If you're talking about a forthcoming Supreme Court ruling that will pave the way for corporations to pour money into elections, I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong about how this will affect our lives.
First, of course, the outcome of this particular case will be decided by the courts, which are only indirectly affected by political campaigns. Big money can and has influenced the election of candidates, but it will take some time for the corporations to remake the courts even more to their liking through campaign finance. This case is not likely to last that long.
Second, if the ability to influence the outcome of this or any other case is dependent upon the availability of money for political endorsements, which of the companies involved here would have the most to spend: JP Morgan Chase or Washington Mutual?
The legal definition of corporations as individuals with Constitutional rights is absurd. Corporations are groups of individuals who have rights, but those individuals should not be shielded from the responsibilities of individual citizens by hiding behind a corporate structure. As it is now, it's nearly impossible to hold corporations responsible for illegal conduct and/or behavior. Giving them the ability to more directly influence our democratic process will have gravely negative repercussions for generations to come.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
