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

[guido911]

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.

First, it takes more that just a compelling governmental interest, hence your analysis is incomplete. Indeed, from the opinion:

Laws that burden political speech are "subject to strict scrutiny," which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest."

[Emphasis added]

The majority determined that not only was the possibility of corporate over influence not compelling, they added that the laws and regulations were both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. Those latter factors by themselves would justify finding statutes or regulations restricting speech (i.e. censorship) unconstitutional.

Earlier in this thread I pointed to what I thought was a persuasive passage from the body of the majority of opinion. However, in the syllabus, which I generally never cite to, I found this passage very interesting:

Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. See, e.g., United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 813 (2000) (striking down content-based restriction). Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 784 (1978). As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated:Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.
Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.

I personally cannot see how anyone can disagree with this position.

[rwarn17588]

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.

So why don't you tell us what those cases are so that we can read and analyze them?

[guido911]

So why don't you tell us what those cases are so that we can read and analyze them?

You don't believe me? Nevermind, Google me to get to some of the opinions that might have been released ion the nets. Otherwise, you need a Lexis-Nexus or Westlaw account.

[rwarn17588]

You don't believe me? Nevermind, Google me to get to some of the opinions that might have been released ion the nets. Otherwise, you need a Lexis-Nexus or Westlaw account.

How about some links, then? If these cases were so important, then there'd surely be links somewhere.

[FOTD]

Guido,

Who'd you have for moot court?

He/she must've slipped up and passed you just to get over with it.

Why Five Members of SCOTUS Are Nuttier Than Fruit Cakes!

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-five-members-of-scotus-are-nuttier.html


Watch this !

[nathanm]

First, it takes more that just a compelling governmental interest, hence your analysis is incomplete. Indeed, from the opinion:
[Emphasis added]

The majority determined that not only was the possibility of corporate over influence not compelling, they added that the laws and regulations were both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. Those latter factors by themselves would justify finding statutes or regulations restricting speech (i.e. censorship) unconstitutional.

Earlier in this thread I pointed to what I thought was a persuasive passage from the body of the majority of opinion. However, in the syllabus, which I generally never cite to, I found this passage very interesting:

I personally cannot see how anyone can disagree with this position.

Even if one buys into the whole corporate personhood thing, in what other way could the law have been more narrowly crafted? Usually there's some discussion about what that would entail, rather than a blanket "nope."

Either way, they decided the case based on facts not in evidence. That's what remand is for.

Putting our critical thinking hats on, in what way could a law designed to reduce both the incidence of actual corruption and the appearance of corruption be more narrowly tailored than enforcing disclosure requirements and prohibiting the purchase of political ads favoring or disfavoring a particular candidate. Remember that issue ads are not in question here. Anyone is free to purchase ads advocating for or against any particular issue they like.

An overbroad law would also restrict issue ads.

Edited to add: More stories of the absurd results this line of reasoning gets us: Churches will now have the right (as not-for-profit corporations) to advocate for or against specific candidates. Since we're throwing out narrowly tailored laws with a compelling governmental interest now, apparently.

More amusingly, I just thought of all the recent civil liberties cases where the Supreme Court was able to find that several rather obtrusive laws were narrowly tailored and having a compelling governmental interest when they were both broader and had less evidence of compelling interest. But hey, why be consistent. We like games of chance here, so why should the Supreme Court be any different?

Oh, and just to be clear, despite my complete contempt for this decision, I don't really care one way or the other. All the ruling does is make unambiguously legal what was already happening indirectly. Is there anyone who truly believes corporations don't already have far more real influence in politics than voters?

[guido911]

All the ruling does is make unambiguously legal what was already happening indirectly. Is there anyone who truly believes corporations don't already have far more real influence in politics than voters?

Exactly. Good debate, notwithstanding the two-way personal attacks.

[nathanm]

Exactly. Good debate, notwithstanding the two-way personal attacks.

At least we agree on something. 

[joiei]

Does this mean that foreign governments and corporations will now be able to have access to the politics of the United States?   http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/week-jim-demint-gets-reminded-potenti

What's that old adage? Beware of the unintended consequences. Clearly, that's something that neither the Supreme Court nor the Republican Party factored in before crowing about the heinous Citizens United v. FEC ruling last week.

For all his high-falutin' talk of free speech and transparency and being able to face down those big bullying unions, it has apparently never occurred to Sen. Jim DeMint that SCOTUS just opened doors to multi-national corporations--i.e. FOREIGNERS--meddling in our elections.

    MORAN: OK. And, finally, are you in favor of foreign corporations being able to participate in American elections through this decision?

    DEMINT: I don't believe that -- right now, foreigners cannot give to the political process. And I hope, as this thing is sorted out, that we'll make sure that this is an American focus, so we'll have to sort all that out. I hadn't read all the details of the court's decision.

Ooops! Guess what, Jim? That's not how it works in the ruling. There's no distinction made in the SCOTUS ruling, so any corporation with American interests (even if the largest stockholder is a foreigner, like from...gasp! Saudi Arabia (shudder)!) can now influence American elections. As Sen. Bob Menendez says:

    The problem is, a corporation is a corporation is a corporation. And a foreign corporation is going to be able to spend their monies in determining who is elected to the United States Congress. That's not good for the average citizen.

No, it's not. But that doesn't play into the thinking of the Republican Party, does it?

[FOTD]

Hoist Your Pitchforks!
Time for angry Americans to march on the Supreme Court.
E.J. Dionne Jr.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/hoist-your-pitchforks

"The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt. It would be a revolt of a sort deeply rooted in the American political tradition. The most vibrant reform alliances in our history have involved coalitions between populists (who stand up for the interests and values of average citizens) and progressives (who fight against corruption in government and for institutional changes to improve the workings of our democracy). It's time for a new populist-progressive alliance."

[Conan71]

FOTD, Is there any truth to Spud having boinked Ann Coulter or was she just a 'Head?

[guido911]

Does this mean that foreign governments and corporations will now be able to have access to the politics of the

Um No. It's a damnable shame that people base their opinions on what others have said and never bother to do any research--and this includes our president/constitutional scholar. Obama stated last night:

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

Of course Obama either ignored or never bother reading the text of the opinion and merely perpetuated a BS meme. The majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission found unconstitutional 2 U.S.C. sec. 441(b) only, a section entitled "Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations".  The Court left completely undisturbed Section 441e, which in its entirety prescribes:

§ 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.

2 U.S.C. sec. 441(e)[Emphasis added]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sec_02_00000441---e000-.html

The prohibitions in this section cannot be any clearer. Justice Alito mouthing "not true" is absolutely correct and Obama and you joiei are absolutely wrong.

I will cross post this over on the state of the union thread because that is where this issue is also being discussed.

[guido911]

A little horn tootin for me now. If you recall on the day this decision came down, I responded to Conan in part as follows:

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.

Well well, it seems I am not the only that picked out that little blurb from a concurring opinion as a signal.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/johnroberts-supremecourt-abortion-roev-wade/2010/01/24/id/347808

[FOTD]

FOTD, Is there any truth to Spud having boinked Ann Coulter or was she just a 'Head?

We don't claim her it.....Read up on Coultergeist http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/02-26-05/discussion.cgi.46.html

"Ann Coulter was born Fredrick Guebermann, of Des Moines, IA. Fredrick moved to San Fransisco on the 1980's to start a career in drag shows....
Upset about the conservative backlash against gay culture, and inspired by satire and parody shows in local theaters, Fred decided to try an experiment. "I dressed up like a suburban housewife and went to a Republican rally. I chatted with my table mates about how evil gays are, and how liberals are destroying America. They ate it up. I had seven guys' phone numbers by the time I left, and some of them were married."
Fredrick then started creating the persona of Ann Coulter, fabricating a background and moving to the East Coast to start moving in conservative circles. "I wanted to see how far I could take it. I wanted to see how extreme I could make the rhetoric before somebody realized it was a joke."


this is good too! Coulter Comes Out as Transvestite Trickster
http://www.gaia-kat.addr.com/Entropic/happybirthday/lewiscarroll.htm

Been meaning to ask you, are corporations now to be championed by the "pro-life" zealots? Where does
AC (DC?) stand on corporate personhood? Every citizen is under the thumb of Robert's Rules of Order.
It's gonna get stranger.....

[FOTD]

A little horn tootin for me now. If you recall on the day this decision came down, I responded to Conan in part as follows:

Well well, it seems I am not the only (only what? revisionist?) that picked out that little blurb from a concurring opinion as a signal.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/johnroberts-supremecourt-abortion-roev-wade/2010/01/24/id/347808

It helps to be on a network of judicial activist radicals.