Russ Feingold speech on the Citizens United 5-4 ruling

[Craig234]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300693.html

:hmm:



reviewing the transcripts, the only time 'federalist' is mentioned is in connection with the federalist papers.




the original wapo story listed in the blog is better than the blog, with more detail:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html?nav=hcmodule

What's your point? The Roberts people working on his campaign for the nomination and Senate approval were calling up any media who said he was with the Federalist Society demanding retractions, the White House was arguing against anyone saying he had beein in the Federalist Society.

You asked for a link, you were given a link, and your response about the transcript makes no sense. The hearing issue was about stare decisis versus the radical Federalist agenda.

Would Roberts pursue his radical Federalist agenda, or would he respect precedent? He was asked, and he said he would respect precedent and not pursue an agenda in conflict with it.

He then pursued that agenda voting to overturn well established precedent in favor of the radical Federalist agenda.

That's why he was hiding his affiliation, it seems; the 'cannot remember' is a classic legal dodge for denying something that's very difficult to prove the person is lying.

It may be outrageous on face value, but legally, it's not easy to prove they remember.

 

[Craig234]

So, couldn't this all be stopped by making the "Truth in Advertising" laws apply to political ads as well. Anybody find it odd that political ads are exempt?

No, and it's not a good idea, because it's a mechanism that could be easily abused to cenosr the truth by those who run the system.

Imagine a group who wanted to say "the case for Iraq WMDs has not been proven" being shut down because they are spreading 'lies' when it's been 'clearly proven there are WMDs.'

The 'freedom to lie' is important in politics, because not allowing lying allows silencing people who are actually telling the truth against power.

The idea is that the people get to hear all sides, just in case the truth would have been censored, and they decide who is telling the truth.

 

[Craig234]

I think Obama beat the GOP to it.

Yes, and the American Cancer Society is the main advocate for more people to smoke.

 

[ElFenix]

What's your point? The Roberts people working on his campaign for the nomination and Senate approval were calling up any media who said he was with the Federalist Society demanding retractions, the White House was arguing against anyone saying he had beein in the Federalist Society.

You asked for a link, you were given a link, and your response about the transcript makes no sense. The hearing issue was about stare decisis versus the radical Federalist agenda.

Would Roberts pursue his radical Federalist agenda, or would he respect precedent? He was asked, and he said he would respect precedent and not pursue an agenda in conflict with it.

He then pursued that agenda voting to overturn well established precedent in favor of the radical Federalist agenda.

That's why he was hiding his affiliation, it seems; the 'cannot remember' is a classic legal dodge for denying something that's very difficult to prove the person is lying.

It may be outrageous on face value, but legally, it's not easy to prove they remember.

he wasn't asked about his federalist affiliation during the hearing (at least, not directly), and the blog piece you linked to was written months before the hearing. so your claim that he denied it during the hearing seems wrong.

 

[Craig234]

he wasn't asked about his federalist affiliation during the hearing (at least, not directly), and the blog piece you linked to was written months before the hearing. so your claim that he denied it during the hearing seems wrong.

Listen carefully.

I never said (IIRC) that he *denied it during the hearing*. That's your invention - even after I corrected it, you repeat it.

I said he claimed he could not recall his role with the Federalist Society *during the period of his nomination and confirmation*. That was in statements, and as I said, his people and the White House were pushing that position, to the point of contacting journalist after journalist saying he had a role demanding retractions. He almost got away with it, except for someone finding the leadership list.

The issue in *the hearing* was Russ Feingold saying that some nominees - clearly including but not naming Roberts - who had said they would take one approach which was NOT to follow a radical agenda like the Federalist Society, but rather would respect and not overturn established precedent, had done the opposite of what they said they'd do under oath to him.

You have the speech by Feingold. You have the links to Roberts' statements.

 

[QuantumPion]

The problem is not campaign finance or free speech. You have to examine the root cause.

The problem is that congress has too much unconstitutional authority to dictate laws and regulations in the economy. This power makes it a necessity for corporations to contribute, for their own survival and success. If government didn't have such abusive power, there would be little to no need for such a corrupt system in the first place.

 

[GroundedSailor]

The problem is not campaign finance or free speech. You have to examine the root cause.

The problem is that congress has too much unconstitutional authority to dictate laws and regulations in the economy. This power makes it a necessity for corporations to contribute, for their own survival and success. If government didn't have such abusive power, there would be little to no need for such a corrupt system in the first place.

In this case it is the Supreme court which showed its power to dictate laws and regulations.

Perhaps it would be better to ban all contributions altogether and have all elections federally funded. Equal & limited amounts for each candidate to spend as they like during election season. This way they would not be beholden to any interests. Yes I know we have the right to petition our Govt and all of us are free to write letters to make our case for or against an issue. But those letters will not be accompanied by any green stuff.

We could look to Australia as an example of how to do it.

..

 

[Craig234]

The problem is not campaign finance or free speech. You have to examine the root cause.

The problem is that congress has too much unconstitutional authority to dictate laws and regulations in the economy. This power makes it a necessity for corporations to contribute, for their own survival and success. If government didn't have such abusive power, there would be little to no need for such a corrupt system in the first place.

Wrong. The powerful interests would act in ways that benefit them at the expense of the public and democracy would be powerless to stop them.

 

[ElFenix]

Listen carefully.

I never said (IIRC) that he *denied it during the hearing*. That's your invention - even after I corrected it, you repeat it.

I said he claimed he could not recall his role with the Federalist Society *during the period of his nomination and confirmation*. That was in statements, and as I said, his people and the White House were pushing that position, to the point of contacting journalist after journalist saying he had a role demanding retractions. He almost got away with it, except for someone finding the leadership list.

The issue in *the hearing* was Russ Feingold saying that some nominees - clearly including but not naming Roberts - who had said they would take one approach which was NOT to follow a radical agenda like the Federalist Society, but rather would respect and not overturn established precedent, had done the opposite of what they said they'd do under oath to him.

You have the speech by Feingold. You have the links to Roberts' statements.

well i'm sorry for not parsing your text properly.

On Roberts not remembering his role with the Federalist Society during his confirmation:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2005/07/25/roberts/index.html

i took it to mean the event, not the period leading up to the event.

 

[SammyJr]

This is where PACs come in. I, as an individual, have a 2400 dollar limit on how much I can contribute. Are you in favor of removing this limit so that a single individual can basically fund an entire candidate's campaign? A single person given the power to give as much as they want to influence elections by funding?

How about my right to free speech, which is what the case was about, are you OK with government saying what I can and cannot print or air before an election?

Think your line of reasoning through people. The people can organize and air or print whatever they want by pooling resources, or at least they should. But leftists think this is a bad idea, they of course want to silence any freedom of speech unless it agrees with them (ie. unions).

I'm in favor of flesh and blood humans being able to contribute up to the legal limit to their campaigns and PACs of choice. I am not in favor of corporations spending millions of dollars on propaganda to influence elections. The humans who make up the corporation can contribute their own money, up to the legal limit.

Allowing corporations to spend millions of dollars to influence elections lets the corporations frame the debate. The citizens should be framing the debate.

 

[spidey07]

I'm in favor of flesh and blood humans being able to contribute up to the legal limit to their campaigns and PACs of choice. I am not in favor of corporations spending millions of dollars on propaganda to influence elections. The humans who make up the corporation can contribute their own money, up to the legal limit.

Allowing corporations to spend millions of dollars to influence elections lets the corporations frame the debate. The citizens should be framing the debate.

My employer has a PAC and I contribute to it as well as the executives to protect the company's and therefore my interests. How about that? The concept is pooling your resources to get your message out and to address legislators with a meaningful force (lobbying).

But again, this case had nothing to do with donations and everything about free speech because a federal authority told citizens united they couldn't run ads for their documentary. Replace documentary with book and it's the exact same thing if it was your book they were telling you you couldn't advertise.

 

[shira]

Blah blah blah blah blah

I want judges who will base their decisions based on the letter of the law, not on how they wish to personally see our government reshaped.

What a moron. The "letter of the law" as passed by the Congress of the United States was that unlimited campaign contributions were illegal. It was spelled out in black and white in the 2002 McCain–Feingold Act. McCain-Feingold EXPLICITLY said that "issue advocacy ads" that named a candidate could not legally be funded by corporations. But the U.S. Supreme Court said that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional because corporations have the same rights as individuals.

Now, tell me where in the U.S. Constitution you find words that say corporations have the same rights as individuals.

In other words, the Citizens-United decisions was an outrageous example of legislating from the bench, of overturning clear, long-settled law. It was the most extreme example I've ever encountered of judicial activism.

So, if you want judges who "base their decisions based on the letter of the law, not on how they wish to personally see our government reshaped," then you ought to be outraged by the Citizens-United decision.

 

[*kjm]

Im from WI and cant stand him..... he is a tool! Looking good....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ions/wisconsin/election_2010_wisconsin_senate

 

[spidey07]

What a moron. The "letter of the law" as passed by the Congress of the United States was that unlimited campaign contributions were illegal. It was spelled out in black and white in the 2002 McCain–Feingold Act. McCain-Feingold EXPLICITLY said that "issue advocacy ads" that named a candidate could not legally be funded by corporations. But the U.S. Supreme Court said that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional because corporations have the same rights as individuals.

Now, tell me where in the U.S. Constitution you find words that say corporations have the same rights as individuals.

In other words, the Citizens-United decisions was an outrageous example of legislating from the bench, of overturning clear, long-settled law. It was the most extreme example I've ever encountered of judicial activism.

So, if you want judges who "base their decisions based on the letter of the law, not on how they wish to personally see our government reshaped," then you ought to be outraged by the Citizens-United decision.

IS CITIZENS UNITED A CORPORATION!

Answer the question leftist. This has nothing to do with corporations being "all corporationy" and everything to do with free speech. Why do leftists hate free speech that disagrees with them?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Take this case as an example: Dr. Paul accepts contributions from corporations, but he flat out tells them TO THEIR FACES that his voting record will NOT be influenced by them no matter how much money they contribute to him.

I'm sorry to see that you've partaken so deeply of the Ron Paul Kool-aid...I'm sure that MOST politicians also claim that they won't be influenced by campaign contributions...and even when they vote in favor of their contributors, they seem to always say, "No, the $6,000,000 campaign contribution by Megaglomacorp had no influence what so ever on my decision to cut their taxes and to provide them with federal funds to help them send all their peon jobs overseas."

Of this message I approve!! Herh herh herh.

 

[GroundedSailor]

IS CITIZENS UNITED A CORPORATION!

Answer the question leftist. This has nothing to do with corporations being "all corporationy" and everything to do with free speech. Why do leftists hate free speech that disagrees with them?

You're missing the point completely. It is irrelevant whether CU is a corporation or not.

CU is not a 'person' and therefore should not be covered by the bill of rights. Free speech is one of the bill of rights.

And from what I've read, CU is a corporation, albeit a non-profit.

..

 

[QuantumPion]

Wrong. The powerful interests would act in ways that benefit them at the expense of the public and democracy would be powerless to stop them.

Somewhat agree, in order to have a libertarian government actually work justly, we would need tort reform on top of that. But I don't think having a flawed judicial system is a good justification to also have an equally flawed legislative system. I.e. the phrase "well everyone is corrupt so I might as well be too".

 

[Craig234]

Somewhat agree, in order to have a libertarian government actually work justly, we would need tort reform on top of that. But I don't think having a flawed judicial system is a good justification to also have an equally flawed legislative system. I.e. the phrase "well everyone is corrupt so I might as well be too".

The Libertarians have a fantasy that the courts can replace the role of the government's regulatory function. I can't think of a more naive political view today. They're wrong.

No one's advocating a corrupt legislative system - the fact there is the corruption is a small taste of the power of the wealthy to fight democracy and have more say.

The fix is to improve that system, not to destroy it and remove the power of the people from having any good government.

'Libertarian' systems are inherently unworkable, government simply becomes irrelevant as private concentrated power fills the vacuum.

The situation I'm describing can have things like the elected government having its power greatly curtailed, so that it has to pay businesses for any laws that reduce their profits (quickly bankrupting them if they did and therefore preventing them from passing regulation), or the establishment of private authorities for resolving business issues (analogous to the Fed running our currency and monetary policy) - and check NAFTA for that already being put in place for trade issues.

Libertarian is a sort of new branding for 'Laissez-Faire', the discredited approach of the government not interfering in business, with popular social deregulation tossed in.

The utopia you are suggesting doesn't exist for good reason, that's not how power works. The effort to convince citizens government is 'the bad guy' is really one to fight against democracy altogether for the interests of the few who want to have far more power at the expense of the rest of the public.