Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[rushmc 23]

From Fox News

Quote

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.


In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."

"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.

The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday, said he hadn't read the decision but thought that it was headed that way when he listened to arguments presented last fall. McCain said he does not think it completely repudiates the law he wrote with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

It also undercuts recent congressional legislation mandating tighter controls on political donations that had restricted the flow of corporate dollars into the political system.

The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign.

Citizens United planned to air ads promoting its distribution through cable television video-on-demand services. The FEC said the film amounted to a campaign ad and that Citizens United, an incorporated entity that takes corporate money, could only use limited, disclosed contributions from individuals to promote and broadcast it.

Prior to the ruling, Bob Edgar, president of watchdog group Common Cause, warned against overturning McCain-Feingold.

"Money has already corroded the discussion before Congress," he said. "It'll open Pandora's Box."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of restrictions.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

I think it would be interesting if contributions directly to political campaigns by both individuals and organizations were limited to campaign logistics (e.g. candidate travel, campaign staff salary, etc.) and all contributions to ad campaigns (including but not limited to signage, television/radio spots, and booking of speaking venues) could be made with no limits, but had to be made directly, and with clear indication of the sponsoring individual/organization.

And I mean in-your-face clear.

Think "Allstate Sugar Bowl", "AT&T Cotton Bowl", and "Fedex Orange Bowl".

Don't want a bad name? Don't get bad sponsors.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I honestly don't think anyone worth less than $100,000,000.00 should celebrate this. It would really suck to be a union worker today.

[Niki1 1]

Quote

I honestly don't think anyone worth less than $100,000,000.00 should celebrate this. It would really suck to be a union worker today.

The union worker can go to the polls and vote. He should be allowed to donate to whomever he pleases. The stockholder can go to the polls and vote. He should be allowed to donate to whomever he pleases. The union president and the corporation president can go to the polls and vote. They should be allowed to donate to whomever they please. The collectives of the unions or corporations should NOT be allowed to do what the VOTERS are allowed to do. Those collectives cannot cast a ballot. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that individuals are afforded their rights under the constitution, not collectives. An individual may invoke the 5th ammendment, Has a corporatin or union ever been allowed to do this or has it been the officials of the collective who do it? The ability to vote should determine where the money comes from.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

I honestly don't think anyone worth less than $100,000,000.00 should celebrate this. It would really suck to be a union worker today.

The union worker can go to the polls and vote. He should be allowed to donate to whomever he pleases. The stockholder can go to the polls and vote. He should be allowed to donate to whomever he pleases. The union president and the corporation president can go to the polls and vote. They should be allowed to donate to whomever they please. The collectives of the unions or corporations should NOT be allowed to do what the VOTERS are allowed to do. Those collectives cannot cast a ballot. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that individuals are afforded their rights under the constitution, not collectives. An individual may invoke the 5th ammendment, Has a corporatin or union ever been allowed to do this or has it been the officials of the collective who do it? The ability to vote should determine where the money comes from.

I agree. I am not an American so I may not contribute. However I can waltz across the line, set up a corporation and funnel as much cash as I want into a race 3000 miles from where the shell is incorporated.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I honestly don't think anyone worth less than $100,000,000.00 should celebrate this. It would really suck to be a union worker today.

Why? One of the most objectionable elements of McCainFeingold was the prohibition of any efforts by unions or interest groups (ie, NRA) in the closing days of the election. These collective groups are the only means by which the non millionaires can speak out. The billionaires have no problem getting around the restrictions.

No, today is a step back forward after some damage was done to the 1st Amendment.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Well, it might save the print media. The networks will surely love it.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

No, today is a step back forward after some damage was done to the 1st Amendment.

I do not believe that money is "speech". Call it what it is, "bribery", outlaw it, throw all parties who participate in it in jail and then maybe we'll get our representative government back.
$0.02

[Niki1 1]

I do not believe that money is "speech". Call it what it is, "bribery", outlaw it, throw all parties who participate in it in jail and then maybe we'll get our representative government back.
$0.02

Bribery is such a harsh word. Let's call it "Sponcership" I'd like to see all the politions dressed like NASCAR drivers in nomex suits. (God knows, they're all flaming assholes) put the sponcership patches on them. Then we can see who is racing oops voting for what.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

No, today is a step back forward after some damage was done to the 1st Amendment.

I do not believe that money is "speech". Call it what it is, "bribery", outlaw it, throw all parties who participate in it in jail and then maybe we'll get our representative government back.
$0.02

You missed the entire point I wrote. When the NRA sends out its election material, it's representing several million members. Same is true for AARP, same for unions. They were prohibited from promoting their members' interests in elections, the key focal point for future reform.

Murdoch and Soros, otoh, can use their money to influence results in either scenario.

Money is speech. Buckley vs Valeo.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You missed the entire point I wrote. When the NRA sends out its election material, it's representing several million members. Same is true for AARP, same for unions. They were prohibited from promoting their members' interests in elections, the key focal point for future reform.

Murdoch and Soros, otoh, can use their money to influence results in either scenario.

Money is speech. Buckley vs Valeo.

True, I didn't give your point the response it deserved. I just used it as a launching platform for my bribery point. Normally I would be more inclined to recognize the shades of gray wrt this topic. But the system has been abused to the extent that I feel that a distinct line needs to be drawn.

I have to admit, I like Niki1's idea about the stickers. I'd love to see Lieberman standing up in front of the cameras with "PhRMA", "Aetna" and "AIPAC" patches all over his suit as they do a roll call vote on health care legislation.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

From Fox News

Quote

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.


In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."

"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.

The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday, said he hadn't read the decision but thought that it was headed that way when he listened to arguments presented last fall. McCain said he does not think it completely repudiates the law he wrote with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

It also undercuts recent congressional legislation mandating tighter controls on political donations that had restricted the flow of corporate dollars into the political system.

The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign.

Citizens United planned to air ads promoting its distribution through cable television video-on-demand services. The FEC said the film amounted to a campaign ad and that Citizens United, an incorporated entity that takes corporate money, could only use limited, disclosed contributions from individuals to promote and broadcast it.

Prior to the ruling, Bob Edgar, president of watchdog group Common Cause, warned against overturning McCain-Feingold.

"Money has already corroded the discussion before Congress," he said. "It'll open Pandora's Box."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of restrictions.

Following Massachusetts, this is more change we can believe it.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, today is a step back forward after some damage was done to the 1st Amendment.

I do not believe that money is "speech". Call it what it is, "bribery", outlaw it, throw all parties who participate in it in jail and then maybe we'll get our representative government back.
$0.02

You missed the entire point I wrote. When the NRA sends out its election material, it's representing several million members. Same is true for AARP, same for unions. They were prohibited from promoting their members' interests in elections, the key focal point for future reform.

Murdoch and Soros, otoh, can use their money to influence results in either scenario.

Money is speech. Buckley vs Valeo.

A little side note on your union point

I dont see the union issue as being a situtation where the union represents it's members the same as say the NRA or AARP or others for all states

In some states like WI, if you take a job in a union shop you must join the union. So you are basicly a prisoner to the unions political leanings if you want to work in this shop. In some trade skills it is nearly impossible to find a place to work where you can practice your chosen trade that is not union.

In right to work states like IA, you can work in a union shop but chose not to join the union (or get out of the union and retain your job) should you not like the politics of said union.

Big difference

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Of course Barack is upset today.

Corporate campaign financing all of a sudden rivals Obama's Hollywood campaign financing.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I dont see the union issue as being a situtation where the union represents it's members the same as say the NRA or AARP or others for all states

Indeed, there is a difference in the quality of representation. If you disagree with the NRA or AARP, you stop giving them money. Nonetheless, the union does represent its membership on labor issues. One may disagree with the quality of the representation, but not being allowed to act at all in not in the workers' interest.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I dont see the union issue as being a situtation where the union represents it's members the same as say the NRA or AARP or others for all states

Indeed, there is a difference in the quality of representation. If you disagree with the NRA or AARP, you stop giving them money. Nonetheless, the union does represent its membership on labor issues. One may disagree with the quality of the representation, but not being allowed to act at all in not in the workers' interest.

I understand your point but unions are different animals than the NRA or AARP.

I is many cases I disagree with your point that the unions represent its membership. I was in a union for almost 20 years. You union represents its leaders. What it pushes for politically would put businesses and therefore members, out of business

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Bought and paid for by those placed on the SC by those who wished to practice unfettered VOODOODOO Economics.

Look who voted which ways. The Neo-Cons.. Love this

[lawrocket 3]

Have you read the opinion? I'll do you a favor and here it is:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25537902/Citizens-Opinion

Yes. 183 pages of opinion, concurrence and dissent.

Here's the issue: the first amendment states that Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Here, if a corporation wants to air a political ad (something called "speech") then that corporation must seek permission from the FEC. If it doesnt, criminal sanctions are available. Thus, an FEC loaded with George W. Bush appointees may be unwilling to allow a union to air its ads supporting another candidate. I take it that you would support such a system, right Jeanne?

I tend to think that speech is a rather essential thing. banning corporate speech is banning speech. Period.

It's suppression of speech. That is all. It is censorship of television, radio, internet, and even fliers that a corporation or union could use to display its views.

And for some reason people have a no issue with that? Are you about freedom of speech, so long as certain people don't have it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Have you read the opinion? I'll do you a favor and here it is:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25537902/Citizens-Opinion

Yes. 183 pages of opinion, concurrence and dissent.

Here's the issue: the first amendment states that Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Here, if a corporation wants to air a political ad (something called "speech") then that corporation must seek permission from the FEC. If it doesnt, criminal sanctions are available. Thus, an FEC loaded with George W. Bush appointees may be unwilling to allow a union to air its ads supporting another candidate. I take it that you would support such a system, right Jeanne?

I tend to think that speech is a rather essential thing. banning corporate speech is banning speech. Period.

It's suppression of speech. That is all. It is censorship of television, radio, internet, and even fliers that a corporation or union could use to display its views.

And for some reason people have a no issue with that? Are you about freedom of speech, so long as certain people don't have it?

You know what I missed reading on a fairly regular basis? Issue ads that were put out by Mobil (pre-Exxon merger). Most of them had nothing to do with oil or energy. They would appear every week, or twice a month in newspapers and magazines. I figured that they stopped for lots of different reasons, but never considered McCain-Feingold (don't know if that was the reason either).

Anyway, I agree, with your point.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Have you read the opinion? I'll do you a favor and here it is:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25537902/Citizens-Opinion

Yes. 183 pages of opinion, concurrence and dissent.

Here's the issue: the first amendment states that Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Here, if a corporation wants to air a political ad (something called "speech") then that corporation must seek permission from the FEC. If it doesnt, criminal sanctions are available. Thus, an FEC loaded with George W. Bush appointees may be unwilling to allow a union to air its ads supporting another candidate. I take it that you would support such a system, right Jeanne?

I tend to think that speech is a rather essential thing. banning corporate speech is banning speech. Period.

It's suppression of speech. That is all. It is censorship of television, radio, internet, and even fliers that a corporation or union could use to display its views.

And for some reason people have a no issue with that? Are you about freedom of speech, so long as certain people don't have it?

You know what I missed reading on a fairly regular basis? Issue ads that were put out by Mobil (pre-Exxon merger). Most of them had nothing to do with oil or energy. They would appear every week, or twice a month in newspapers and magazines. I figured that they stopped for lots of different reasons, but never considered McCain-Feingold (don't know if that was the reason either).

Anyway, I agree, with your point.

M-F didn't really change anything, they just formed 527's and ran the ads that way.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Which was part of the point. Corporations could not do it. They formed PACs.

But what about another business. Let's say Mom and Pop's Grocery, Inc, decided to do a silly U-Tube skit where they discussed health care and how the bill gave Pop a heart attack. It'd be a felony.

This is the sort of thing the SCOTUS overturned.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

It's a pretty fucked up decision.

I'd actually join one of the Tea Bag parties in protesting this travesty if they ever had the balls to do it.

Here's my problem with the situation. If "money is speech" then this gives the person with the most money the most media power. "Ok, cool. So what?", you ask. Well, the people with the most money on the planet don't live in this country. Further, they are the major holders of one of the biggest sources of news and information in this country. They control the news, they can now buy any politician they want and while they may have the money, we have the man power and silly willingness to fight their conflicts for them . . . that THEY created.

Here's the ugly potential, with this the next President could be under the control of Aramco.

Fuck that. I want my country back. I want it working for US, not some assholes in Saudi Arabia.

Not that we might not have had a couple in the past, but for fuck sake at least it was a little more subtle.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Fucked up is supporting McCain Feingold.

As I said, nothing stops billionaires. This shitty legislation stopped you or me. It's been undone.

It's shocking to see liberals like you and others here upset at a decision that strengths the 1st Amendment. Sickening too. Doesn't having "McCain" in the name already make it suspect to you?

If we can handle Nazis and nutty religious people protesting at funerals, we can tolerate free speech before elections.

[quade 4]

Quote

If we can handle Nazis and nutty religious people protesting at funerals, we can tolerate free speech before elections.

You're missing my point. The insane Supreme Court decision on thursday gives foreign owned companies more "freedom of speech" and more rights than actual human US citizens.

If you don't think there's something fundamentally wrong with that, I don't know what to say.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Have you read the opinion? I'll do you a favor and here it is:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25537902/Citizens-Opinion

Yes. 183 pages of opinion, concurrence and dissent.

Here's the issue: the first amendment states that Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Here, if a corporation wants to air a political ad (something called "speech") then that corporation must seek permission from the FEC. If it doesnt, criminal sanctions are available. Thus, an FEC loaded with George W. Bush appointees may be unwilling to allow a union to air its ads supporting another candidate. I take it that you would support such a system, right Jeanne?

I tend to think that speech is a rather essential thing. banning corporate speech is banning speech. Period.

It's suppression of speech. That is all. It is censorship of television, radio, internet, and even fliers that a corporation or union could use to display its views.

And for some reason people have a no issue with that? Are you about freedom of speech, so long as certain people don't have it?

The Dems considered this law a benefit to them. Now that they have lost this unconstitutional law that gave them an illegal advantage the tears flow.

Boo fucking hoo

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln