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

[Fern]

Dang people, chill.

Some newspaper article interprets this decision to mean that corporations have no campaign spending limits etc and everyone freaks?

It's about the Hillary documentary film (as some have noted).

Read about it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/hillary.clinton.court/

At issue was whether the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" and television ads to promote it should have been subject to strict campaign finance laws on political advocacy or should have been seen as a constitutionally protected form of commercial speech.

The high court's decision will determine whether politically charged documentaries can be regulated by the government in the same way as traditional campaign commercials.

A conservative group behind the movie wanted to promote it during the heat of the presidential primary season last year, but a federal court had blocked any ads, as well as airings on cable TV video-on-demand.

The film later aired in several theaters and was released on DVD, outlets that were not subject to federal regulation.

The documentary doesn't seem, to me anyway, like it should have been covered by McCain/Fiengold by looking at the wiki info in the OP's post.

I don't think corporations should be able to spend unlimited amounts (and I seriously doubt they can, because if corps could then certainly people could), nor do I believe they have the same rights as people. But before panicking let's wait until we have some knowledgeable Constitutional types analyze the case and explain it's possible consequences.
Fern

 

[Zebo]

So much for democracy. From now on you will only be allowed to vote for people who represent powerful interests.

 

[teddyv]

Interesting to note the top-10 list of biggest money in politics:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php
Seven of the ten are Unions (who give pretty much 99%+ to dems, I know, shocking after the GM/Chrysler 55% giveaway and proposed exemption to private health insurance taxes), one is a far left leaning investment bank who's identity after the secret 100% payout debacle should be no surprise, the remaining two are a professional association and a telecom who have pretty balanced Dem/GOP giving.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Dang people, chill.

Some newspaper article interprets this decision to mean that corporations have no campaign spending limits etc and everyone freaks?

It's about the Hillary documentary film (as some have noted).

Read about it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/hillary.clinton.court/



The documentary doesn't seem, to me anyway, like it should have been covered by McCain/Fiengold by looking at the wiki info in the OP's post.

I don't think corporations should be able to spend unlimited amounts (and I seriously doubt they can, because if corps could then certainly people could), nor do I believe they have the same rights as people. But before panicking let's wait until we have some knowledgeable Constitutional types analyze the case and explain it's possible consequences.
Fern

Suggest you and Patranus read the links in my post (#149) on the history of this issue.

 

[FerrelGeek]

So much for democracy. From now on you will only be allowed to vote for people who represent powerful interests.

And we don't do that already? C'mon! Big corps, labor unions, and Soros all have their ways to get their message out and buy politicians.

 

[Mursilis]

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.

I'm hard-pressed to figure out how the Court could perform its Article III functions without actually exercising a power to find laws unconstitutional. I'd think one just implicitly implies the other, such that judicial review, within the context of a clear case or controversy, (that is, no advisory rulings) is obvious enough that it doesn't really need to be stated. I suppose you could say the Court could severely limit its rulings, such that it just names a prevailing party, but what's the point of that then? Without the ability of the Court to find a law unconstitutional, what is a citizen's recourse should Congress pass a law which violates a Constitutional right (and we all know that's happened before)?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Fern

Suggest you and Patranus read the links in my post (#149) on the history of this issue.

OK, I checked your post #149. I was familiar with all the links (except that about the Santa Clara County case.)

However, don't see what any of that has to do with my post suggesting we don't rely upon some AP reporter's hyperbolic opinion of the ramifications of today's case.

Think about it. If this ruling means that coporations have no campaign donation limits it also means that no one has limits. Does anybody really think that's the case?

Best to wait until we have some thought analysis, and it's too early at this point to get it.

Edit: If your suggetsion I read your post concerns my remark about me personally not believing corporation have the same rights as people, OK. My comment about the Santa Clara case is that is seems bogus to use it as precident in any way.

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The effect of this ruling is far greater than one specific case.

Then you fix those effects by enacting CONSTITUTIONAL laws - not by letting unconstitutional ones stand.

 

[Hacp]

We need to get rid of corporations. Currently, the law treats corporations like an entity. It as the same rights as you or me. Thats absurd! Corporations exist only on paper. We should rip that piece of paper apart. Individual responsibility breaks down when you have corporations to hide behind.

 

[spidey07]

Then you fix those effects by enacting CONSTITUTIONAL laws - not by letting unconstitutional ones stand.

Right. I don't see how anybody can be against this. You are for free speech or you are not. Seems a whole lot of liberals are against free speech (not surprising).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I missed the part where money became speech.

It's been considered that way for oh, about forever. As I understand it, the principle is that funding a candidate is part of the freedom of expression of your interests in government.


In other words, if there is someone you would like to see in office, limiting your ability to contribute limits that person's chances, limiting your "voice" in Congress. There is no mention on the Constitution about corporations, and corporations are owned by people. There is no Constitutional distinction made.

They might be able to rewrite a law which would pass muster, but I don't see how it could be done without a Constitutional amendment.

I'd like to see no direct funding by candidates at all. That would put everyone on a level playing field, and no representative could be bought, at least not by funding the war chest.

Despite that, I don't see how the court could have reached any other decision given the language of the Constitution, and how corporations are legally viewed.

 

[GroundedSailor]

OK, I checked your post #149. I was familiar with all the links (except that about the Santa Clara County case.)

However, don't see what any of that has to do with my post suggesting we don't rely upon some AP reporter's hyperbolic opinion of the ramifications of today's case.

Think about it. If this ruling means that coporations have no campaign donation limits it also means that no one has limits. Does anybody really think that's the case?

Best to wait until we have some thought analysis, and it's too early at this point to get it.

Edit: If your suggetsion I read your post concerns my remark about me personally not believing corporation have the same rights as people, OK. My comment about the Santa Clara case is that is seems bogus to use it as precident in any way.

Fern

So basically you see my point about the Santa Clara case being inappropriate to use as precedent for giving corporations same rights as human citizens.

Yet that is what the whole legal precedent is based on. That case is one cited in which corporations got right independent of the humans who created them, including the right of free speech!

Since the judicial verdict in that case did not address the issue of corporations right - it was only in the headnote - the very idea of Corporations free speech should really be null and void. Yet look around at todays society and todays SC ruling. IMHO it's a huge fraud perpetuated on the American people going back a long way in history.

 

[woolfe9999]

Interesting to note the top-10 list of biggest money in politics:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php
Seven of the ten are Unions (who give pretty much 99%+ to dems, I know, shocking after the GM/Chrysler 55% giveaway and proposed exemption to private health insurance taxes), one is a far left leaning investment bank who's identity after the secret 100% payout debacle should be no surprise, the remaining two are a professional association and a telecom who have pretty balanced Dem/GOP giving.

Right, and there are many more unions from 11-20 on the list. However, union contributors represent broad union groupings across whole industries, whereas corporate contributors represent only the individual corporations. With unions, there are fewer contributors that are individually larger in total contributions than with corporations. If you expand the list to 100, you'll notice very few unions beyond 20, and that there are many more corporate contributors and more total corporate money than union money.

In the top 100- 18 unions, 55 corporations and corporate associations. Rest are professional associates and various advocacy groups. All unions lean heavily dem. 4 Corpotations lean dem. 21 corporations a split. 30 corporations favor repubs. On that list, the repubs get majority money support from 2 non-corporations, the AMA and the NRA. The rest are corporations.

Anyway, it's no secret where each party gets the majority of its money from. It's unions for dems and corporations for repubs.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

So basically you see my point about the Santa Clara case being inappropriate to use as precedent for giving corporations same rights as human citizens.
-snip-

Completely.

I find the whole precident for corporations' rights to be ripe for overturning because, well, it's foundation is non-existant.

Corporations need some rights. E.g., I shouldn't be able to walk into a bank and take their money under the theory they have no right to property. OTOH, I do not see how they have "inaliable rights" such as free speech or the right to bear arms.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

Dang people, chill.

Some newspaper article interprets this decision to mean that corporations have no campaign spending limits etc and everyone freaks?

It's about the Hillary documentary film (as some have noted).

Read about it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/hillary.clinton.court/



The documentary doesn't seem, to me anyway, like it should have been covered by McCain/Fiengold by looking at the wiki info in the OP's post.

I don't think corporations should be able to spend unlimited amounts (and I seriously doubt they can, because if corps could then certainly people could), nor do I believe they have the same rights as people. But before panicking let's wait until we have some knowledgeable Constitutional types analyze the case and explain it's possible consequences.
Fern

I've gone and read the opinion on Westlaw. Without commenting on its Constitutional merits, because that requires going back to the validity of earlier rulings regarding the rights of corporations that this decision is predicated on, I can say that the outcome is basically what this appears to be. Corporations can be restricted from making contributions to campaigns. They cannot be restricted from spending money to create political speech. They can create whatever ads, pamphlets, brochures or web content they like, so long as there is no pre-arrangement with an elected official that these things will be done in exchange for votes. The quid pro quo exchange between the corporation and the elected official can be prohibited, but not the corporation pursuing "independent" political speech.

Bear in mind that this ruling does not have quite the impact that some people fear. Corporations can already spend money on campaign speech so long as they funnel their money into a PAC. That is already permitted under existing law. This ruling simply says they can spend money from their general treasuries for the same purpose that they would use a PAC for.

- wolf

 

[daishi5]

No, of a CANDIDATE. You can spend all you want to warn the country of global warming.

Look, you are going to seethe issue one of two ways IMO. One is the naive way - YOUR rights are being restricted because YOU can only give $20,000 to a person's campaign. It's an oppression of YOU.

The second way understand better what's going on. It means your volunteering, or $50 donation MATTERS in the election, because the candidate is forced to raise vast sums only the corporotocarcy can deliver and compromise the public interest, so the candidates to run for the people and not capaigns and you get some say in who wins, not just choosing which of the two corporate-backed people who serve their corporate masters to pick. You understand the issue is the millions from the corporotocracy that run the system, not your tiny contributions.

Protest the war all you want. It's about the campaigns for candidates.

And your tiny money is crushed with the defense contractors give millions to laugh at you and put teir guy in.

Ok, your right, candidates. So, lets rephrase that. A homosexual man can only work until he has donated $20,000 worth of services to a candidate, no matter how much his right to marriage means to him. once he has worked that hard he is no longer allowed to donate his time or his money to advance his cause to protect his right? I don't like this $20,000 dollar limit.

However, how about another angle at this, do you believe George Soros should have been allowed to promote his book that critizced George Bush before the 2004 election? Do you believe a single man with millions of dollars should been allowed to spend millions promoting a book before an election that criticzed the president? He spent big money, more money then many corporations spent, to advertise a book denouncing George Bush.

He pledged to spend up to $3 million advertising his appearances in cities situated in battleground states. The billionaire also launched a new web site to publicize his campaign and distribute information about his speeches.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ff459e8f-a191-4323-b465-9ca3a58c4567

I don't like George Soros because he works against gun rights, but I believe that the first amendment protects his right to promote his views with his money. Even when he is using that money to attack rights I hold dear.

Let me be very clear about my argument here, if we allow George Soros to spend $3 million dollars advertising a book that attacks a candidate. We need to allow a group of people working together to also spend millions of dollars to promote a movie that attacks a candidate.

It strikes me as supremely ironic that you support a law that allowed one man to spend Millions to affect an election, but prevented a group of people from spending millions. Doesn't that seem like it is concentrating power in the hands of the rich?

 

[Hacp]

And we don't do that already? C'mon! Big corps, labor unions, and Soros all have their ways to get their message out and buy politicians.

I knew sororities were influential but I didn't know they were THAT influential

 

[Sclamoz]

Senator Russ Feingold, one of the architects of the 2002 campaign finance restrictions known as the McCain-Feingold law, issued this reminder that the court’s decision did not completely lift some boundaries for corporate money:

“It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president.

Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century’s worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government.

The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/political-fallout-from-the-supreme-court-ruling/

 

[Craig234]

Then you fix those effects by enacting CONSTITUTIONAL laws - not by letting unconstitutional ones stand.

Yes, in order to overturn the domination of the political system through a decision based on nothing in the constitution that corporations are 'persons', you don't overturn the invalid ruling that they are 'persons'.

Instead, yuou just have that system they dominate, and the people elected under the current rules, do the hardest to pass thing they have. needing large supermajorities, an amendment to remove their power.

 

[Patranus]

Yes, in order to overturn the domination of the political system through a decision based on nothing in the constitution that corporations are 'persons', you don't overturn the invalid ruling that they are 'persons'.

Instead, yuou just have that system they dominate, and the people elected under the current rules, do the hardest to pass thing they have. needing large supermajorities, an amendment to remove their power.

Hey Craig, 1/2 the fucking "progressive" laws that are on the books right now are based on nothing in the constitution including your beloved single payer.

 

[cubby1223]

Those who say this decision will cause government to be controlled by "Big Oil" or "Wall Street", are also the same who say the government already is controlled by Big Oil and Wall Street. Corporations and unions will funnel their money into the political system one way or another. The more the government regulates the rules, the more the lawyers study ways to get around the rules.

I guess some times you have to re-look at these issues and evaluate whether or not the legislation actually produced the intended results. This one has not. So what's the difference if it was overturned?

 

[cubby1223]

Hey Craig, 1/2 the fucking "progressive" laws are on the books right now are based on nothing in the constitution including your beloved single payer.

What he wants is not constitutional, so what does he care about that document?

He wants someone like Chavez to take over the U.S., the same Chavez who just made a statement declaring the earthquakes in Haiti were caused by a secret U.S. weapon in a test preparing for our invasion of Iran & overthrow of Islam.

And that actually gets into another "progressive" myth, that Gitmo is the reason terrorism exists, and all their other crackpot theories... There is nothing this country could do that will *ever* be satisfactory to those fanatics.

Maybe he's just extra upset recently over Air America folding

 

[Moonbeam]

Almost always 5 to 4 which makes a mockery of justice.

 

[Craig234]

Hey Craig, 1/2 the fucking "progressive" laws that are on the books right now are based on nothing in the constitution including your beloved single payer.

You show here you don't understand the difference between the law and the constitution.

When Congress passes a bill creating the "Agency for Reducing Patranus' ignorance", that's called passing a law. It's not in the constitution and doesn't need to be. Congress' authority to id is there.

When the Supreme Court rules, perhaps based on personal beliefs the agency is wasting its time, that the law in unconstitutional because of the constitutional right to make ignorant posts on Andndtech even if the private owner of the board wants to ban you, that's a constitutional issues - one that the court has made up that isn't there.

Similarly, yes, many things Congress passes are not listed in the cnstitution. THey dont need to be they are done under the powers granted to Congress in the constitution.

When the Supreme Courts "no, Congress, you can't pass that law because corporations are people with the same rights as human beings", that's constitutional, and crewating a 'right' not in the cosntitution.

There are rights the Supreme Courts find that are 'implied' in the constitution, and following the constitution's instructions in the 9th and 10th amendments to protect those rights, it does so.

Corporations being pople isn't implied. It's a 'right' recognized by some radicals when corporations paid big buck lawyers to fight for it to get created.

 

[Craig234]

Almost always 5 to 4 which makes a mockery of justice.

As bad as 5 to 4 are, it's worse when year after year the 5 include four radeicals who are out to ruin the United States constitution following their unamerican ideology.