Thank your conservative Supreme Court justices for ....ing you...

[Randy]

Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.

''The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, ''The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.''

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

''It's the Super Bowl of bad decisions,'' said Common Cause president Bob Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania.

The decision removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case.

Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained ''the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.''

Stevens complained that those justices overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court.

''Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law,'' Stevens said.

The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie that was very critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.

But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.

The justices convened in a special argument session in September, Sotomayor's first. The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday.

The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...n-Finance.html

This is the kinda shit that condones corruption in public office, regardless of party and it's ironic that it was split right in half by party.

[orb451]

Thanks for finding this Randy, now let's fight !!!!

Kidding.

Seriously though, good find and this is EXACTLY the kind of bullshit that we need a lot less of. In my heart of hearts I'd like to believe that since the regulations were put in place that companies couldn't or didn't donate large sums of money essentially buying the candidate that furthered their own agenda... but I'm sure that hasn't been the case.

Now with this shit, it's even easier for them to just come out and buy whomever they want.

If the founding fathers were still around I'm sure they'd be appalled and ashamed at what our nation's political climate has become.

[Randy]

I honestly think it's corruption and special interests that have given us the lack of fair legislation up until this point (D's and R's). Anybody with a single bipartisan bone in their body should cringe at the concept of a decision that promotes limitless spending by those same groups, which 'anybody with common sense' knows is only going to help feed the machine.

I'm not 100% sure why this became a 'rank-and-file' Republican decision (again, since it's dangerous no matter what party you're in) but I can't imagine how this can be spun into a good thing?

[orb451]

Yeah you and me both, nothing good can really come of this at all. I think the Repubs, generally speaking have been big businesses lap dogs for a while now. This just kind of takes off the veil and shows what everyone knew was behind it anyway... And to be fair, it seems the Dems have jumped on this band wagon in greater and greater numbers lately too, catering more and more to special interest groups and big business.

"A camel would sooner pass through the eye of a needle than a great man be discovered in an election..."

God damned right, regardless of who said that.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by orb451

And to be fair, it seems the Dems have jumped on this band wagon in greater and greater numbers lately too, catering more and more to special interest groups and big business.

Yeah, Hillary Clinton was a big example of this in the last cycle. Obama eventually started taking their money too, as things went on. That's what I mean... both sides, their hands are dirty. But the fact that this decision split the way it did is really... surprising.

And here I was thinking those guys were against "abortions".

[Adam Of Angels]

Oh man... this is awful. This is EXACTLY what we need less of, as orb said. Basically, this means that more of OUR money will end up getting spent on whatever asshole we don't want in office landing a spot in office.

[pink freud]

The exact opposite direction this country needs to go.

If anything, candidates should get equal airtime on C-Span (and no other television coverage), and each get $100,000 for campaigning on the road.

Make it a test. The one who does the most with those limitations will most likely win, and show the country that they can accomplish things without extravagance.

[orb451]

Pay attention people these are the last few shreds of any semblance of a true democracy being burned before our eyes... What we have now is a corporation nation.

[synrgy]

This is why, regardless of how he's doing in office, I felt like I *HAD* to vote Democratic -- regardless of candidate -- during the last election. The bench terrifies me...

[Randy]

Originally Posted by pink freud

If anything, candidates should get equal airtime on C-Span (and no other television coverage), and each get $100,000 for campaigning on the road.

Make it a test. The one who does the most with those limitations will most likely win, and show the country that they can accomplish things without extravagance.

Amen, brother.

I've been a HUGE proponent of a mandatory maximum amount that can be spent on an election, or even publicly funded elections ($6 per election cycle is all this would cost); but any legislation put forward of either description was shot down by shouts that it would require resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine"; which was more an argument being made just to use as a smokescreen. As Ryan described, there are really simple, common sense approaches that could be taken to make an election more like a democratic exercise, and less like an American Idol style phone-in based on how good a slag campaign one corporation can wage against another.

[xXxPriestessxXx]

Originally Posted by pink freud

The exact opposite direction this country needs to go.

If anything, candidates should get equal airtime on C-Span (and no other television coverage), and each get $100,000 for campaigning on the road.

Make it a test. The one who does the most with those limitations will most likely win, and show the country that they can accomplish things without extravagance.

Oh didn't you know that any idea that you have that could possibly represent a socialist idea (equal playing field), that you are infringing on our God given rights to be greedy.

Sarcasm aside, I think that a lot of Republican policy makers are so worried about the freedom of business and competition, that they in no way see how this is destroying what this country was founded on. Loyalties and policies shouldn't lie in the hands of the highest bidder and these people should be ashamed for leading our country down that dark road. But of course, we all have seen how morally upstanding these great giants of industry are, right? Seems a bit ironic that the same group of people beating their chests about abortion rights and moral issues can turn the other cheek to questionable morals when it stands to line their pockets and get them elected.

[ArtDecade]

Two points...

First, not every business in the US is a billion dollar conglomerate. This ruling will permit the view of every business owner to be heard. Of course, the mighty dollar will make an impact, but more voices overall will be part of the debate.

Second, I wonder what McCain's reponse to this will be after his campaign reform act from a few years ago.

[orb451]

Originally Posted by ArtDecade

Second, I wonder what McCain's reponse to this will be after his campaign reform act from a few years ago.

If you want McCain's response, you're going to have to thaw him out of deep cryogenic freezing... or Carbonite. I believe he's been kept in a state of suspended animation since the last time they dug him out of storage for a run at the presidency in 08'...

[ArtDecade]

Originally Posted by orb451

If you want McCain's response, you're going to have to thaw him out of deep cryogenic freezing... or Carbonite. I believe he's been kept in a state of suspended animation since the last time they dug him out of storage for a run at the presidency in 08'...

Actually, he is back to hanging out with Sarah...
Palin to campaign for McCain in Arizona - Yahoo! News

[Randy]

Originally Posted by ArtDecade

This ruling will permit the view of every business owner to be heard. Of course, the mighty dollar will make an impact, but more voices overall will be part of the debate.

Yeah, but we're talking about a limit which was removed. So, businesses already had the ability to "let their voices be heard" before... this just increases the number into the range where now those "conglomerates" will have the option to have their voice heard louder than others.

And I think your argument that this is overarchingly beneficial, moreso than it is a condemnation of democracy is completely naive.

[ArtDecade]

Originally Posted by Randy

And I think your argument that this is overarchingly beneficial, moreso than it is a condemnation of democracy is completely naive.

Not really making an argument, mate. Just something that crossed my mind. Republicans court the money and Democrats thrive on the disenfrenchised. Either way, you don't have a democracy in US.

Anyway, the Court changed language of the argument and now the Democrats will have to adjust. Will they appeal to corporations? Unions? Local business?

Furthermore, I am curious about how multinational corporations will begin to impact elections. That is probably the worst thing that will come from this decision for the Americans. Foriegn influence could play a huge role at that level politics...

[Adam Of Angels]

Originally Posted by ArtDecade

First, not every business in the US is a billion dollar conglomerate. This ruling will permit the view of every business owner to be heard. Of course, the mighty dollar will make an impact, but more voices overall will be part of the debate.

.... that - they get ONE vote just like anybody else voting in a public race.. or at least, that's how it should be. There $$$ will speak much louder now, though.

[pink freud]

Somebody on HCPP (yeah, I dare enter there ) brought up an excellent point:

This ruling gives corporations the power to directly influence the outcome of an election now. These days, how many corporations located in the United States are actually owned by foreign interests?

If THAT isn't a scary thought, I don't know what is.

[Randy]

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist nut or a anti-Semitic, I'd say the Saudis and Israel have done a pretty good job controlling our financial and foreign policies for some time now. This will just give them the ability to do it 'not so behind the scenes' anymore.

[Randy]

Fox News' opinion shows strangely mum on the Citizens United ruling | Crooks and Liars

[ohio_eric]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini

[Randy]

I just read that over on the other board. Really haunting.

[Randy]

Also, if Mitch McConnell thinks that it's a good idea then you're pretty much ....ed.

[ohio_eric]

A Century Of U.S. Campaign Finance Law : NPR

A good read.

[Trembulant]

unions now also have the same opportunity.
this generation is so blinded by the liberals propoganda it's a shame, not only is it complete lies but
it's blatant and on purpose to destroy what america is, obama and those who think like him
are deliberate enemies of freedom, all one has to do is read from the texts that fuel these philosophies and anyone with a sliver of intelligence can see that it is anti freedom anti progress.
i'm not defending the practices of all corporate and political right , those that have bad or seemingly nefarious practices, but i am saying that those that are brainwashed by the media left should study the results of both sides policies and
study the results of both, fact is the lefts agenda is destruction of freeedom and progress by design.
in my opinion ignorance is no excuse, the lefts and obamas agenda will and is becoming clear for those not living in a fantasy land.
too bad it has to go to shit before the rest realize and likely they will still try to blame bush 4 years later.
never taking resonsibility for their own actions which is deliberate and for 1 reason only , destroy freedon and free thought.