Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[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.

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.

Utter hogwash. The decision is entirely about free speech.

And the correct decision was reached.

Your little liberoidal whining dishonesty "corporate control of the U.S. government" is not at all a concern of the decision. The putrid claim was rejected on the basis that what YOU guys are pissing and moaning about boils down to just another government effort to control speech. And the government is not permitted to do so particularly in the relam of political speech.

In short, the TEXT of the decision, and the bases for the decision, support the proposition that the Court's focus and its CONCERN was the First Amendment.

God Bless America. The SCOTUS got it entirely right on this one!

 

[Queen]

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.

Excellent point.

Republicans don't seem to be upset that Halliburton or AIG could buy our politicians, but maybe they'll understand the ramifications of this ruling if we point out that Citgo or some other corporation they hate could spend a billion dollars on a candidate that no one can beat with all that money on commercials.....and Americans don't pay as close attention as we all do, they won't realize that Citgo or Walmart or Goldman Sachs is paying for the candidate.

And if there's another candidate that is for some policies that will strengthen the middle class instead of the billionaires, all that money will crush the middle class people's candidate. The politicians that speak for the little guy? Bye bye.

 

[Chris]

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?

This ruling will mark the end of our democracy.

This is a dark day for America.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bullshit.

Corporations are not people.

And their influence on the political process is insidious.

"Rhetoric ought not obscure reality."

 

[Chris]

Bullshit.

Corporations are not people.

And their influence on the political process is insidious.

"Rhetoric ought not obscure reality."

And the reality is that corporate lobbyists will now appoint every official in our government.

That's the reality, my friend.

 

[Liability]

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.

Wrong. Corporations (as their very name connotes) are "persons" in the eyes of the law. And their influence is no more insidious than any individual's or group's voice.

 

[Avatar4321]

This ruling will mark the end of our democracy.

This is a dark day for America.

How is finding McCain-Fiengold unconstitutional going to destroy America? It was passed less than a decade ago. We survived without it for well over 200 years.

 

[Chris]

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.

Wrong. Corporations (as their very name connotes) are "persons" in the eyes of the law. And their influence is no more insidious than any individual's or group's voice.

Corporations are not persons.

And to increase the influence of corporate lobbyists on our government is to bring the destruction of America.

They destroyed our economy last year.

Don't you remember???

 

[Chris]

This ruling will mark the end of our democracy.

This is a dark day for America.

How is finding McCain-Fiengold unconstitutional going to destroy America? It was passed less than a decade ago. We survived without it for well over 200 years.

Things are different now.

Haven't you noticed?

When the Senator from Etna can stop millions of Americans from getting healthcare, this country is fucked up.

 

[Queen]

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.

Who's going to inform the citizen? The media is owned by corporations. There are about 5 now, that own ALL the media. If those 5 corporations want a certain candidate that will get them tax breaks and anything else they want, they will not broadcast the fact that their pol is bought and paid for.

Most people don't pay attention like we do.

Most people will have no idea, they'll just watch the ads and believe them and vote for the corporate puppets.

No more will of the people.

Hello will of the fat cats.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bullshit.

Corporations are not people.

And their influence on the political process is insidious.

"Rhetoric ought not obscure reality."

And the reality is that corporate lobbyists will now appoint every official in our government.

That's the reality, my friend.

So let me get this straight. WalMart decides to support candidate A and advertises for him quite extensively. Are you telling me you are going to vote for him simply because WalMart supported him? Or are you going to listen to what they have to say, give it as much or as little credibility as you deem worthy, and vote based on what you think?

I am not worried about free speech simply because I have a brain and I use it. If a certain corporation is supporting a certain candidate and getting sweet deals, im not stupid enough to vote for said candidate just because said corporation runs a spot less than 60 days prior to an election.

Now are you really that much of a lemming? or are you going to think for yourself?

 

[Queen]

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.

Everyone = people. The people in a corporation are people. The corporation is not a person. It doesn't get sick, it doesn't fall in love, it has no internal organs, it doesn't die. It's not a person. The only legal personhood it is supposed to have is the right to sue. This is an obomination.

 

[Avatar4321]

Corporations are not persons.

And to increase the influence of corporate lobbyists on our government is to bring the destruction of America.

They destroyed our economy last year.

Don't you remember???

You dont eliminate lobbyists by banning groups from being allowed to speak. That will just cause even more lobbyists to come to Washington to convince the politicians to ban speech against their competition. It creates a never ending cycle that leads to us being ruled by a totalitarian dictator.

If you want to eliminate the influence of corporate lobbyists, get the federal government out of the peoples lives and businesses. If the special interests know that Congress is going to actually follow the Constitution, they wont be able to suck money from the treasury and wont bother trying.

 

[Avatar4321]

Who's going to inform the citizen? The media is owned by corporations. There are about 5 now, that own ALL the media. If those 5 corporations want a certain candidate that will get them tax breaks and anything else they want, they will not broadcast the fact that their pol is bought and paid for.

Most people don't pay attention like we do.

Most people will have no idea, they'll just watch the ads and believe them and vote for the corporate puppets.

No more will of the people.

Hello will of the fat cats.

wow... that is paranoid...

 

[Liability]

Bullshit.

Corporations are not people.

And their influence on the political process is insidious.

Wrong. Corporations (as their very name connotes) are "persons" in the eyes of the law. And their influence is no more insidious than any individual's or group's voice.

Corporations are not persons.

Repeating your erroneous contention doesn't convert it into something useful or true or valid.

You remain flatly wrong. In the eyes of the law, corporations are effectively "persons."

And to increase the influence of corporate lobbyists on our government is to bring the destruction of America.

Poppycock. Silly cheap liberoidal mindless rhetoric with not a scintilla of rationality supporting it.

They destroyed our economy last year.

Nonsense.

Don't you remember???

Nobody "remembers" your paranoid delusions. Not even you.

 

[Queen]

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?

When were they unable to issue a press release or advertise?

 

[Queen]

Utter hogwash. The decision is entirely about free speech.

And the correct decision was reached.

Your little liberoidal whining dishonesty "corporate control of the U.S. government" is not at all a concern of the decision. The putrid claim was rejected on the basis that what YOU guys are pissing and moaning about boils down to just another government effort to control speech. And the government is not permitted to do so particularly in the relam of political speech.

In short, the TEXT of the decision, and the bases for the decision, support the proposition that the Court's focus and its CONCERN was the First Amendment.

God Bless America. The SCOTUS got it entirely right on this one!

You're so wrong it's scary. This is about campaign finance. This is about the people of the USA losing all power because corporations can now spend all the money they want to buy the politicians that will vote the way they want.

 

[Queen]

This ruling will mark the end of our democracy.

This is a dark day for America.

How is finding McCain-Fiengold unconstitutional going to destroy America? It was passed less than a decade ago. We survived without it for well over 200 years.

This ruling overturned the law from 1907 that prevented corporations from buying candidates.

That's over 100 years.

 

[Queen]

"Rhetoric ought not obscure reality."

And the reality is that corporate lobbyists will now appoint every official in our government.

That's the reality, my friend.

So let me get this straight. WalMart decides to support candidate A and advertises for him quite extensively. Are you telling me you are going to vote for him simply because WalMart supported him? Or are you going to listen to what they have to say, give it as much or as little credibility as you deem worthy, and vote based on what you think?

I am not worried about free speech simply because I have a brain and I use it. If a certain corporation is supporting a certain candidate and getting sweet deals, im not stupid enough to vote for said candidate just because said corporation runs a spot less than 60 days prior to an election.

Now are you really that much of a lemming? or are you going to think for yourself?

How are you going to hear what candidate B has to say when Walmart's candidate has a billion dollars to spend on advertising bashing and smearing candidate B?

Why do you prefer corporations paying for puppet politicians over the people choosing from a fair playing field of debates and balanced advertising?

 

[Avatar4321]

How are you going to hear what candidate B has to say when Walmart's candidate has a billion dollars to spend on advertising bashing and smearing candidate B?

Why do you prefer corporations paying for puppet politicians over the people choosing from a fair playing field of debates and balanced advertising?

Yeah, of course I will. Just because someone can say something doesnt mean someone else cant. That's insane.