruling places no limits on what a corporation may spend (not directly to a candidate) in campaigning for a candidate.

Now, who do you think will have greater influence on the election of candidate via its media ads in determining an election? Without a doubt, a corporation. This ruling makes corporate money more powerful than an individual’s vote. The old slogan ‘ the power of the people’ will have little or no meaning in future elections.

In addition, there has to be some accountability, with severe penalties, on corporations for what they say in campaign ads. Any information stated, such as in a 30 second corporate sound bites, must be truthful and verifiable or it will only lead to the brainwashing of Americans as the misinformation ad is repeated over and over.

As the Court set no such accountability standards, it's important that Congress provide penalties for untruthful ads, otherwise instead of these ads educating the electorate, they will be brainwashing the electorate.

Many thanks again for another important, relevant piece, 42bkdodgr. You often say what many of us are thinking and feeling, and we thank you for your unique perspective.