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

[Conan71]

FOTD, the AP analysis was interesting and took a logical look at the issue. For once, thanks for re-posting something in it's entirety.

[Gaspar]

This thing is going to twist and contort in the wind until it rots off the rope, but it does not change the fact that it did not pass the constitutional test.

I guess my fault is that I am a free-market libertarian, and as such I believe that the "market" is synonymous with the people.  We are the voters, we are the companies, and we are the special interests.  CFR only serves to restrict corporate giving, special interests like unions and other lobby groups have found a way around it by bundling.  This bundling has created so much fog that no one knows where all of the money is coming from.  Dead people are writing checks.  Individual bank accounts are being used to launder donations.  CFR created noting more than political moonshine. 

We have an administration that has more links to special interests and lobbies groups than any other in history, they just happen to be the special interests and lobbies that you like. 

We are not going to agree on this.  I respect your concern. Your disagreement is not with me, it is with the constitution.  This will take a while to shake out.

[nathanm]

Ok, I am in 100% agreement with the Supreme Court.  As Justice Kennedy said "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."   Holy Crap!  Someone in Washington read the constitution.

You see, ultimately it is the voter that makes the decision.  Corporations, individuals, and other groups of people should be free to promote candidates as they see fit.  This action should not be taken without disclaimer or permission of the candidate and it is the voter's decision to support that message dependant on their support of the candidate or the group that wishes to promote that candidate.

From where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation? Last I checked, corporations are not federally chartered. Not only have they completely misinterpreted the Constitution in general and the 14th and 1st admendments in particular, but they have issued yet another ruling on a subject not even within the powers granted to them by the Constitution. In many rulings, the Court has ruled that when a law has excess language that would be superfluous were it to be interpreted in a particular way that that interpretation is invalid. Is not the freedom of the press rendered superfluous by this ruling? It has no valid use, therefore by the Court's own precedent, this opinion is an invalid interpretation of the first amendment.

Moreover, in what way does restricting the speech of the corporation prevent actual humans from exercising their free speech? If the board of directors of a corporation desires to advocate a particular candidate's election, how is their right to free speech abridged by requiring them to spend their own funds instead of corporate funds on that task?

For now, I think the bill in Congress that would require that any political advertisement by a corporation be approved by its shareholders prior to spending the money on said political advertisement would do a decent enough job of keeping things where most Americans think they should be.

A recent poll showed that something like 80% of people in the US think that there is already too much corporate influence in government.

Oh, and Gaspar, please find for me the place in the Constitution that mentions how artificial constructions of law are actually people? Also, please explain how even if the 14th amendment means what you (and the court) think it means, how the 13th Amendment does not ban the ownership of this strange class of so-called people? Ownership, after all, is what makes slavery.

The Court's line of reasoning here is not a line at all, it's more like an impossible knot.

[FOTD]

Thursday, January 21, 2010
SCOTUS eviscerates campaign finance regulations: What to do about it
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2797

"No doubt by now you've heard that the Supreme Court's "conservatives" took an axe to regulations that for a century have limited corporate spending on political campaigns. By the slimmest of majorities, SCOTUS ruled today that corporations and unions may spend without limit on political issues and in support of candidates because they have free speech rights under the 1st Amendment just as any actual human being.

The ruling threatens to open floodgates to spending on a massive scale by corporations seeking to advance their own interests against the interests of, well, actual human beings. It should also do nicely to enhance the public's cynicism about corporate influence over legislators (and elective judges). By itself the mere potential for uncontrolled corporate spending will tend to distort political calculations and legislative/judicial decisions – and the public's perception of those things. The impact could be most severe in congressional elections where corporate spending or its potential will be most likely to overwhelm actual humans' spending.

National Republicans are overjoyed at the ruling because they gladly and loudly shill for corporate interests. Democrats are talking about trying to limit the damage caused by this cataclysmic change to campaign financing by enacting new legislation. But what kind? Lyle Denniston expresses skepticism that Congress will be able to find any constitutional and practical solution to this crisis.

To my mind, however, the first step is pretty obvious. Congress should prohibit any corporation from engaging in this new political spending if it has any non-American shareholders or owners. Because after all, foreigners have no 1st Amendment protections.

The "logic" behind the SCOTUS ruling is that a corporation composed of individuals ought to possess the legal attributes of its individual owners. Thus the same logic ought to require that partial foreign ownership renders the corporation a foreign body at least in part. The foreign parts of a corporation have no constitutional right to free speech. And since there is no practical way to distinguish the legal rights of the parts from the rights of the whole corporation (that presumption underpins the SCOTUS ruling), then it's impossible to give American constitutional rights to part of a corporation but withhold them from another part.

Hence it is constitutionally permissible to deny a partly foreign-owned corporation from spending on political speech within the United States. Congress should act to do so immediately.

Why make this a priority? There can't be many large corporations that are entirely owned by American persons. Indeed large corporations would not find it easy to determine the legal status of their actual human owners (that's the rotten core of the Supreme Court's insistence on treating corporations as if they were homunculi, or composite persons). And it should be obvious that the last trade-off that corporations will want to make, in order to be able to interfere directly in political contests, is to drive away foreign investors.

In short, I think the threatened cataclysm to the country's political system can be contained rather nicely in this way. With such legislation it may turn out, in fact, that the Supreme Court's "conservatives" have mainly empowered labor unions to spend freely while doing relatively little to bolster the (already great) clout of corporations."

[Conan71]

There is a flaw in that blogger's assertion: we extend our rights to foreigners every day including ones here illegally, and even enemy combatants, apparently.

[waterboy]

From where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation? Last I checked, corporations are not federally chartered. Not only have they completely misinterpreted the Constitution in general and the 14th and 1st admendments in particular, but they have issued yet another ruling on a subject not even within the powers granted to them by the Constitution. In many rulings, the Court has ruled that when a law has excess language that would be superfluous were it to be interpreted in a particular way that that interpretation is invalid. Is not the freedom of the press rendered superfluous by this ruling? It has no valid use, therefore by the Court's own precedent, this opinion is an invalid interpretation of the first amendment.

Moreover, in what way does restricting the speech of the corporation prevent actual humans from exercising their free speech? If the board of directors of a corporation desires to advocate a particular candidate's election, how is their right to free speech abridged by requiring them to spend their own funds instead of corporate funds on that task?

For now, I think the bill in Congress that would require that any political advertisement by a corporation be approved by its shareholders prior to spending the money on said political advertisement would do a decent enough job of keeping things where most Americans think they should be.

A recent poll showed that something like 80% of people in the US think that there is already too much corporate influence in government.

Oh, and Gaspar, please find for me the place in the Constitution that mentions how artificial constructions of law are actually people? Also, please explain how even if the 14th amendment means what you (and the court) think it means, how the 13th Amendment does not ban the ownership of this strange class of so-called people? Ownership, after all, is what makes slavery.

The Court's line of reasoning here is not a line at all, it's more like an impossible knot.

Nathan! You are the bomb!!! I suspect you are a more serious scholar of the constitution and of practical law than most "free market libertarians" who rely on dogma rather than logic. Thank you.

[guido911]

Oh, and Gaspar, please find for me the place in the Constitution that mentions how artificial constructions of law are actually people? Also, please explain how even if the 14th amendment means what you (and the court) think it means, how the 13th Amendment does not ban the ownership of this strange class of so-called people? Ownership, after all, is what makes slavery.

It's in the same place in the constitution that authorizes government to run health care and force people under penalty to buy in, find abortion legal, taxing people based on wealth is legal, taking over Chrysler and GM is legal, forcing banks to take TARP is legal.

Your post was a meandering and borderline mindless piece of misunderstanding of constitutional law. You seriously wrote "[f]rom where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation?" First, a corporation is not fictional. It has stockholders, employees, pays taxes, is subject to criminal penalties for violation of laws, and yes makes money.  Let's see, who else hires people, is subject to taxation, and subjection to criminal penalties? Oh I know, you and every other citizen are! Tell me again how corporations are fictional? Second, and most importantly, if the Supreme Court did not get involved in state-level activities, we would have segregated schools and Jim Crow laws in the south.

Your rant was just another attack on the concept of corporate personhood, which again has been settled for over 120 years. You don't like it? Tough. Amend the constitution. Notwithstanding, I think we now know you support censorship of speech because that is what is completely lost by those opposing this decision.

Waterboy:  You cannot be serious.

[guido911]

aox, posting a rant from Olberdoosh will not improve your argument or your credibility. Here is a clip of Steve Matzberg  taking KO down hard:

http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2010/01/Steve%20Malzberg.mp3

[waterboy]

It's in the same place in the constitution that authorizes government to run health care and force people under penalty to buy in, find abortion legal, taxing people based on wealth is legal, taking over Chrysler and GM is legal, forcing banks to take TARP is legal.

Your post was a meandering and borderline mindless piece of misunderstanding of constitutional law. You seriously wrote "[f]rom where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation?" First, a corporation is not fictional. It has stockholders, employees, pays taxes, is subject to criminal penalties for violation of laws, and yes makes money.  Let's see, who else hires people, is subject to taxation, and subjection to criminal penalties? Oh I know, you and every other citizen are! Tell me again how corporations are fictional? Second, and most importantly, if the Supreme Court did not get involved in state-level activities, we would have segregated schools and Jim Crow laws in the south.

Your rant was just another attack on the concept of corporate personhood, which again has been settled for over 120 years. You don't like it? Tough. Amend the constitution. Notwithstanding, I think we now know you support censorship of speech because that is what is completely lost by those opposing this decision.

Waterboy:  You cannot be serious.

Actually, I am. I was taught in the business college that a corporation is indeed a fictional construct. Whether or not it is liable for taxes, criminal penalties or creates employment is not relevant to its definition. It was construed as a person for specific legal responsibilities and benefits. It is not a person. Nor is an Authority, an Association or a Club. If a corporation was in fact a "person" then I would deduce one could marry it. (Mr. and Mrs. Steve A. Microsoft). Once consummated by screwing its stockholders,  it would then have all the protections and tax benefits of a legal marriage. I would also deduce that anyone who would endeavor to endanger the life of the corporation by hostile takeover or dismantling of its assets would be guilty of corporate abortion or murder if you please.


The reality is that you, and the court, have taken a very expansive view of our founding father's intents to protect free speech. They have in fact committed the ultimate libertarian, conservative sin of "creating law" with their interpretation. I understand how they got there, and agree that it is a logical extension of the earlier decision, but it was unnecessary and indulgent to do so. Nonetheless, if it results in an honest appraisal of how the campaign finance laws have been bastardized and steps are made in congress (the real creator of laws) to repair those laws it may be worthwhile.

[FOTD]

aox, posting a rant from Olberdoosh will not improve your argument or your credibility. Here is a clip of Steve Matzberg  taking KO down hard:

http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2010/01/Steve%20Malzberg.mp3

Jon Stewart Mocks Keith Olbermann Over Scott Brown Attacks

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/jon_stewart_mocks_keith_olbermann_over_scott_brown_attacks.html


Olbermann To Jon Stewawrt: Call Me
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/23/olbermann_to_jon_stewawrt_call_me.html

[nathanm]

Your post was a meandering and borderline mindless piece of misunderstanding of constitutional law. You seriously wrote "[f]rom where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation?" First, a corporation is not fictional. It has stockholders, employees, pays taxes, is subject to criminal penalties for violation of laws, and yes makes money.  Let's see, who else hires people, is subject to taxation, and subjection to criminal penalties? Oh I know, you and every other citizen are! Tell me again how corporations are fictional? Second, and most importantly, if the Supreme Court did not get involved in state-level activities, we would have segregated schools and Jim Crow laws in the south.

Your rant was just another attack on the concept of corporate personhood, which again has been settled for over 120 years. You don't like it? Tough. Amend the constitution. Notwithstanding, I think we now know you support censorship of speech because that is what is completely lost by those opposing this decision.

Waterboy:  You cannot be serious.

Corporations are a legal fiction, Guido. They are not real persons. Even the Supreme Court agrees with that. They just have this strange idea that they have the authority to expand a state-level institution beyond the bounds of the law authorizing it.

And since you apparently haven't figured it out (well, you probably have but preferred to post some disingenuous snark instead, but I'll play along), the Congress and thereby Supreme Court's authority on Jim Crow laws and the like are based in the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments to the US Constitution. The Constitution makes it a federal issue. The Constitution does not make the corporate form a federal issue, except insofar as they engage in interstate commerce.

And just FWIW, I agree with the larger part of your ranty list. There is no Constitutional authority for Roe v. Wade (Griswold, maybe), as much as I wish there were.

Also FWIW, the bill before Congress would not do what you think it will do. Stop listening to right wing hate radio and you might know what's actually in the proposed bill. (not much, actually..it's very weak sauce)

And yes, I proudly support the censorship of the speech of artificially constructed non-persons. Not that money is speech. That's one of the most asinine parts of this result-oriented decision. I also proudly support the right of any natural person to speak as much as they like, no matter how much I disagree. Hell, if the CEO and board of a company want to pool their private funds and buy some ads, go for it. I shouldn't be able to stop them. What I can stop them (the Supreme Court's complete misinterpretation of the Constitution notwithstanding) from doing is spending corporate funds for that purpose.

Finally, the Court wrote "this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

You actually believe that smile?

And riddle me this..would it be possible for a state to legislate that corporations chartered there lose their privilege of limited liability if it exercises its own "right" to political speech. If not, why not? It's settled law that a state can deny a real person certain privileges if they choose to exercise their right to not incriminate themselves.

[guido911]

Corporations are a legal fiction, Guido. They are not real persons. Even the Supreme Court agrees with that. They just have this strange idea that they have the authority to expand a state-level institution beyond the bounds of the law authorizing it.

And since you apparently haven't figured it out (well, you probably have but preferred to post some disingenuous snark instead, but I'll play along), the Congress and thereby Supreme Court's authority on Jim Crow laws and the like are based in the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments to the US Constitution. The Constitution makes it a federal issue. The Constitution does not make the corporate form a federal issue, except insofar as they engage in interstate commerce.

And just FWIW, I agree with the larger part of your ranty list. There is no Constitutional authority for Roe v. Wade (Griswold, maybe), as much as I wish there were.

Also FWIW, the bill before Congress would not do what you think it will do. Stop listening to right wing hate radio and you might know what's actually in the proposed bill. (not much, actually..it's very weak sauce)

And yes, I proudly support the censorship of the speech of artificially constructed non-persons. Not that money is speech. That's one of the most asinine parts of this result-oriented decision. I also proudly support the right of any natural person to speak as much as they like, no matter how much I disagree. Hell, if the CEO and board of a company want to pool their private funds and buy some ads, go for it. I shouldn't be able to stop them. What I can stop them (the Supreme Court's complete misinterpretation of the Constitution notwithstanding) from doing is spending corporate funds for that purpose.

Finally, the Court wrote "this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

You actually believe that smile?

Right wing hate radio caused me to believe that the opinion was well reasoned? Bullsh!t. I am an attorney who argues constitutional and civil rights issues before state and federal district and appellate courts all the time. Several cases I have briefed and argued became published opinions, and therefore legal precedent for courts to follow. How about you, oh great knower of constitutional law? I know a damn sure ton more about the evolution of who or what is entitled to rights under the constitution than you so stop with the right wing radio crap.

You finally used the correct term to describe a corporation--it is an artifice. An artifice that whether you like it or not is entitled to constitutional rights.

Have you read the entire opinion? If so, I'll ask you what I have asked others (who have not responded); point to me exactly where the majority's reasoning is flawed. Not the part you disagree with or that inflames your opinion that corporations are going to take over the country (not that that should ever be a concern of the supreme court since their job is to interpret the constitution, period) or some other lib talking point.

[FOTD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

" This belief has two factors: campaign finance and special interests, also includes government ownership.
First, corporations provide financial support to competing political parties and major political party candidates. This allows the coporations to hedge their bets on the outcome of an election so that they are assured to have a winner who is en-debted to them. As politicians are increasingly dependent on campaign contributions to become elected, their objectiveness on issues which concern corporate interests is compromised.
Second, in many cases former corporate executives are appointed as powerful decision makers within government institutions. They are often charged with the regulation of their former or future employers. Government employees who collude with corporations often accept high ranking positions within corporations once they have demonstrated their commitment to serve the corporate interest. These lucrative offers provide incentive for government employees to serve special interests as well as provides their new employers with access to governmental decision makers. This is known as the "revolving door" between corporations and the institutions established to regulate their behavior; and can lead to regulatory capture."


Guido, FOTD does not recall you ever having an issue with the major provisions of the 1971 Act and the 1974 amendment. Note that some provisions, including legal limits of contributions, have been modified by subsequent Acts.

Requirement for candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditure.
Federal Election Commission created.
Public funding available for Presidential primaries and general elections. Legal limits on campaign expenditure for those that accept public funding.
Legal limits on campaign contributions by individuals and organizations.
Prohibits:
Donations directly from Corporations, Labor Organizations and National Banks
Donations from Government Contractors
Donations from Foreign Nationals
Cash Contributions over $100
Contributions in the name of another (straw donor schemes)




The rads on the court show off their new robes....

[nathanm]

Have you read the entire opinion? If so, I'll ask you what I have asked others (who have not responded); point to me exactly where the majority's reasoning is flawed. Not the part you disagree with or that inflames your opinion that corporations are going to take over the country (not that that should ever be a concern of the supreme court since their job is to interpret the constitution, period) or some other lib talking point.

Interestingly, I also get much of my learning on constitutional law from practicing attorneys, despite not being one myself.

I did just post one way in which the majority's reasoning is flawed. The regulation can easily pass the "compelling governmental interest" test, although the majority somehow mysteriously dismissed it out of hand against all the evidence. A quote from the dissent, for your digestion:

"The majority's rejection of the Buckley anticorruption rationale on the ground that independent corporate ex­penditures "do not give rise to [quid pro quo] corruption or the appearance of corruption," ante, at 42, is thus unfair as well as unreasonable. Congress and outside experts have generated significant evidence corroborating this rationale, and the only reason we do not have any of the relevant materials before us is that the Government had no reason to develop a record at trial for a facial challenge the plaintiff had abandoned. The Court cannot both sua sponte choose to relitigate McConnell on appeal and then complain that the Government has failed to substan­tiate its case. If our colleagues were really serious about the interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption, they would remand to the District Court with instructions to commence evidentiary proceedings."

I also mentioned that I don't see where they have the authority to make the ruling in the first place.

If you had read my post, you might have realized that my "right wing hate radio" snark was related to your diatribe about health care, not the instant case. You claimed that the bill, as it currently sits in the Senate, will not do what you think it will. Since you obviously didn't get those ideas from the bill itself, I concluded that you must have gotten it from those in the media who are distorting what the bill would actually do.

[guido911]

Actually, I am. I was taught in the business college that a corporation is indeed a fictional construct. Whether or not it is liable for taxes, criminal penalties or creates employment is not relevant to its definition. It was construed as a person for specific legal responsibilities and benefits. It is not a person. Nor is an Authority, an Association or a Club. If a corporation was in fact a "person" then I would deduce one could marry it. (Mr. and Mrs. Steve A. Microsoft). Once consummated by screwing its stockholders,  it would then have all the protections and tax benefits of a legal marriage. I would also deduce that anyone who would endeavor to endanger the life of the corporation by hostile takeover or dismantling of its assets would be guilty of corporate abortion or murder if you please.


The reality is that you, and the court, have taken a very expansive view of our founding father's intents to protect free speech. They have in fact committed the ultimate libertarian, conservative sin of "creating law" with their interpretation. I understand how they got there, and agree that it is a logical extension of the earlier decision, but it was unnecessary and indulgent to do so. Nonetheless, if it results in an honest appraisal of how the campaign finance laws have been bastardized and steps are made in congress (the real creator of laws) to repair those laws it may be worthwhile.

Dammit waterboy, I am not the one that created the concept of corporate personhood. Go rent a time machine and complain to the 1880s Supreme Court, you know, the group tasked at interpreting the constitution? Corporate personhood has existed since 1886 and no, it was not created to give certain legal responsibilities. The Court in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) quite plainly announced that corporations have rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.

Nate, the source of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is probably federal question, 42 U.S.C. §1331, since the rights implicated were rooted under the 1st and 14th amendments and the action pertained to the constitutionality of a federal statute 2 U. S.C. § 441b and the federal regulations promulgated therefrom.