The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Ralph Wiggum on January 21, 2010, 09:20:06 AM
-
The Supreme Court this morning overturned the long-standing federal law that bars corporations from using their money to sway federal elections and ruled companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they want to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.
By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads.
The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
LINK (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/supreme-court-lifts-curbs-on-corporate-political-donations.html)
-
It didn't say in the article, but did this involve the case of the anti-Hillary movie that was barred from being aired during the primaries?
-
It didn't say in the article, but did this involve the case of the anti-Hillary movie that was barred from being aired during the primaries?
I'm not sure, I wasn't familiar with this case or even knew that it was being heard by SCOTUS.
-
The story has been modified slightly...a few snippets:
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said: "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
-
DUmmies heads (what's left of them) must be exploding..... :evillaugh:
-
I agree with Stevens. This was a bad ruling.
IMHO - and it's only IMHO - corporations or other non-person entities should not be allowed to contribute to the campaign process. Yes, it's border line 1st amendment issue, but at the same time, the 1st amendment was written to protect PEOPLE... not entities, though it's been interpreted differently by SCOTUS.
I think this is going heavily fawk up the 2012 election. We'll go from a Billion dollar campaing to 10B very quickly... IMHO, it's effectively buying elections at that point.
could be very scary.
-
I like the ruling, since it makes my job of political fundraising a hell of a lot easier. No more of the stupid PAC "fiction" and FEC filings. Just write the check. Corporations can't give directly to a candidate, but they can give directly to a Group-- such as the Tea Party Movement-- that do not directly field candidates.
-
It didn't stop Big Pharma, Big Insurance, AARP and unions from spending tens of millions or more pushing ObamaCare.
So what good was it?
The Obama administration had argued that the law gives them the power to ban and outlaw books and websites and videos and films and everything else that was political. Even if a book had one sentence in 500 pages that violated their "rule" this admin wanted to power to ban it.
-
Obama blasts Supreme Court rejection of campaign spending limits
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is condemning a decision by the Supreme Court to roll back restrictions on campaign donations by corporations and unions.
In a written statement, Obama says the campaign finance ruling will lead to a “stampede of special interest money in our politics.†Obama declared that his administration will work with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a “forceful response†to the high court's action.
The Supreme Court ruled this morning that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
http://telegram.com/article/20100121/NEWS/100129948/1116
-
Oh, but it's perfectly fine when liberal 527's outspend conservative ones on a 4-1 or 5-1 basis. Level the playing field? UNACCEPTABLE!!!
-
Unions are as much a business as anything else in this country, but they're one sided almost every time. Businesses tend to donate to both sides.
-
Sotomayor has just demonstrated, beyond peradventure, why she was, and is, unfit to be a justice of the Supreme Court.
-
Was she under Stevens desk when he wrote the dissenting opinion?
-
Was she under Stevens desk when he wrote the dissenting opinion?
Or he under hers.
-
Or he under hers.
again?
-
It didn't say in the article, but did this involve the case of the anti-Hillary movie that was barred from being aired during the primaries?
According to the piece I heard on NPR, that movie was the basis for this decision.
-
According to the piece I heard on NPR, that movie was the basis for this decision.
Yeah, but from what I understood after some more reading, the USSC didn't find with the film makers.
-
Yeah, but from what I understood after some more reading, the USSC didn't find with the film makers.
NPR made it sound like they did find for the film makers...but I haven't looked into it further. :clueless:
-
NPR made it sound like they did find for the film makers...but I haven't looked into it further. :clueless:
You're right.
-
I wonder how much European and Mid-East companies will spend for Obama next time around.
-
I wonder how much European and Mid-East companies will spend for Obama next time around.
I wonder, too.
I'm not sure (honestly) why we're celebrating this. It opens things up for both sides, and one is much better funded than the other, IMHO. I still don't think corporations should be treated like citizens, but that's just me...
-
I wonder, too.
I'm not sure (honestly) why we're celebrating this. It opens things up for both sides, and one is much better funded than the other, IMHO. I still don't think corporations should be treated like citizens, but that's just me...
Since Chuckie Schmuck along with Obama and his clowns are having fits, it must be good for conservatives/Republicans. Corporations will be treated like Unions and Trial Lawyers. The court ruled that Corporations should not be treated like red headed stepchildren.
-
Since Chuckie Schmuck along with Obama and his clowns are having fits, it must be good for conservatives/Republicans. Corporations will be treated like Unions and Trial Lawyers. The court ruled that Corporations should not be treated like red headed stepchildren.
I should clarify my position. I don't think any business entity - for profit or not - or non-person entity should be given the rights of the citizen. I don't know what the repricussions of that would be, but it seems to me that we'd have a lot fewer problems that way.
-
I wonder how much European and Mid-East companies will spend for Obama next time around.
Big Insurance and Big Pharma seem to be all for ObamaCare.
Banks, not so much. Some banks might run pro-Obama ads to placate the Dems though.
GM, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae will also run pro-Dem ads
Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Procter&Gamble are pro-liberal in donations i think
-
I should clarify my position. I don't think any business entity - for profit or not - or non-person entity should be given the rights of the citizen. I don't know what the repricussions of that would be, but it seems to me that we'd have a lot fewer problems that way.
Ain't that just peachy. Politics is a blood sport and all I want is equity on both sides. The Repubs have been at a disadvantage. So, this ruling is welcome. Plus, your Alice in Wonderland idea will never happen.
-
I agree with Stevens. This was a bad ruling.
IMHO - and it's only IMHO - corporations or other non-person entities should not be allowed to contribute to the campaign process. Yes, it's border line 1st amendment issue, but at the same time, the 1st amendment was written to protect PEOPLE... not entities, though it's been interpreted differently by SCOTUS.
I think this is going heavily fawk up the 2012 election. We'll go from a Billion dollar campaing to 10B very quickly... IMHO, it's effectively buying elections at that point.
could be very scary.
Bee, I love ya like a brother, but are you sure you thought that opinion through? "Non-person entities", as you call them is a very specific legal term that includes under it's umbrella organizations like the NRA, the Heritage Club, the VFW, DAV, American Legion and branch auxilliary organizations for the military. These organizations exist to allow individuals to pool their limited resources and amplify their own voices in support of a message or cause that the members of that organization support. It's a very slippery slope - and one the Marxists hope desperately that we will start down - that you're proposing we walk on the crest of.
What's the difference between a corporation or LLC funding a political ad, and the Chamber of Commerce, to which that corporation is a member? Where do you draw the line?
-
Bee, I love ya like a brother, but are you sure you thought that opinion through? "Non-person entities", as you call them is a very specific legal term that includes under it's umbrella organizations like the NRA, the Heritage Club, the VFW, DAV, American Legion and branch auxilliary organizations for the military. These organizations exist to allow individuals to pool their limited resources and amplify their own voices in support of a message or cause that the members of that organization support. It's a very slippery slope - and one the Marxists hope desperately that we will start down - that you're proposing we walk on the crest of.
What's the difference between a corporation or LLC funding a political ad, and the Chamber of Commerce, to which that corporation is a member? Where do you draw the line?
Excellent questions. And the challenge is a good one. But my thought process goes like this - if organizations can't contribute, the special interest powers diminish quite a bit. Throws a lot of power back into the hands of the people... and I think forces people to get involved. Thor suggested that voting is a civic duty, and while i took issue with that, it seems to me (contradiction ahead) that if more responsibility were placed on the "people," that they might be forced to get involved. I'm not sure how, at least conceptually, this walks the line of MArxism, but at the same time, I actually see your point.
I agree - very slippery slope and I don't have it all figured out. But bear in mind that I'm also Anti-non-profit organization, even for churches... and my Dad ran nonprofits for over 25 years.