Ban on direct corporate spending on elections overturned

[Bob Juch]

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 1508.story

Thus ensuring we'll have the best politicians money can buy.

[Weyoun]

It will be curious to see how the NY Times, a corporation, spins a decision it disagrees with, despite it being a decision that reaffirms that corporations have freedom of speech protection.

[Bob78164]

Here's a link to the full opinion. It's a 190-page PDF (Stevens wrote a 90-page dissent). --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 1508.story

Thus ensuring we'll have the best politicians money can buy.

We don't have that now?

[Appa23]

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 1508.story

Thus ensuring we'll have the best politicians money can buy.

We don't have that now?

The best politicians -- no.

[wintergreen48]

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 1508.story

Thus ensuring we'll have the best politicians money can buy.

We don't have that now?

The best politicians -- no.

A sad thought... maybe the politicians we have actually ARE the best politicians...

[gsabc]

We don't have that now?

The best politicians -- no.

A sad thought... maybe the politicians we have actually ARE the best politicians...

An optimist believes that this is the best of all possible worlds.

A pessimist worries that this is true.

[etaoin22]

We don't have that now?

The best politicians -- no.

A sad thought... maybe the politicians we have actually ARE the best politicians...

Hmm. "Actually ARE"????

I don't have that bad an opinion of Americans.
About your Supreme Court, though....
Who was the fifth idiot?

[Bob78164]

The best politicians -- no.

A sad thought... maybe the politicians we have actually ARE the best politicians...

Hmm. "Actually ARE"????

I don't have that bad an opinion of Americans.
About your Supreme Court, though....
Who was the fifth idiot?

The usual suspects -- Kennedy wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas (as to the principal issue), and Alito. I read the first few pages of the Stevens dissent. If accurate, the opinion appears to be a textbook case of judicial activism.

I'll probably have more to write tonight assuming I make time to read the opinions. --Bob

[ten96lt]

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate but wouldn't this decision make it a lot easier for people to see who and what group supports a candidate? I would think it'd be harder for people to know who a candidate is being supported by if they just plain see a lobbyist's name in the contribution list, but have no idea who the guy is representing. For example let's say Bob#'s makes a donation, people will think he's just a regular lawyer making a donation, but what if he was really doing it to say for example to support the candidate who will best see to his interests in the patent he represents which happens to be a major drug owned by a drug company. That'd take some digging which frankly most people are too lazy to do and when the list is long, who's going to look. But if Merck outright makes a donation, we already get the picture up front who's supporting the candidate.

Apologies to Bob#'s for using him in a fictional example.

[wintergreen48]

Before waxing too much roth on how awful it is that corporations and unions will now be able to spend money directly (rather than have to use PACs, funded by 'voluntary' contributions from their employees or union members), or complaining too much about how the Supreme Court is engaged in judicial activism for striking down this law, a question:

Is there really any fundamental difference between prohibiting Megabucks Corporation from paying its own money to the Martin Agency for a bunch of signs that read 'Bush Lied; Thousands Died', on the one hand, and paying its own money to, say, Al Franken (as royalties) or Michael Moore (as licensing fees) for a book or movie that says the same thing? Before answering too quickly, you might keep in mind that at the oral argument on this case, the attorneys who were arguing in defense of the statute admitted that, if the statute were enforced consistently (which has not been done), it would be illegal for Megabucks Corporation to pay Franken and Moore.

And if it is OK to prohibit corporations and unions (which are legal 'persons') from spending their own money on political campaigns, why would it not be just as OK to prohibit you or me or anyone else from spending her or his own money on political campaigns?

Seems to me that the real problem in this space is the 'judicial activism' of the Supreme Court back in the 1960's, when they 'enacted' the rule in Sullivan v. New York Times which basically held that there is no such thing as libel or slander when you are talking or writing about a 'public figure,' which pretty much includes anyone you have ever heard about (they did allow an exception: if Public Figure could prove that the statements made were in fact false and defamatory, AND, he or she could prove that the one making the statements did so out of malice, then Public Figure could prevail; problem is, the only way to prove 'malice' is to get somone on tape saying "I know this is BS, and it will hurt Public Figure, but I hate, loathe, despise and detest him and I want to do anything I can to destroy him, even if it means knowingly publishing false and defamatory information." Oddly enought, that sort of proof of malice is apparently hard to come by, which is why you do not hear of a lot of successful libel suits in the US involving 'public figures'). If people were actually held accountable for the outright lies they tell (the 'truthers' and the 'birthers' come to mind, but we all know that there are gazillions of other examples, at all levels of politics), maybe you would have a bit less of that kind of aggravating crap going on.

[flockofseagulls104]

George Will:
For almost four decades now, what has been done in the name of “campaign finance reform” has constituted the most dangerous assault on freedom of speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. This is because the government, by regulating what can be spent in order to disseminate political speech and when political speech may occur, has asserted the astonishing right to dictate the quantity, content and timing of speech about the government.

On Thursday, however, the Supreme Court, in a gratifyingly radical decision, substantially pushed back the encroachments that the political class has made on the sphere of free political speech. This was radical only because after nearly four decades of such “reform” the First Amendment has come to seem radical. Which, indeed, it is. The Supreme Court on Thursday restored First Amendment protection to the core speech that it was designed to protect -- political speech. There will be no more McCain-Feingold blackout periods before primary and general elections -- periods during which political advocacy was restricted, just as public attention was most intense.

The court’s decision will be predictably lamented by people alarmed by the prospect of more political money funding more political speech. The Supreme Court has now said to such people approximately this: The First Amendment does not permit government to decide the “proper” quantity of political speech.

[Bob78164]

For almost four decades now, what has been done in the name of “campaign finance reform” has constituted the most dangerous assault on freedom of speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. This is because the government, by regulating what can be spent in order to disseminate political speech and when political speech may occur, has asserted the astonishing right to dictate the quantity, content and timing of speech about the government.

(Emphasis added.) Mr. Will appears to have forgotten that the core restrictions the Court just overturned were enacted during the Roosevelt Administration. Teddy, not Franklin. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

I am curious how conservatives will react if Hugo Chavez starts funnelling some of his oil bucks here to try to influence U.S. elections

[frogman042]

I have a question. With the new ruling, is it possible for one or a small group of corporations buy all the airtime (or at least all the prime-time airtime) on all the major networks in favor for one specific candidate or issue? If so, wouldn't that silence any opposition and/or deny them of the opportunity to speak out?

It doesn't have to be national either; it could be state or regional as well.

Personally, I don't think there should be any restrictions in print, billboards, fliers ,books, movies or internet spending by anyone. Public airwaves are a different matter because they are both a limited resource and does not provide equal access to everyone. Even if I had the financial resources, I can't go out tomorrow and start broadcasting - as a result I don't have a problem with their being restrictions on what can be spent in that realm.

---Jay

[nitrah55]

If the crux of the argument is that corporations have the same rights as people, why then did the Supreme Court not finish the job and grant corporatons the right to vote?

[flockofseagulls104]

For almost four decades now, what has been done in the name of “campaign finance reform” has constituted the most dangerous assault on freedom of speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. This is because the government, by regulating what can be spent in order to disseminate political speech and when political speech may occur, has asserted the astonishing right to dictate the quantity, content and timing of speech about the government.

(Emphasis added.) Mr. Will appears to have forgotten that the core restrictions the Court just overturned were enacted during the Roosevelt Administration. Teddy, not Franklin. --Bob

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis added

[Bob Juch]

For almost four decades now, what has been done in the name of “campaign finance reform” has constituted the most dangerous assault on freedom of speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. This is because the government, by regulating what can be spent in order to disseminate political speech and when political speech may occur, has asserted the astonishing right to dictate the quantity, content and timing of speech about the government.

(Emphasis added.) Mr. Will appears to have forgotten that the core restrictions the Court just overturned were enacted during the Roosevelt Administration. Teddy, not Franklin. --Bob

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis added

But corporations have never before been granted freedom of speech. Now we can expect them to say cigarettes can be advertised on TV again and that drug ads can't be restricted by the FDA. etc.

[ten96lt]

(Emphasis added.) Mr. Will appears to have forgotten that the core restrictions the Court just overturned were enacted during the Roosevelt Administration. Teddy, not Franklin. --Bob

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis added

But corporations have never before been granted freedom of speech. Now we can expect them to say cigarettes can be advertised on TV again and that drug ads can't be restricted by the FDA. etc.

Well corporations aren't people, aren't they considered separate "entities" and not people so they don't have the right to vote or have other privileges citizens have. So where does the first amendment apply if they aren't people? Animals don't have the freedom of speech or the right to vote or own a weapon.

[flockofseagulls104]

But corporations have never before been granted freedom of speech. Now we can expect them to say cigarettes can be advertised on TV again and that drug ads can't be restricted by the FDA. etc.

I am not a constitutional expert, but I am an American. I believe that every American was born with the these freedoms, they are not GRANTED.

[silverscreenselect]

I am not a constitutional expert, but I am an American. I believe that every American was born with the these freedoms, they are not GRANTED.

Exactly when were corporations born?

[smilergrogan]

Damn, there's a WalMart in my precinct. I hope I don't have to wait in line behind it at the next election.

[Appa23]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis added

But corporations have never before been granted freedom of speech. Now we can expect them to say cigarettes can be advertised on TV again and that drug ads can't be restricted by the FDA. etc.

Well corporations aren't people, aren't they considered separate "entities" and not people so they don't have the right to vote. So where does the first amendment apply if they aren't people.

You are confusing citizen's rights and person's rights. There are many people covered by the Constitution that are not citizens.

Voting belongs to the former. Bill of Rights stuff belongs to the latter. Both can be limited. (In the case of voting, taken away, such as with felony convictions.)

[ten96lt]

But corporations have never before been granted freedom of speech. Now we can expect them to say cigarettes can be advertised on TV again and that drug ads can't be restricted by the FDA. etc.

Well corporations aren't people, aren't they considered separate "entities" and not people so they don't have the right to vote. So where does the first amendment apply if they aren't people.

You are confusing citizen's rights and person's rights. There are many people covered by the Constitution that are not citizens.

Voting belongs to the former. Bill of Rights stuff belongs to the latter. Both can be limited. (In the case of voting, taken away, such as with felony convictions.)

Well either way corporations aren't people so they don't have the same rights as people, just like animals.

[frogman042]

Well either way corporations aren't people ....

True, but Solyent Green is.