Obama blasts Supreme Court
President Obama has already made it known that he strongly opposes the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision that allows corporations to spend money on campaigns. Last night during his State of the Union address, he hammered the court again for its decision, with six of the nine justices sitting within spitting distance.
Here’s what the president said:
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
Justice Sam Alito, who was part of the majority ruling in the decision, shook his head and mouthed, “That’s not true,” when Obama stated that it would allow spending by foreign entities.
Foreign corporations are still forbidden by law not just from contributing to campaigns but also from spending any money on behalf of campaigns, and the majority’s opinion in this case specifically did not overturn that law.
The presidential scolding of the high court is almost without precedent (coupled with his call for Congress to overturn the court’s ruling). While he made his point, it may not serve members of his party well in the next election. Democrats surrounding the justices in the House chamber stood and applauded – Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY even leaned closer to the justices to clap – video that Republicans can play on campaign ads for the next Democratic candidate who accepts any donation or support from a corporate interest. And they all do.













Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top199 Comments to “Obama blasts Supreme Court”
I understand the concern about international companies with non-US voter stockholders. But if I accepted donations from the XYZ Global corporation AND I was required to give full disclosure, would not my primary or general election opponents have a ready made issue to use against me? Tool of overseas interests etc? I think so. I would hope so.
There are several states which do not restrict campaign donations. They are actually functioning accountable democracies believe it or not.
What SCOTUS put an end to was an odious law that BANNED the very speech the 1st Amendmt was intended to PROTECT: that would be “political speech” in the most pivotal critical weeks just prior to either a primary or general election. For that reason alone I do beleive McCain-Feingold as implemented constituted a literal Incumbency Protection Act.
The best reform would be the simplest: immediate full disclosure via website of who gave how much to whom, and Term Limits imposed to prevent the USA from becoming even more of an Incumbentstan.
Report comment to moderator
The President and his liberal friends have once again declared war on free speech. This arrogant, narcissistic yahoo needs to be gone after one term.
Report comment to moderator
Like so many Democrats, BHO and Schumer are more like thin-skinned bullies wth a chip on their shoulders. The President must really think everyone is stupid enough to believe his version of the ruling.
Report comment to moderator
It would be very easy for a group of foriegners to form a Delaware corporation and pump billions of dollars into it in order to influence American elections. So Alito and friends are full of malarkey.
Why this is so hard for Republicans (and the SCOTUS) to understand is beyond me. How can they not see the potential consequenses of this? China already owns trillions of dollars worth of US debt. Now they’ll be able to run unlimited ads influencing who gets elected.
I hope you all like rice.
Report comment to moderator
I expect he wouldn’t want restrictions on union contributions.
Report comment to moderator
Nana – then there are a lot of stupid people out there starting with Chuckie Schumer.
Report comment to moderator
Irrespective of the merits of the argument pro or con, calling out anyone present in the chamber during a speech marks a new all time low.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas: I am with you. This ruling is the worst thing to happen to our democracy in a long time, and the Republicans are giddy with excitement over it. They claim to be for the “real Americans,” but here they are acting like kids on Christmas over a ruling that is going to effectively silence the real Americans.
It is bizarre. The whole world appears to have gone insane.
Report comment to moderator
Red meat for the base I suppose. Didn’t fly with the reality based viewers though, Alito included. And that’s exactly what the R’s should do, use it as a club for a game of “Whacka Dem” come election time.
This speech was so bad that even the AP has fact checked it. And as usual, Obama is found lacking when it comes to the facts.
http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/fact-check-obama-and-a-toothless-commission-198652.html
“OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have “outsized influence” over the government. He said his administration has “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.” He also said it’s time to “require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress” and “to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”
THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn’t absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that’s unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they’re limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.”
There’s reality, and then there’s Obamaland. Reality has facts and truth, Obamaland not so much.
Report comment to moderator
And when you point that out to them, that the infusion of massive amounts of corporate money will drown out every smaller voice, they dodge the question and accuse you of hating corporations or being opposed to free speech.
I think maybe they have all been replaced by lookalike pod people from space.
Report comment to moderator
Sponsoring a campaign ad to influence voters is much more transparent than hiring a lobbyist to influence politicians. BHO should, and probably does, know this. He’s just using scare tactics to limit our ability to hear diverse ideas.
Report comment to moderator
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
—
what he was realy saying is oh no my union buddies, the baby killing compaines, the GLBT Community, moveon.org and other far left group will no longer by the only people running ad’s.
As for foreign entities – Well China and Bill Clinton, China and Al Gore.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas says,
“It would be very easy for a group of foriegners to form a Delaware corporation and pump billions of dollars into it in order to influence American elections. So Alito and friends are full of malarkey.”
And yet you had no problem with it when it was Obama recieving questionable donations from foriegn sources, including Gaza.
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/25/call-for-an-audit-of-obamas-campaign-finances/
“Back when Obama was running for President, I broke a number of campaign donation stories that should have blown the race wide open. The Obama campaign committed the most egregious violations of election contribution laws, and they were dismissed with a wave of the hand. Millions came in from foreign countries — which is illegal: the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.”
I broke the jaw-dropping story about how tens of thousands of dollars came in to the Obama campaign from a Hamas-controlled camp in Gaza. Al-Jazeera actually ran video of Obama phone banks in Gaza. One large contributor to the Obama campaign was Monir Edwan, who was listed on FEC documents as contributing to Obama from the city of Rafah in the state “GA.” If you were reading quickly, you might have thought it was just a contribution from Georgia. But there is no city of Rafah in the Peach State. Monir Edwan sent money to Obama from Rafah, Gaza.”
“Gaza was not alone. The contributions came from over 50 nations. And many seemed intent on skirting campaign finance laws: Obama’s foreign contributors were making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances — but others were aggregating in excess of the maximums when their contributions were all added up. Other donations came in from donors with names such as “Hbkjb,” “jkbkj,” and “Doodad.” Also, thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents. This was evidence of foreign contributors sending in donations in foreign currencies that exchanged into odd amounts. Americans living overseas would almost uniformly be able to contribute dollars, in set amounts.
The Obama campaign received a substantial amount of money from countries that have an interest in seeing a weak American President: $366,708.22 from China; $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates; $7,062.60 from Russia; and $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia. Obama also took in $6,350.00 from Indonesia; $5,000.00 from Kenya; and $1,750.00 from Egypt.
The FEC alleges that Obama also illegally took donations from Tamil Tiger leaders. The Tamil Tigers are, according to the FBI, the most successful terrorist group in the world. While the Hillary Clinton returned contributions from the Tamil Tigers, Obama kept them.”
So it’s OK when your Obama does it, but suddenly you and Steve have developed a distaste for it. Have you changed your minds? Or are you just hypocrites?
Report comment to moderator
#4 – “It would be very easy for a group of foriegners to form a Delaware corporation and pump billions of dollars into it in order to influence American elections. So Alito and friends are full of malarkey.”
Free Speech as affimred in the First Amendment is not “malarky,” though it has long been thought so by totalitarians and other leftists. Isn’t this ksort of thing what people (foreign and domestic) like George Soros have been doing for the neo-Marxist left in America for years in various legally manipulative ways?
The media and others can trace these things–they just don’t want to do it when the left is guilty of this sort of thing. If anyone on the right does it, it will be traced and identified many times over. Unlike the left, the right is held strictly accountable by the media.
This ruling, like ALL rulings, will not finally ban all possible speech and financing abuses for political gain to the end of time. All the old laws did NOT fix anything either. But this ruling DOES even the playing field and reflect the Bill of Rights more justly than before.
Free speech (and the First Amendment) is a policy that does NOT ensure that there will never be any offensive or politicized speech. Never has, never will. But it is what American’s believe in and what the Bill of Rights affirms. The only solution is for citizens to educate themselves and not be easily manipulated. NO LAW and NO REPEAL of any law can do that for us if we don’t do it for ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
Roy, you forgot George Soros.
Report comment to moderator
AJ, do you really want to go down that road? Do you know who Bush took money from?
If the FEC can prove its claims, by all means, let them and let the lid be blown off, and I don’t care who gets burned by it, Obama included.
It’s not a partisan issue, and the SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with it. The SCOTUS ruling is bad law, and when it backfires on you – and when social policy that’s good for business but bad for religious conservatives gets passed as a result – blame yourselves and your SCOTUS pals.
Report comment to moderator
#7 SAWGUNNER – I would agree, sort of like the “You lie” shout out of last year. One difference, Obama will get away with it.
Report comment to moderator
Chas it seems that it is ok for Dem Special Interest Groups to spend as much money as they want. But it is wrong for Rep Special Interest Groups to spend as much money as they want.
It is ok for ACORN to tell people how to vote. It is ok for Jesse Jackson to go into Churches an tell people how to vote. It is ok for the Dem Party to talk about the elections from Churches Pulpits.
But it is Wrong for Christian to stand up an speak out against moral issues.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, your brain seems to be forgetting that it’s somewhat harder to influence millions of voters than one congressman. The lefties are really protesting too much and denying a plain reading of the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, the Democrats have so many tangled financial connections with the ChiComs (Chinese Communists) – going back to Bill and Hillary Clinton, that the pretended angst by Steveg and Thomas1 about ‘Chinese’ influence in elections is laughable.
The Chicoms OWN Obama and the Democrats.
They also pull the strings of establishment Republicans as well.
Regarding ChiComs and the Obama administration/Democrats – the Obama administration recently (last couple of weeks) DEPRIORITIZED China from Priority 1 to Priority 2 in terms of intelligence gathering and focus. This was done unilaterally AGAINST the recommendations of the security services. This effectively means that emphasis is being taking OFF China even as it ramps its intelligence operations way up against us.
I am not 100% sure that we don’t actually have a real life ChiCom Manchurian Candidate in the White House – he was, after all, awfully fond of Mao and Stalin not so very long ago, before he was appointed to run for President by the Machine.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps you could enlighten me Thomas. While I’m not aware of all of Bush’s contributers, I’m pretty sure that none of it came from known terrorists groups, as Obama’s did. Hillary returned it, Obama didn’t. As Roy said above, you guys are just mad that you guys now have to play on a level playing field. That’s the part you hate huh?
Report comment to moderator
Nana, your brain seems to be forgetting what a good propaganda campaign can do.
Report comment to moderator
Uh oh, AJ:
More than 90 percent of companies in the Fortune 500 now ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Some 449 of the Fortune 500 offer health and other benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. That’s up from just 28 a decade ago.
Most corporate health plans cover abortion on demand as a D&C.
Hmm. Unintended consequenses may occur.
Report comment to moderator
I’m only a measly independent, but I, too, see reason to be concerned. The bill was in place for 100 years, I don’t think anyone alive has any knowledge of what it might portend from a practical point of view. Anyone know why it was put into place to begin with?
There already is SO much money in politics, that it’s reprehensible. Will this make a difference? I have no idea. But I’m suspicious of George Soros and his ilk, along with others from the other side of the political aisle. Let’s not dance too soon.
Report comment to moderator
Folks, it is all about Power and Control. Obama and his people will fight against anyone that threaten their power and control. An that is how they see this ruling as a threat to Unions, the baby killing companies, GLBT Community, moveon.org, George Soros etc. Which are the ones who fund Obama and his people Power and Control.
Report comment to moderator
Folks, it is all about Power and Control. Obama and his people will fight against anyone that threaten their power and control. An that is how they see this ruling as a threat to Unions, the baby killing companies, GLBT Community, moveon.org, George Soros etc. Which are the ones who fund Obama and his people Power and Control.
Report comment to moderator
He ought to know better than anyone.
He just doesn’t want anyone ELSE to have access to the kinds of monies he has.
The Asians have been supporting the Dems for years.
Report comment to moderator
“This effectively means that emphasis is being taking OFF China even as it ramps its intelligence operations way up against us.”
If that’s true, then that is pretty bad, considering China has one of the biggest most devoted hacker warfare agencies (for lack of a better term) around.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Re: Deprioritization of China Intelligence-gathering
You can see it here:
http://www.defensestudies.org/?p=1518#more-1518
the title of the article is a bit misleading – the Obama admin. did de-prioritize China intelligence-gathering; the commentator is arguing that this was a mistake and that China should STILL be priority one, hence the title.
This is going largely unreported in the Leftist Machine Media.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL 20
I just read your entry about the Chinese.
And as anyone knows the SUPREMES wouldn’t do anything that was BAD for the Dems.
The DEMS are just yelling so people THINK they are upset about it.
Report comment to moderator
Real American are just going to have to learn not to be influenced by stupid flashy ads.
Report comment to moderator
BHO needs to be a man and accept that his ideas are not working. It is wearisome to continue to blame Bush, but what do you want to bet when he runs in 2012 and things are still in the sewer he will continue to blame Bush. Real leadership accepts the mantle of responsibility but this poor excuse for a leader accepts only accolades from his partisan followers and his own self praise. Somewhere in Kenya a village has lost its idiot – we know where he is; his address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL
What do you think of GOOOH?
Report comment to moderator
You all (Thomas and Michelle excepted) have lost your collective minds.
Joel Mark: “Even the playing field?” By allowing corporations with billions of dollars to drown out every voice that doesn’t have billions of dollars? How does that even the playing field?
You are all stark raving mad on this issue. I don’t know what else to say about it.
Report comment to moderator
Drunk on the thought of all that campaign cash being loosed into the system. Absinthe I fear.
Report comment to moderator
Obama basically said (my paraphrase): “With all due deference to separation of powers, I would now like to display absolutely no respect or deference to that principle and you all have to sit there and listen.”
Ourt speech-maker-in-chief is by far the most high-handed long-winded lecturer to have ever given a state of the union speech.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G – the instant that pro-gay or pro-abortion candidates start getting elected (and legislating!) as a result of well-funded corporate ad campaigns, this thread will go straight down the memory hole.
Thank God for screencaps and tinyurl.com!
Report comment to moderator
This thread, in my view, reveals how much leftists hate freedom.
Report comment to moderator
I have never seen such egregious public disrespect from a President. As is the case with hard-line leftists, they cannot disagree honorably with others. As has been stated, the ruling specifically dealt with this matterand the President was wrong.
Report comment to moderator
#31 Real American are just going to have to learn not to be influenced by stupid flashy ads.
We can always hope. I think TV is becoming less influential anyway. Many younger voters are watching less TV and getting more of their news online.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 01.28.10 AT 10:59 AM
Steve G – the instant that pro-gay or pro-abortion candidates start getting elected (and legislating!) as a result of well-funded corporate ad campaigns, this thread will go straight down the memory hole.
Thank God for screencaps and tinyurl.com!
–
you mean like how Obama got elected?
Report comment to moderator
Newstome: I do not know much about GOOOH.
A third party is interesting, but I am intrigued that there is a quiet and largely unreported movement emanating out of the Tea Party/True Libertarian crowd (I have some connections there) to take back the Republican Party from the old-guard Establishment Republicans by infiltrating the Party from the ground up, through local party offices; ultimately such people drive the agenda. It may take too much time, however.
A third party would represent a clean break but would possibly hand off control for too long to the radical internationalist/globalist/Socialist far Left-wing fringe that controls the Democrat Party, by splitting/diluting the American vote for a while as things are sorted out.
The question is which is better – and faster: a clean break Third Party or an attempt to throw out the Quislings and self-serving politicos that are now too powerful in the leadership of the Republican Party?
Report comment to moderator
If we do not have freedom, then it doesn’t matter what other laws we do or do not have. The Supreme Court has restored a certain level of freedom with their ruling.
The liberals do not like it, because it prevents them from controlling outcomes. For them equality means equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity.
Report comment to moderator
As usual, the left is not interested in the truth.
Thank God He save that honorable court and free speech.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have a problem with a third party involved in Congressional elections. That would be fine. But Drill is right that we’re kinda sorta stuck with the Republicans for the big one.
Report comment to moderator
Free speech restrictions are unfair to someone or group by definition. Better to reduce free speech limitations but require full disclosure. But this will make little difference to me. I’m a channel changer.
Report comment to moderator
In this case many think that SCOTUS has discarded 100 years of their own precedent and our legislature. The legislature doesn’t get a free pass from criticism, nor does the presidenc—and neither should SCOTUS. Respectful disagreement is certainly acceptable. Obama obviously sees this ruling as egregious, and did nothing wrong by addressing it in his SotU speech.
Report comment to moderator
oops, should be ‘disrespected our legislature’
Report comment to moderator
When someone can give me a cogent explanation of how allowing corporations to drown out the voice of the people is in anyway good for freedom, I’ll change my position.
Until then, I think you either want a corporate takeover of America, or are so giddy to see what you think is defeat for liberals that you haven’t figured out that’s what is now poised to happen.
So far, all I’ve seen is people unable to give a good explanation and resorting to ad hominem attacks in place of an actual substantive argument.
Report comment to moderator
The part of Obama’s speech I heard sounded like a Massachusetts shake up speech.
He was speaking of things Dems don’t promise. It sounded like he was running for the re-election of all his Dem. House Reps. for Nov. and any other Dem. up for re-election this year.
REMEMBER Yoda’s saying, “Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.”
Report comment to moderator
DJ, I don’t know what you’re referring to by “100 years of their own precedent.”
Report comment to moderator
EMILY BELZ . . and the majority’s opinion in this case specifically did not overturn that law.
According the the dissenting opinion, the majority opinion was so broad that it does overturn such restrictions. When a president adopts the criticism of four justices in urging a Congressional response, it’s wrong to attack the president’s truthfulness.
Republicans can’t tolerate disagreement without attacking the truthfulness of the speaker.
Report comment to moderator
It will be interesting to see where and how much corporate money flows in the next election. Given that incumbents usually have an advantage and party loyalty is minimal, my guess is corporate money will go to the incumbent Democratic or Republican. This may resulting in some bizarre convoluted changes in argument here.
The Republican party is already a contradictory mix of social conservatives and economic liberals (traditional sense) that greater corporate influence may distort and upset the delicate balance that now exist. Corporate money will favor economic Republicans over social Republicans and as the cited Fortune 500 survey points out corporate America does not have the same values as social conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
“When someone can give me a cogent explanation of how allowing corporations to drown out the voice of the people is in anyway good for freedom, I’ll change my position.”
Corporations are paying taxes twice over, if they are going to be taxed they might as well be allowed representation.
As in, they should be able to support who they want to. Especially if we are already doing so with special interest groups…or lobbyist.
Regardless of what the fears may be, the court doesnt rule on what the fears are…they rule on the basis of constitutional law for better or worse.
Report comment to moderator
Free speech is free speech. It’s rediculous to say you lose the right to speak about elections if you are in some way connected to a corporation. Currently, some corporations get exemptions (media corporations) – but why should they? Isn’t it just as easy for a newspaper to be bankrolled by foreign interests as any other corporation?
In the end, it comes down to being able to practice both freedom of association and freedom of speech. The law forces you to choose one or the other – corporations are nothing more than groups of people.
This was a law to protect politicians in office by silencing dissent. It appeals to this irrational fear of faceless soulless corporations to do this, but in the end that is what it is. It absolutely was unconstitutional and could be used to silence any group of people who the government didn’t want to speak out.
Report comment to moderator
Rooseveldt tried to “pack” the Supreme Court. Will Obama try something similar? Very, very strange.
Report comment to moderator
Currently, individuals (Read “George Soros”) can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. But no group could get together to counter that without being limited by this law. So, finally this is a way to let individuals group together to counter the uber-rich by their sheer numbers. Get together and do something.
Corporations generally won’t spend billions on elections – it’s bad for business. This just allows people to get together to reach people more effectively without the govt shutting them down.
Report comment to moderator
HRW – I agree – corporate America isn’t the same as social conservatives often. But that doesn’t matter to me – this is a matter of the foundational right to free speech. You don’t give that up when you join together with other persons (that is what corporations are here – just groups of people).
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer/Drill
Who do we have to check Republicans out and make sure they aren’t RINOs?
Do we vote all Reps and hope for the best?
If Obama stacks the cards with DEMS on one side and RINOs on the other, it’s a win win for him.
They don’t have to be Christians. Just give us someone with a big pair of scissors to cut the purse strings from those who have SPEND FEVER! They are like a bunch of spend-aholics!
Report comment to moderator
Why can’t we GET RID of LOBBYISTS?
In Alaska the “gov’t” pays the lobbyists.
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
Report comment to moderator
Citizens United, the court’s flower of fascism, fully justifies the trouble that Benito Mussolini personally expended to guarantee that the Siena quarries that provided the Montarrenti marble for the court’s 24 columns sent nothing inferior to the official sample.
Report comment to moderator
#51 Nana,
I think they’re referring to the dissenting opinion in which Justice Stevens says:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
Report comment to moderator
oop, too much bold, sorry
Report comment to moderator
EMiLY BELZ . . with six of the nine justices sitting within spitting distance.
Do you spit that far, Emily? The record for cherry pits (slippery when first denuded in the mouth) is 95 feet. Africans spit kudu dung half as far. But I doubt any of the Justices thought Obama could hawk spit far enough to hit them.
Report comment to moderator
THORN: Corporations are paying taxes twice over . .
False.
Report comment to moderator
Back to the speech, I have to say that it was just a strangely unsettling moment. … I may be wrong (who can really predict the every-changing political winds), but my prediction is three more years.
Report comment to moderator
#37 – “The instant that pro-gay or pro-abortion candidates start getting elected (and legislating!) as a result of well-funded corporate ad campaigns, this thread will go straight down the memory hole.”
Por-abortion and homosexual agendized candidates are already being elected by virtue of the mainstream media serving as the operative center of Democrat campaigns, free of charge. And tons of money from leftists is already exerting its powerful influence. The only way to oppose this is with more FREEDOM of speech for all sides.
BTW, why are those on the hard left often so obsessed with abortion and homosexuality? The right has a far bigger vision for a free people with deeper and stronger underpinning for moral decency (far deeper foundations than anything gov’t can ever offer).
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark #67:
“BTW, why are those on the hard left often so obsessed with abortion and homosexuality?”
Joel Mark, personally, I have noticed that these are hot button topics in just about any Christian venue (not necessarily just those of the “left”).
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy:
what he was realy saying is oh no my union buddies, the baby killing compaines, the GLBT Community, moveon.org and other far left group will no longer by the only people running ad’s.
I know that in your own mind the three minuscule groups you mention are evil behemoths.
But collectively they have a budget far less than just one Fortune 500 company.
And it is money that matters in politics. And any and all of the vast resources of any of those corporations (including “American” susidiaries of foreign corps) are now free to spend as much as they want to purchase political compliance.
If you honestly think this is good for America, good for democracy, then I find that very sad. If you really think that corporations, which by definition have no morality and no conscience, should have such massive influence over our policies; that they should wind up determing who eats and who does not, who lives and who dies, then I think you have forfeited a goodly piece of your humanity.
And if you think that these massive amoral organizations truly support your ‘Christian’ values over their own profitability, and won’t turn on you in a moment when it seems more profitable to do so, then you are also doing your faith a great disservice.
Report comment to moderator
That’s the strangest “due deference to separation of powers” that I’ve ever seen. I felt sorry for the Justices. The Audacity of Power is going too far…
Report comment to moderator
“If you really think that corporations, which by definition have no morality and no conscience,”
What dictionary lists that as the definition of a corporation? Corporation is one method where groups of people coordinate their efforts for to engage in some activity. Others are limited liability partnerships, and associations. Sole proprietorships create a business entity separate from the human person who owns it. Why should corporations be singled out from participating in the democratic process while these others aren’t?
The corporation, like its counterparts, is an association of people and draws its morality and conscience from its individual members. Those individual members do not cede their freedom of speech by participating in a larger group to amplify it.
The unhinged corporate bashing Arcadia stoops to is the same overripe rhetoric Obama is guilty of in his dishonest swipe at the Supreme Court.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, what Leftists like Arcadia don’t want you to think about is that the biggest corporation of all is the State, which also owns most of the tanks, guns, airplanes, anti-riot gear, etc.
Statists like Arcadia are actually proponents of Extreme Mega-Monopolistic Capitalism – they just want all power (economic, legal, life-and-death, etc.) to reside in the Great Corporation (Plantation) called the State, controlled by and for a very elite Board.
Report comment to moderator
Ken: What is the “mission statement” of GM? What is the objective?
Drill: At least in theory, citizens can control the state. Let me hear how you would propose that citizens have any significant effect upon Goldman, Sachs.
Of course, in order to exercise their rights to control the state, citizens must have access to honest information. If you really believe that allowing corps to dominate political campaigns will help that process out, you are deluded.
Report comment to moderator
SEANMT, The assertion that corporations are “just groups of people”, as if management will represents the interests and goals of their employees, is ludicrous. I doubt we would have seen so much outsourcing of jobs in this country if that where true. Corporations always want to keep labor prices down. That means paying their employees as little as possible, and providing the fewest benefits possible.
Why would anyone in their right mind support granting more political power to these non-citizens so they can fight to make it easier to ship jobs overseas, pollute more freely, create regulatory hurdles to act as barriers to competition, and shift the burden of taxes from their profits and dividends to middle class income.
The only way the conservative position makes any sense to me is if this is really about conservative social positions. I believe conservatives must at some level recognize the truly harmful effects this ruling will have, but knowing it will help Republicans more than Democrats, accept the inevitable loss of liberty and prosperity in order to elect more Republicans in the hopes of outlawing abortion and gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
#72
Statists like Arcadia
Is this a personal attack? Should I submit a complaint? What is a “statist”?
Report comment to moderator
We will build a chicken coop. We shopped for supplies today.
Should I try to convert the chickens to believe in God. I doubt that they would pay much attention if I preach to them.
Report comment to moderator
Sean: Free speech is free speech. It’s rediculous to say you lose the right to speak about elections if you are in some way connected to a corporation.
Then it’s a good thing nobody’s saying that.
Now, want to comment on what’s actually going on?
Report comment to moderator
#36 Those individual members do not cede their freedom of speech by participating in a larger group to amplify it.
Ken,
The purpose of a for-profit corporation is largely to protect its members from the consequences of possible failure, not to amplify their voices during an election in which the corporate entity has no standing. Even if you are the sole owner of a corporation, it’s assets do not really long to you personally until they are dispersed to you, just as it’s debts do not belong to you personally. So restricting corporate involvement in elections can hardly be said to be restricting your personal involvement.
Although I am unfamiliar with exactly how PACs are organized, it would seem that they would provide a better vehicle to appropriately “amplify” a citizen’s voice, since all members would be united in what that message should be.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia says “At least in theory, citizens can control the state.”
Right.
Tell that to the peasants in the Soviet Union in 1930. Or 1980.
Tell that to the people in the Gulag then as well.
Tell that to the Chinese under Mao in 1960. Or under the Fascist regime called the PRC now.
Tell that to the people in Venezuela today.
Tell that to the slaves working in the quarries in ancient Imperial Rome.
Tell that to the people in Cuba.
Tell that to the people in North Korea.
Need I go on?
And on?
And on?
Report comment to moderator
You can always tell who has a losing argument when it comes to this issue. TheY scream “You hate Fuh-REEEEEEEEDOM!!!”
Ahem. Allowing corporate interests to give candidates free advertising in exchange for future legislation is NOT freedom. Or at least, it won’t seem like freedom when your neighborhood is plastered with fliers, your airwaves are choked with political advertising, every newspaper has ads disguised as editorials… all for a candidate you don’t like who supports legislation with which you disagree.
Such a candidate will likely be a liberal Democrat. And I guess that will be doubleplus freedom.
Report comment to moderator
Such a candidate will likely be a liberal Democrat. And I guess that will be doubleplus freedom.
I don’t think so. It will be a Republicrat and embody the most noxious elements of both. That’s what happens when obscene quantities of cash are given to BOTH parties at the same time. At least that’s my prediction.
Report comment to moderator
DJ, sadly, you may be doubleplus correct.
Report comment to moderator
Orin Kerr • January 27, 2010 11:19 pm
President Obama criticizes the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance case, and the Justices have to sit there silently and motionless with the cameras focused in directly on them while the rest of the room applauds Obama’s criticism:
Justice Alito has the very human reaction of mouthing disagreement, but I tend to think the episode shows the wisdom of Justice Harlan’s view that the Justices shouldn’t attend the State of the Union address at all. It will be interesting to see how many Justices attend next year. (As I re-watch the clip, I image a collective bubble over the Justices at about the 25-second mark, representing their thoughts, with the text, “We are so not coming to this next year.”)
http://volokh.com/#blogroll
Can we all imagine what will happen IF only 2 or three of the Supremes show up at Obama’s speech next January?
Report comment to moderator
Sam Alito, in saying “that’s not true” is commenting on Obama’s mischaracterization of the Citizens United opinion.
The only people upset about this opinion are the ones who want to control speech, but they can’t admit it. They run up and down the street upset with the majority and it is quite funny to watch the scurrying. Our media doesn’t do its job, it doesn’t tell the truth. This levels that playing field. They’ll have to do their job now. Good. At least what the corporations do will be out in the open, not so with the lobbyists, another group the Supremes should bring into the light.
And yeah, it IS about freedom of speech. And now everybody can do it.
Report comment to moderator
If there’s no law requiring them to attend, they can stay away if they wish. It would be a statement. But not a statement of judicial neutrality I think. It would certainly undermine the appearance of judicial neutrality. We don’t seem to care much about the appearance anyway though. Sometimes I wonder if we really care about the neutrality either.
Report comment to moderator
Every person always could, NJL. Now non-person, non-citizens can too. YEEEEEAAAAH! I think I’ll learn Mandarin.
Report comment to moderator
Not all of them go to the State of the Union.
Report comment to moderator
Have you actually read that opinion, DJ? or are you like Obama? He didn’t get the holding right, and neither do the rest of you guys.
Not to mention the fact that what you’re really saying is that the American people can’t listen to both sides of an argument and make up their own minds.
This has nothing to do with foreign corporations, and that’s what Alito was responding to.
Believe what you want.
Report comment to moderator
I thought that the State of the Union address was supposed to be a speech about the *state* of the union; in other words, a status report. When did it turn into a platform for agendas, criticism, and campaigning? Perhaps the current resident wasn’t the first to take it down this path, but he sure did turn it into an art.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1: “Why this is so hard for Republicans (and the SCOTUS) to understand is beyond me.”
Of course it’s beyond you. As well as a million other things most people get at a minor cognitive level.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: “I think maybe they have all been replaced by lookalike pod people from space.”
Yes it’s nice to have a leftard from planet Barry as our source of information on who’s out of it. Like Dr. House would say, if it isn’t the pot calling the kettle a pot.
Report comment to moderator
Not to mention the fact that what you’re really saying is that the American people can’t listen to both sides of an argument and make up their own minds.
No they can’t, not if one side has nearly infinite financial resources to get the message out and the other side does not.
You are ok with this. You’re terrified of the prospect of ordinary Americans being able to take charge of the country, and you’d much rather have Pfizer, Exxon and Citibank running the show.
(Hey, as long as we’re assigning base motives to other people, I might as well get in on it.)
Report comment to moderator
FYNE JR.: Argue the topic, not the person.
Report comment to moderator
The President appears to have spoken without reading the opinion.
Besides, the Court reached the right conclusion. Any limits on speech should be based on the content of the speech and not on the identity of the speaker. As long as organizations’ speech does not become libelous and/or slanderous, I see no reason to limit it.
Report comment to moderator
By the reaction, you would think that the Supreme Court ruling said that corporations can kidnap people and force them to vote a certain way at gunpoint. People can still vote any way that they want.
And if politicians are that easily influenced by money, then we should be angry with them for doing so. It is their job to represent us and to govern according to our best interests. If they do not do so, then we voters should hold them accountable.
I resist the notion that money is all that matters in an election. Otherwise we would have been choosing between John Edwards and MItt Romney.
Report comment to moderator
Just watched the excerpt. What comes to mind is the pettiness of using that particular time and place to put the Justices on the spot like that when they obviously had no way to respond; seemed like bullying in a way, the tactics of a Chicago street thug. It’s part of what has widely been commented on as the decline in civility of public discourse. Really sad to see the POTUS do that; it demenas the office and assaults judicial independence. His “with all due deference” qualifier was a joke.
Report comment to moderator
The response to anybody calling anybody else a pod person is exactly in kind.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A wrote: “The liberals do not like it, because it prevents them from controlling outcomes.”
Well said.
Plus, Obama was categorically wrong to claim that the Supreme Court reversed a century of law with regard to foreign influence and entities.
Report comment to moderator
What about BHO’s statement that he’s going to double our exports? That was a preposterous statement!!
Also, I submit that what BHO said to the Supreme Court Justices was one of the worst things that I have ever seen a president do -and that from a man who supposedly graduated from Harvard Law School!
Report comment to moderator
But as for the topic of the thread:
I don’t know how China even came up in this discussion, but to say the absolute least, it is so profoundly irrelevant and to bring it up is pretentious. This country may have some serious issues in it’s relationship to China, but please, campaign issues have nothing to do with the big bad chinamen. Political campaigns and campaign finance may have issues, but never in the history of this country has there been some imminent danger of the people voting for Tom, Dick and Harry because because some dude with the last name Chang or Jung or Yu told them so. The left are outraged that’s for sure, but they sure haven’t told us the truth about what’s bothering them. And it’s simply because the real reason for their anger is crap. It’s dishonest. China is simply charade.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu: Yeah, I didn’t get where he was getting this “Century of law” garbage from. He must have attended one history class in law school didn’t he?
Report comment to moderator
HOPESPRINGS:
#68 – But it is the left that agitates and seeks the force of law and legislation on the matters of abortion and homosexuality.
1. The left seeks to force all states to conform to one mandate regarding abortion and disallow ANY state from choosing for themselves how to take a legal stand against it. Roe v Wade eleinimates actual choice on the part of the people and the sates.
2. The left only seeks to use the force of law to mandate a radical change in the very definition of marriage itself, the bedrock institution of all civilization–EVEN after millions of people have already taken a fair and free stand in a recent election.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, but I have a higher opinion of the American people. I don’t look down my nose at them. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. I doubt you can find ANY post over the years here where I have endorsed the idea that the elite know what to do with the country. I have NEVER done that.
The person who is terrified here is YOU.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr – #101 –
Hmmmm – I just remembered something relevant to your comment, to wit:
Near the end of my first year in law school, a good friend of mine (who was so bright that most of us were jealous) told me that he’d been approached by another class member that none of us knew (because the guy had never attended ANY of the classes).This guy wanted to borrow all of my friend’s outlines – needless to say his request was refused; but, I don’t know what happened to the guy.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, this is not meant to say anything about BHO’s intelligence – one way or another.
Report comment to moderator
Reasonable minds can differ, Rondu. Four of the justices did not agree. BHO can disagree all he wants, but he should not mischaracterize.
Report comment to moderator
In case it has been forgotten.
The SCOTUS has spoken.
As our friends on the left like to say: “get over it!”
But of course the opinion was not in their favor.
Even as at times their opinion has not been in the conservative right’s favor.
As they say in baseball: “You win some, you lose some, and some get rained out.”
Play ball!
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I was really just trying to add an Amen! to what Buzzy said at #96.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson – you misunderstand corporations. Just bring out your boogy-man version to scare us. Sure, it keeps the dreaded “multinationals” from advertising – but it also keeps ordinary citizens from joining together to get a political message out. The law they used was unconstitutional for that reason – regardless of other claimed benefits.
Besides, there are laws keeping foreign interests from doing what you describe. There is disagreement as to whether there are ways around it, but that is no reason to leave an unconstitutional law that directly contradicts the 1st Ammendment in place. Find another way to protect that. This one went too far.
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives cheer this ruling for this reason (aside from, oh, the Constitution):
For liberals – the greatest threat to freedom is business interests – Corporations.
For Conservatives – the greatest threat to freedom is Governments reaching outside of their proper boundaries.
This ruling pits the two villians against each other – The Government overreaching to limit Corporations. The court saw this violated the 1st Ammendment (because it does – and that shouldn’t be done, even to silence this “villian”). So, we see it as a defeat to the greatest villian (out of control Government) while liberals see it as a victory for their greatest villian (faceless soulless corporate interests).
So, I get why libs are mad – they just see the wrong threat as more dangereous. Out of control governments have caused the greatest harm in history (Soviets, Communist Chinese, Pol Pot, etc – huge death tolls under their out of control govt’s). I don’t want unlimited power to Corporations either – but I think the govt is a greater threat here (it has the power to coerce). So, yay for freedom from govt overreach.
Report comment to moderator
Here we have the followers of the neoconservative “nobel lie” fighting for the corporatists that pull their delusional strings; the unwitting internet brown shirts fighting for the corporate takeover of their country.
Bush, with 100% support from Republicans in congress and the regulars at WMB, did everything in his power to make the notion that government hurts more than it helps a reality. From a budget surplus, to giant tax cuts to the richest Americans, a giant giveaway to the drug companies and two bungled wars, all financed on the back of American workers. Bush and the Republicans in congress presided over the one of greatest redistributions of wealth this country has ever seen. This time it was from the middle class to the Rich. We, the average citizens, where forced to finance the money used to pay for these tax cuts and giveaways to corporate America.
Total United States corporate profits for 2009 are about 1 trillion, 379 billion dollars. Corporations have profited greatly from the failure of government, and Republicans have, and continue to, support their goals wholeheartedly. The more government fails the more government services can be done on a for profit basis by giant multinational corporations controlled by a financial elite in banks to big to fail. Now, thanks to the Neoconservative appointments by Bush, so loved by Republicans, the floodgates of corporate influence have been opened. I suspect that government will continue to fail, and the answer will be corporate everything, with the government only there to fight the wars and pick our pockets for the rich.
The “black helicopters” are turning out to be Blackwater. A private U.S. company featuring a substantial, highly trained security force, a world class intelligence and espionage service, professional interrogators specializing in “harsh” interrogation methods, and professional assassins. I don’t sleep better at night knowing there’re out there, and I’m not happy they can buy advertisements to influence American elections.
Report comment to moderator
KWATSON, do you listen to yourself?
“We, the average citizens, where forced to finance the money used to pay for these tax cuts and giveaways to corporate America.”
Tax cuts are simply money not taken from individuals to the Govt. These aren’t “redistribution”, as in “tax credits”. So no, we didn’t have to finance tax cuts. You can make the argument we had to pay for more of the total bill of doing government, but that’s a much different statement than the one you made.
You illustrate my point of the left’s beyond reality fear of corporations.
“The more government fails the more government services can be done on a for profit basis by giant multinational corporations controlled by a financial elite in banks to big to fail.”
You don’t see the inherent contradiction there, do you? “Too big to fail” is a term used by the govt. Taking away ‘government services’ to the private sector is just the government getting out of its way oversized role in everything already. Then, normal people can pick up the slack and deal with their own problems on their own terms – not those dictated to them by the government (who DOES have power of coersion).
Report comment to moderator
Dear Mr. Chief Justice and the Honorable Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
You are cordially invited to my state of the union address. You will be my guest.
If you attend, I will tie your hands behind your back and punch you, and you will have no way to defend yourselves or punch back. That’s because I’m a courageous fighter.
Cordially,
BHO
P.S. The last paragraph was written in invisible ink.
(Think they’ll attend his party next year?)
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Obama was categorically wrong to claim that the Supreme Court reversed a century of law with regard to foreign influence and entities.
Alito’s silent scream echoes through the House chamber with Rep. South Carolina’s “You lie.”
But it’s true, Alito. If you thought the minority Justices were wrong about that, you should have written a concurring opinion stating as much instead of making a fool of yourself on national TV. A Justice interprets the law in signed opinions or not at all. Alito’s a disgrace.
Alito ruled that the identity of a speaker makes no difference whatsoever to the government’s ability to regulate. A principle that broad protects everyone from Tokyo Rose to Osama bin Laden. Justice Stevens objected that the majority’s language protects foreign corporations, and the majority didn’t deny it.
Alito’s ruling was so wide-open that SCOTUS would seem to have no alternative but to give voting rights to corporations, Stevens said. After all, voting is a form of speech. The majority was silent about that too.
If these criticisms are lies, the proper time to say so would have been in a signed opinion. It’s clear that Alito lacks the temperament and emotional stability for his position.
Alito’s ruling also redefined corruption to protect corporations from reprisals for any conduct short of open bribery, strictly described. Alito’s ruling gives corporations the green light to practice all kinds of fuzzy “undue influence.”
If his ruling did not upset a century of law and open the floodgates to foreign influence, then Alito had a duty to clarify his thinking while he was at the court.
Alito committed two crimes against democracy. He offended the symbolism of the unity of our three branches of government. He offended the ideal of judicial neutrality. If he was a vestal virgin at the Roman forum, Alito would have been dragged out and executed.
Report comment to moderator
My problem is with two-faced chameleons who say one thing and do another, and their enablers (i.e. – voters) who are blind to the content of their character. The voters could have seen it coming, but were oblivious to the “spreading the wealth” red flag in their face.
Report comment to moderator
Some of you will say Obama broke the symbolism of unity, but that would be incorrect. Obama didn’t accuse SCOTUS of telling a lie.
The court’s rulings often leave issues to be legislated by Congress. Calling on Congress to fill a hole in the law left by a court ruling is legitimate. I haven’t heard any constitutional scholars suggest otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
The scariest thing about this whole deal, I think, is not the ruling itself. It’s that I don’t know what is the truth about it.
Most people are not lawyers, and I think most lawyers don’t even understand all the ramifications of what’s going on. All it seems we can know is which party is upset about the ruling. For example, I have a somewhat rabidly liberal aunt. It usually works out that I think nearly opposite to her on political matters. She ranted about this decision of Facebook. Obama is upset, and he does have a horrid, horrid track record.
However, it doesn’t seem self-evident to me. And a broken clock is right twice a day, etc. I’m supposed to be all excited about this decision simply because Republicans in general are? Forget that! I don’t trust them.
That is the essence of the problem, I think. We can’t trust our government. And the media, whose job it is to report about things like this, is the absolute last place I’d go to find what’s really going on.
I’m inclined to believe the exact opposite of whatever Obama says, but that’s way too imprecise for me to be the sole basis of my decision-making. It seems to me to be to be a sad day in politics when the people are so used to being abused that we can’t even figure out which side is more heinously lying.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “Alito committed two crimes against democracy.”
Take a breath! His lips moved slightly in a crowd, and it did not interrupt the speechifyer-in-chief one iota.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “Alito’s silent scream echoes through the House chamber with Rep. South Carolina’s “You lie.”
I just wanted to repeat this line to illustrate desperation on the part of those who don’t have a case or an argument.
In both responses to Obama, I thought that the President was indeed not speaking truthfully. That is the worse offense. I dide not, however, support the act of yelling out “You lie!” during the speech though. Alito’s silent response was a different matter, COMPLETELY appropriate and unassailable.
Obama was categorically wrong in what he stated and that is the crucial point.
Scroop Moth wrote; “If these criticisms are lies, the proper time to say so would have been in a signed opinion…”
…AND any other respectable context wherein truth should be told, including the natural but completely silent reaction we saw in Justice Alito. Besides, all the written opinion Scroop could want are indeed written and don’t need to be re-written.
Report comment to moderator
Frankly I think that SteveG’s voice has been drowned out by all these corporate speakers.
Truly I can’t wait to see ‘SuperBowl’ like commercials hawking a candidate.
Scroop, hawk your own loogies (sp?)
Report comment to moderator
If a corporation is a person entitled to equal rights, why couldn’t a corporation be elected senator?
The ruling of the majority doesn’t say otherwise. That’s shocking. The broad decision doesn’t put any limit on the logical implications of its own reasoning.
We might have Sen. Toyota of Alabama.
The only thing that tells us the dissenters are mistaken in what they say about the ruling is the video clip of Alito lip-syncing Rep. Wilson’s “You lie.” (I wonder if some smart-alec lawyer will ever cite that video as a precedent while engaged in oral arguments before Alito at the court.)
In case JOEL didn’t notice, the Justices wore black robes at the SOTU. That’s because they appeared in their constitutional capacity as representatives of a branch of government. Sam Alito, the private jerk, had every right to lip-sync any words he wished if he was a spectator in the visitor’s gallery. It’s a free country. Alito, the crackpot justice in the second row from the rostrum, had a duty to keep his mouth shut about his disagreement with the president. The only proper vehicle for him to shoot off his mouth is a signed opinion. wherein he has the freedom to say anything at all.
Report comment to moderator
TJSCATLOVER You don’t have to be a lawyer to read the opinions. You’ll understand quite a bit as a general reader.
I suggest you start by reading the dissent. Keep going and don’t get bogged down. It’s well-written, passionate, and gripping.
Report comment to moderator
The only thing that tells us the dissenters are mistaken in what they say about the ruling is the video clip of Alito lip-syncing Rep. Wilson’s “You lie.”
Have you seen one cogent argument explaining how this is actually good for democracy? I haven’t. I’ve just seen a lot of ad hominem attacks on people who disagree.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Sorry, but I have a higher opinion of the American people. I don’t look down my nose at them.
You look down your nose at pretty much everybody you don’t like or agree with. I’ve been reading your posts for years, and it’s obvious. You’re looking down your nose at me in this very post.
You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. I doubt you can find ANY post over the years here where I have endorsed the idea that the elite know what to do with the country. I have NEVER done that.
Then why are you so giddy with excitement at the prospect of massive corporate voices drowning out the common voice?
Report comment to moderator
#8 SteveG “This ruling is the worst thing to happen to our democracy in a long time, and the Republicans are giddy with excitement over it.”
Why is more speech anti-democracy? And how is allowing only George Soros and giant media conglomerates to speak prior to elections pro-democracy?
We have a president who will attack any one who disagrees with him. He attacks the Supreme Court for rejecting the left’s near monopoly on the political message. For the left, disagreement is a form of hate speech.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: And how is allowing only George Soros and giant media conglomerates to speak prior to elections pro-democracy?
Why do you assume I think it is?
I think the rich and powerful, right or left, should have limits placed so that they can convey their messages, but not at such volume that those who disagree can’t be heard.
Apparently, though, what’s pro-democracy is to shut up and let Exxon and Kaiser-Permanente select our leaders.
Report comment to moderator
SM wrote; “In case JOEL didn’t notice, the Justices wore black robes at the SOTU. That’s because they appeared in their constitutional capacity as representatives of a branch of government.”
Fine, and they all–without exception–held their composure with dignity and grace every moment of the speech, even while Obama was uttering a falsehood.
________________
SM wrote; ““The only proper vehicle for him to shoot off his mouth is a signed opinion.”
This is utter nonsense. And there was no shooting either anyway.
Report comment to moderator
#8 SteveG “…and the Republicans are giddy with excitement over it.”
As America’s Founders would be if they were here.
Report comment to moderator
As America’s Founders would be if they were here.
I seriously doubt it. They understood that “we the people” — not “we the wealthy corporations” — should have the power in the country.
Congratulations, though, on surrendering your ability to speak. You still have every right to make your voice heard, it’s just that now, if the corporations are on the other side of the issue, very few people are actually going to be able to hear you.
So, good job on selling out our country.
Report comment to moderator
Drill’s comments have been improving. I do not know what to attribute this improvement to. However, not every liberal is a secret Stalinist; only a few of us, but we are working on our Gulag.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s desire to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” can actually help to fulfill the “days of Lot” (Luke 17, cf. Gen. 19), the fulfillment of which will hurry up the return of the Heavenly Commander-in-Chief who will make all things straight (pun intended)! Related Google articles include “Obama Supports Public Depravity” and “Obama Avoids Bible Verses” – required reading for the “Obama 101″ course.
[spotted the above comment on the web just now. Norlou]
Report comment to moderator
As Roger pointed out ‘The SCOTUS has spoken.’ So I won’t go on and on, but first a couple of interesting points about the SCOTUS Opinion and Dissent (yes I read them–it’s not that hard):
1- The Court refuses to admit the distinction between media and other corporations, in which the law specified protections for media. It then uses the example of media as an excuse to refuse to protect dissenting shareholders in non-media corporations who do not wish to make the political speech of the majority shareholders. I though this was a real circumvention, but it might be remedied legislatively by tweaking laws intended to protect shareholders.
2- The Court does not expressly overturn the prohibition against foreign campaign contributions, but it does tear down the legal fence that helped prevent it. It is the opinion of the dissenting justices that we are now exposed to significantly increased risk of foreign influence in our elections because of this decision.
3- Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority: “…we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” and “ The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.” [my bold]. These statements are incredible in light of the tone of our public discourse in years past, and the fact that it was the discouragement caused by the corruption and appearance of corruption that prompted bipartisan campaign finance reform in the first place.
HOWEVER, if every dark cloud has a silver lining, the lining exposed by this ruling is bright and shining: There are now 5 conservative leaning justices on the SCOTUS who don’t have a problem overturning significant legislation as well as decades of legal tradition. So there should be no problem overturning Roe v Wade, and returning the abortion issue back to the States from whence it was hijacked in 1973.
This is doubly good news. Not only will it save many, many lives, it also largely frees the pro-life/anti-abortion electorate from the Republican party— at least on a national level. As abortion becomes more of a State issue and less of a Federal issue, the national agenda of Republicans, Conservatives and Independents can more fully develop. It won’t happen right away because Roe is not a done deal yet, but it will be interesting to see what we really do have in common politically once the apron strings are cut.
We live in exciting times. Have a great day all, and play nice.
Report comment to moderator
1. Perhaps this “distinction” is in your head, or, perhaps that’s not the issue.
2. And it’s the opinion of the majority that the fence is not down. So?
3. “The majority expressed the view that only “quid pro quo” corruption, almost the equivalent of bribery, would constitute a sufficient governmental interest to sustain the prohibition against corporate spending.” Gary S. Stein, former Assoc. Justice, NJ Supreme Court. Here’s the thing about “compelling state interest” — it’s a hard test to meet and your little statute didn’t meet it. Which leaves us with what? It leaves us with the left still wanting government control. Thank God we have a Court that understands what “standards of review” are, and know when to limit the government.
Report comment to moderator
Fine, and they all–without exception–held their composure with dignity and grace every moment of the speech, even while Obama was uttering a falsehood.
1. One justice behaved differently than all the others.
2. You shouldn’t call a president’s assertion a “falsehood” if it’s the exact, unanswered claim of four justices of the Supreme Court (unanswered, that is, except by the lip-sync). Obama’s assertion about the decision is a legitimate and worthy issue for legislative contest and action.
3. Lip-syncs don’t count, only signed opinions. Lip-syncs in such a formal, constitutional setting are petty gestures that tarnish the court’s golden asset of pro-forma neutrality. Fortunately, the other justices didn’t permit themselves such a silly self-indulgence. The court will have an opportunity to respond to any complaints that JOEL MARK or others may have about whatever “fixes” Obama and the dems enact. Until then, Alito must shut his mouth, if he’s worth anything to our country.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Fine, and they all–without exception–held their composure with dignity and grace every moment of the speech, even while Obama was uttering a falsehood.
There was no falsehood. The ruling removes all impediments to corporations influencing U.S. elections. It includes no test to ensure the ownership of the corporation is 100% American. Therefore, foreign owners can influence U.S. elections.
The justices may not want to admit it, but that is a consequence of this decision.
Another aspect: This is a satire, but under the ruling, it could soon be reality: Murray Hill Inc. to run for Congress.
“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”
Report comment to moderator
NJLAwyer: “your little statute” … but you don’t look down your nose at people, noooo.
Report comment to moderator
DJ As abortion becomes more of a State issue and less of a Federal issue . .
Morally and constitutionally, abortion can be no more a State issue than slavery is. Inherently, it’s the kind of issue that is no public issue at all if it’s not a national issue. Once you concede that States have the right to reach various conclusions, you sacrifice the universal ethical principle that would justify governmental intervention at any level.
Report comment to moderator
Which word offends you? The “your” or “little statute” referring to the statute overruled? It’s the statute DJ favors, not the ruling. If you actually think that phrase is looking down the nose at a person and not the statute, you have bigger problems than I can address.
Report comment to moderator
STEVE G The justices may not want to admit it, but that is a consequence of this decision.
Roberts’ concurrence said the decision doesn’t speak to that consequence. (Therefore, of course, Roberts admits that the decision doesn’t foreclose it, and may in fact remove all obstacles to that consequence, as Stevens — and Obama — object.) I can’t help but think that Roberts was suggesting an opening for further legislation and prefers Congress to step in with some kind of fix. I suspect that Roberts is mad as can be at Alito for gratuitously calling attention to the ideological divisions on the court.
Alito diminished not only himself but the conservative majority.
The president can and should address issues relating to the court at the SOTU. The court is a branch of government, so you could almost say that it would be unrealistic and disrespectful for the president to ignore the justices in the front row. Nevertheless, when the president speaks, it’s the job of the justices to look impassive. It’s a wonderful thing to have them set there like bumps on a log, listening impartiarially, biding their time . . . biting their tongues.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote to me: “So, good job on selling out our country.”
This comment is disrespectful, ignorant, immature and pathertic. SteveG, you seem incapable of disagreeing with a fellow American in an honorable manner.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “Lip-syncs don’t count, only signed opinions.”
And who on earth ever said or implied that lip-syncs do legally count for anything? That’s in your imagination. You are shadow boxing, Scroop. Put aside your hysterics. The issue here is what Obama said, not the notion that someone’s lips in the audience was barely and silently moving at the time.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “The justices may not want to admit it, but that is a consequence of this decision.”
Of course there is a consequence. It’s called freedom of speech. That means that things will be said that some ideologues and partisans do not like. But this is America. Had the decision gone the other way, the consequence would have been more injustice (a distorted and uneven political playing field) and less freedom.
Report comment to moderator
SM wrote; “I suspect that Roberts is mad as can be at Alito for gratuitously calling attention to the ideological divisions on the court.”
Uuugh, Scroop Moth, it was Obama that inappropriately and publically called attention to that. Others immediately surrounding the justices were standing, applauding, and some were shouting and so on. But Alito simply sat there and listened. All he moved were apparently his lips, making no particular discernable sound. Put aside your hysterics.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Re-read it. I did not say “there is a consequence.” I said “THAT [foreign influence in American elections] is a consequence.”
My comment was not:
Disrespectful, at least no more so than many of yours are. Random Name’s frequent inquiry about how people with so little respect for others can be so insistent on demanding it for themselves comes to mind.
Ignorant, because what I said is correct.
Immature, because it is correct and you are on the wrong side of it and there’s nothing wrong with using strong language to say so.
Pathetic, because I don’t know how it even could be thought so.
NJLawyer, on the other hand, knows perfectly well that the phrase “your little statute” is patronizing, because it both denigrates the signiifcance and importance of the now-overturned law, and suggests that people such as DJ (and me) who supported it are just a small g roup of silly people who don’t understand the big issues like she does, with her genius. And her tittering “what did I say” faux-innocent act has worn very thin.
Report comment to moderator
#126 SteveG “I think the rich and powerful, right or left, should have limits placed so that they can convey their messages, but not at such volume that those who disagree can’t be heard.”
Steve, your way is egalitarian. It is more fair and equitable. It is how classrooms operate in academia. It is the beautiful world of kindergarten where everyone gets the same number of cookies and learns to sit still and cooperate. But it is contrary to the Constitution.
The Constitution sets up a messy free for all that isn’t fair. Whoever is louder wins. Government must remain aloof from expressions of thoughts and belief. It is called Liberty.
Liberty is better than fairness, because once the government gets involved policing thoughts, fairness goes out the window. Then only the politically connected have the power.
Given the choice between having politicians control speech or no one, I choose no one. I am happy whenever the Supreme Court restricts the power of politicians and gives it back to the people.
Report comment to moderator
Given the choice between having politicians control speech or no one, I choose no one.”
I concur.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: I am happy whenever the Supreme Court restricts the power of politicians and gives it back to the people.
And that’s what people who agree with you are not getting. This ruling does not give anything to “the people.”
It gives much to the entrenched and wealthy corporate powers, who already have a great deal of influence. Now they can have more, which means you and me will have less.
Do you really not grasp that?
There was credit card reform legislation passed last year that nimproves consumer protections. It puts limits on the credit card companies’ ability to raise interest rates, charge fees for late payments and a few other things. These are measures that mean the companies will make a bit less profit, and that the consumers will have a better time of it.
That passed over the vocal objections of the credit card industry. Now, thanks to the SCOTUS, those objetions could be so vocal next time that no consumers or consumer-rights groups could be heard.
This is, apparently, what you want. I do not.
Report comment to moderator
At the founding of our nation corporate charters were granted for fixed periods of time, corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm, corporations could not own property that was not essential to the fulfilling of their chartered purpose, corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose, corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and the personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corporate behavior.
The Boston tea party was to protest unjust taxation policies favoring the East India Company, the largest, most powerful, corporation in the world at that time.
Considering the severe limitations imposed on corporations by our founding fathers, it’s hard to imagine that they would consider corporations as entities to be granted rights on par with citizens.
The Constitution does after all stat with “We the People”
Joel, I would love for you to try and justify your notion that the founding fathers would be pleased with this decision.
Report comment to moderator
StevG wrote; “Joel Mark: Re-read it. I did not say “there is a consequence.” I said “THAT [foreign influence in American elections] is a consequence.”
I quoted you directly: SteveG wrote: “The justices may not want to admit it, but that is a consequence of this decision.” Whatever consequence(s) you meant is one thing. I simply responded to your own openly stated statement (which I quoted correctly) to inform you of what I think the consequences will be. Disagree if you wish, but you still did say that there is a consequence.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, focus please. What I called disrespectful was your statement: “So, good job on selling out our country.”
That displays your ignorance of my position and it is excessively disrespectful considering all that I have said and the context for it. Disagree, but don’t accuse me of selling my country out.
That’s a request, but I still recognize your freedom of disrespectful and ignorant speech–ignorant at least with regard to my position and why I take it. At least I am free to respond and clarify.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson, the Founders believed in freedom of speech for all citizens, without progibitive regard to how much money they had or how they organize themselves or which side of the political spectrum they were coming from. Whatever policies or terms some of them had for the process of creating charters, they did not opt to unfairly obstruct their right to make an argumenmt in public or advocate for themselves freely. They knew that liberty could be messy and they chose: liberty!
The Supreme Court decided well and Obama should not have used that forum to criticize their ruling. The Court could not offer any sort of fair rebuttal. The Founders would not have liked Obama’s abuse of his pulpit for that purpose either. They believed in the separation of powers too much for that.
Report comment to moderator
#148 KWatson
You make a good point that corporations were very limited at the time of the making of our constitution, as to their purpose and rights. In addition, I think you may be correct that the founders had no notion of encouraging corporate intrusion in government. Jefferson is quoted in the Dissenting opinion (“I hope we shall … crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country”). See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tom Logan (Nov. 12, 1816), in 12 The Works of Thomas Jefferson 42, 44 (P. Ford ed. 1905) fn 54.
Our founders would be spinning in their graves to know that for profit corporations were being freely given the rights reserved to US citizens (otherwise known as ‘we the people’) under the constitution.
Report comment to moderator
“That passed over the vocal objections of the credit card industry. Now, thanks to the SCOTUS, those objetions could be so vocal next time that no consumers or consumer-rights groups could be heard.”
This sentence makes no sense and shows a complete failure to grasp how legislation is passed.
Evdiently the writer has failed to understand that the people have discovered email (as in emailing their rep), they have discovered Tea Parties (as in protests) — I mean, come on, they just took Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. Even if the people didn’t spend one dime, all they have to do is email to be heard.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with you DJ.
Corporations were not “very limited at the time of the making of our constitution”, with regard to free speech issues (which is our topic here).
In addition, corporate intrusion in government is already a factor in that they are constantly making contributions to candidates (often on both sides of the aisle) to protect them from harmful decisions by politicians when they get into office. And freedom of speech does not necessarily constitute an “intrusion” into government. All have a right to a voice and to advocate–including those who are deeply affected by government policies. If you limit some citizens or entities involving citizens and not others, that is unjust and unfree.
Report comment to moderator
Statutes cannot be demeaned. It’s really time for you to understand that you’ve lost this one, just as you’ve lost a lot of things lately. Oh my, but the Leftys are so sensitive they make things up: “suggests that people such as DJ (and me) who supported it are just a small g roup of silly people who don’t understand the big issues like she does, with her genius.”
I never said any such thing. This is in your head. Did I say Justice Stein was a silly person? No. I quoted him for my purposes, but if you’d read his editorial, you’d know he was on your side. But did I call him a silly person? No. And I didn’t call you that either. You can’t handle that people disagree with you.
Report comment to moderator
All US Citizens have a right to advocate freely in elections. They can even get together for that purpose and pool their resources to make a bigger impact (it’s called a PAC). And non-profits were not limited as long as their contributors are individuals and not corporations. Corporations are not US citizens. And for profit corporations really have no business intruding on an election of, by and for US Citizens—particularly when you consider the impossibility of tracing foreign contributions funneled through corporations in various forms.
Report comment to moderator
I understand that we disagree, NJL. I know it’s not personal. I have decided to be optimistic about the ’silver lining’ aspect of the decision—-for the most part.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #149:
I quoted you directly: SteveG wrote: “The justices may not want to admit it, but that is a consequence of this decision.” Whatever consequence(s) you meant is one thing. I simply responded to your own openly stated statement (which I quoted correctly) to inform you of what I think the consequences will be. Disagree if you wish, but you still did say that there is a consequence.
If you had quoted me correctly you would not have changed the word “that” to the word “there,” and then pretended my original statement was open-ended instead of specifcally about the one consequence I had already identified.
This is what I wrote in #135: There was no falsehood. The ruling removes all impediments to corporations influencing U.S. elections. It includes no test to ensure the ownership of the corporation is 100% American. Therefore, foreign owners can influence U.S. elections.
The justices may not want to admit it, but that is a consequence of this decision.
See? THAT (foreign influence) is a consequence. Not THERE (open ended, could be anything) is a consequence.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #150: That displays your ignorance of my position and it is excessively disrespectful considering all that I have said and the context for it. Disagree, but don’t accuse me of selling my country out.
Your position is that this ruling is good because it removes the limitation on the ability of corporations to speak about political issues and candidates.
My position is that the result of the ruling will be the even greater marginalization of individual voices in favor of wealthy corporate ones. Since you support the ruling so vocally, I can only conclude that is what you want to happen.
How is that not selling out?
Report comment to moderator
DJ wrote: “Corporations are not US citizens.”
By the same token, PACs are not citizens (in the same way you are saying that corporations are not citizens). Also, non-profits are not citizens. Churches are not citizens. All of the above, including corporations, are made up of citizens.
Political freedom speech in the USA is for any and all who have the capacity to communicate and that includes churches, corporations, media corporations, non-profits, and other entities & individuals.
And exercizing free speech is not “intruding” on elections any more than anyone else’s freedom of political speech.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote: “If you had quoted me correctly you would not have changed the word ‘that’ to the word ‘there,’ and then pretended my original statement was open-ended…”
Huh? What are you talking about? I did indeed quote you directly and perfectly accurately. I don’t recall ever changing your word “that” to the word “there” whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
I was not “pretending” that your statement was open-ended, SteveG. That is how I did take it though, most sincerely. We just disagree, but I never misquoted you in any way.
Report comment to moderator
All I am saying, SteveG, is that the “consequence” you are speculating on is not grounds for obstructing the real sonsequence of this ruling that the court believes is constitutional–namely that more freedom of speech will result and a more equal basis.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG you accusation that I am selling out my coutry is the context of our disagreement here is dispicably disrespectful and you know it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I did not at first get what you were saying about “that” and “there.” I did quote you correctly, but I did misinterpret it at first. Thanks for clarifying. My point remains that the gov’t’s perception of possible “consequences” is not a constitutional basis for restricting the free speech of anyone or any citizen-composed entity in America. Freedom of speech is a core aspect of what makes us uniquely great as a nation.
Report comment to moderator
THe press and the practice and establishment of religion (whatever that may entail) is explicitly protected along with the speech of the US citizenry in the first amendment.
The legal fiction created to give for profit corporations free access to the rights enjoyed by citizens, including unfettered participation in our election process, is just that: fiction. And this particular fiction does not serve us well. It leaves us open to foreign interference in our elections. It’s a shame that more people are not concerned about this.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG Why are the rich and big corporations so evil in your mind? Why do politicians and biased media alone have the right to shape the message before an election?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: All of the groups you identify — churches, PACs, etc. — are made up of individuals who are voluntarily and intentionally contribute money to advance a cause. They are pooling resources, yes, but of their own volition.
For-profit businesses are entirely different. They accumulate large amounts of money by selling products and services, not by soliciting donations from people who support their position on political issues. Instead, people may be faced with the choice of boycotting a business — whose products and services they may like and want, or even need — or else involuntarily contribute to a cause they don’t support.
Do you not see how that is different?
I suppose the accusation of selling out was over the top, so I apologize; but I do not think you are really thinking through what this ruling might lead to.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: SteveG Why are the rich and big corporations so evil in your mind?
I don’t think they are “evil,” and never said so. I do think that what is good for rich and big corporations is not always what is best for the people, and I think that the Founders of the country wanted it to be run by the people.
Why do politicians and biased media alone have the right to shape the message before an election?
Never said that either. The people are free to exchange ideas. They’re free to form voluntary groups to pool resources so they can buy advertising to advance a position. And they do. Every donor-supported organization reflects that.
And I don’t really buy the “biased media” myth, as you know.
Report comment to moderator
Corporations are economic entities designed for the sole purpose of acquiring money. They are not entities entitled to the same unalienable God given rights as citizens. When a corporation threatens to run an attack add against a politician that shows an inclination to go against the wishes of the corporation we weaken the very concept of democracy in favor of plutocracy. This decision weakens not only MoveOn.org, but the Tea Parties as well. We all lose.
Report comment to moderator
In the last ten years wages have remained flat despite continued productivity gains. All the wealth generated form the increased productivity has gone to the top 1%. Corporations, and the economic elite that control them, have done quite well under a Republican controlled government with the help of their corporatist Democratic allies. Anyone who cares about breathing clean air, eating safe food, sending their kids to college, and having a secure retirement, should be appalled by this decision.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson: Add to your list, anyone who cares about keeping U.S. jobs in the U.S. rather than outsourcing, having weekends off and paid overtime and having laws to protect consumers from abuses.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote: “All of the groups you identify — churches, PACs, etc. — are made up of individuals who are voluntarily and intentionally contribute money to advance a cause.”
And so are most corporations as well, although the “voluntary contributions” are may instead be transactional and reciprical–but that does not constitute a reason to deny free speech to corporations.
SteverG, “For-profit businesses are entirely different.”
Not “entirely.” And not in ways that justify the banning of their freedom of speech and their involvement in the American political process.
Good for them if they sell products rather than ask for donations.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson wrote; “Corporations are economic entities designed for the sole purpose of acquiring money.”
Wrong. Take out the word “sole.” They have all sorts of other reasons. Media corporations make money but they also exist to offer news, set an agenda, and so on. Many (if not all) corporations have multiple functions and purposes. In order to “aquire” money, them must provide a product or service too.
“Aquire” is not the right word. “Earn” is better, and good for them–as long as they earn it honestly.
They are legal entities made up of citizens entitled to the same unalienable God-given rights as all citizens.
“Attack ads” are already all over the political landscape. And corporations are often the targets and victims of such ads. How on earth can anyone think that they should be gagged, when they are often the most attacked of all?
Report comment to moderator
I just want to add a few points of clarification regarding the 100 years of court precedence supposedly overturned by the recent Supreme Court decision. I will use DJ’s quote (#62) from the minority opinion which President Obama also paraphrased or quoted: “I think they’re referring to the dissenting opinion in which Justice Stevens says: ‘The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm. , 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC) , and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id. , at 209–210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 (1990) . Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life , Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL) , McConnell v. FEC , 540 U. S. 93 (2003) , FEC v. Beaumont , 539 U. S. 146 (2003) , FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life , Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL) , NRWC , 459 U. S. 197 , and California Medical Assn. v. FEC , 453 U. S. 182 (1981) .’”
I actually reviewed the cases listed by Judge Stevens and Justice Alito’s “under his breath” comment of “NOT TRUE…” is spot on. For your edification, here’s what I found:
1. Tillman Act of 1907: Prohibited monetary contribution to national political campaigns by corporations. Unenforceable. Amended in 1910 and 1911 to add disclosure requirements and spending limits for House and Senate candidates.
2. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971: increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns. Amended in 1974 to place legal limits on campaign contributions. The amendment also created the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Amended again in 1976, in response to the provisions ruled unconstitutional by Buckley v. Valeo and again in 1979 to allow parties to spend unlimited amounts of hard money on activities like increasing voter turnout and registration. In 1979, the Commission ruled that political parties could spend unregulated or “soft” money for non-federal administrative and party building activities. Later, this money was used for candidate related issue ads, which led to a substantial increase in soft money contributions and expenditures in elections. This in turn created political pressures leading to passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (”BCRA”), banning soft money expenditure by parties. Some of the legal limits on giving of “hard money” were also changed in by BCRA. FECA also requires campaigns and political committees to report the names, addresses, and occupations of donors of $200 or more.
Now the case law cited by Stevens as overturned by the 2010 Supreme Court Decision:
1. California Medical Association, et al. v. FEC (1981): Upheld contribution cap on individuals in unincorporated associations (cap = $5000). Effectively made associations equivalent to corporations in terms of campaign financing.
2. FEC v. National Right to Work Committee (1982): A PAC solicited donations from members and non-members. Solicitation from non-members declared illegal.
3. FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986): Right to Life group used Newsletter to inform readers of Pro-life stance of candidates. Mailed Newsletter to members and also to non-members. Court held that using treasury funds (rather than setting up a PAC and soliciting contributions) was a violation since the newsletter was sent to non-members.
4. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990): Court ruled that use of Chamber of Commerce treasure funds from dues of members in political ads rather than setting up PAC and asking for donations was illegal.
5. FEC v. Beaumont, South Carolina Right to Life, et al. (2003): A corporation or association is prohibited from making a contribution or expenditure in connection with a federal election, but not from forming a PAC to be used for political purposes including ads in federal elections.
6. McConnell, U.S. Senator v FEC (2003): Upheld provision of Buckley v. Valeo putting limits on “soft money” contributions to produce “issue ads.”
7. FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life (2007): “Issue ads” may not be banned during the months preceding a primary or general election. Ruled portion of McCain-Feingold(sp?) unconstitutional.
I am not a lawyer, but I find nothing in the case law cited by Stevens that would suggest the recent Supreme Court decision overturned 100 years of precedent. Perhaps someone out there can enlighten me.
Report comment to moderator
#166(DJ): “THe press and the practice and establishment of religion (whatever that may entail) is explicitly protected along with the speech of the US citizenry in the first amendment. The legal fiction created to give for profit corporations free access to the rights enjoyed by citizens, including unfettered participation in our election process, is just that: fiction. And this particular fiction does not serve us well. It leaves us open to foreign interference in our elections. It’s a shame that more people are not concerned about this.”
Don’t you find it interesting that, in the case law cited by Judge Stevens, the FEC seems to be going after Associations and Right to Life groups more than corporations? I wonder why. Very curious, it seems to me.
Report comment to moderator
the FEC seems to be going after Associations and Right to Life groups
Hi Dr. Dave,
Perhaps these right to life groups were using donations from for-profit corporations. But if, as you suggest, the FEC has been using this law to target right to life groups unfairly, then it’s another ‘silver lining’ in this decision that they will no longer be able to do so. But that’s a big assumption.
PAC requirements should not be so onerous as to discourage citizens from coming together or prevent voluntary membership associations from advocating for their positions (excluding unions, which are not voluntary). Particularly regarding elections, when laws become so complex that even well-meaning citizens taking reasonable precautions and acting in good faith can be prosecuted, the problem is with the law—not the people. All US citizens have a right to fully participate, and they have a right to expect that the election process will not be legislated into complexity that makes it beyond their ability to do so.
That being said, corporations are not US citizens and therefore their participation in elections is suspect. As long as there were no corporate donors, this law did not prevent most non-profits from participating. Citizens United had corporate donors, and made their electioneering ad with funds that were not separate from those donations—which in effect, made the ads corporate sponsored. CU could have separated the funds and, according to my reading of the Dissent, there would not have been an issue. I don’t believe it is onerous or unreasonable to expect associations or PACs to use only funds from individuals and not from for-profit corporations to run ads that influence our national elections.
My primary objection to the ruling in this case is and always was because of the influence of for-profit corporations—and through them, foreign governments, in national elections of, by and for US citizens.
PS. I’m not a lawyer either. Just another concerned citizen.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Not “entirely.” And not in ways that justify the banning of their freedom of speech and their involvement in the American political process.
Good for them if they sell products rather than ask for donations.
If they sell products for the purpose of raising money for advocacy, and the buyers know that that’s what their money will be used for, fine.
If they sell products as part of their business, and then use some of their profits to advocate for political causes, they’re forcing their customers to contribute toward that cause whether or not they agree.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: They are legal entities made up of citizens entitled to the same unalienable God-given rights as all citizens.
Exactly. The individuals who make up the corporations have the exact same rights as all other individuals.
Do you believe individuals should be forced to contribute resources to support a cause they don’t actually agree with?
Report comment to moderator
Again, the core issue is free speech, something the Left cannot seem to comprehend and never really defends. They must be really afraid of something!!!
What Alito said that is not true is that a hundred years of law was overturned. It wasn’t. Obama mischaracterized the opinion, but I guess if you worship at the feet of Obama, you have no choice but to continue to fail to understand that you’ve lost the case. That’s the thing about the Left. They function not in reality, but in their own world.
Report comment to moderator
Republicans, KWatson? Let’s tell the truth about Democrats — they caved to the Trial Lawyers when it came to the healthcare bill. That’s why there was no tort reform in the bill. And the political affiliationof the Trial Lawyers lobby goes to? Yes, the Democrats!
You and other members of the Left buy hook line and sinker that Democrats are all about people and not corporate and monied interests, and that simply is NOT true. There are “blue” corporations all over the place. There’s even a website that will tell you to “buy blue” and list them for you and track companies that favor the Dems.
Someday there will be someone on the Left on this board that will take a hard look at the Dem lies, but that won’t be happening any time in the foreseeable future. And what does that prove? That you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Report comment to moderator
#160 JoelMark By the same token, PACs are not citizens (in the same way you are saying that corporations are not citizens). Also, non-profits are not citizens. Churches are not citizens. All of the above, including corporations, are made up of citizens
That’s not true; not all corporations are made up of citizens. Some corporations are partially owned by foreign governments, foreign nationals, or even other corporations; and determining that there is no foreign ownership whatsoever during the election season, is an almost impossible task.
Personally, I would not care if only individual US citizens were allowed to participate in electioneering during the election season- —with the exception of religious and press organization and activities, and free association activities (this might include PACs) which are expressly protected by the first amendment. But the law we’re discussing permitted non-profits, and I can see that insomuch as they are directly speaking for their members (and are US citizens) then no one’s rights are being abridged. You can not accurately make that claim in the case of a modern for-profit corporation.
One difference in for-profit corps and PACs or non-profits lies in their purpose for existing. PACs, and usually non-profits as well, are organized around particular issues or ideals in which all of their members are in agreement. The message of each individual member is amplified in unity because there is agreement. This is not the case in for-profit corporations. For-profit corporations are by definition ‘for profit’ ventures. Their members have ideas and positions all across the political spectrum. Forcing the minority of these members (perhapes even a large minority)to involuntarily participate in the political agenda of the majority—even if by some miracle it could be shown that they were all US citizens—would be an egregious violation of the rights of the minority in that you have forced them to fund a political position that they deem to be not in their own best interests.
The first amendment gives protections to all citizens in their establishment and practices of religion (the church), the press (media), and association and petition (perhaps PACs and some non-profits). It was never meant to protect foreign governments, foreign nationals, or for-profit corporations in their attempt to participate in and influence our elections.
Report comment to moderator
The First Amendment PROSCRIBES THE GOVERNMENT from passing a law “abridging the freedom of speech….”
Why is it so hard for so many of you to understand that the First Amendment doesn’t give rights to people but that it rather puts a big fat STOP sign in front of the government?
You look at this without understanding the words of the First Amendment. Thank God the majority of SCOTUS can read!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think it proscribes the government from doing anything to the legal fictions the government itself creates. Thank God the government did not create people!
Report comment to moderator
Out of curiosity, NJL, do you think these things would be better addressed under state law, since by your interpretation the Fed government has no authority to regulate much of anything regarding what happens during the election season (if I’m understanding you correctly).
Report comment to moderator
Anyway, the first amendment doesn’t say anything that would imply that campaign contributions constitute ’speech’…even if one were to accept that interpretation of the first amendment.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Again, the core issue is free speech, something the Left cannot seem to comprehend and never really defends. !
Is it free speech to forced to contribute your money toward a cause you don’t support?
They must be really afraid of something!!
You bet, and I’ve been saying it all along. We’re afraid of corporations pumping untold amounts of money into ad campaigns that will persuade people to vote for candidates who will roll back the laws that protect workers and consumers, when the groups that oppose those rollbacks can’t come close to matching the expenditures.
I can only conclude that that’s what you want to happen, which leaves me scratching my head as to why.
And DJ is right, the right of free speech is absolute for persons, not for legal fictions.
Report comment to moderator
Who is forcing you to contribute money (other than unions of course)? And please don’t tell me if you own stock in a company, you’re stuck, because you can sell the stock.
“And DJ is right, the right of free speech is absolute for persons, not for legal fictions.”
If this is so, then you are in favor of governmental control of all news. That’s all owned by corporations. What you are afraid of is hearing all sides. The wisdom of our Founders was that they were in favor of the free for all. That’s liberty, what was fought and died for. You don’t believe in it. You can’t have it both ways.
Read the First Amendment. It proscribes the government from passing a law abridging the freedom of speech. Why can’t you understand that “no law” means NO LAW?”
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Victoria!
And guys, I’m waiting for you to identify which words in the First Amendment say corporations can’t speak. Just askin’.
Report comment to moderator
I’m still waiting for someone to show me where the first amendment prohibits congress from making laws regulating or even banning corporate campaign contributions. The first amendment doesn’t say a word about corporate campaign contributions, in fact, it does not mention corporate entities at all, nor is there any indicator that ’speech’ was attributed to them —though they were not an unknown entity at the time of it’s writing. I do not understand the desire of so many people to ascribe human rights and attributes to organizations that are NOT HUMAN.
Report comment to moderator
“People continue to characterize the Court’s campaign finance decisions as resting on the theory that money is speech. And of course money isn’t speech.” Eugene Volokh [my bold]
Now you can add as many ‘buts’ to that statement as you want to, however, you can’t add them to the first amendment.
Report comment to moderator
#188 If this is so, then you are in favor of governmental control of all news.
NJL,
Congress shall make no law…. abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. So…what’s the deal? If you can’t equate campaign finance contributions with speech, you’ll equate it with freedom of the press?? Freedom of the press does not rest in any way, shape or form on corporate campaign contributions. You’ve made some serious leaps without giving any reasons. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Report comment to moderator
NJL: Who is forcing you to contribute money (other than unions of course)? And please don’t tell me if you own stock in a company, you’re stuck, because you can sell the stock.
I explained this already in #178.
If this is so, then you are in favor of governmental control of all news. That’s all owned by corporations.
The business of media companies is to publish news and opinion. They’re protected by the freedom of the press clause. The business of insurers, retailers or health care providers is to insure people, sell products, or provide health care — not to publish news and opinion.
I know the SCOTUS majority invoked this specter, but I don’t think the case is strong.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t buy the product. I have, in the past, not lately, gone to the buy blue site and deliberately bought a similar product from a different company. So, no, no one is forcing you to do anything.
You still miss the point. The government can pass NO law abridging the freedom of speech. NONE. There are NO exceptions. It’s a simple sentence, and you have absolutely NO comprehension of the meaning of the word NO. NO law means NO law.
Report comment to moderator
“Money talks” may be a popular cultural adage, but it’s not first amendment speech.
Report comment to moderator
#195 NJL “The government can pass NO law abridging the freedom of speech. NONE. There are NO exceptions. It’s a simple sentence, and you have absolutely NO comprehension of the meaning of the word NO. NO law means NO law. “
That is correct. Liberals simply don’t like what the Constitution says.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t buy the product. I have, in the past, not lately, gone to the buy blue site and deliberately bought a similar product from a different company. So, no, no one is forcing you to do anything.
That is true in some cases, when a company’s competitors aren’t of the same opinion on the issue. But there are times when all companies that provide a needed product or service — health insurance, for example, or pharmaceuticals — might band together to advocate something that’s good for them, but not for their customers.
You still miss the point. The government can pass NO law abridging the freedom of speech. NONE. There are NO exceptions. It’s a simple sentence, and you have absolutely NO comprehension of the meaning of the word NO. NO law means NO law.
Exactly. For the people.
YOU are unwilling to admit that the logical outcome of this decision is to, at least potentially, allow very powerful interests to drown out the voice of the ordinary people, which is completely contrary to what the founders envisioned.
Report comment to moderator
Back to the original topic of calling out the SCOTUS. It’s interesting to observe that in the past year we have had public ‘incidents’ from each of the 3 branches of government: Wilson’s ‘You lie!’, Obama’s accusation in the SOTU, and Alito’s mouthed response. Taken individually, I’m not disturbed by any of the three. They were honest expressions, if not tastefully executed. However, taken together, they are more disturbing as indicators of how polarized our politics has become, and what that might say about our future.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!