Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment;

[Craig234]

Your example is Extortion... ie., threatening someone for some gain.

No, actually, you are misrepresnting the situation.

There's extortion that's criminal - "if you don't give us money, we'll break your kneecaps, we'll send your wife the pics of you and your mistress".

It's a whole different matter when it's legal. "If you don't stop using sweatshop labor, I'll stop buying from your store". "If you don't stop the alcohol abuse, I'll stop letting you live here rent-free".

Who HAS to support a candidate with their free speech no matter what the candidates' positions?

Since when can't you say to a politician "If you don't vote yes on X, I will vote against you"?

And since the right has said money IS free speech, thre's no difference between saying "if you vote no on X I'll speak out against you", and "if you vote no on X, I'll give money to your opponent."

You are the one on the right who has to deal with what your side has said about money=free speech - or say you don't think money = free speech.

It falls far short of what is commonly known as free speech.

People can support political candidates, in almost any way. Free Speech.

They cannot do things like Bribery, or Extortion, as those have been judged wrong.

It's always amazing when you give someone clear logic and they just don't get it.

"Money is free speech! So you can't regulate money any more than you can regulate speech!"

"Oh. So, then since you can use the threat to speak out for or against a candidate based on their vote, if you have a million dollars to spend on an issue, you can threaten to give or not give it based on their vote."

"No that's bribery!"

You didn't seem toget that was the point. That it was pointing out the implication of the right's 'money=free speech' statement is that bribery is allowed - so maybe, just maybe, money isn't = free speech?

[quoteBut spend a billion on Ross Perot's flappy wings?

Oh, no I know, you are perfectly capable of ignoring the logic. Money isn't free speech, except it isn't when I don't want it to be.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

So it begins...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/corporate-donations-ban-ruling_n_868085.html

A judge has ruled that the campaign-finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional, citing the Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United decision last year in his analysis.

In a ruling issued late Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris tossed out part of an indictment against two men accused of illegally reimbursing donors to Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns.

Cacheris says that under the Citizens United decision, corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals to contribute to campaigns.

 

[JSt0rm]

we are fucked

 

[Atreus21]

So it begins...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/corporate-donations-ban-ruling_n_868085.html

"Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within (the law's) limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing."

Does that mean that corporate entities will be government by these donation limits?

$2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
$30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees
$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee

Aggregate Total -- $115,500 per two-year election cycle as follows:
$45,600 per two-year cycle to candidates
$69,000 per two-year cycle to all national party committees and PACs

If so, I don't see the big problem.

 

[Darwin333]

Your example is Extortion... ie., threatening someone for some gain.

It falls far short of what is commonly known as free speech.

People can support political candidates, in almost any way. Free Speech.

They cannot do things like Bribery, or Extortion, as those have been judged wrong.

But spend a billion on Ross Perot's flappy wings?

Go for it... free speech.

-John

I think Craig has a valid point. Threatening to vote for someone else if they don't vote yes on X bill is well within my rights. If money is the exact same thing as speech then threatening or offering my support could be considered the same thing.

 

[woolfe9999]

So it begins...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/corporate-donations-ban-ruling_n_868085.html

This sucks, but I doubt it would hold up if brought to the SCOTUS. Integral to the Citizens United rationale was protecting the speech rights of corporate entities by throwing out restrictions on their ability to directly fund speech, e.g. through books, TV ads, etc. Direct contributions to candidates is straining that rationale way past its breaking point. I think at a minimum Kennedy would flip to the other side. Then again, who knows. CU has already wreaked havoc and will I'm sure continue to do so.

 

[werepossum]

Corporations already contribute hugely to political campaigns through Political Action Committees. Giving them the same rights as individuals would be a huge cut in their power.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Direct contributions to candidates is straining that rationale way past its breaking point.

I think so too.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Corporations already contribute hugely to political campaigns through Political Action Committees. Giving them the same rights as individuals would be a huge cut in their power.

Hmmm....

Looking at the aggregate total (limitaions) in Atreus21's post (#504) I've got to wonder how a big a deal this might.

Only difference I see is that for specific candidates. Fortune 500 x $45,600 is about $22 million every two year cycle. Not a huge amount, and of course that's spread among numerous candidates (and over 2 years).

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

The impact of the Citizens' United ruling won't be so much in direct contributions, but rather in supposedly independent ad campaigns where there are no limits and donors can hide behind a variety of corporate and non-profit entities.

For somebody who controls multiple corporations, yeh, this ruling will raise their direct to the candidates ante considerably.

Anybody who thinks that the independent ads won't be coordinated with the campaigns and that the candidates won't know who's putting up the money is extremely naive.

 

[Zorkorist]

I think Craig has a valid point. Threatening to vote for someone else if they don't vote yes on X bill is well within my rights. If money is the exact same thing as speech then threatening or offering my support could be considered the same thing.

Threatening a political candidate, is against the law. As is Bribery and Extortion.

You can vote with your money, all day...

just don't threaten, bribe, or extort a candidate.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

You have a free speech right to tell, or explain to a candidate, that you will vote for his opponent.

Once you say, "I'm going to shove $1,000,000 to your opponent," you are threatening, or asking to extort, or pursuing a bribe.

-John

 

[HomerJS]

One of the biggest mistakes by the Supreme Court was equating money with speech. Pretty much guarenteed the rich will get their way in politics.

Look up Buckley v. Valeo.

By law all political spending should be anonymous that way big money donors can't go back to elected officials to get favors.

 

[Zorkorist]

Correct me if I am wrong, but gifts to Political Candidates are limited to $2,000.

The only "big money" in Politics today are what lobyists, etc. do behind closed doors, and AFTER elections.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

If anyone has an advantage here, pre-election, it is the Unions, with their many members.

-John