Today's Supreme Court decision, that money (as with "money speaks") is entitled to first amendment protection and the rights of personhood, has again been hailed with the word "freeeedomm!" on conservative twitter sites.
This new "money speaks" decision also indicates far-ranging possibilities for whistleblowers--if employed by a corporation with whistleblowing as product.
To review, the new decision, led by Justices John "Smilin' Jack" Roberts and Clarence "The Card" Thomas, means no limits whatever on campaign contributions.
Also, private ownership of political parties is now legal.
The Republican Party has immediately put a price tag on itself. It will become a corporation with the flagship mission to "be the leader of corporate America and do its bidding full-time, instead of just part-time."
The new name "The Grand Old Company Inc." is being considered (GOC vs. GOP).
Democrats are reported confused, with the President undecided whether to go ahead to incorporate (a new name, "The Don Key Holy Company Inc." is under study), or leave it to Hillary Clinton to make the decision in 2016.
As to how much it would cost to purchase one or both parties, a representative for Speaker Boehner has replied, "Reasonable. Of course, representatives of The Company need to be paid."
Analysts at The New York Times and CNN are predicting outright purchase of either party (or both) is well within reach of the nation's wealthiest billionaires.
Further, Justice Thomas is reported fully engaged in a follow-up project on first amendment rights of the Supreme Court. That is, whether it, too, can become a company to be purchased.
Its possible title "Supreme Decisions Inc." has drawn snorts from Justice Ginsburg. She has taken a dim view of all these developments, as with this remark:
"The first amendment does not guarantee the right for anyone to allow his dog, or himself, to defecate on somebody else's private lawn. No matter how rich that person, or his dog, happens to be."
An unexpected consequence of this new decision is that certain wealthy citizens (as with Mr. Pierre Omidyar, owner of The Intercept First Look Media)--on seeing how much attention various whistleblowers are getting--have ventured toward privatizing whistleblowing.
That is, a whistleblower corporation (versus an individual acting alone) might utilize employees such as Edward Snowden who blow the whistle on important classified materials related to the military and security establishments.
Under the current "money speaks" SCOTUS decision, would such individuals, in contrast to their situation now (Snowden is under grand jury indictment) be free to speak at will (and get paid)?
Justice Thomas's office reasons that, with the Hobby Lobby decision and the Citizens United cases as precedents, the answer is affirmative.
This means a whistleblower corporation (Mr. Omidyar is rumored to be considering "The School Pigeon Inc." as title) would qualify under "money speaks" and have first amendment rights to whatever it wanted to express.
Whether Mr. Snowden and Mr. Assange would consent to become employees (at a hefty annual salary) remains to be seen.