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

[Townsend]

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247/ns/politics-supreme_court/

Anyone else think this means the individual has that much less of an influence over choosing our leaders?

[sgrizzle]

It means we are ->this<- far away from candidates dressing like Nascar drivers.

[Conan71]

This is a bad decision but an interesting way to argue it as a first amendment issue.

[guido911]

That damned "Freedom of Speech" thing mucking up our political process again.

[Townsend]

It also means that corporate will have more say as to the stupid arguments we read about in the news.

"I support (insert candidate here) because I've been told to do so even more this time than last."

"You should leave the country since you don't support (insert position on healthcare/economy/war/etc) the same way I've been told to support (insert position on healthcare/economy/war/etc)."

"Why do you support (insert anything here)?"
"Because the Keebler Elves support it"

[we vs us]

It means we're effed is what it means.  When money = speech, those who have more money get heard more.

And corporations -- surprise! -- have more money than all of us combined. Regulating anything just got a billion times harder.  

Can anyone tell me why corporations deserve the same protections that individuals do?

[guido911]

Can anyone tell me why corporations deserve the same protections that individuals do?

We have that silly 14th Amendment thingy. Also, you used the word "regulating". Regulate what exactly? Because if you mean regulate speech, then I want to know to what extent you are willing to go. Does that mean that "rich" people should also be restricted from donating to campaigns?

[Conan71]

Guido, did you read Stephen's dissenting opinion?  I think he was spot on.  The average voter doesn't want more corporate influence in DC.  I honestly think that had a lot to do with the record amounts President Obama raised from individuals in small amounts by exploiting the internet, same as Howard Dean did in '04.

Please explain your logic, because I fail to see how allowing corporations to openly influence decisions in Congress and the Executive Branch is a good thing and I fail to see how restricting the flow of cash in this way was a first amendment issue.

This is going to create even more of a resentment gap between corporate America and the average citizen.

Wrong direction SCOTUS.

[waterboy]

Since corporations were recognized as having individual rights a few years back, wasn't it inevitable that they would also have first amendment rights? I don't remember the decision clearly. Something about suing for defamation?

Both bad decisions imo. Stockholders ought to at least be polled before corporates represent their views politically.

[guido911]

Guido, did you read Stephen's dissenting opinion?  I think he was spot on.  The average voter doesn't want more corporate influence in DC.  I honestly think that had a lot to do with the record amounts President Obama raised from individuals in small amounts by exploiting the internet, same as Howard Dean did in '04.

Please explain your logic, because I fail to see how allowing corporations to openly influence decisions in Congress and the Executive Branch is a good thing and I fail to see how restricting the flow of cash in this way was a first amendment issue.

This is going to create even more of a resentment gap between corporate America and the average citizen.

Wrong direction SCOTUS.

I read the entire opinion. Very lengthy. I found this passage persuasive:

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—eitherto expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general elec-tion. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucialphase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favorslogging in national forests; the National Rifle Associationpublishes a book urging the public to vote for the chal-lenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Unioncreates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate's defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.
Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstand-ing the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330–333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expendi-ture ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation tospeak—and it does not—the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive toadminister and subject to extensive regulations.

My take on Stephens' dissenting view is that its premised on a public policy view. To me, and this is just to me, when you try to apply a public policy argument to a first amendment right, which by long standing jurisprudential (yep, I busted out a big word) authority requires a strict scrutiny standard if the government seeks to impose restrictions, I will side on not restricting the right because of the danger of a slippery slope.

Now, if you want to find something to worry about, it would be this passage from the Roberts/Alito concurrence:

stare decisis is neither an "inexorable command," Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003),nor "a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision," Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940),especially in constitutional cases, see United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 101 (1978).

I took that as a signal of things to come.

[guido911]

Since corporations were recognized as having individual rights a few years back, wasn't it inevitable that they would also have first amendment rights? I don't remember the decision clearly. Something about suing for defamation?

Both bad decisions imo. Stockholders ought to at least be polled before corporates represent their views politically.

The concept of corporate personhood under the 14th amendment has been around for over 120 years (which is why I was being "smug" with wevsus because I mistakenly thought most knew about this concept), and I believe it began with a case where a railroad was being taxed. My feeling is that if one is taxed, be it a person or a corporation, it should have a voice in the political process.

[FOTD]

We are a country buy and for the corporation....

Guido, do you realize the ramifications?  Do you like the idea of the Chinese, Saudis, Russians or any other foriegn government financing political campaigns?

"Alan Grayson's diary : In a 5-to-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations have the "right" to spend an unlimited amount of money to influence and manipulate federal elections. The decision overturns more than a century of law and precedent. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately condemned the decision. "This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case," Grayson said. "It leads us all down the road to serfdom."

The court decision completely ignores the likelihood that corporations will spend money to elect officials who will do their bidding, and punish those who won't. It allows unlimited election spending by all corporations, even foreign ones. "The Supreme Court has decided to protect the rights of GE, Volkswagen, Lukoil and Aramco, at the expense of our right to good government," Grayson added.

Congressman Grayson was in the courtroom when the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision. Grayson circulated a petition yesterday, saying: "Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale, and that the law itself will be bought and sold." Within hours, over 10,000 people had signed the petition. Rep. Grayson delivered those petitions to the Court this morning. "
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/21/828179 /-The-Decision



Blame the Dims too. They could have filibustered Bush's nominations but caved to the threat of the Republicans doing away with the filibuster. Of course now they don't have the balls to use the same tactic.

[Townsend]

A point on NPR:  multi-national corporations owned by an entity outside the U.S. can now pump as much money as they want into advertising for or against a candidate.

I'd imagine some people will stand outside with signs supporting these points of view without having any idea who's view it is.

[Conan71]

This is on par with or worse than the demented eminent domain decision.

I'm hardly a coporate basher, but this is simply incredibly poor decision by the court.  What next? Each corporation is going to get a vote?

[Ed W]

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and corporate spending becomes moot.  Most political campaign advertising is on television, and as I seem to recall, the airwaves belong to the public, not corporations.  Therefore it's in the public interest to offer balanced programming.  If Umbrella Corporation wants to throw their support behind Joe Yahooti's senatorial race in Raccoon City by purchasing huge blocks of advertising time, his opponent gets the same amount of time on local airwaves.