Surely I am not expected to take this seriously?

This, that is:
RIP American Democracy

Choice quote:

The court based its ruling on the notion of the corporation as individual. These entities have the same First Amendment rights as all of us. The problem, of course, is that we don't have millions at our disposal to influence elections. They do.

The entire thing is hyperbolic in the extreme. Erik shared the link with me, and the first thing I said after reading it was "Wait, was that serious? And not a poor excuse for satire?" Because, really, it reads exactly like something a right-winger would come up with to make fun of the left. It fits the caricature of the Left as a bunch of hysterical fools. Were I to have come across it on one of the blogs I read regularly, I would have rolled my eyes and moved on, thinking someone needed to go to the range and blow off some steam.

But no, this seems to be real. I clicked over to the main page of the blog, and it's all like this ("We're confused. Now worries, it happens ALL the time."). The Beaumont Enterprise seems to be to blame. I'm losing my friendly argument with my boyfriend over the worth of newspapers now, guys. Thanks a bunch. Maybe they're downwind of Houston? Maybe the Enterprise just raided the San Antonio Current's newsroom? I don't know. But I do know they're taking themselves seriously, so Imma take them seriously.

First off. "The court based its ruling on the notion of the corporation as individual." Damned activist judges. I mean, it's not as if corporations have been treated as individuals since at least the 1700s. Really, we need to restrict the concept of First Amendment rights to actual individuals. That way we can concentrate on important things, like ensuring strippers have the right to dance fully nude.

Secondly, the death of American democracy? Really? Y'all sleep through Government class? I'm not sure where to go with this first, the lack of comprehension of the fact that we do not have (nor are we supposed to have) a democracy in this country or the fact that the court, in providing a check and balance in finding these restrictions unconstitutional is doing exactly what the US Constitution says it's supposed to do. ("In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Right here. You're welcome.) I've long said that judges are only activist when you don't agree with their decision, and this is further evidence in support of that theory.

Last of all...if this is indeed the reversal of "a century-long trend to limit the political muscle of corporations" as the linked ABC.com story claims, then in my opinion it's about damned time. If limiting their political clout is what got us where we are today, maybe we need to try another tactic.