Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Intense]

We've all seen how money has influenced elections and the vote of members of Congress; and we all understand that television and radio, newspapers and magazines are all influenced by their advertisers. The ability for one voice to dominate debate is not healthy in a democratic republic.
Those of you who cheer the demise of Air America, and todays Supreme Injustice, ought to think of the unintended consequences of such events - or wonder if the consequences really are unintended.

Air America has every Right to stand on It's own. Value for Value. That's a good place to start. There is no substitute for competence.

 

[Intense]

Same way you fight a corporation that exercises its Constitutional right to bribe your Congressman, I guess.

I was unaware how this caselaw allows bribery. Spending money to speak for your own interests is hardly bribery.

Actually it is bribery.... of the worst kind.

I really think this may be the end of our democracy.

We are beginning to remind me of France before the Revolution.

Funny, it reminds Me of "Atlas Shrugged" or "We the Living".

Seems like both Party Members and Union Members are living pretty high on borrowed monies.

 

[Chris]

I was unaware how this caselaw allows bribery. Spending money to speak for your own interests is hardly bribery.

Actually it is bribery.... of the worst kind.

I really think this may be the end of our democracy.

We are beginning to remind me of France before the Revolution.

Funny, it reminds Me of "Atlas Shrugged" or "We the Living".

Seems like both Party Members and Union Members are living pretty high on borrowed monies.

Unions have very little influence in this country.

Corporations run the U.S. Senate.

Big difference.

 

[Avatar4321]

We've all seen how money has influenced elections and the vote of members of Congress; and we all understand that television and radio, newspapers and magazines are all influenced by their advertisers. The ability for one voice to dominate debate is not healthy in a democratic republic.
Those of you who cheer the demise of Air America, and todays Supreme Injustice, ought to think of the unintended consequences of such events - or wonder if the consequences really are unintended.

On what planet is silencing a voice in the debate healthy for debate while allowing it to speak is allowing a voice to dominate?

I understand you dont like people or groups saying things you dont like. Well tough. This is the United States of America. Congress is not allowed to limit speech. Period.

You havent lost your voice. Just because no one will listen to your ideas doesnt mean you arent free to share them. You have a right to free speech. We have a right to ignore your dumb ideas.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually it is bribery.... of the worst kind.

I really think this may be the end of our democracy.

We are beginning to remind me of France before the Revolution.

So we were like France before the Revolution prior to McCain Fiengold????

We dont have a totalitarian revolution coming.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unions have very little influence in this country.

Corporations run the U.S. Senate.

Big difference.

So Democrats hate Unions and follow what Corporations tell them to do. Good to know.

 

[Chris]

Actually it is bribery.... of the worst kind.

I really think this may be the end of our democracy.

We are beginning to remind me of France before the Revolution.

So we were like France before the Revolution prior to McCain Fiengold????

We dont have a totalitarian revolution coming.

Guillotine!

Guillotine!

 

[Chris]

I was unaware how this caselaw allows bribery. Spending money to speak for your own interests is hardly bribery.

Actually it is bribery.... of the worst kind.

I really think this may be the end of our democracy.

We are beginning to remind me of France before the Revolution.

Funny, it reminds Me of "Atlas Shrugged" or "We the Living".

Seems like both Party Members and Union Members are living pretty high on borrowed monies.

It is more like the Da Vinci Code with the Opus Dei Catholics on the Supreme Court as the Evil Ones.

 

[Chris]

Unions have very little influence in this country.

Corporations run the U.S. Senate.

Big difference.

So Democrats hate Unions and follow what Corporations tell them to do. Good to know.

All the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats....yes.

 

[del]

Actually it is bribery.... of the worst kind.

I really think this may be the end of our democracy.

We are beginning to remind me of France before the Revolution.

Funny, it reminds Me of "Atlas Shrugged" or "We the Living".

Seems like both Party Members and Union Members are living pretty high on borrowed monies.

Unions have very little influence in this country.

Corporations run the U.S. Senate.

Big difference.

have an almond

 

[Queen]

So far, Err Amerika doesn't like it... Although they won't Complain when it Further Assists the Unions.



peace...

Comparing union's money to spend on campaigns to corporation's money to spend on campaigns is like comparing a penny to a thousand dollars.

 

[Avatar4321]

"The government may not impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers based on the wealth or lack thereof of speakers. The public has the right to obtain all kinds of information from the widest number of sources."

I love that principle. And Im glad the Constitution gives it to us all.

 

[Queen]

They voted today and gave corporations the right to give unlimited $$$$$ to political campaigns.

There will no longer be the Senator from Kansas or the congressperson from Wyoming or the Governor of New York. We will have the Senator from EXXON and the representative from Bank of America and the Governor of Pfizer.

In 1907 congress banned corporations from donating to campaigns. The 5 conservative judges overthrew these laws without precedent.

You think our government is corrupt now? Here comes the US of Big Business. Goodbye America.

The only hope is if this congress can pass laws to stop this corporate interference and control of our government. Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson has 5 bills in congress right now. Let's hope they get passed. Obama is against this ruling.

Iowa Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell has an amendment to the constitution to negate this ruling.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) is also promising legislation.

If this congress doesn't do it, the next one will have more bought and paid for politicians and it will get worse every election year until the whole government is completely bought and paid for.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he's going to hold hearings on the impact off this ruling.

Dems Consider New Laws in Response to Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

President Obama called it “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 is very scary. Can the Democrats fight this off? They have been pretty wimpy so far.

Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending - NYTimes.com

 

[Avatar4321]

"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he may or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."

I love it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Tell me something, why do you people seem to think that the politicians passed this legislation to begin with? It sure as heck wasnt to keep them from recieving campaign contributions. It was to shut people up who were criticizing what they did in office.

When are you guys going to realize that when politicians say they are acting to protect the people from their corruption, they are only giving themselves more power and taking it from you?

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually it is bribery.... of the worst kind.

I really think this may be the end of our democracy.

We are beginning to remind me of France before the Revolution.

So we were like France before the Revolution prior to McCain Fiengold????

We dont have a totalitarian revolution coming.

Guillotine!

Guillotine!

So you are willing to kill anyone who votes contrary to your opinion? What a surprise...

 

[Queen]

Tell me something, why do you people seem to think that the politicians passed this legislation to begin with? It sure as heck wasnt to keep them from recieving campaign contributions. It was to shut people up who were criticizing what they did in office.

When are you guys going to realize that when politicians say they are acting to protect the people from their corruption, they are only giving themselves more power and taking it from you?

Apparently you prefer corporations speaking for the people instead of the people speaking for themselves.

Don't you realize, when corporations can give unlimited money to politicians they can buy and sell them. Our votes won't matter when a politician gets a billion dollars for campaign propaganda. The energy corps can buy a Senator who will vote the way they want. The insurance companies can buy a congressman to vote the way they want. The pharma corps can buy a governor to sign the laws they want.

There will be not voice of the people. There will only be the voice of the fat cats with the billion dollar bank accounts and their voices will be telling the politicians to vote how we want or we'll buy someone else to replace you.

 

[Liability]

I heard tonight that at the oral arguments, the Justices (including Justice Kennedy) asked the deputy solicitor general if the FEC could have prevented the "speech" at issue (the DVD about Hillary Clinton -- pure political speech) IF instead of coming in the form of a DVD, it had been a book.

The Government was obliged to answer that question.

Had they said "no," they would have been compelled to explain why they couldn't (in effect) censor a "book," but they supposedly could censor speech in one of its other forms.

But the deputy solicitor general answered, "yes." I understand that the Court went silent.

It was such a troubling answer, in fact, I heard, that the SCOTUS later invoked their right to seek a second round of oral arguments. The court then gave the Solicitor General a crack at what her subordinate had already answered on that earlier occasion. {In effect saying to the Government, "Look, you guys fucked it up the first go 'round. Care to modify your position?"} But once again, the official position of the United States Government in defending McCain/Feingold was to assert that they COULD (albeit they never had done so) (but they COULD) in fact prevent the publication of such a book.

This was clearly a Free Speech issue as it ultimately got resolved by the SCOTUS.

And it was idiotic legislation that directly affected arguably the VERY kind of speech that the First Amendment most urgently sought to PREVENT our Government from interfering with! Pure POLITICAL speech. Amazing.

In order to try to defend McCain/Feingold, the government had to candidly admit that they were claiming the power to censor a book of pure political speech BECAUSE it was political speech! I give credit to the deputy solicitor general and the solicitor general for honestly answering the Court's question. I give no credit to the Administration for supporting that stupid law. I give FULL CREDIT to the SCOTUS Majority. I am ashamed of the SCOTUS for not reaching that decision by unanimous decision.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We've all seen how money has influenced elections and the vote of members of Congress; and we all understand that television and radio, newspapers and magazines are all influenced by their advertisers. The ability for one voice to dominate debate is not healthy in a democratic republic.
Those of you who cheer the demise of Air America, and todays Supreme Injustice, ought to think of the unintended consequences of such events - or wonder if the consequences really are unintended.

On what planet is silencing a voice in the debate healthy for debate while allowing it to speak is allowing a voice to dominate?

I understand you dont like people or groups saying things you dont like. Well tough. This is the United States of America. Congress is not allowed to limit speech. Period.

You havent lost your voice. Just because no one will listen to your ideas doesnt mean you arent free to share them. You have a right to free speech. We have a right to ignore your dumb ideas.

You simply don't understand. It is so sad, you're so sure of your conviction but can't see the forest for the tree.

 

[Avatar4321]

The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaignfinance attorney, conduct demographic marketing re-search, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing themost salient political issues of our day. Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speecheople “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.” Con-nally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926).The Government may not render a ban on political speech constitutional by carving out a limited exemption throughan amorphous regulatory interpretation.

I am really enjoying this decision. It reaffirms the first amendment and is very well written.