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

[Conan71]

Okay, my BS meter just pegged:

""Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Moveon.org, George Soros anyone?

Mainly to do with the implication that he's not where he is right now without the help and funding of SIGs PACs, and the web of foreign small contributions to President Obama's campaign. 

[we vs us]

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 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

Would you categorize this as judicial activism?

[FOTD]

Conan, who said that was right? Watch what happens when Soros allies himself with foreign bankers worldwide.

Lots of clout.

[Conan71]

Conan, who said that was right? Watch what happens when Soros allies himself with foreign bankers worldwide.

Lots of clout.

President Obama's words ring with self-righteuous indignation if he's trying to imply that he's not paid for, which is the way I interpreted the remarks.

Maybe Soros will swallow a poisoned eclair before then.  One could only hope.

[guido911]

Would you categorize this as judicial activism?

Overturning Roe will certainly be argued as "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" (whatever those overly used expressions mean), of course it depends on the facts of the particular case when it gets to the court. That is, the Court may find a statute requiring pre-abortion ultrasounds or parental notification constitutional and in so doing rip the teeth out of Roe without expressly overruling it.

When I was a first year law student, I had the opportunity to ask Justice Thomas a question about "judicial activism" and remember his being a bit defensive of the court's method of reaching its conclusions. As an aside, I'll never forget that after Justice Thomas spoke I went over to ACAC to study. He walked up behind me, without my knowing, and asked me what I was doing--very surprising. He is a very nice guy.

[FOTD]

President Obama's words ring with self-righteuous indignation if he's trying to imply that he's not paid for, which is the way I interpreted the remarks.

Maybe Soros Roberts, Uncle Thomas, or one of the Italians will swallow a poisoned eclair before then.  One could only hope.

!? Conan


The founding fathers at the time they wrote the constitution had no intent on allowing the British Lords (corporations) in to the electoral process of their country.

Jim Hightower | The Supreme Coup
Wednesday 27 January 2010
by: Jim Hightower, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
http://www.truthout.org/jim-hightower-the-supreme-coup56438
"Despite 234 years of progress toward the American ideal of equality for all, we still have to battle unfairness.

How happy, then, to learn that a handful of our leaders in Washington took bold and forceful action last week to lift another group of downtrodden Americans from the pits of injustice, helping them gain more political and governmental power. I refer, of course, to corporations.

Say what? Corporations should get more power over our elected officials?

"Free the corporate money," cried the movement's leaders, demanding that America sever the few legal restraints that remain on corporate efforts to buy our elections. "Si, se puede," chanted these assertive champions of corporate supremacy -- "Yes, we can!"

So, they did. "They" being the five doctrinaire corporatists who now form the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's remember their names: Sam Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. These five men, on their own whim, have executed a black-robed coup against the American people's democratic authority.

They took an obscure case involving a minor violation of election funding law and turned it into a constitutional upheaval. Rushing their handpicked case through the system, they issued a 5-4 decision on Jan. 21 that overturns a century of settled American law and more than two centuries of deep agreement in our Land of the Free that the narrow interests of corporations must be subjugated to the public interest.

Indeed, the founders of our Republic saw corporate power as an inherently selfish and perpetual danger to democracy, and most leaders of that day believed that corporate entities should have no role whatsoever in politics. Thomas Jefferson bluntly declared in 1816 that the country must "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations."

The Alito-Kennedy-Roberts-Scalia-Thomas cabal, however, has unceremoniously dumped the wisdom of the founders, along with volumes of American judicial precedent, to assert that poor little corporations today are victims of political "censorship" by Congress, states and cities that have outlawed the use of corporate funds in elections. Such restrictions, ruled the five usurpers, violate the "free speech rights" of corporations, putting corporate interests at a disadvantage with other political interests.

Disadvantage? This would be hilarious, were it not so dangerous. No other group in American has anywhere near the voice and raw political power that corporations exert every day. Campaign donations from individual corporate executives (and from their PACs, 527s, front groups and other channels) total hundreds of millions of dollars each election year, effectively shouting down the voices of ordinary folks (the Wall Street bailout being but one sterling example).

Yet the Court has just handed these political powerhouses their wildest dream: access to the multi- trillion- dollar ocean of funds held within the corporate entities themselves. Every business empire -- from Wall Street to Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil to the China Overseas Shipping Company (yes, the five wise guys even waved foreign corporations into our political funfest) -- can now open the spigots of their vast corporate treasuries and send a raging torrent of their special interest cash into any and all of our national, state and local elections.

Two legal perversions are at work here. First, the Court has equated the freedom to spend money with the freedom of speech. But if money is speech, those with the most money get the most speech. That's plutocracy, not democracy, and it's totally alien to our Constitution, as well as a gross distortion of the crucial principle of one person-one vote.

Second, a corporation literally cannot speak. It has no lips, tongue, breath or brain. Far from being a "person," a corporation is nothing but a piece of paper -- a legal construct created by the state as a mechanism for its owners to make money.

Actual people in the mechanism (shareholders, executives, workers, retirees, lenders, et al.) can and do speak politically -- in many diverse voices that express very different viewpoints. But the corporate entity, which the court cabal is trying to turn into a Frankenstein monster, is inanimate, incapable of thought, inherently mute and, in itself, no more deserving of human rights than a trash can would be.

Copyright 2010 Creators.com

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license. "

[Conan71]

80% of Americans say SCOTUS got it wrong on this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

[jamesrage]

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?

I support the supreme court decision. A corporation,labor Union or some other group is a peaceful assembly of people which is a first amendment right.Speech is the verbal,written or sign language  articulation of words is also a first amendment right. Regardless if you are a group or a individual you have the right to free speech and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, which is what political ads are and do. A tv,newspaper, magazine or internet ad is speech regardless of how much money is poured into making that ad. As far as I know the new supreme court decision does not lift the limits of how much a corporation can directly give to a candidate, it just lifts the limits of how much they can spend on political advertising.

[Hoss]

I support the supreme court decision. A corporation,labor Union or some other group is a peaceful assembly of people which is a first amendment right.Speech is the verbal,written or sign language  articulation of words is also a first amendment right. Regardless if you are a group or a individual you have the right to free speech and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, which is what political ads are and do. A tv,newspaper, magazine or internet ad is speech regardless of how much money is poured into making that ad. As far as I know the new supreme court decision does not lift the limits of how much a corporation can directly give to a candidate, it just lifts the limits of how much they can spend on political advertising.

Wow, what a surprise.   

[Conan71]

I support the supreme court decision. A corporation,labor Union or some other group is a peaceful assembly of people which is a first amendment right.Speech is the verbal,written or sign language  articulation of words is also a first amendment right. Regardless if you are a group or a individual you have the right to free speech and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, which is what political ads are and do. A tv,newspaper, magazine or internet ad is speech regardless of how much money is poured into making that ad. As far as I know the new supreme court decision does not lift the limits of how much a corporation can directly give to a candidate, it just lifts the limits of how much they can spend on political advertising.

Be sure to tell us how that's workin' for you when the labor unions totally doosh up your chosen candidate in the 2012 election. 

[nathanm]

A corporation,labor Union or some other group is a peaceful assembly of people

Who individually have the right to free speech, amongst other things. In their personal capacity, they should be free to say whatever they like and spend whatever they like.

The entire idea of an incorporated entity having human rights is a nonsensical oxymoron. Apparently, a lot of people agree with me, even if certain members of the Supreme Court have poor enough reading comprehension (or a strong enough incentive to misread) that they don't grasp the difference between a corporation and a person.

I'm perfectly willing to wait on new legislation, by the way. I have a strong desire to see how the befuddled five would rule on the restrictions on electioneering by religious organizations.

[jamesrage]

Be sure to tell us how that's workin' for you when the labor unions totally doosh up your chosen candidate in the 2012 election. 

Its their right.The left usually smears right wing candidates anyways so I do not see how it would be any different if it is a labor union or some other peaceful assembly of people doing that and I am pretty sure people who support my candidate with do the same to the opposition.

[Conan71]

Its their right.The left usually smears right wing candidates anyways so I do not see how it would be any different if it is a labor union or some other peaceful assembly of people doing that and I am pretty sure people who support my candidate with do the same to the opposition.

So you don't have a problem at all with, say Soros Fund Management, openly buying an election for a Democrat Presidential candidate or multiple Senate seats?

[jamesrage]

Who individually have the right to free speech, amongst other things. In their personal capacity, they should be free to say whatever they like and spend whatever they like.

Last I checked there was no provision that said you can only exercise one right as a time or that you had to exercise all the rights at once.So you can be a peaceful assembly of people and exercise all your other constitutional rights too such as free speech,petition grievences to the government and so on.

The entire idea of an incorporated entity having human rights is a nonsensical oxymoron.Apparently, a lot of people agree with me, even if certain members of the Supreme Court have poor enough reading comprehension (or a strong enough incentive to misread) that they don't grasp the difference between a corporation and a person.

That incorporated entity is a peacefully assembly of people.

I'm perfectly willing to wait on new legislation, by the way. I have a strong desire to see how the befuddled five would rule on the restrictions on  by religious organizations.

It is wrong to deny political speech to any group of American citizens regardless of what group it is.Hopefully a supreme court does rule that banning religious groups from politics and electioneering is unconstitutional.

[nathanm]

Last I checked there was no provision that said you can only exercise one right as a time or that you had to exercise all the rights at once.So you can be a peaceful assembly of people and exercise all your other constitutional rights too such as free speech,petition grievences to the government and so on.

I think you may have the same reading comprehension issues the fantabulous five seem to be struggling with.

Their reasoning was that the corporation itself has the right to free speech (amongst others), completely independent of the individuals running said corporation. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the right to 'assemble peaceably'.