Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Zona]

Wal mart will pick the next president. Woohoo.

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

I get it, you don't like Obama. That's cool. This new law will make it so your little vote wont mean anything if a corporation wants to elect someone you don't like.

Seriously, think about that for a second. Your republicans in the supreme court did this. I know instinctively you want to back other republicans, but come on.

 

[Zona]

Giving organizations which theoretically will live forever the same rights as citizens in a democratic repulic is nuts.

It's the kind of nuttiness that only someone who doesn't get what democracy actually means could love.

How can anyone support this? I know some extreme righty's will (Hannity, Rush, Beck and all their fans) but come on. The right leaning nuts on the supreme court are corporatists.

 

[Sarah G]

Giving organizations which theoretically will live forever the same rights as citizens in a democratic repulic is nuts.

It's the kind of nuttiness that only someone who doesn't get what democracy actually means could love.

It's a Republican scheme like redistricting. They can't win without help.

Oh well, we'll see how this unfolds, the Democrats had better start getting the message out there so people really understand what happened yesterday.

To be fair, there are a lot of true conservatives and libertarians who understand it and don't like it either. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton...they're all clear on the subject. So is the historical common law of corporations. So is the natural law theory. Several of the Framers' statements on the subject have already been posted in this thread, their position and reasoning is clear. And you won't often see the day I'm defending an originalist position. But when they're right, they're right.

Sadly, some of those who trumpet Originalist interpretation apparently don't have the slightest idea what it really means and abandon their "principles" as soon as they're told "It's good, mkay".

They don't have to know the intricacies of the decision like some people here do. Getting the message out is all Democrats can do at this point.

2010 elections have been hijacked imo.

 

[Navy1960]

Look as I see it there are two issues at play here, one is does a company have the right to spend it's own money as it see's fit to support candidates for office. From a pure commercial point of view from what the court has said, they do. They also took the time to mention that this so called right to the 1st Amendment can be legislated, restrected, but cannot be denied when it comes to that commercial enterprise, so is that not a new defninition of " commercial speech"? One other thing here too, many have made the claim that companies are in the eye's of the law the same as people, well in contractual law they are, people and companies are treated equally in the law in terms of suits, etc. A company however is not a person in that a company is a LEGAL entity and exists only on paper, it is the very law that many claim companies and unions are on equal footing with that creates those companies in the first place. I have heard repeatedly the claim from the constitution "congress shall make no law, " and then have that claim applied in support of a company being equal in terms of a person. I would remind people that congress exists at the will of the people who VOTE for them and as companies do not have a vote for those that make the laws and come into being as a result of those laws, to claim that a company is on equal footing is a stretech at best and the framers of the constitution would disagree with the presmise that a company equal to a person under the eye's of the law.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote


No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.



You want to get a good idea of how some of the founding fathers felt about companies invlovement in Govt. look at how most of them reacted to the creation of a national bank or going back a little more, I am sure most of you know who the Dutch East India Trading Co. was.

While it's clear the courts recent decision somewhat disagrees with me and I respect the courts decision and do understand that from a commercial point of view restricting a company from the use of advertising with its own funds is limiting commercial speech, it does set up an issue of influence in campaigns that will at least while the decision stands increase the possibility that companies and unions will have an effect on the election process.

 

[goldcatt]

It's a Republican scheme like redistricting. They can't win without help.

Oh well, we'll see how this unfolds, the Democrats had better start getting the message out there so people really understand what happened yesterday.

To be fair, there are a lot of true conservatives and libertarians who understand it and don't like it either. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton...they're all clear on the subject. So is the historical common law of corporations. So is the natural law theory. Several of the Framers' statements on the subject have already been posted in this thread, their position and reasoning is clear. And you won't often see the day I'm defending an originalist position. But when they're right, they're right.

Sadly, some of those who trumpet Originalist interpretation apparently don't have the slightest idea what it really means and abandon their "principles" as soon as they're told "It's good, mkay".

They don't have to know the intricacies of the decision like some people here do. Getting the message out is all Democrats can do at this point.

2010 elections have been hijacked imo.

I'm afraid you're right. But it goes deeper than that.

You see what kind of sheeple we've become as a nation. There is no governance anymore, no serious policy debate, only tactics and rah-rah team garbage focusing on how our "side" can get power for the sake of getting power. And too many people lap up the talking points and "Me first" game playing garbage - on both sides.

In practical terms this decision just gives a bullhorn to one of the major players in the "Me first" game. So much for any hope of the People (the real People, not the hypothetical ones) getting their country back.

 

[Bfgrn]

Even more, corporate personhood was never formally enacted by any branch of the US government:

* It was never voted by the public
* It was never enacted by law
* It was never even stated by a decision of the Supreme Court

Total misinformation, bordering on blatant lies.

Corporate personhood's roots trace back to the 14th Amendment (voted on by representatives of the several states) and the SCOTUS decision in Santa Clara County vs. Union Pacific Railroad.

WRONG DUD...e

SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
118 U.S. 394
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California

Argued January 26-29, 1886
Filed May 10, 1886

Editor's notes: There has been much misunderstanding about this Court decision. Despite the issue being raised in arguments, the Justices offered no written opinion on the question of whether corporations should be considered "persons" and enjoy the protections of the 14th Amendment. The Court reporter's notes, however, quoted Chief Justice Waite declaring that, "We all are of the opinion" that the 14th Amendement applies to corporations.

Many people (rightfully) are outraged that a Court reporter could turn the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment on their heads, which effectively is what occured once Santa Clara was cited as precedent in subsequent cases. However, the fact that the Justices never issued an opinion on "corporate personhood" lost its legal significance once they cited the case.
More...

 

[Neser Boha]

First off, just the fact that corporations are seen as 'individuals' before the law despite the fact that they have 'no soul to save and no body to incarcerate' is rather scary. But ok, it's been a while and most people don't even think of that nowadays.

Secondly, in my world-view, democracy equals one person = one vote. By allowing for all this money in election campaigns, that equilibrium gets without a doubt 'disturbed.' How? How many poor rednecks do you know that have any say in any 'corporation' worth even mentioning that has any impact on law-making etc.? The answer is - none. Thanks to your pre-existing 'screw democracy, money is all we care for' attitude to equality and democracy (yeah, democracy rests on the 'illusion' of equality) the rich (the ones in charge of these corporations) will have incomparably more influence on the US government, therefore diminishing others' influence. Corporations sway opinions in this country of yours on an every-day basis. They fund 'scientific' researches in order to protect their interests, muck up the truth so they can protect their profits, put a little money here and there to cover things up ... it's an every-day occurrence, people.

What the Supreme Court decided was that money = free speech and the more money you have the more free speech you have.

This is, ladies and gentlemen, yet another perversion of democracy in America. But you're used to that already as it's normal that two people caught for the same crime will either a) sit in jail because they can't make the bail = poor b) walk the fuck out as if nothing happened because they had the bail money = rich.

But then you see no problem with many other things I see a problem with. You're screwing yourself royally, but such catch phrases as 'free speech' captivate your mind so fully (and put you almost in a state of hypnosis) that you can't make yourself see past it.

Good luck.

 

[Navy1960]

MARSHALL, C.J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality -- properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities that corporations were invented, and are in use. By these means, a perpetual succession of individuals are capable of acting for the promotion of the particular object like one immortal being. But this being does not share in the civil government of the country, unless that be the purpose for which it was created. Its immortality no more confers on it political power, or a political character, than immortality would confer such power or character on a natural person. It is no more a state instrument than a natural person exercising the same powers would be. If, then, a natural person, employed [p637] by individuals in the education of youth or for the government of a seminary in which youth is educated would not become a public officer or be considered as a member of the civil government, how is it that this artificial being, created by law for the purpose of being employed by the same individuals, for the same purposes, should become a part of the civil government of the country? Is it because its existence, its capacities, its powers, are given by law? Because the government has given it the power to take and to hold property, in a particular form, and for particular purposes, has the government a consequent right substantially to change that form, or to vary the purposes to which the property is to be applied? This principle has never been asserted or recognised, and is supported by no authority. Can it derive aid from reason?

The objects for which a corporation is created are universally such as the government wishes to promote. They are deemed beneficial to the country, and this benefit constitutes the consideration, and in most cases, the sole consideration of the grant. In most eleemosynary institutions, the object would be difficult, perhaps unattainable, without the aid of a charter of incorporation. Charitable or public-spirited individuals, desirous of making permanent appropriations for charitable or other useful purposes, find it impossible to effect their design securely and certainly without an incorporating act. They apply to the government, state their beneficent object, and offer to advance the money necessary for its accomplishment, [p638] provided the government will confer on the instrument which is to execute their designs the capacity to execute them. The proposition is considered and approved. The benefit to the public is considered as an ample compensation for the faculty it confers, and the corporation is created. If the advantages to the public constitute a full compensation for the faculty it gives, there can be no reason for exacting a further compensation by claiming a right to exercise over this artificial being, a power which changes its nature and touches the fund for the security and application of which it was created. There can be no reason for implying in a charter, given for a valuable consideration, a power which is not only not expressed, but is in direct contradiction to its express stipulations.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward

 

[KissMy]

Corporations like GE & Westinghouse own NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, & CBS. The Government pays for NPR & PBS. So what difference does this law actually make? - NONE!

Obama gave GE $139 Billion of our tax dollars to spread propaganda throughout its vast media empire to buy our votes!

Government stripping us of our earnings & using them to buy the press is the real problem. What about freedom of the press. Why does government get more "free speech" than we the people do? Government even gets more "free speech" than corporations do!

 

[goldcatt]

Even more, corporate personhood was never formally enacted by any branch of the US government:

* It was never voted by the public
* It was never enacted by law
* It was never even stated by a decision of the Supreme Court

Total misinformation, bordering on blatant lies.

Corporate personhood's roots trace back to the 14th Amendment (voted on by representatives of the several states) and the SCOTUS decision in Santa Clara County vs. Union Pacific Railroad.

WRONG DUD...e

SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
118 U.S. 394
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California

Argued January 26-29, 1886
Filed May 10, 1886

Editor's notes: There has been much misunderstanding about this Court decision. Despite the issue being raised in arguments, the Justices offered no written opinion on the question of whether corporations should be considered "persons" and enjoy the protections of the 14th Amendment. The Court reporter's notes, however, quoted Chief Justice Waite declaring that, "We all are of the opinion" that the 14th Amendement applies to corporations.

Many people (rightfully) are outraged that a Court reporter could turn the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment on their heads, which effectively is what occured once Santa Clara was cited as precedent in subsequent cases. However, the fact that the Justices never issued an opinion on "corporate personhood" lost its legal significance once they cited the case.
More...

There are two problems with reliance on Santa Clara in this.

First, it is correct that Santa Clara was decided on other grounds - as Dude pointed out, basically semantics. The 14th issue was never reached. And nowhere, at any time, was it ever declared by any Court that corporations (or unions, etc.) should enjoy the full status and rights of citizens.

Second, the 14th is not implicated here. The 14th applies due process and equal protection to the States. The restriction at issue is a Federal law, subject to Federal penalties. The Federal government is subject to the 5th, not the 14th. The only way the 14th is implicated is if, and let's be clear in this, you are talking about granting the privileges and immunities of citizenship, in fact citizenship itself, to entities that only exist on paper.

And y'all thought it was bad when fake people register to vote.

 

[Navy1960]

Corporations like GE & Westinghouse own NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, & CBS. The Government pays for NPR & PBS. So what difference does this law actually make? - NONE!

Obama gave GE $139 Billion of our tax dollars to spread propaganda throughout its vast media empire to buy our votes!

Government stripping us of our earnings & using them to buy the press is the real problem. What about freedom of the press. Why does government get more "free speech" than we the people do? Government even gets more "free speech" than corporations do!

Here is something to consider on this Kiss, Networks like NBC and CBS are subject to FCC rules, while yes it's true that for the most part the cable networks have morphed into nothing but opinion based news. Here is the difference. Lets say your G.E. and your bidding on a contract against Snecma based in France on a Govt. contract for aircraft engines and the two candidates for President support one or the other. Now those companies are free to spend as much money as they like on those commerical airwaves supporting the candidates that have their interests at heart. In the argument where G.E. owns the network, should they violate FCC rules they are subject to sanctions.

Section 399 [47 U.S.C. §399] Support of political candidates prohibited.
No noncommercial educational broadcasting station may support or oppose any candidate for political office.


The other thing too, the Govt. we have the ability to change if we so wish through voting, the problem with that is that many choose not to exercise that and we find ourselves in the postiion where Govt. is doing some of the things you posted because they understand that for the most part when there is apathy on the part of those that vote for them then they are free to do as they choose.

 

[uscitizen]

The framers had no fucking idea what a private corporation or multinational corp was.

They knew what government backed business interests were...that founded the colonies, and they gave no rights to them. Why? They didn't consider the monied infulences of businesses to be speech

Corporations have existed since the 14th century. Im pretty sure they knew what they were.

I also am pretty sure when they said Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, they meant it.

Yep and I have never heard money speak one word.
Just us humans speaking.

And the right seems to complain of misinerpreting the constitution.

 

[Bfgrn]

Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders. The legal stricture known as fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit in inherently amoral economic competition, corporations are by their nature amoral as well. Despite image-enhancing claims of corporate citizenship, they have no consciences to express, only earnings per share. They differ from people not only in form and size but, most importantly, in their fundamental character: People—including corporate executives, employees, and shareholders—have inherent worth and dignity; corporations in and of themselves do not.

Thus, as big corporations' power to influence our government grows in relation to the power of We the People as expressed through democracy, the power of the amoral grows in relation to the power of the moral.
Tom Stites

 

[Shogun]

I'm betting that not ONE single conservative in this thread who defends the scotus decision has yet to bitch about the usurping of judicial power over the congressional and has mentioned nary a single ACTIVIST JUDGES battle cry over this process...

 

[Yurt]

The framers had no fucking idea what a private corporation or multinational corp was.

They knew what government backed business interests were...that founded the colonies, and they gave no rights to them. Why? They didn't consider the monied infulences of businesses to be speech

Corporations have existed since the 14th century. Im pretty sure they knew what they were.

I also am pretty sure when they said Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, they meant it.

Yep and I have never heard money speak one word.
Just us humans speaking.

And the right seems to complain of misinerpreting the constitution.

i don't recall you complaining that obama could afford a half hour of prime political ad for himself because, unlike mccain, he opted out of public financing....

 

[MajikMyst]

I'm betting that not ONE single conservative in this thread who defends the scotus decision has yet to bitch about the usurping of judicial power over the congressional and has mentioned nary a single ACTIVIST JUDGES battle cry over this process...

Yes!! How bout those activist judges?? Taking power away from the people and giving it to coporate and special interest groups??

This is a travisty of a ruling!! Where is the out cry? Where is the pound for freedom and power to the people?? Where is it??

The silence is deafening from the neotards.. The single most determental ruling that is taking away their freedom and they don't even know it..

Under a thuderous applause they vote their rights and freedoms away..

 

[MajikMyst]

Corporations have existed since the 14th century. Im pretty sure they knew what they were.

I also am pretty sure when they said Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, they meant it.

Yep and I have never heard money speak one word.
Just us humans speaking.

And the right seems to complain of misinerpreting the constitution.

i don't recall you complaining that obama could afford a half hour of prime political ad for himself because, unlike mccain, he opted out of public financing....

Well that is a dumb comment.. Obviously he could afford it.. Duh!!

 

[Navy1960]

A senior U.S. defense official in Washington earlier this week confirmed that hackers nearly two years ago breached a high-tech F-35 jet fighter program developed for the Pentagon by Lockheed Martin Corp., but said it was unclear who did it and that classified information was not compromised.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue, also said it was unclear whether the attack was an attempt at corporate thievery or a hacker trying to harm the program. The Pentagon is expected to pay about $300 billion to buy nearly 2,500 of the F-35 jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.
China denies hacking into F-35 data - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

What makes you think that Chinese companies if they have a political interest in our election process would not air commercials endorsing candidates for office that would perhaps advocate cutting the project or perhaps dely it to the point where it becomes useless.. In case your wondering, the fact that they are foreign won't make a difference, there are many ways around that. Those of you who do not think this decision is just a 1sr Amendment issue and won't have an impact on the election process are sadly mistaken.

 

[Vast LWC]

corporations aren't people.

Then the right thing to do is to stop taxing them as if they are.

That may be one of the goofiest things you've ever said. They have income. They get taxed.

Would you like to give corporations the vote, too?

Your argument is absurd.

Corporations aren't people. And all you've done is assured that this pretend "we the people" construct you have will be perverted even further because of unlimited corporate influence.

it's like you have no understanding of what this ruling means.

Now go complain about "lobbyists".

:lol

No, no, let's think about this for a second. I think the poster had a point.

If we are going to give corporations the same rights as people, then they need to be taxed at the same income tax rate as people, no exceptions, no loopholes due to the fact that they are corporations. And considering what their income levels are, they will be paying the top tier tax rate.

Considering that most corporations have been avoiding taxes pretty much altogether due to special tax breaks, etc, this will bring in a whole load of taxes to our coffers.

Oh, also, they need to pay all those back taxes they owe for any year that they have contributed to the political process.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm betting that not ONE single conservative in this thread who defends the scotus decision has yet to bitch about the usurping of judicial power over the congressional and has mentioned nary a single ACTIVIST JUDGES battle cry over this process...

Yes!! How bout those activist judges?? Taking power away from the people and giving it to coporate and special interest groups??

This is a travisty of a ruling!! Where is the out cry? Where is the pound for freedom and power to the people?? Where is it??

The silence is deafening from the neotards.. The single most determental ruling that is taking away their freedom and they don't even know it..

Under a thuderous applause they vote their rights and freedoms away..

Hey, where are all the WTO, Illuminati, New World Order, Bilderberg Group folks???