On the Supreme Court ruling in favor of corps, unions...

[kage69]

I figured this story should get a thread in lieu of the sudden surge in "We the People.."
sentiments...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers...-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html

From the link:

"Memo to the Supreme Court: President Obama isn’t the only one who’s annoyed.

Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted."


I find it refreshing to see something in this day and age where those on both sides of the isle can agree on a bad decision being a bad decision. Other than some obtuse partisans on this board, I haven't come across a single person that I know who agreed with that ruling.
I'd like to see this idea of a legislative work-around get going before 2012, but that probably won't happen given the state of things in D.C.
But I do think McCain finally got something right; there will be a backlash from this.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted."

I don't understand how you legislate a 'workaround' of the Constitution. Seems to me we'd need a new amendment, but the legislature can't do that alone.

Fern

 

[Genx87]

Amend the constitution and be done with it. The funny thing is the ruling should actually make the system more transperant. No more hiding behind pacs. But most people cant see past their next meal. So I doubt they could grasp that benefit.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Politicians (Congress) will provide lip service - but they may not want the limits to actually be in place. Having the corporate support without the accountability is a great benefit for them

 

[Patranus]

Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

I wonder what percentage of the respondents actually know what this ruling means outside of what Obama said in the state of the union.

 

[spidey07]

That's because the overwhelming majority of people believe the spin that this allows corporations to send money to candidate and campaigns, which is totally false and nothing to do with this ruling what so ever. I've seen the media constantly apply this spin. It is nothing more than affirmation of the 1st amendment and victory for free speech, that's the fact.

Even Obama doesn't seem to know what the ruling meant as he's said the same, not mentioning anything about free speech. He also lied in his state of the union speech and Alito picked up on it. you lie.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[HumblePie]

That's because the overwhelming majority of people believe the spin that this allows corporations to send money to candidate and campaigns, which is totally false and nothing to do with this ruling what so ever. I've seen the media constantly apply this spin. It is nothing more than affirmation of the 1st amendment and victory for free speech, that's the fact.

Even Obama doesn't seem to know what the ruling meant as he's said the same, not mentioning anything about free speech. He also lied in his state of the union speech and Alito picked up on it. you lie.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Uhh no.

First off, if it is a freedom of speech issue, Corporations right now are legally able to endorse and campaign for anyone they want to. They can pay for an advertisement for themselves and say what they want to say in it. Nothing to stop AT&T from making a commercial that says "Buy an iPhone and vote for prop999!" as an example.

The problem comes when they just bribe... er donate the money directly to a political figure in hopes they will get special favors in return for the bribe... er donation. This goes for anyone that legally bribes... er donates to political parties and figures.

Another thing is that money is not speech. It's money. I'm not saying something when I buy a breakfast burrito or purchase a movie ticket. I'm just spending money. Trying to equate the two is non sense.

Oh and to head you off before you start on your PAC crap, I don't believe money should be given to politicians from any source, including unions. Using the excuse that someone else is doing something I don't think is right does not make it right for them or anyone else. The example everyone's mother has told them about friends jumping off a bridge comes to mind. It's a poor excuse.

 

[drebo]

Uhh no.

First off, if it is a freedom of speech issue, Corporations right now are legally able to endorse and campaign for anyone they want to. They can pay for an advertisement for themselves and say what they want to say in it. Nothing to stop AT&T from making a commercial that says "Buy an iPhone and vote for prop999!" as an example.

The problem comes when they just bribe... er donate the money directly to a political figure in hopes they will get special favors in return for the bribe... er donation. This goes for anyone that legally bribes... er donates to political parties and figures.

Another thing is that money is not speech. It's money. I'm not saying something when I buy a breakfast burrito or purchase a movie ticket. I'm just spending money. Trying to equate the two is non sense.

Oh and to head you off before you start on your PAC crap, I don't believe money should be given to politicians from any source, including unions. Using the excuse that someone else is doing something I don't think is right does not make it right for them or anyone else. The example everyone's mother has told them about friends jumping off a bridge comes to mind. It's a poor excuse.

That's the thing, though. This ruling said absolutely nothing about giving money directly to a candidate or campaign fund. The ruling was about the ability for corporations to spend their own money on their own commercials to endorse a specific candidate. The ruling did not say that corporations can donate unlimited funds to a candidate. The ruling said that it was not right to restrict a corporation's freedom of speech in spending their own money on whatever TV advertising they wanted.

Your post is exactly the spin that spidey was talking about.

 

[HumblePie]

That's the thing, though. This ruling said absolutely nothing about giving money directly to a candidate or campaign fund. The ruling was about the ability for corporations to spend their own money on their own commercials to endorse a specific candidate. The ruling did not say that corporations can donate unlimited funds to a candidate. The ruling said that it was not right to restrict a corporation's freedom of speech in spending their own money on whatever TV advertising they wanted.

Your post is exactly the spin that spidey was talking about.

Uhh... what?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60K57W20100122


Everything I can possibly find refer specifically to donations....

 

[spidey07]

Uhh no.

First off, if it is a freedom of speech issue, Corporations right now are legally able to endorse and campaign for anyone they want to. They can pay for an advertisement for themselves and say what they want to say in it. Nothing to stop AT&T from making a commercial that says "Buy an iPhone and vote for prop999!" as an example.

The problem comes when they just bribe... er donate the money directly to a political figure in hopes they will get special favors in return for the bribe... er donation. This goes for anyone that legally bribes... er donates to political parties and figures.

Another thing is that money is not speech. It's money. I'm not saying something when I buy a breakfast burrito or purchase a movie ticket. I'm just spending money. Trying to equate the two is non sense.

Oh and to head you off before you start on your PAC crap, I don't believe money should be given to politicians from any source, including unions. Using the excuse that someone else is doing something I don't think is right does not make it right for them or anyone else. The example everyone's mother has told them about friends jumping off a bridge comes to mind. It's a poor excuse.

That is absolutely not true (well at least from a federal elections commision standpoint, otherwise it's up to the state). The whole reason for the suit/challenge was the company wanted to advertise their movie and the current McCain/Feingold act said it was illegal to do so. Now, thanks to this ruling the bolded point can be done. Previously, no it couldn't. The entire basis for the ruling was the act violated the 1st amendment.

 

[Danube]

I find it refreshing to see something in this day and age where those on both sides of the isle can agree on a bad decision being a bad decision.

The way the media presents the situation the average American dummy doesn't even understand the decision - nor do they understand George Soros and the left were driving force behind McCain-Feingold. They were pissed off after Hillary-care went down in a flurry of TV ads.

Soros and others then used 527's to get funding to Dem party lost when the union money/influence was reduced. That's how Soros, MoveOn etc got so much power over Dem party and are now taking it down the crapper.

Obama, Soros, Schumer etc aren't upset about any principles - they know they just lost a lot of leverage. It was a good decision and shame on Obama for his thug moment in the SoU speech.

 

[drebo]

Read the goddamn ruling itself and not the sensationalist news "summaries".

 

[HumblePie]

Read the goddamn ruling itself and not the sensationalist news "summaries".

Trying, but any google attempt brings up a news story. Tried the supremecourtus.gov site and the site sucks. Any search about McCain Fengold or whatever turns up nothing. Perhaps I need to read a bit more about this ruling.

 

[spidey07]

Trying, but any google attempt brings up a news story. Tried the supremecourtus.gov site and the site sucks. Any search about McCain Fengold or whatever turns up nothing. Perhaps I need to read a bit more about this ruling.

Here's the meat. Google "supreme court ruling citizens united" for more analysis but watch out for the spin.

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independentexpenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McCon-nell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209 (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Com-merce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell. It has been noted that “Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles,” Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 490 (2007) (WRTL) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We agreewith that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. The Government may regulate corporate political speech throughdisclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us.

Entire 183 pages if you really want it...
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

 

[Craig234]

The way the media presents the situation the average American dummy doesn't even understand the decision - nor do they understand George Soros and the left were driving force behind McCain-Feingold. They were pissed off after Hillary-care went down in a flurry of TV ads.

Wrong. That wasn't the reason they opposed the domination of our political system by the corporatocracy.

Soros and others then used 527's to get funding to Dem party lost when the union money/influence was reduced. That's how Soros, MoveOn etc got so much power over Dem party and are now taking it down the crapper.

Groups like MoveOn are movements for democracy and are a good inflence on the party and country.

The problem is the corporate-funded excessive influence on democracy causing people to vote ffor bad politices.

Obama, Soros, Schumer etc aren't upset about any principles - they know they just lost a lot of leverage. It was a good decision and shame on Obama for his thug moment in the SoU speech.

You aren't concerned about any principles, they are. It was a bad decision to not let the people keep control of the elections and let the wealhy interests dominate them.

Obama stood up for democracy, you are the 'thug moment' person with the distorted commentary.

 

[Craig234]

That is absolutely not true (well at least from a federal elections commision standpoint, otherwise it's up to the state). The whole reason for the suit/challenge was the company wanted to advertise their movie and the current McCain/Feingold act said it was illegal to do so. Now, thanks to this ruling the bolded point can be done. Previously, no it couldn't. The entire basis for the ruling was the act violated the 1st amendment.

The activist radical right court went beyond the issues in the case to create new law for legal entities (primarily corporations) to get constitutional protection to spend any money they want on poiktical ads.

 

[spidey07]

The activist radical right court went beyond the issues in the case to create new law for legal entities (primarily corporations) to get constitutional protection to spend any money they want on poiktical ads.

LOL! So now it's the judicial branch that creates new laws?

I get it, corporations are being all corporationy and you don't like that.

 

[HumblePie]

Well, I am going to say this. I have no problem then with anyone making a commercial stating who they are for or against, as long as they state it is their opinion or endorsement. Just to continue picking on Apple, if they wanted to put some print at the bottom of their advertisement saying, "And we support SoandSo for the next election" that is perfectly fine.

However, going to a political figure or party and saying, we want to make a commercial for you because we endorse you and not once mentioning that the endorsement is solely the opinion of the commercial maker is wrong in my book. Any corporation making a pure political commercial I still feel is wrong without attaching their name to it big, bold, and bright so the populace see's the real intent and purpose of the commercial.

 

[Throckmorton]

LOL! So now it's the judicial branch that creates new laws?

I get it, corporations are being all corporationy and you don't like that.

This would be an example of what the right is always complaining about... Judicial activism.

 

[Craig234]

Well, I am going to say this. I have no problem then with anyone making a commercial stating who they are for or against, as long as they state it is their opinion or endorsement. Just to continue picking on Apple, if they wanted to put some print at the bottom of their advertisement saying, "And we support SoandSo for the next election" that is perfectly fine.

However, going to a political figure or party and saying, we want to make a commercial for you because we endorse you and not once mentioning that the endorsement is solely the opinion of the commercial maker is wrong in my book. Any corporation making a pure political commercial I still feel is wrong without attaching their name to it big, bold, and bright so the populace see's the real intent and purpose of the commercial.

Apple has a legitimate function to creqate ads to say "buy iPods".

Apple has no right to get its grubby hands into our political sysem, in which the public, the rulers of this country, have the right and power to pass laws regulating Apple, to use its money to override the public.

Apple, of course, isn't the best example because no big conflicts between Apple and the public interest are obvious - but change Apple to Goldman Sachs and the issue is much clearer.

And as many have pointed out in public discussion, the effects of this are often invisible but large.

Now corporate lobbyists can say their position and ask how the politician will vote, with the threat of spending big bucks against them if it's the wrong way, so the politicians change their vote quietly.

There's no 'evidence' of the effect of this corruption at all. The politician just creates an excuse for his vote, while the corruption is heavy.

 

[spidey07]

Well, I am going to say this. I have no problem then with anyone making a commercial stating who they are for or against, as long as they state it is their opinion or endorsement. Just to continue picking on Apple, if they wanted to put some print at the bottom of their advertisement saying, "And we support SoandSo for the next election" that is perfectly fine.

However, going to a political figure or party and saying, we want to make a commercial for you because we endorse you and not once mentioning that the endorsement is solely the opinion of the commercial maker is wrong in my book. Any corporation making a pure political commercial I still feel is wrong without attaching their name to it big, bold, and bright so the populace see's the real intent and purpose of the commercial.

The ruling upholds your desires with regards to mandatory disclaimers and disclosures.

 

[HumblePie]

The ruling upholds your desires with regards to mandatory disclaimers and disclosures.

If that is the case, it needs to go further in regulation. It should just be a statement of fact such as, Apple supports Obama. Nothing more. No American flags, eagles, patriotic music, little children, or anything else used to generated additional emotional responses.

 

[GaryJohnson]

What I don't understand is: couldn't the board of directors of a corporation pay themselves a dividend and then use that (now personal) money to pay for a political ad, or even give directly to the campaign?

So what exactly does this change?

If that is the case, it needs to go further in regulation. It should just be a statement of fact such as, Apple supports Obama. Nothing more. No American flags, eagles, patriotic music, little children, or anything else used to generated additional emotional responses.

I think the real problem here is the people who's votes are influenced by that kind of stuff.

 

[spidey07]

If that is the case, it needs to go further in regulation. It should just be a statement of fact such as, Apple supports Obama. Nothing more. No American flags, eagles, patriotic music, little children, or anything else used to generated additional emotional responses.

Then you're trampling on the 1st amendment again. I never took you for a "freedom of speech, as long as you agree with me" type of person. You're smarter than that.

 

[ElFenix]

What I don't understand is: couldn't the board of directors of a corporation pay themselves a dividend and then use that (now personal) money to pay for a political ad, or even give directly to the campaign?

So what exactly does this change?



I think the real problem here is the people who's votes are influenced by that kind of stuff.

all shareholders in specific classes have to be treated equally and exactly how each class is treated vis-a-vis other classes is laid out in advance.

in short, no.


i don't remember everything in my various corporate finance classes, but iirc diluting shareholder value by inserting a new class of stocks that get fist dibs at a dividend is something that delaware actually frowns upon. and there aren't many things that delaware frowns upon when it comes to sucking off directors.