_supreme_courtThis is the weekend and I just completed 625 miles of driving. I’m headed to Brampton, Ontario and still have about 590 more miles to go before I shut down tomorrow night at the 5th Wheel Truck Stop in Milton. I’ve got to watch my fuel closely as I’m about 400 lbs. shy of the 80,000 lbs. legal limit. The load is 48 ft. long “strips” of lumber going to what was an American company bought out by a Canadian company. Doesn’t matter to me as long as I get the miles. I’m spending more and more time these days in Canada. It’s far better than spending any time in NYC or California. By the way, do you have your 2010 IATA sticker on your truck? Time is running out. It’s past midnight, but I wanted to file this post so Life On The Road readers can know what’s going on. At the beginning of the week there was the Republican surprise victory in Massachusetts and now this.

AA001460 Flipping around the Sirius/XM dial today, there was a lot of talk about Friday’s Supreme Court decision and how it will effect big business and the election process. The Tech Guy was talking about the rulings effect on the electronic/computer industry and Evan Lockridge on the Road Dog was angry about its impact on trucking. And trust me, this will effect the trucking industry as the ATA and the big money carriers will now be allowed to support candidates who support their “agenda” with far less restrictions than in the past. Here’s the deal - the Court ruled that the Federal Government MAY NOT ban political spending by unions or corporation in elections. According to The New York Times: “The states that explicitly prohibit independent expenditures by unions and corporations will be most affected by the ruling. The decision, however, has consequences for all states, since they are now effectively prohibited from adopting restrictions on corporate and union spending on political campaigns.”

index The Associated Press reports that: “President Obama sharply criticized the decision, saying he couldn’t “think of anything more devastating to the public interest. He also suggested “the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda. This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy,” the president said in his weekly radio and Internet message. “It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don’t.” The President said that means public servants who stand up to Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers and other powerful interests could find themselves under attack when election time rolls around. “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest,” he said. “The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

Slate Online says: “The majority’s ruling unleashes a new wave of campaign cash and adds to the already considerable power of corporations. The court’s main rationale is that limits on using corporate treasuries for campaigns are a “classic example of censorship,” as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. To get there, Kennedy depends on two legal theories – money is speech and corporations are people. Both theories are strange, if not simply wrongheaded – why, according to the Constitution or common sense, would money be speech or corporations be people? The court has also employed theories not uniformly but, rather, as constitutional cover for dominance of the electoral system by corporations and by the wealthy.

Again due to the late hour, I have tried to be brief, citing three reliable sources to give you an overview of the ruling – The New York Times, the Associated Press and Slate. I’m exhausted and going to bed. But, I would appreciate your comments.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter