Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Liability]

It's not about free speech * * * , it's about power, personal responsibility and unequal protection * * * *

Wrong.

It is about free speech. Plain and simple. And that's why a Statist like you is whining about it.

Libs all over our fair land are crying out, "Free Speech! It's intolerable!"

What part of EVERY American citizen that owns or works for a corporation already HAS 1st amendment rights don't you understand? Are you THAT dense?

Holy cow. Just when I think you cannot say anything less informed, you come up with a new "topper."

EVERY American citizen who owns shares in a Corporation also pays taxes on what they earn FROM the corporation even thought the Government makes the Corporation pay ITS tax first. Thus, every American is paying double taxation on the earnings of the corporation in which they own shares. If that's fair (and it isn't) based on the pretext that the corporation is separate from them, then certainly that same logic has to permit the Corporation to also have a say in how the same government treats IT.

By the way, the allegedly "stinging dissent" of Justice Stevens got shredded by Justice Scalia.

Thought you ought to know that.

 

[Rambunctious]

If Unions and other organizations that don't necessarily represent the views of corporations are allowed to give dollars (and in some cases tax dollars) to their favorite cause or candidate then corporations should be able to donate with their interest in mind.

 

[Zona]

Wal mart will pick the next president. Woohoo.

 

[Avatar4321]

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corpora-tions—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—eitherto expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general elec-tion. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucialphase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favorslogging in national forests; the National Rifle Associationpublishes a book urging the public to vote for the chal-lenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Unioncreates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

I love this illustration. You guys seriously think its good to ban this?

 

[Avatar4321]

Wal mart will pick the next president. Woohoo.

Their pick would certainly be much more capable then the current President.

 

[goldcatt]

All I can say is they completely missed the issue here by going on about wealth. It's not about wealth, it's about the purpose and nature of the right to free speech vs. the nature of the speaker as a legal construct, not an individual. The restriction may have been on money, but they conveniently neglected to look beyond the money to the real issue. How shallow and appalling, but fictions usually are. Thank you, Supremies.

 

[noose4]

If Unions and other organizations that don't necessarily represent the views of corporations are allowed to give dollars (and in some cases tax dollars) to their favorite cause or candidate then corporations should be able to donate with their interest in mind.

They were already able to do that, now there is no limit, so Hugo Chavez's Citgo can now throw $50,000,000 behind a candidate that fits their agenda.

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh and for those who think that this is suddenly giving Corporations first amendment protections this part of the opinion addressed that:

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protec-tion extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeast-ern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U. S. 180 (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727 (1996); Turner, 512 U. S. 622; Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S. 105; Sable Com-munications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989); Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767 (1986); Land-mark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970)

 

[Liability]

I am reviewing the whole decision now. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

I am enjoying it enormously.

One of the first snippets (in the syllabus of the decision) that I liked says:

Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b’s restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Given this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA §203’s extension of §441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. Pp. 20–51.

Striking down prior bad rulings, in whole or in part, is a wholly GOOD and proper thing to do.

ALSO found in the syllabus, we find this gem:

Because speech is an es-sential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Gov-ernment to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor cer-tain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speak-ers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain

preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this con-clusion. Pp. 20–25.

Further in:

Distinguishing wealthy indi-viduals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, in-cluding individuals and the media, use money amassed from the eco-nomic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.

More and more common sense. A common sense PILE-ON!

I'm loving this decision!

 

[Avatar4321]

If Unions and other organizations that don't necessarily represent the views of corporations are allowed to give dollars (and in some cases tax dollars) to their favorite cause or candidate then corporations should be able to donate with their interest in mind.

They were already able to do that, now there is no limit, so Hugo Chavez's Citgo can now throw $50,000,000 behind a candidate that fits their agenda.

So Obama gets more money, since when did that upset you?

 

[RodISHI]

If Unions and other organizations that don't necessarily represent the views of corporations are allowed to give dollars (and in some cases tax dollars) to their favorite cause or candidate then corporations should be able to donate with their interest in mind.

They were already able to do that, now there is no limit, so Hugo Chavez's Citgo can now throw $50,000,000 behind a candidate that fits their agenda.

Rod and I discuss this earlier. We disagreed on the decision. I have to go with what he said though after considering the matter further. In as much as it gives corporations big bucks to spend on campaigning for their selected candidate it will also open up who is backing who when they do spend that money. If a big corp is backing a candidate by buying ads for the candidate the citizen may want to think more carefully about voting for that candidate.

 

[Chris]

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...

And you have no sense of humor.

What a suprise.

 

[Sarah G]

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own 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.

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.

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.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html

This is craziness.

 

[Avatar4321]

The speech that §441b for-bids, though, is public, and all can judge its content and purpose. References to massive corporate treasuries should not mask the real operation of this law. Rhetoric ought not obscure reality.

Seriously, this is a very articulate decision.

 

[LuckyDan]

If Unions and other organizations that don't necessarily represent the views of corporations are allowed to give dollars (and in some cases tax dollars) to their favorite cause or candidate then corporations should be able to donate with their interest in mind.

They were already able to do that, now there is no limit, so Hugo Chavez's Citgo can now throw $50,000,000 behind a candidate that fits their agenda.

Not exactly - not directly to a candidate. From the WSJ:

The decision also left standing the federal ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates, enacted in 1907. Justice Kennedy cited earlier rulings justifying that ban as a measure to prevent corruption

 

[Chris]

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.

This has nothing to do with free speech.

This is about corporate control of the U.S. government.

And it won't be just the left that suffers from this.

It will be all of us.

 

[Liability]

Guillotine!

Guillotine!

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

And you have no sense of humor.

What a suprise.

Oh sure. You call for the death penalty, but back off when called on it.

Don't lose your head over it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Even if §441b’s expenditure ban were constitutional,wealthy corporations could still lobby elected officials,although smaller corporations may not have the resourcesto do so. And wealthy individuals and unincorporatedassociations can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures. See, e.g., WRTL, 551 U. S., at 503–504 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (“In the 2004 election cycle, a mere 24 individuals contributed an astounding total of $142million to [26 U. S. C. §527 organizations]&#8221. Yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.
When Government seeks to use its full power, includingthe criminal law, to command where a person may get hisor her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

I really love the first amendment. And I love seeing the law applied equally to everyone.

 

[Avatar4321]

This has nothing to do with free speech.

This is about corporate control of the U.S. government.

And it won't be just the left that suffers from this.

It will be all of us.

So corporations cant issue press releases or advertise and that isnt a free speech issue?

 

[Chris]

Even if §441b’s expenditure ban were constitutional,wealthy corporations could still lobby elected officials,although smaller corporations may not have the resourcesto do so. And wealthy individuals and unincorporatedassociations can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures. See, e.g., WRTL, 551 U. S., at 503–504 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (“In the 2004 election cycle, a mere 24 individuals contributed an astounding total of $142million to [26 U. S. C. §527 organizations]”). Yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.
When Government seeks to use its full power, includingthe criminal law, to command where a person may get hisor her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

I really love the first amendment. And I love seeing the law applied equally to everyone.

Bullshit.

Corporations are not people.

And their influence on the political process is insidious.