The Supreme Court ruled this week, in a 5-4 decision, that individual contributions to political campaigns are protected by the first amendment and therefore should not be limited. We all latched on to a different element of this controversial ruling in what turned out to be a sort of word association game. It got us thinking about income inequality, corporations as citizens, the 1% and the downside of free speech.
- This 3-part MarketPlace series on the life of a food stamp explores all the beneficiaries of the SNAP program, including Wal-Mart, and includes interactive tools to help walk readers through the tough decisions the poor face @Slate
- Not all 1%-ers are the same. The lower 1% spend a lot to calm their status anxiety, which leaves them feeling poor because they aren’t as comfortable as the 0.05%– learn how hard it is to be rich @TheAtlantic
- We have all heard horror stories of the academic job market and the struggles of low-wage adjuncts. But don’t rush to lump those poor Phds in with other exploited labor they have more power than we give them credit for @TheChronicle
- Here is a good refresher on how corporations got rights, along with references if you want to learn more @OrgTheory
- Finally, free speech includes this strange commercial from Snickers, if I am reading this right we should limit the candy intake of men if we want them to respect women. Is that what Snickers is trying to tell me? @SocImages