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

[Conan71]

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.  

Nope, that's not the way it would work, from what I understand.  The fairness doctrine would only apply to programming, not paid advertising.

The Fairness Doctrine sucks anyhow.  How does anyone determine what is "balanced" and how would you police that with the massive blogosphere?

[guido911]

I am not unsympathetic to the points you all are making in opposing this decision. My hang up is that our founding fathers were very clear in penning the first amendment, which in part prescribes that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". The bottom line is that you and those who supported McCain-Feingold want to "write in" an exception to that unequivocal proscription on Congress. Maybe make it read like "Congress shall  make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech unless you are a corporation".

I don't think this is one of those situations that cannot be repaired by passing a law.

Conan, if a corporation can be taxed like you and face criminal penalty if they break laws like you, why can't they be permitted to participate in the political process to affect/change tax or regulatory policy like you can?

[guido911]

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.  

Me thinks this "Bring back the Fairness Doctrine" thought is more about a response to Air American going t!ts up and ceasing all operations later this month.

http://airamerica.com/

[guido911]

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

No, but I also did not like "Family Guy", "King Kong", "Mickey Mouse", and "Test Person" making donations to Obama's campaign. Funny how that does not seem to be a problem.

[Conan71]

I am not unsympathetic to the points you all are making in opposing this decision. My hang up is that our founding fathers were very clear in penning the first amendment, which in part prescribes that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". The bottom line is that you and those who supported McCain-Feingold want to "write in" an exception to that unequivocal proscription on Congress. Maybe make it read like "Congress shall  make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech unless you are a corporation".

I don't think this is one of those situations that cannot be repaired by passing a law.

Conan, if a corporation can be taxed like you and face criminal penalty if they break laws like you, why can't they be permitted to participate in the political process to affect/change tax or regulatory policy like you can?

Let's be honest here. They already affect elections by their board members making contributions, money gets funneled into PACs and SIGs.  I see a very big can of worms being opened here by taking restrictions away which could allow corporate interests to usurp individual interests simply by writing big checks.  In my view, this is tantamount to openly allowing corporate bribery of the Presidency and Congress.

Where does it end, Guido? This isn't about having a voice, this is about paying for control of government and I think the founding fathers would find it repugnant that quite literally, a foreign corporation could literally upset an issue by pouring millions upon millions into elections. 

[Gaspar]

Nope, that's not the way it would work, from what I understand.  The fairness doctrine would only apply to programming, not paid advertising.

The Fairness Doctrine sucks anyhow.  How does anyone determine what is "balanced" and how would you police that with the massive blogosphere?

This old ditty again? 

Strange how we twist words to sell OUR ambitions. 

Liberals (from the Latin liberalis), meaning to be free or representative of free thought, yet politically, the furthest away from freedom on nearly every issue.  They seem only to be free in embracing the chains of regulation, taxation, and all strange manners of control and force.  Legislating everything from what we eat, what we learn, and now who we can see, listen to, and read.

Why are such people always the first to embrace limits on freedom when the popular is not representative of their ideology?  Why should millions of free men and women, through force, be subject to media that they do not desire?. . .simply because a small elite feels it is in the people's best interest?  Insane!

At the base of the argument is the battle against free-market.  Media is an industry supported by advertisers.  Yes money dictates access, and money follows viewership numbers. 

Trap set. . .3. . .2. . .1. . .


It is much cheaper and enormously more profitable for the special interests to purchase the regulatory favors of Washington's political harlots than to compete in a fair, unsubsidized markeplace. – Lee Robinson

[guido911]

Let's be honest here. They already affect elections by their board members making contributions, money gets funneled into PACs and SIGs.  I see a very big can of worms being opened here by taking restrictions away which could allow corporate interests to usurp individual interests simply by writing big checks.  In my view, this is tantamount to openly allowing corporate bribery of the Presidency and Congress.

Where does it end, Guido? This isn't about having a voice, this is about paying for control of government and I think the founding fathers would find it repugnant that quite literally, a foreign corporation could literally upset an issue by pouring millions upon millions into elections. 

I get your point and I said I am not unsympathetic to it. But what do you do in the face of the constitution? Just pretend it does not exist or just ignore it? The majority opinion was in my opinion well reasoned and its holding absolutely consistent with the first amendment. I know you read it, what do you believe was flawed with the legal analysis? Let me ask it this way, do you agree that prior to the decision censorship of speech was occurring? If so, and you are okay with that as it seems, why stop at corporations?

I will concede your point about foreign corps upsetting an issue by pouring millions in. After all, we have just seen that result with the union exclusions in the health care bill and on a similar scale the Senate literally buying support from its member for the bill with our tax dollars.

Finally, as for millions being flooded in by the wealthy corps and buying elections, if such were true we would have a President Perot or a President Kerry.

[FOTD]

I get your point and I said I am not unsympathetic to it. But what do you do in the face of the constitution? Just pretend it does not exist or just ignore it? The majority opinion was in my opinion well reasoned and its holding absolutely consistent with the first amendment. I know you read it, what do you believe was flawed with the legal analysis? Let me ask it this way, do you agree that prior to the decision censorship of speech was occurring? If so, and you are okay with that as it seems, why stop at corporations?

I will concede your point about foreign corps upsetting an issue by pouring millions in. After all, we have just seen that result with the union exclusions in the health care bill and on a similar scale the Senate literally buying support from its member for the bill with our tax dollars.

Finally, as for millions being flooded in by the wealthy corps and buying elections, if such were true we would have a President Perot or a President Kerry.

Guido, we don't need no sympathy as that is for the devil. But pray tell me why you think the constitution speaks towards corporate (be it foreign or domestic) rights? The over bearing emphasis of our laws speak toward the individual and the first ten have nothing to do with corporations at all. This decision is baseless unless you have a reactionary majority in SCOTUS (gawd it's hard not to type SCROTUM). Also, do you have a problem with public funding for elections with no allowance allowed out of personal funds nor any right for trade out (Yes, we know that advertising nation would have a fit along with the media as spending would be slashed but what better example could we send to our out of control spending government?) What would our elected representatives profile resemble after several spending controlled elections?

[Conan71]

Guido, again, corporations had a voice already via individual employee and board member contributions, SIGs & PACs. I think FOTD is spot on with his assertion that the Bill of Rights was about individual rights. The founding fathers could not have imagined huge corporations we have today nor the sort of influence they could seek to buy.

This is a huge can of worms they have unleashed.

[FOTD]

http://www.mixx.com/stories/10540422/statement_from_the_president_on_today_s_supreme_court_decision_the_white_house

FINALLY!

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

Change the system .... or lose your country to evil!

[rwarn17588]

Guido, again, corporations had a voice already via individual employee and board member contributions, SIGs & PACs. I think FOTD is spot on with his assertion that the Bill of Rights was about individual rights. The founding fathers could not have imagined huge corporations we have today nor the sort of influence they could seek to buy.

This is a huge can of worms they have unleashed.

With Conan, FOTD and I in agreement, this is strange-bedfellows time.

But you'd have to be a fool or oblivious to not see how big corporate money in politics isn't corrupting. Proclaiming a curb on corporate money in politics as unconstitutional is certainly dubious -- especially when the founding fathers were already well aware from their British counterparts of how bad it was to concentrate power in very few hands.

That's why I'm intensely suspicious of those who argue for "strict constructionist" judges on the Supreme Court -- when the irrefutable job of those judges is to interpret a vaguely worded Constitution amid constantly changing times. And I would challenge anyone to find evidence that any of the founding fathers would have advocated such unfettered spending by corporations in the political process.

I'm sure this will eventually be overturned by a future high court or, less likely, a constitutional amendment is ratified when it is shown how abundantly bad this decision was.

[FOTD]

It will be too late....FOTD is now looking at better opportunities abroad....

And, you will now notice this: UCSA instead of USA in my posts.

Oh, when you see SCROTUM, that's symbolic and it will be used to replace SCOTUS in my posts even though it could very well read SCOTUCSA.

It's disgusting and worse what the Busheviks did to the Judicial Branch for the people by (now buy) the people with their appointments. It's even more sick that the Democrats in Washington were and still are such pu$$y's!

[azbadpuppy]

With Conan, FOTD and I in agreement, this is strange-bedfellows time.

Add me to that agreement list too- strange indeed.

[guido911]

I am not disagreeing with anyone that today's ruling could result in millions of corporate dollars getting infused into campaigns. My sole position has been and remains that the ruling was absolutely consistent with the first amendment. No one has pointed to anything in the opinion that amounts to faulty reasoning, only that the opinion basically sucks.  

Conan and aox, I remember in a con law class I had in college (not law school) when we were discussing the Bill of Rights, and the one thing I recall the prof saying was these ten amendments were essentially the Bill of Wrongs. Meaning, it provides a list of restrictions on government power. I believe that is what the first amendment is about--proscriptions of government restricting inter alia speech, press, and assembly. The position that these rights were intended to be given to individuals and not groups (or corporations) is simply not supported by anything. The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights. That should end the discussion from a legal point of view. Unfortunately, the fact that the Supremes may have opened up a Pandora's box is a consequence of following our constitution, and I do not make that statement cavalierly. It's reality. Moreover, contextually, freedom of the press and assembly quite plainly were intended to apply to groups and not individuals. Of course we will not reach the second, third, ninth and tenth amendments, four of the Bill of Rights, have little to do with individuals.


Conan, respectfully (which I know will be taken as so), whether the founding fathers "would not have imagined huge corporations we have today nor the sort of influence they could seek to buy" is both irrelevant and obfuscates the issue.  If that were the case, the advancement of modern technology would have caused James Madison to stroke out over the original draft of the fourth amendment or the perversion of the first amendment by the New York Times in revealing nation secrets during a time of war.  

RW:  What about the unfettered spending by unions and trial lawyers? oh that's right, they support dems.

The only solution now is to amend the constitution which carves out an exception for corporations. Draft the petition and include unions, I'll sign.

[FOTD]

There is no solution you idiot....yes you are...you right wing spooner...you couldn't be objective if your life depended on it...you are such a friggin reactionary...you speak with fork tounge out of both sides of your mouth...at least this devil is progressive and can bend .... but you Doe Doe and your dumbfu#4istanian ilk are inflexible to the point that ruins this once Great cuntry.

Just curious, what kind of dick bump backs legalized bribery? The RePukelickans call it a victory for free speech. So sure their next step is going to remove censorship on tv and unregulation on radio broadcasting. Pi$$ant hypocrite. And when you say, "The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights" it only goes to show how you basterdize the Constitution to fit your own arrogant desires. Your type continues to prick the truth with manipulative unmitigated bullsh!t to fit your needs.

Clarence Thomas is probably your favorite Supreme. Or is it one of the other evil fawk wads? Roberts, Alito and Scalia? Or that swinging dude Kennedy?
Who do you love? China? Saudi Arabia? The Emirates? The Russians?

You betcha, Guido!