I would say, correct. Not only could they — I suspect if they thought it would help in 2012, or even this year, they would, too.

NPR and PBS, as well as ABC, CBS, CNN, and (especially) MSNBC, would happily run official government ads for Dems – 30-minute info-mercials, pre-empting regularly scheduled programming.

[shrug] It's better than the multi-hour diet supplement info-mercials I hear on the radio, on weekends.

Come on, I see the eye shadow.

And, would you wear your current outfit before the SCOUTS?

You assume I am wearing something.

I claim my 10% finders fee now. (1/29/2010).
Also, akin to corporations, government is not a living breathing organism, but according to this ruling does it not have the right to free speech through the Charlie McCarthy auspices of AIG.
And, would you wear your current outfit before the SCOUTS? Is it free speech? But, first, a message from our sponsor.

Uncle Sam owns 80% of AIG. U. Sam or Bernanke can run as many ads as they want extolling the government's acumen at solving financial problems and more to support the reelection of O. Correct or a silly example?

It is from such questions that case law happens, and lawyers get rich!

It is actually a very interesting question.

On the one hand, my initial reaction is that Citizens United would indeed allow for such behavior by AIG.

On the other hand, if it is majority controlled by the US Government, it may run afoul of laws prohibiting Government agencies from such activities.

And on a third hand, perhaps the ban on Government agencies is now in jeopardy due to Citizens United.

That is just off the top of my head. This sounds like there are a multitude of potential questions and cases surrounding this that could really get to SCOTUS, though.

???? Glad you agree.

The central issue is that speech is protected.

The source is irrelevent.

I have addressed this, the true central issue, as well as what you keep raising.

As for the issue you keep raising, that isn't central (in fact, it is tangential; my mention of public finance of elections, related to it, is oblique but is a more substantial kind of example):

“Stealing money by corporations to derive their 'free speech' is an absurd proposition, and you have yet to even come close to addressing this fact.”

I have already addressed this, in multiple postings.

There's no mistaken assumption here — the case involves a political group engaged in political activity.  Also (related), why was the right to “freedom of speech” specified in the Bill of Rights?

“[A]re you the one to say what speech is political and what speech is not?”

There is no question of that here, and there often isn't when issues like this arise.

“And yet, you simply ignore the simple question that this whole farcical decision is based, 'Is speech derived through theft protect speech?[']  You seem [to] think if a corporation does it, it's protected.  If as I said before, if I pick your pocket and buy Obama buttons, does that make my speech legal?”

The deision is not farcical.  There is no question of the political nature of this case.  I do not think that protection is due to a party in a legal action or dispute being a corporation; that is the true assumption here, by you, not by me, and it is incorrect (in fact, there's nothing I've written that logically raises suspicions of this).  You appear to be one of those who is motivated by anti-corporation sentiment.  I've already addressed the questions you had about corporations engaging in things against the will or desire of a minority of stockholders or a solitary stockholder. I've also noted that your example is actually a good one of something we really do need to fear, with public financing of elections (and the exposure of taking money and using it against one's will, in general by government).  If you want to be obscessed with details, your pro-Obama speech itself would be legitimate, though the theft would not.

Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!!!

Ignore the article – it is the poster I like!

Thanks for playing

Personally, I like to return this parrot.

I know you assume that what's at stake here, but that assumption is based upon what?
I don't believe that the ruling specified political speech. I believe it was just “free speech.”

Besides, even if the SC decision only covered political speech, are you the one to say what speech is political and what speech is not? Who is going to decide in your brave new world what constitutes political speech?

I happen to believe some of those seven naughty words are part and parcel to political speech, so now what?

And yet, you simply ignore the simple question that this whole farcical decision is based, “Is speech derived through theft protect speech? You seem t think if a corporation does it, it's protected. If as I said before, if I pick your pocket and buy Obama buttons, does that make my speech legal?

Note that you've just provided a stellar example of public financing of federal elections in 2012, in practice.  Rather than you, it could be the FEC, or one of the many PIRGs (misnamed!) in this country, if not the Democratic Party directly (given tax money, more than the GOP would be given, of course).