Here's how the end looks from over the top

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

...

Jon Stewart's take on Olbermann:

...

My take on the SCOTUS decision to allow carte blanche free speech for corporations:

Why should an abstract legal entity (corporation) be guaranteed constitutional free speech rights?
At the time the constitution was written there was no such legal entity considerations and the founders never intended that businesses should be considered to have personhood. This concept was not even created until 1886, some 100 years after the constitution went onto effect:

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward Corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment in an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 .

In fact, Jefferson and others argued against what he termed the 'monopolies in commerce' being given such rights since they could, by virtue of their scale of economy and privileged access to lawmakers, use them to trample the rights and access of smaller businesses and individuals - which is precisely what we are seeing occur in the national healthcare debate through their corporate lobbyists.

And there is another problem.
If a corporation (or union) is allowed to underwrite a given political position or candidate, what becomes of the individual rights of its employees or share holders who disagree with that collective decision?
Who in the corporate structure has the authority to make such a decision in the first place? Is it mandated by a vote of the employees or members or simply produced by fiat from the management or owners?

What benefit does a democracy enjoy by way of a corporation being considered to have the same constitutional rights as an individual?
The individuals who comprise the collective the corporation already have their constitutional free speech rights, why should those be "doubled up" by any collective rights to weigh against the rights of other individuals outside of that or any other collective?

Also, corporations have no citizenship or social responsibilities , their sole purpose for existing is economic; to make money for their owners and shareholders. The welfare of the community at large in which they operate is not a necessary consideration in their political views, only that which serves their economic interests matters. So why then should this insentient collective mechanism which harbors no patriotism nor concern for the common good be allowed to enjoy the benefits of constitutional guarantees?

Libertarians especially must, by virtue of their declared dogmas, grant that freedoms require personal responsibilities in order to function properly and that without those responsibilities, corporate freedom is simply reduced to corporate license.