Court decision opens new avenues for corporate political spending

[Revmitchell]

The Supreme Court on Thursday opened wide new avenues for big-moneyed interests to pour money into politics in a decision that could have a major influence on the 2010 midterm elections and President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

The long-awaited decision overruled a 1990 ruling by the court that allowed the government to bar corporations from spending corporate funds on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat.

The decision, handed down in a special session of the court, was in a case brought by an obscure conservative group called Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission. The court also overruled part of a 2003 decision that upheld restrictions on independent corporate expenditures. But the decision upheld disclosure requirements for groups such as Citizens United.

Citizens United had alleged in its lawsuit that its free speech rights were violated when the FEC moved to block it from using corporate cash to promote and air "Hillary: The Movie," a feature-length film harshly critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton — and current secretary of state — during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The FEC asserted that the movie expressly opposed Clinton’s election and therefore was subject to campaign laws that bar the use of corporate cash to air election ads, and require donor disclosure. Citizens United disagreed and sued.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31786.html#ixzz0dGPOesRv

 

[Revmitchell]

Wow! And the libbies just keep losing more every day.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Wow! And the libbies just keep losing more every day.

Huh? How is this a left-right issue?

 

[Crabtownboy]

The conservative justices put the political desires of big corporations ahead of those of the American people. The GOP should be very happy. They love big business and continue to fool the average American that they have the people's needs at heart. How can top management speak for all their employees. How can a corporation, which is a fictional entity with a charter, have a political opinion?

 

[carpro]

This decision also reversed the misguided opinion on McCain - Feingold issued in 2003.

“This is a great day for the American people and free speech,” declared Cleta Mitchell, a top Republican election lawyer. She said that through the decision the court “has ripped the duct tape off the mouths of the American people.”


​

I agree.​

 

[Johnv]

The conservative justices put the political desires of big corporations ahead of those of the American people.[/QUOTE]
That would only be an accurate statement if the 1990 SCOTUS was more liberal leaning than the 2010 SCOTUS. I'm not familiar with the 1990 SCOTUS makeup. Perhaps someone can elaborate.

 

[Revmitchell]

Schumer calls for hearings on 'un-American' court decision

The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday striking down limits on corporate and union spending in elections is "un-American," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday.

Schumer, a top Senate Democrat who formerly ran their campaign committee, said he would hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.

"I think it's an un-American decision," Schumer said at a press conference Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today."

More Here

 

[Revmitchell]

Democrats plan bill to limit impact of campaign finance decision

Democratic leaders will push legislation to limit the impact of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on corporate spending in politics.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Senate Rules Committee and third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, said he would hold hearings to explore ways to limit corporate spending on elections.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down major provisions of campaign finance reform Thursday, clearing the way for an influx of corporate and union money in politics.

The decision will be crucial in the 2010 elections, when many House and Senate seats will be in play.

Schumer said the plan is to pass legislation by Election Day.

"The bottom line is this: The Supreme Court has just pre-determined the winners of next November's elections," Schumer said. "It won't be Republicans, it won't be Democrats, it will be corporate America."

More Here

 

[Andy T.]

I saw Keith Olbermann rant on this for about 5 minutes - he compared it to the Dred Scott case and predicted that it would be the death knell of the USA and that within 10 years every politician would be corporate-bought. It was the looniest, most hate-filled rant I've ever seen on TV. He spewed his hate on everyone from Sarah Palin to Evangelicals to "tea-baggers," and of course, the ever-vague "Corporate America."

I know some of the conservative TV and radio personalties can come across as hateful at times, but no one tops this guy.

 

[targus]

How can top management speak for all their employees. How can a corporation, which is a fictional entity with a charter, have a political opinion?

The same questions could apply to unions which take dues from members and spend it for political purposes without consulting their members.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The same questions could apply to unions which take dues from members and spend it for political purposes without consulting their members.

I agree and I believe union donations should also be restricted. With the decision the court has made the average person relatively unimportant in campaigns. Individuals simply cannot compete with big money donations that will come from industry, unions and other such groups. We are moving away from a government of the people, by the people, for the people toward a government of of big money, by big money and for big money.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

This was a good decision, constitutionally sound.

This is where G.W.Bush did a good job, on the justice replacements pushed thru on his watch.

 

[targus]

I agree and I believe union donations should also be restricted. With the decision the court has made the average person relatively unimportant in campaigns. Individuals simply cannot compete with big money donations that will come from industry, unions and other such groups. We are moving away from a government of the people, by the people, for the people toward a government of of big money, by big money and for big money.

How about the 527's - most of which support democrats and many of which are funded by George Soros.

And while we are at it - what about newspapers and television networks?

Oh yes, let's not forget radio networks.

And professional associations like the American Medical Association.

How about the trial lawyers?

Is there any one else that we should bar from free expression while we are at it?

 

[carpro]

Soros will now have to be open about how much he spends and where.

Can't hide behind 527s anymore.

This may put MoveOn out of business.

 

[Crabtownboy]

How about the 527's - most of which support democrats and many of which are funded by George Soros.

And while we are at it - what about newspapers and television networks?

Oh yes, let's not forget radio networks.

And professional associations like the American Medical Association.

How about the trial lawyers?

Is there any one else that we should bar from free expression while we are at it?

All of them should be restricted. Donations should come only from individuals not institutions, special interest groups, union, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This was a good decision, constitutionally sound.

This is where G.W.Bush did a good job, on the justice replacements pushed thru on his watch.

Very liberal interpretation of the Constitution.

I though Conservatives did not like activitist judges. This court of conservatives have been very activitist.

 

[Steven2006]

All of them should be restricted. Donations should come only from people not institutions, special interest groups, union, etc., etc., etc.

It should be all or none are allowed, I will give you that. But then how do you factor in things like Al Gore's, or Michael Moore's movies? Which are basically propaganda? Where does the court draw the line? It is not any easy answer, hence allow everything.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It should be all or none are allowed, I will give you that. But then how do you factor in things like Al Gore's, or Michael Moore's movies? Which are basically propaganda? Where does the court draw the line? It is not any easy answer, hence allow everything.

That, to me, this is a different question as it is not a contribution of money to a campaign. I am not sure how these can be restricted. This could be an interesting discussion. I have a difficult time seeing how not being allowed to contribute money is a violation of a corporation, union, etc. free speech. To me contributing money is not speech and does not fall under free speech.

Another is what about blatant political lies? What should be done when they are discovered? The Internet has fostered such lies. You know regardless of how outlandish a statement or accusation is when it is made there is a certain percentage of people who will believe it. This might be a good topic for a new thread.

 

[Steven2006]

That, to me, is a different question as it is not a contribution of money to a campaign. I am not sure how these can be restricted. This could be an interesting discussion.
]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe this ruling changed restriction of money to the campaign, but rather lets corporations now spend however much they want in supporting a candidate. In other words they still can't donate unlimited amounts directly to the candidate, but now can spend as much as they wanted running ad's supporting or attacking candidates.

That is why I think the analogy with the movies is a good one.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Very liberal interpretation of the Constitution.

I though Conservatives did not like activitist judges. This court of conservatives have been very activitist.

I don't like activist courts, and that's precisely why I applaud the overturning of McCain Feingold. And you'll have to point out the "liberalness" of my opinion. I don't see campaign finance addressed, in the constitution. I do see a freedom of speech.