A nail in the coffin: Campaign-finance limits violate free speech

spike

New Member
One more step towards Idiocracy.

Supreme Court: Campaign-finance limits violate free speech

The Supreme Court campaign finance ruling on Thursday means corporations can spend freely on political ads leading up to elections. The Thursday decision invalidates a part of 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law that sought to limit corporate influence.

The US Supreme Court has struck down a major portion of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law, saying it violates the free-speech right of corporations to engage in public debate of political issues.

In a landmark 5-to-4 decision announced Thursday, the high court overturned a 1990 legal precedent and reversed a position it took in 2003, when a different lineup of justices upheld government restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations during elections.

“Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”
Ahead, a flood of corporate/union election spending?

The decision opens the gates for what campaign reform advocates warn will be a flood of corporate spending in future elections. The ruling is expected to permit similar political expenditures from the general treasuries of labor unions, as well.

“This is the most radical and destructive campaign-finance decision in the history of the Supreme Court,” said Fred Worthheimer, president of Democracy 21.

“Today’s decision is the Super Bowl of really bad decisions. It returns us to the days of the robber barons,” said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause.

Among political leaders, Democrats attacked the decision and Republicans praised it.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky lauded the decision as “monumental.” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said he was pleased by the decision. “These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy,” he said.

From the White House, President Obama called the ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
Electioneering vs. free speech

At issue was a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold law. Section 203 of the law barred corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds to pay for advertisements or other broadcasts that mention a political candidate in a way that Federal Election Commission officials might view as electioneering. The ban applied 30 days before any primary and 60 days before a general election.

Campaign-reform advocates said the provision was necessary to prevent a proliferation of noncandidate advertisements (paid for by wealthy corporations and unions) from crowding out the candidates’ own campaign ads.

Critics of the regulation said it amounted to unconstitutional censorship. They argued that corporations should enjoy a First Amendment right to spend money and advocate political and policy positions during election seasons just as individuals can.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed with the critics. “Rapid changes in technology – and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression – counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make … categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.”
The dissent: 'integrity of elected institutions' at stake

In a 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens denounced the majority opinion as a dangerous rejection of common sense. “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” he wrote.

“The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,” he said.

The high court decision leaves intact campaign contribution regulations – including laws barring campaign contributions to federal candidates from corporations and unions. It also leaves intact laws barring so-called soft-money contributions to political parties.

More here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...t-Campaign-finance-limits-violate-free-speech
 
A nail in the coffin for fascist, freedom of speech is protected, the natural enemy of tyranny is back.

Maybe some of the people who are being attacked by the government can now defend themselves from tyrants. No longer will radical groups funded by George Soros, bent on destroying our nation, dominate the political environment

I can make political fodder and not worry about going to prison for it.

(big pharma and the lawyers are all in with the dems)

--- IN OTHER NEWS ---

Air-America crashed and burned today, there were no survivors.

:swing:
 
I'm not sure what people being attacked by the government you're referring to. Could you be more specific and maybe relate how it tied to the article?

This is about corporate interests over the will of the people. Corporations that will that will have the ability to throw money around even more to suit their agenda. The people will have no ability to compete.
 
In the wake of this bullshit, I think it is high time politicians start wearing NASCAR-style jackets depicting the logos of the corporations that 'sponsor' (read: bought) them.

Thomas actually wanted corporations to be able to buy political ads and not reveal that they're behind the political ads.

"Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

So this ruling does nothing to stop Fascism. It also does nothing prevent Soros from doing his thing or stop any of the radical right wing groups bent on destroying the country.

Also the ruling has no effect on your ability to make political fodder and not go to jail for it. As you wouldn't go to jail for it before or after the ruling.

Also big pharma and the lawyers are in with the reps.

I think you possibly have misunderstood this particular ruling.
 
I think it's funny that Democrats are bemoaning this so much since this also means that now the labor unions can spend even more money to prop up Democrats. So unless the Democrats don't accept the extra money from unions, they shouldn't bitch about GOP candidates taking more money from oil companies... you know, the whole "one standard is enough" thing.
 
One step closer to fascism and those more fervently opposed to the idea of fascism in America are applauding :rolleyes:
 
One step closer to fascism and those more fervently opposed to the idea of fascism in America are applauding :rolleyes:
Wow, why are you so afraid of freedom of speech? The private sector by its very nature has accountability and is made of citizens which they provide for. The private sector creates. (caveat: I'm not a fan of companies so large you cannot hold real people accountable.)

I don't think you folks really understand what is happening in the US, its the people, we want smaller gov't. That's OK, you just keep listening to Olbermann and Chris Mathews spreaking their special brand of insanity. (who BTW were allowed to broadcast their fear mongering crap under the media rules)

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Ben Franklin
The free world is a dangerous place, embrace that fact.

:swing:
 
'Donating' money is not Free Speech...especially when it goes into Senators coffers. Corporations are not individuals, though they are made up of individuals. If a person wants to support or damn a particular party - that's Free Speech. If a corporation attempts to speak on behalf of ALL of it's employees, it is denying their employees the right to free speech.

THe issue just got bundled "spun' into the free speech arena. This is about the control that corporations have on politics through their financial strength...and that is what fascism is all about.
 
'Donating' money is not Free Speech...especially when it goes into Senators coffers. Corporations are not individuals, though they are made up of individuals. If a person wants to support or damn a particular party - that's Free Speech. If a corporation attempts to speak on behalf of ALL of it's employees, it is denying their employees the right to free speech.

THe issue just got bundled "spun' into the free speech arena. This is about the control that corporations have on politics through their financial strength...and that is what fascism is all about.
Maybe your right, its worked out REALLY well for the already exempt unions hasn't it. I wonder if GM or AIG is going be contributing to a political party? As I said before, I am all for more accountability on humans in corporations, although that would require tort reform

Funny, my wife is a member of SEIU - TWICE! She for the most part disagrees with SIEU and how they spend her money. She has written them only to be ignored. She has asked to speak to Union meeting and has been denied. SEIU gave +$60million to Obama unfettered. SEUI National invaded the election in Mass when the local SEUI supported Brown. Seems the Unions are part of the problem too.

SCOTUS via cnet said:
The now-invalidated law "would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion (PDF). "The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.

<s>

Election law's double standard? The New York Times endorses political candidates (in 2008, it endorsed Barack Obama). So does the New York Post (it chose John McCain).

Those endorsements on the eve of a presidential election were permitted under U.S. election laws--even though both newspapers are owned by corporations with market capitalizations in the billions of dollars. But the tiny nonprofit called Citizens United, funded mostly by individual donations, was barred from sharing its own political views.

Cnet
If I want to make a sign to protest with, it cost money. If I want to travel somewhere to protest it cost money. If I want to make a video, it cost money.

I don't own this PC I type on, its owned by a corporation. My cameras, I don't really own them either, they are property of a corporation. So am I suppose to not use these items to say what I want to? Maybe if the private sector has some influence we may get to drill for our natural resources, create jobs and alienate our need to be in places like Iraq.

(As plus: The commie left flipped their lids, that in itself says something. I loved Olbermanns fear mongering meltdown)
 
I think it's funny that Democrats are bemoaning this so much since this also means that now the labor unions can spend even more money to prop up Democrats. So unless the Democrats don't accept the extra money from unions, they shouldn't bitch about GOP candidates taking more money from oil companies... you know, the whole "one standard is enough" thing.

I'm not interested in any special interests having this much power. I know plenty of Republicans that see this for what it is too. Not sure what you're saying here exactly.
 
Wow, why are you so afraid of freedom of speech?

This ruling has nothing wasn't about free speech. It's about corporate influence over the will of the people. Multinational corporations included.


The private sector by its very nature has accountability and is made of citizens which they provide for.

Not really, multinational corporations have accountability to their stockholders which may not even be made up of American citizens for the most part. They do what's in their best interest and We the People have little ability to compete with corporate interests now.

I don't think you folks really understand what is happening in the US, its the people, we want smaller gov't.

You don't seem to understand what is happening in America. We want less corporate influence over our government. We want all Americans to have access to healthcare, we want a public option. We want to end unnecessary wars.

You can keep listening to insane people like Beck and Limbaugh with their fear mongering.

The free world is a dangerous place, embrace that fact.

I do embrace that and would like to keep it free, instead of being run by corporations it should be run by the people.
 
If I want to make a sign to protest with, it cost money. If I want to travel somewhere to protest it cost money. If I want to make a video, it cost money.

Not sure what you're saying here. Before this ruling corporations can and did pay for signs, transportation, and video costs to push their agenda.

I don't own this PC I type on, its owned by a corporation. My cameras, I don't really own them either, they are property of a corporation.

That's strange. I own my own PC and cameras so i can't relate. It doesn't look like this ruling effects your situation at all though.

Maybe if the private sector has some influence we may get to drill for our natural resources, create jobs and alienate our need to be in places like Iraq.

The People should decide those things. Not the corporations.

(As plus: The commie left flipped their lids, that in itself says something. I loved Olbermanns fear mongering meltdown)

Is the fascist right praising this? That would be crazy, since this is bad for all the people.
 
The story in the original post had this line in it:

"Among political leaders, Democrats attacked the decision and Republicans praised it."

I was responding to that.

Then we certainly shouldn't re-elect any republican leaders that praised this. They are selling our country to the highest bidder.
 
Wow, why are you so afraid of freedom of speech? The private sector by its very nature has accountability and is made of citizens which they provide for. The private sector creates. (caveat: I'm not a fan of companies so large you cannot hold real people accountable.)

I don't think you folks really understand what is happening in the US, its the people, we want smaller gov't. That's OK, you just keep listening to Olbermann and Chris Mathews spreaking their special brand of insanity. (who BTW were allowed to broadcast their fear mongering crap under the media rules)
The "private sector" is interested in their personal well being, even at the expense of others' well being. This has been proven throughout history and was the cause of public outrage and the catalyst for government intervention and laws to protect the worker/citizen. Had they all acted in the nature of Ayn Rand's capitalists in either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged none of these laws would have been necessary and would never have been enacted.

I blame big corp for big government. Had they not shit on people (taken their land, their health, their money, their homes, their loved ones, etc.) no one would have put the laws in place to begin with.
The free world is a dangerous place, embrace that fact.

:swing:
If you truly believe this quote to be of value then you would be against the steps that Bush took to "secure" our nation from "terrorists" (iow, attacks on civil liberties and the basic rights and protections of all Americans from their government).
 
If you truly believe this quote to be of value then you would be against the steps that Bush took to "secure" our nation from "terrorists" (iow, attacks on civil liberties and the basic rights and protections of all Americans from their government).
I think every Amercian should have a side arm on their hip and rifle over their fire place. Castle law as defacto and public hangings in the town square.

I bet in three years time crime rates would be cut by at least 50%.
icon12.gif
 
The ruling was unfortunate in that I, as a citizen, can not give millions to a campaign to buy a politician like big corp and labor unions can. My interests will not be considered if this politician is elected.

On the other hand, people can still become suspicious if a candidate takes a large chunk of cash from a corp. Donations need to be transparent.
 
Back
Top