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

[Craig234]

Not according to the supreme court....

You were unclear I was stating my opinion of how it should work and that the court is wrong? Wow.

 

[spidey07]

Don't you find it funny all the leftists are up in arms about freedom of speech? "Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with me" in pure action.

Yet no mention of the PAC contribution levels are off the charts unions who contribute like 96% democrat, and corporations are pretty much split repub and dem?

Wonder why that is? Facts are like garlic to the liberal vampire, it makes them hiss and seek their darkness.

 

[Ozoned]

No, that's a right-wing myth and lie. Democrats are about the middle class - measures that make it do better and the poor get to it, not about turning the country into a nation of do-nothings.

Republicans are the one with the ulterior motive - it's basic business, that cheap labor enriches the rich. A suffering poor, a weaker middle class, has multiple benefits for them.

It provides a ready cheap source of labor, with the unemployment a permanent part of the system; and it has fewer direct costs the less they spend on services.

It's a pretty short-sighted approach, but the right-wing does it.

Again look at the history - take the late 19th century for example with this 'pro-business ideology' was in power and people were treated more like farm animals, long days, unafe conditions, little medicine, poverty.

Program after program good for the worker the right has opposed - like the minimum wage that's been essential to the middle class, by helpig the poor - and the right has made up many lies about it.

No, it's all about who they serve. The Republican serve the rich, though they need the votes of others andd try to appeal to them by other issues ('we get the commies out unlike the Democrats!') and lies (the more you cut taxes on the rich, the more you will get and the more taxes that will be paid as giving the rich hundreds of billions all goes to fuel the economy not to aquire everything of value. Ignore the facts, that 22% of the cuts is returned in taxes, that the rich are skyrocketing their ownership of society).

The Democrats are partly infiltrated by the same corporatist interests, but are stil a mixed party much more concerned for the low and middle - and for the top in other ways.

The right may be good at gutting the country and handing it to the rich, but the Dems build society to make the the pie bigger so everyone benefits, even the rich.

The rich just don't get to have as much of the pie.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It would appear that the top 1% held the most wealth when clinton was president. It also appears that the top 1% lost a lot of ground when Bush was in office. BTW that was after the Bush Tax cuts.

 

[Ozoned]

Don't you find it funny all the leftists are up in arms about freedom of speech? "Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with me" in pure action.

Yet no mention of the PAC contribution levels are off the charts unions who contribute like 96% democrat, and corporations are pretty much split repub and dem?

Wonder why that is? Facts are like garlic to the liberal vampire, it makes them hiss and seek their darkness.

Ayup.

 

[gsellis]

No, that's a right-wing myth and lie. ...

Republicans are the one with the ulterior motive - it's basic business, that cheap labor enriches the rich. A suffering poor, a weaker middle class, has multiple benefits for them.

Speaking of left-wing myths and lies...

 

[Craig234]

Don't you find it funny all the leftists are up in arms about freedom of speech? "Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with me" in pure action.

Try 'free speech as long asyou are a citizen', not 'drown the citizens with corporate deep pockets'.

Your misrepresentations claiming how corporate donations aren't Republican-weighted - not bothering.

 

[whylaff]

Try 'free speech as long as you are a citizen'...

We only give rights to citizens now?

 

[Craig234]

We only give rights to citizens now?

When it comes to money in elections, ya, we should. Obviously, we don't.

 

[BigDH01]

I STRONGLY disagree. To give coporations legal status so the company may be treated as a "person" in conducting it's business is one thing, but to give them an unfettered political voice backed up my all the money they care to waste is another matter entirely. They are spending the profits of shareholders who strongly disagree with them??? It's like forcing people to donate to a political view they hate and would never contribute to otherwise. In a church no one is forcing you to put money into the collection plate, not so with coporations though.

That alone is reason enough to be illegal to do and that fact that a Supreme Court Justice can't figure out a simple thing like that just make me lose all hope for this country..

A little bit of logic will get people far, especially in this case.

The management of a company has a fiduciary responsibility of maximizing profit for shareholders (at least with regards to publicly-owned companies). The shareholders attempt to maximize their returns in this company and expect the management to uphold their part of the agreement.

I propose, when the board decides to donate to one party or another, they are not exercising their right to express their ideology, they do so explicitly and understandably to maximize profit. In other words, they aren't so much attempting to influence particular political issues, they are attempting to garner favor with suspected winners. They are trying to capture the regulatory arms of the government in an attempt to influence positive legislation in as much as that legislation helps their business interests. The fact that one large public company donates mostly to democrats and another to republicans is less about ideology and more about their ability to influence decision makers in their respective regions. Doing otherwise would break their fiducial responsibilities.

Of course, if you follow that bit of logic then this decision becomes less about free speech or my ability to express my ideology than it does about my ability to capture regulation in my favor. Donating purely for the sake of ideology would be not be in the shareholders' best interests.

Any statement above does not reflect any possible principle-agent problems, which do exist. In this case, that can be a long discussion.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I consdier the ruling to be wrong. I don't care if unions can take advantage of it also. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I always fight for what I think is right.

I don't believe this ruling has any impact on unions as they have been able to contribute (very large sums) for years. Is that something you find acceptable or should unions be muzzled as well?

 

[lupi]

Regardless of personal "wants", this feels like the right decision based on how the country was founded. And the more rulings that lead us in that direction than another is a good thing.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Regardless of personal "wants", this feels like the right decision based on how the country was founded. And the more rulings that lead us in that direction than another is a good thing.

The ruling is the antithesis of the basic principles of individual liberty and is a boon to special corporate interests, their propaganda and 'looters' of the American Ideal.





--

 

[spidey07]

You can not make any law abridging the freedom of speech. This means you can not make any law abridging the freedom of speech.

Congress made a law abridging the freedom of speech. You can't do that. It really is just that simple people.

 

[Sclamoz]

Opinion of STEVENS, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 08–205
CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
[January 21, 2010]

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United's nor any other corporation's speech has been "banned," ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

The basic premise underlying the Court's ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker's identity, including its "identity" as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United maybe required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant.Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

The majority's approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this "reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process," FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the "legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation," id., at 209–210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540
U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).

In his landmark concurrence in Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346 (1936), Justice Brandeis stressed the importance of adhering to rules the Court has "developed . . . for its own governance" when deciding constitutional questions. Because departures from those rules always enhance the risk of error, I shall review the background of this case in some detail before explaining why the Court's analysis rests on a faulty understanding of Austin and McConnell and of our campaign finance jurisprudence more generally .1 I regret the length of what follows, but the importance and novelty of the Court's opinion require a full response. Although I concur in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions and join Part IVof its opinion, I emphatically dissent from its principal holding.

The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell, it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.

Scope of the Case

The first reason is that the question was not properlybrought before us. In declaring §203 of BCRA facially unconstitutional on the ground that corporations' electoral expenditures may not be regulated any more stringently than those of individuals, the majority decides this case on a basis relinquished below, not included in the questions presented to us by the litigants, and argued here only in response to the Court's invitation. This procedure is unusual and inadvisable for a court. Our colleagues' suggestion that "we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell," ante, at 1, would be more accurate if rephrased to state that "we have asked ourselves" to reconsider those cases.

In the District Court, Citizens United initially raised a facial challenge to the constitutionality of §203. App. 23a–24a. In its motion for summary judgment, however, Citizens United expressly abandoned its facial challenge,1:07–cv–2240–RCL–RWR, Docket Entry No. 52, pp. 1–2 (May 16, 2008), and the parties stipulated to the dismissal of that claim, id., Nos. 53 (May 22, 2008), 54 (May 23,2008), App. 6a. The District Court therefore resolved the case on alternative grounds, and in its jurisdictional statement to this Court, Citizens United properly advised us that it was raising only "an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of . . . BCRA §203." Juris. Statement 5. The jurisdictional statement never so much as cited Austin, the key case the majority today overrules. And not one of the questions presented suggested that Citizens United was surreptitiously raising the facial challenge to §203 that it previously agreed to dismiss. In fact, not one of those questions raised an issue based on Citizens United's corporate status. Juris. Statement (i). Moreover, even in its merits briefing, when Citizens United injected its request to overrule Austin, it never sought a declaration that §203 was facially unconstitutional as to all corporations and unions; instead it argued only that the statute could not be applied to it because it was "funded overwhelmingly by individuals." Brief for Appellant 29; see also id., at 10, 12, 16, 28 (affirming "as applied" character of challenge to §203); Tr. of Oral Arg. 4–9 (Mar. 24, 2009)(counsel for Citizens United conceding that §203 could be applied to General Motors); id., at 55 (counsel for Citizens United stating that "we accept the Court's decision in Wisconsin Right to Life").

"‘It is only in exceptional cases coming here from the federal courts that questions not pressed or passed upon below are reviewed,'" Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231, 234 (1976) (per curiam) (quoting Duignan v. United States, 274 U. S. 195, 200 (1927)), and it is "only in the most exceptional cases" that we will consider issues outside the questions presented, Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 481, n. 15 (1976). The appellant in this case did not so much as assert an exceptional circumstance, and one searches the majority opinion in vain for the mention of any. That is unsurprising, for none exists.

Setting the case for reargument was a constructive step,but it did not cure this fundamental problem. Essentially,five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.

The rest is here:

http://yubanet.com/usa/Justice-Stev...zens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission.php

 

[Ldir]

You can not make any law abridging the freedom of speech. This means you can not make any law abridging the freedom of speech.

Congress made a law abridging the freedom of speech. You can't do that. It really is just that simple people.

No it is not. It presumes two legal fictions: money is speech and organizations have the same rights as individuals. Both are debatable.

 

[Robor]

LOL @ the tags...

Tags
corporatism, crony capitalism, george carlin, supreme court

 

[FerrelGeek]

So, should your interpretation apply to unions?

The ruling is the antithesis of the basic principles of individual liberty and is a boon to special corporate interests, their propaganda and 'looters' of the American Ideal.





--

 

[Sclamoz]

So, should your interpretation apply to unions?

You are aware that this ruling does apply to unions right?

 

[spidey07]

No it is not. It presumes two legal fictions: money is speech and organizations have the same rights as individuals. Both are debatable.

Yes it is. Remember it says "congress shall make no law abrdiging the freedom of speech".

No mention of people, money or all these other duhversions leftists are bringing up and still confusing donations/contributions/PACs and not understanding the issue whatsoever. I've explained it in very detail. Leftists are upset because their union PACs had free reign and now that reign is over thanks to the 1st amendment.

Companies CANNOT DONATE to politicians, it's illegal! So stop confusing the issue. It's about the government squelching free speech and it was rightfully overturned and deemed unconstitutional - because congress shall make no law, etc.

 

[nobodyknows]

I don't believe this ruling has any impact on unions as they have been able to contribute (very large sums) for years. Is that something you find acceptable or should unions be muzzled as well?

Explain how it works to me, not how you THINK it works. I've never belonged to a union so I don't know how it works.

I will point out that there is one vote per each union member whereas in a coporation there is one vote for each share you own. So it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[nobodyknows]

You're an idiot. I probably have more posts bashing Alberto Gonzales than you (and exactly zero praising him).

Edit: Here's an example from May 2007-



http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=39766&highlight=alberto+gonzales

Fern

So how do you search farther back? I tried and couldn't but i know you defended and deflected for him previous to that.

I would really like to shove some of those words down your throat you lying POS.

 

[Bird222]

Yes it is. Remember it says "congress shall make no law abrdiging the freedom of speech".

No mention of people, money or all these other duhversions leftists are bringing up and still confusing donations/contributions/PACs and not understanding the issue whatsoever. I've explained it in very detail. Leftists are upset because their union PACs had free reign and now that reign is over thanks to the 1st amendment.

Companies CANNOT DONATE to politicians, it's illegal! So stop confusing the issue. It's about the government squelching free speech and it was rightfully overturned and deemed unconstitutional - because congress shall make no law, etc.

So let me get this right, the framers of the Constitution back in the 1700's had in mind to protect a parrot's speech, the speech of the multi-national corporations as well as citizens of the country when the first amendment was written?

 

[spidey07]

So let me get this right, the framers of the Constitution back in the 1700's had in mind to protect a parrot's speech, the speech of the multi-national corporations as well as citizens of the country when the first amendment was written?

That's why it says they shall make no law. Same with religion and press.

How about when newpapers actively endorse a candidate, print glowing stories about said endorsed candidate, highlighting why they're better than the opponents, trashing the opponents - is that not also electioneering?

But yet it's ok, because it would be unconstitutional for any law to be made against it. As it should be.

 

[Bird222]

That's why it says they shall make no law. Same with religion and press.

How about when newpapers actively endorse a candidate, print glowing stories about said endorsed candidate, highlighting why they're better than the opponents, trashing the opponents - is that not also electioneering?

But yet it's ok, because it would be unconstitutional for any law to be made against it. As it should be.

But see the first amendment says 'the press' not parrots or multinational corporations. But I was asking who did the framers intend to cover by that? Were they covering just people or anything that could 'speak'?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Explain how it works to me, not how you THINK it works. I've never belonged to a union so I don't know how it works.

I will point out that there is one vote per each union member whereas in a coporation there is one vote for each share you own. So it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

The union leadership gives money to candidates, whether-or-not given union members want to support that candidate. The money comes from union dues. Unions can also buy advertising for a given candidate/issue. So, in the above respect, I see no difference between unions and corporations in this regard as they are functioning as an 'entity'.