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

[spidey07]

Give me a break. Don't nit pick the media strategy. Money influenced elections period. The need for corporate/union donations corrupts the system.

The ruling still bars those corporationy corporations from donating to a candidate.

 

[Mursilis]

Dodging? You're still dishonest, and really, an ass. I need to remember, horses and stripes.

When in doubt, call names.

My issue here is larger than the case. It's about the basic issue of corporate corrruption of democracy, resting on the Santa Clara decision.

Again, I ask you, why hasn't the corporate money worked on you? If the corporations have spent millions (or more accurately, billions) to influence elections, why haven't your views changed? And it's not like you're alone - many people are denouncing this decision, and supported the BCRA.

 

[Mursilis]

If they can have limits on the amount of money an NFL team can spend then why not limit how much money these campaigns can actually spend. Limit air time by candidate. How much is too much? How about limiting the timeframe during which people can purchase air time and move the primaries closer to the actual election. I think a 2 year campaign for election is too long.

Who is the "they" here, and what limits are these? Spend on what?

 

[Sclamoz]

Companies are made up of american citizens and represent the interests of those citizens. You are making a logical error of composition, the company does not think, the people who are part of the company think. The people who make the decision are american citizens acting as a group. They give up part of their resources to the corporation, the corporation acts in the best interest of the people who own it towards the direction that those citizens want. Corporations do not have to be geared towards profit, the OP has an example of an issue corporation, the Environmental Defense Fund. The corporation is merely a group of people pooling their resources in their own common interest.

Why can't people in Corporations decide on their own like the rest of us instead of in a group?

Your making the mistaken conclusion that someone in a corporation agrees with its goals and supports the use of its resources.

Would it be any more acceptable if every stock holder of Exxon Mobil voted to liquidate the company and then they all donated all their money from the liquidation to the democrats, just because it came from individuals as individuals rather than a corp representing their interests?

That seems like an extreme stretch to me and liquidating the company would remove the concerns about corporate involvement in the first place, the people donating the money would be no different than other person.

 

[Craig234]

When in doubt, call names.

What doubt? It was a description.

Again, I ask you, why hasn't the corporate money worked on you? If the corporations have spent millions (or more accurately, billions) to influence elections, why haven't your views changed? And it's not like you're alone - many people are denouncing this decision, and supported the BCRA.

No 'again' about it - you dd not ask with garbage before, so this is the first time as far as I'm concerned.

I have an answer, but frankly, I don't think this forum fits that discussion right now. Sorry, it's unsatisfying. But I will say, the corporate money influences elections - dominates them - and as far as all the nice theory, we have a tiny faction of the public who is much informed at all, under 2% IMO, with all kinds of great info hiding in plain sight few consume. # of comments from reading info in my sig remains zero.

Very few Americans pay almost any attention to the issue of the corporate money in elections issue.

Hell, I did an experiment at a moveon meeting. The agenda was selecting about three issues for the year.

All kinds of issues were raised that people wanted certain things on - education, war, and others.

I told the group, how about the corporate money in the election - that is what's beating all of your issues. Deal with that and help your issue, don't and you're wasting your time.

The responses were agreeing. Good point. We took a vote - not one for that. All for pet issues.

And these are much more involved people than the average citizen.

 

[Blackjack200]

That seems like an extreme stretch to me and liquidating the company would remove the concerns about corporate involvement in the first place, the people donating the money would be no different than other person.

ROFL!

Did he delete what you quoted? That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

 

[kage69]

My question is, why did you think Thomas and Roberts, who are so much like them, would vote differently?

I should have actually included Thomas there come to think of it (very Alito-esque), but with Roberts I guess I'll have to plead naivete. His smarts and character gave me hope he wasn't a cold-hearted ideologue like Scalia, or limp wagon-rider like Alito. I guess this concludes my approval of him.
Can't wait to see what new levels of misinformation will crop up around election time, now with even bigger sponsorship and corporation-veiled participants. Some triumph.


If anyone has a problem with lobbyists and their hold on our government, you'd have to be a major fucking retard to approve of this ruling. Repeating the "freedom of speech wins!" line is the same here as yelling "I have no idea what this is about!"

 

[whylaff]

Do you even know what a corporation is?

Hint, it's not a collection of people.

Do YOU?

an invisible, intangible, artificial creation of the law existing as a voluntary chartered association of individuals that has most of the rights and duties of natural persons but with perpetual existence and limited liability

A corporation is not just a “company” that you see selling crap. It has a very precise legal definition. That is why others have said this decision is a reversion back to the times of substantive economic due process, when the court that viewed corporations as an individual with greater rights, which has its origins in that fact that a corporation was a collective group of individuals with a common association.

Stripping away the definition of a corporation as an individual, my argument is that you have a very big challenge if you wish to say that rights for one are not the same as rights for many, even if control of the corporation is saturated within a select few. They shouldn't be greater, they shouldn't be less.

 

[Mursilis]

I have an answer, but frankly, I don't think this forum fits that discussion right now. Sorry, it's unsatisfying. But I will say, the corporate money influences elections - dominates them - and as far as all the nice theory, we have a tiny faction of the public who is much informed at all, under 2% IMO, with all kinds of great info hiding in plain sight few consume. # of comments from reading info in my sig remains zero.

Well, you're finally figuring it out. I'd maybe disagree with the percentage of people who are truly informed (I think you're a little low), but 2% is close enough that I'll have to agree with the bolded part. As for the authors and the sites in your sig, I was already reading most of those before you stumbled in. I almost always read only dissenting opinions - there's no challenge in reading the views of those you usually agree with.

Very few Americans pay almost any attention to the issue of the corporate money in elections issue.

Hell, I did an experiment at a moveon meeting. The agenda was selecting about three issues for the year.

All kinds of issues were raised that people wanted certain things on - education, war, and others.

I told the group, how about the corporate money in the election - that is what's beating all of your issues. Deal with that and help your issue, don't and you're wasting your time.

The responses were agreeing. Good point. We took a vote - not one for that. All for pet issues.

And these are much more involved people than the average citizen.

Like I said, you're starting to figure things out. Corporate money or whatever is only the symptom of the deeper problem. You're right - the type of people who show up at a moveon.org meeting are no doubt much more involved than the average citizen, and yet they're still mostly unable to get beyond their pet issues. What's the lesson there?

 

[Fizzorin]

Read my other posts for how this was the creaqtion of rights not in the constiution for allowing a few to destroy the democracy for the people.

No, no, no, no, no. THIS was about the constitutionality of the CFA. It ended up being overturned on 1st Amendment issues.

The problem you have with it is based on the "individuality" of corporations, which is an ENTIRELY separate issue not encompassed by the supreme court arguments here.

What the ruling states is that as individuals corporations have rights. They in no way attempted to ascertain if corporations should even be individuals. 2 separate issues.

 

[Blackjack200]

Do YOU?

A corporation is not just a “company” that you see selling crap. It has a very precise legal definition. That is why others have said this decision is a reversion back to the times of substantive economic due process, when the court that viewed corporations as an individual with greater rights, which has its origins in that fact that a corporation was a collective group of individuals with a common association.

And to be more explicit, the essense of that precise legal definition is that liabilities of the corporation, as an entity, do not extend to its shareholders. The government (including the courts) still does treat corporations as individuals, but they have also injured corporations in cases where those corporations have been behaving contrary to the public interest (trust busting, consumer protection acts etc.)

I am not anti-corporation, but I do hold the opinon that because corporations have tremendous ability to raise capital, and can consolodate significant power as a result, they need treated as a tool with great care.

Stripping away the definition of a corporation as an individual, my argument is that you have a very big challenge if you wish to say that rights for one are not the same as rights for many, even if control of the corporation is saturated within a select few. They shouldn't be greater, they shouldn't be less.

But that's an ideological position, not a practical one. The fact is there are many different rights afforded to individuals that are not afforded to corporations, and vice-versa. "Group" is a vague term. Most groups possess the rights of invidividuals via the individuals themselves. For example, the police can't round up and arrest a group that's peacfully assembled because the individuals within that group have the right to peaceful assembly.

 

[Mursilis]

Actually the Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of a law is something the Supreme Court came up with on its own. It isn't in the Constitution.

/scurries away

What? Has Article III been repealed?!?

Mods, this thread needs to be combined with the other thread on the same topic (IMHO).

 

[teddyv]

Marbury vs. Madison

 

[Brainonska511]

What? Has Article III been repealed?!?

Mods, this thread needs to be combined with the other thread on the same topic (IMHO).

"No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, but the Framers did contemplate the idea. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_vs_Madison

 

[Craig234]

This anti-corporation stance that has reared its head by certain individuals in this thread is interesting. If people want to collectively establish themselves to accomplish something, why be against it? And, one person still retains individual rights, but twelve people collectively put together do not?

The mere truth is that there are some corporations that people do not like and this provides the foundation for a convoluted perception that the corporation in question yields incredible power in manipulating public opinion.

Is that fear unfounded? Not always, but freedoms come with the cost that everyone gets to participate.

Anti-corporate excess, domination, too big to fail, being legal people, etc., is not 'anti-corporate'. We're all strong supporters of GOOD corporate behavior as essential to our economy.

 

[sandorski]

Bad decision.

 

[Mursilis]

"No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, but the Framers did contemplate the idea. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_vs_Madison

Then what is the effect of Art.III, Sect.2?

 

[Brainonska511]

Then what is the effect of Art.III, Sect.2?

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. What cases it would be allowed to have control over. Nothing specific about judicial review. Judicial review might be something implied in Article 3, Section 2, but it is not explicitly defined.

 

[drebo]

As I said in the other thread, I think this is the single biggest threat to our country and our democracy.

So the fact that people can spend as much as they want on campaings, and not the fact that people only ever listen to what they hear in 30 second TV spots, is the single biggest threat to our country?

I think you missed the ball again, dude.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

This is clear only to a myopic few. Note again the ideological split in the SCOTUS decision. If it was so clear, it would have been a unanimous.

And as mentioned here or the other thread - the leftist on the court want to thrash around like craig about the outcome of the decision instead of the actual Constitutionality of the issue. Just because something (they think is bad) will result doesn't mean they shouldn't uphold the Constitution.

 

[sandorski]

So the fact that people can spend as much as they want on campaings, and not the fact that people only ever listen to what they hear in 30 second TV spots, is the single biggest threat to our country?

I think you missed the ball again, dude.

It creates an Elite group whose Power is excessive. Think of all the problems created by the current Lobbyists in Washington, then multiply it by some number to see where this is heading. You may as well suspend Elections to save $$ and just let the Elite do whatever they want.

 

[drebo]

It creates an Elite group whose Power is excessive. Think of all the problems created by the current Lobbyists in Washington, then multiply it by some number to see where this is heading. You may as well suspend Elections to save $$ and just let the Elite do whatever they want.

And if voters were not apothetic, it wouldn't be a problem.

I see the cause (apothetic, party-line voters) as more important than the symptom (politicians elected because they spent more).

 

[RabidMongoose]

I think that the particular section of the statute was facially unconstitutional. That's even the ACLU's opinion. I suppose that doesn't mean it's a good idea to repeal the statute though.

 

[GroundedSailor]

I'm just saying that if you are going to advocate a plain text reading of the Constitution then you can't nitpick parts. It's ironic that the biggest case involving judicial activism is defended by individuals who despise judicial activism.

Correct. The constitution does not give SC the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

The SC took it upon themselves to do so in Marbury vs Madison. See the Criticism in that section.

As to corporation rights, the Fourteenth Amendment was written to protect the rights of blacks from hostile courts and to prevent the SC overruling the civil rights act of 1866 which gave them rights as citizens. The term used to describe blacks was 'persons'.

This case: Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad has been used as legal precedence to apply the 14th amendment protections to corporations (something the 14th amend didn't really intend to do) by including corps in the definition of persons.

Interestingly, the extension of protections to corps was not addressed by the court in it's decision. The Headnote, which is a summary of the decision written by the court reporter prior to publication in the US Reports, is where the concept is stated. That particular court reporter had been a past president of a railroad company - I would assume his sympathies lay with the railroad - arguably a question of conflict of interest.:

This is what the judge wrote in a memo to the court reporter:
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad#A_passing_remark


There is no constitutional right for corporations. It is the SC's interpretation of the First amendment which has given corps that privilege. And all SC's interpretations have been based on the Santa Clara County case - which should not have been used for precedent.

There is too much riding on this issue to even try to overturn this precedent. And of course our current SC make up does not help.

The more money in politics the more crooked it will be.

 

[Patranus]

This is such bullshit. The SC says we can't have spending limits because they restrict the 1st Amendment, but all it really does is create a situation where only the voice of the rich, well-connected, and well-funded can be heard.

Either you are for the 1st amendment or you are not for the 1st amendment.

Just because someone might have more money or someone might have less money doesn't mean a right (as granted to the people in the constitution) doesn't apply to one group and not the other.

What is next? Say that white people cannot donate as much money as black people because more white people vote?