Corporations, unions, now allowed to spend more to purchase candidates and elections

[256 colors]

I don't know the details yet, all I see are breaking news headlines right now.

Supreme Court rules 5-4 to ease restrictions on spending by corporations and unions in political campaigns.

15 minutes ago someone send me this stupid e-petition:

We are facing a threat to our democracy.

At any moment, the Supreme Court will announce whether it will allow corporations to spend all the money they want on political campaigns, something that has been illegal in the U.S. since 1907.

Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means that the government is up for sale to the highest bidder, and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable.

That's why I signed Rep. Alan Grayson's emergency petition today that he will deliver personally to the Supreme Court. I hope you'll join me and tell the Supreme Court that democracy is not for sale.

Click this link to sign the petition:

And I replied "I don't see the point of petitioning the Supreme Court. They are not swayed by public opinion. They will decide the case on its merits regardless of how the public feels." (I meant petitioning in the "add my name to this letter/list" sense).

Then I saw the breaking news that SCOTUS had made its decision to allow corporations and unions to essentially purchase candidates, political parties, and elections. I believe this is already the status quo, but now I guess they are allowed to spend even more money than they were spending prior to this decision.

[256 colors]

Supreme Court frees firms from decades of limits on political campaign spending

Supreme Court rolls back campaign cash limits
Case was sparked by film about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

This case, brought by Citizens United, a non-profit group, asked whether the organization (within the scope of campaign finance restrictions for corporations) could run ads for an anti-Hillary Clinton movie during her 2008 bid for the White House.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

[256 colors]

A little more: Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

The ruling by the conservative majority transformed the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in future presidential and congressional elections, which already have broken new spending records with each political cycle.

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

The decision was a victory for a conservative advocacy group's challenge to the campaign finance law as part of its efforts to broadcast and promote a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She later became President Barack Obama's secretary of state.

The justices appeared at a special Thursday session to summarize the ruling and issued a total of five separate opinions exceeding 175 pages.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights. "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote.

The court's conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees, previously voted to limit or strike down parts of the law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.

The court's four liberals, including its newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by Obama, dissented.

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

(Reporting by James Vicini, Editing by Howard Goller)

I think this is part of the "corporations as persons" problem. I don't think the Framers of the Constitution intended for businesses to be treated as individual citizens under law.

[Stephen Maturin]

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. ___ (2010) (pdf, 183 pages)

Originally Posted by 256 colors

And I replied "I don't see the point of petitioning the Supreme Court. They are not swayed by public opinion. They will decide the case on its merits regardless of how the public feels."

Indeed. And beyond that, the case was likely decided in March 2009, certainly no later than September 2009. The petition is bereft of point.

Rep. Grayson has also introduced a bunch of new campaign reform legislation, but it's difficult to see how, for instance, "a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns" would fare any better than the legislation SCOTUS shot down today.

Originally Posted by 256 colors

I think this is part of the "corporations as persons" problem. I don't think the Framers of the Constitution intended for businesses to be treated as individual citizens under law.

The new justice seems to agree.

[beyelzu]

shit wrong scene

start off at about 5 minutes for the key part

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by 256 colors

I think this is part of the "corporations as persons" problem. I don't think the Framers of the Constitution intended for businesses to be treated as individual citizens under law.

I think it well within reason that Alexander Hamilton might have.

And, re the OP....Here comes ROLLERBALL!

[Jug Pilot]

So, corporations must be treated as persons huh? And persons in this country have rights. They also have responsibilities to the law.

Bank Of America Seizes Wrong House, Shuts Off Electricity, And Lets 75 Pounds Of Fish Rot

Since this is breaking and entering, valdalism and who knows what else, when can we expect the this Bank of America person arrested for this crime? If any of the persons that post at FF did this, we would be in jail right now. When can we expect the B of A person to be arrested? Or does this mean we can become a "special person" above the law if we become a corporation of 1 we can break any law we want? Get caught, hey it was my right hand sub corporation that did it, you can't arrest me.

I think we should demand the Police/DA treat the B of A like a person as the Supreme Court has ruled and arrest and put on trial the B of A, all 70,000+ of them.

[LadyShea]

Dr. Schroit has filed suit against BoA, saying that "he has neither a relationship nor a mortgage" with them. A Bank of America spokesman told the paper that the bank feels the lawsuit "has no merit."

Um, WTF? Has no merit? You seized someone else's house, they are suing you for it, but it has no merit?

Really?

[Ymir's blood]

I posted that in lisarea's Two Minutes Hate thread a while back. It isn't the only such case reported recently, either.

IMO, not only does the 'corporate personhood' thing need to be revoked, but RICO should be expanded to cover corporate crimes.

[godfry n. glad]

And the banking and insurance industries should be subject to anti-trust controls.

Unleash the hounds!

[yguy]

Originally Posted by 256 colors

I think this is part of the "corporations as persons" problem. I don't think the Framers of the Constitution intended for businesses to be treated as individual citizens under law.

Doesn't matter. No such juridical voodoo is necessary, since corporations are instruments of the collective will of individuals, whose free speech rights the first amendment says Congress can't mess with.

[Kael]

That assumes you agree with the 'money is speech' line of reasoning, which I hesitate to.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by yguy

Doesn't matter. No such juridical voodoo is necessary, since corporations are instruments of the collective will of individuals, whose free speech rights the first amendment says Congress can't mess with.

We are able to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the actions of corporations so it damn well does make a difference.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by Kael

That assumes you agree with the 'money is speech' line of reasoning, which I hesitate to.

Yeah I have an issue with that part of the whole thing to. I think there should be a class action lawsuit against the US on the basis that taxes are a violation of the first amendment since they take money (and thus the ability for so called "speech") away from the citizens.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by yguy

since corporations are instruments of the collective will of individuals,

ROFL. More homespun legal speechifyin' by our own Chief Justice yguy! Free opinions, worth every cent you paid for them!


Thank you, thank you. He's here till Wednesday. Try the roast beef.

[Getfed]

*Cough* So much-*Cough*-sarcasm-*Coughs*-opinions lacking in originality-*Wheeze*-this house.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Kael

That assumes you agree with the 'money is speech' line of reasoning, which I hesitate to.

It pretty much is, in any election above the municipal level. Even if a candidate is so adorable that all the media that serve his constituents are in the tank for him, so that he doesn't have to buy space or time, somebody pays for it regardless.

[Naru]

Originally Posted by Getfed

*Cough* So much-*Cough*-sarcasm-*Coughs*-opinions lacking in originality-*Wheeze*-this house.

We have smilies for that, noob

[Getfed]

Ik. But i like the asteriks for teh lolz. Andz i wants to hurtzorz your eyesorz.

LOLOLOLOLOL

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Kael

That assumes you agree with the 'money is speech' line of reasoning, which I hesitate to.

That is the key point of departure, imo.

#2365

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Crumb

We are able to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the actions of corporations so it damn well does make a difference.

I think we can assume Bill Gates has a few bob that ain't workin' too hard at any given time. If as an individual he wants to throw megabucks at a candidate, and some smaller corporation wants to back his opponent with a similar amount, is there some reason Gates should be able to do it and not the corporation?

And if Gates can't do it, how would you square that with the first amendment?

[rigorist]

Shut up, yguy.

[Getfed]

That's a deep argument, rigorist.





Sea floor
--------------------------------

[Watser?]

It's certainly not shallower than anything you've contributed so far.

I just stumbled accross this:

Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.

This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/21-10

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by yguy

It pretty much is, in any election above the municipal level.

LOL circular argument so early in the debate?

Money is speech because the current system is set up to ensure that....money is speech?