Bans On Corperate Donations Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge

[Publius1787]

Bans On Corperate Donations Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge

Well this ought to shake things up! Judge: Corporate donations ban unconstitutional - Yahoo! News

The Bad: Corperations can now literally buy candidates thanks to the modern liberal interperitations of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Liberals beleive this article allowes congress to do anything it wants with absolutly no limitations other than the bill of rights minus the 10th Amendment.

The Good: Its a bad day to be anti business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It won't stand up.

 

[TheBrain]

I'd outlaw ALL donations if it were up to me. Well let me clarify. I would outlaw donations to specific parties or candidates. I would have a contribution fund that split money evenly between all qualified candidates at each level of the election process. A person , or corporation , could donate as much as they would like to this fun, but they couldn't specify who or what it went to.

 

[boedicca]

Unions have been doing it for ages (with taxpayers money).

 

[boedicca]

I'd outlaw ALL donations if it were up to me. Well let me clarify. I would outlaw donations to specific parties or candidates. I would have a contribution fund that split money evenly between all qualified candidates at each level of the election process. A person , or corporation , could donate as much as they would like to this fun, but they couldn't specify who or what it went to.

What a hideous idea.

 

[TheBrain]

I'd outlaw ALL donations if it were up to me. Well let me clarify. I would outlaw donations to specific parties or candidates. I would have a contribution fund that split money evenly between all qualified candidates at each level of the election process. A person , or corporation , could donate as much as they would like to this fun, but they couldn't specify who or what it went to.

What a hideous idea.

Yes it would be hideous to do anything to loosen the grip big money has on our elections.

 

[JBeukema]

The Bad: Corperations can now literally buy candidates

And? You got a problem with capitalism?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Bad: Corperations can now literally buy candidates thanks to the modern liberal interperitations of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Liberals beleive this article allowes congress to do anything it wants with absolutly no limitations other than the bill of rights minus the 10th Amendment.

What on earth are you babbling on about? The ruling in question was based upon the Citizens United decision – Citizens had nothing to do with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution or the 10th Amendment; indeed, this was a ruling issued by a conservative Court considering the First Amendment and overruling earlier decisions on the subject:

Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment . We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted, moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all to interpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious First Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself would create an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would themselves be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.” WRTL , 551 U. S., at 469 (opinion of Roberts , C. J.) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U. S. 254, 269–270 (1964) ).

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

This is a ‘conservative interpretation’ of the role of free speech and corporate finance contributions. Liberals for the most part were opposed to the ruling.

 

[TheBrain]

The Bad: Corperations can now literally buy candidates

And? You got a problem with capitalism?

I absolutely have a problem with our elections being part of a capitalist system. One man, one vote. Not one vote per dollar you have.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The Bad: Corperations can now literally buy candidates

And? You got a problem with capitalism?

I absolutely have a problem with our elections being part of a capitalist system. One man, one vote. Not one vote per dollar you have.

I tend to agree in a sense. But I would rather see a cap on what could be spent on an election.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Bad: Corperations can now literally buy candidates thanks to the modern liberal interperitations of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Liberals beleive this article allowes congress to do anything it wants with absolutly no limitations other than the bill of rights minus the 10th Amendment.

What on earth are you babbling on about? The ruling in question was based upon the Citizens United decision – Citizens had nothing to do with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution or the 10th Amendment; indeed, this was a ruling issued by a conservative Court considering the First Amendment and overruling earlier decisions on the subject:

Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment . We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted, moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all to interpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious First Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself would create an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would themselves be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.” WRTL , 551 U. S., at 469 (opinion of Roberts , C. J.) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U. S. 254, 269–270 (1964) ).

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

This is a ‘conservative interpretation’ of the role of free speech and corporate finance contributions. Liberals for the most part were opposed to the ruling.

Actually, it wasn't. Citizens United only covered corporations making issue ads, it had nothing to do with donations to candidates. They are seperate issues, which you would understand if you had an IQ that approached the freezing point of water.

The really strange thing is that liberals used to be about liberty. When did people who think that the government restricting the ability of people to talk about things they care about take over? Was Invasion of the Body Snatchers really a true story?

 

[TheBrain]

And? You got a problem with capitalism?

I absolutely have a problem with our elections being part of a capitalist system. One man, one vote. Not one vote per dollar you have.

I tend to agree in a sense. But I would rather see a cap on what could be spent on an election.

So only so much could be spent? What do you with people who want to contribute after a candidate has already met his limit?

Maybe combine the two ideas. Any leftover is simply saved until the next election.

 

[FA_Q2]

If the ban was not universally binding to all parties then it is unconstitutional. I do not support bans that include corporations but not union. Bans that cover business but not wealthy. Campaign finance reform needs to be universal in order for it to be effective.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the ban was not universally binding to all parties then it is unconstitutional. I do not support bans that include corporations but not union. Bans that cover business but not wealthy. Campaign finance reform needs to be universal in order for it to be effective.

Which is why the limitations on campaign donations are legal, they apply to everyone across the board.

The restrictions that were challenged by citizen's United, on the other hand, only applied to people running ads against incumbents, which is why all the statists are upset that the Supreme Court ruled against them.

 

[sparky]

hands across your shill little hearts please>

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the corporate states of America.
And to the conglomeration,
for which it stands,
one nation, under many CEOs,
always divisible,
with liberty and privileges for some.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I absolutely have a problem with our elections being part of a capitalist system. One man, one vote. Not one vote per dollar you have.

I tend to agree in a sense. But I would rather see a cap on what could be spent on an election.

So only so much could be spent? What do you with people who want to contribute after a candidate has already met his limit?

Maybe combine the two ideas. Any leftover is simply saved until the next election.

Truth is I haven't any Idea of the details. Just thinking it would prevent the purchase of an election. The smartest team would spend more wisely and probably win. Maybe....

 

[editec]

The noose tightens.

Some of you as yet see nothing wrong with this.

That truly astounds me.

 

[jillian]

The noose tightens.

Some of you as yet see nothing wrong with this.

That truly astounds me.

they think it gets *their* people elected so they don't care. this is the fruit of Citizen's United.... bless Scalia and Thomas' corrupt little hearts. What should happen is that there shouldn't be ANY donations. The race should be payed for with limited public funding where each candidate says what they need to and runs the ads they need to within those reasonable limits. then we wouldn't have politicians run by lobbyists for the oil and insurance industries. Citizens United makes that impossible.

Good job!

 

[Publius1787]

The Bad: Corperations can now literally buy candidates

And? You got a problem with capitalism?

I have no problem with corperations donating money to campaigns. I do have a problem with corperate welfare and favorable tax policy like GE, GM, etc etc.

 

[Publius1787]

The Bad: Corperations can now literally buy candidates thanks to the modern liberal interperitations of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Liberals beleive this article allowes congress to do anything it wants with absolutly no limitations other than the bill of rights minus the 10th Amendment.

What on earth are you babbling on about? The ruling in question was based upon the Citizens United decision – Citizens had nothing to do with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution or the 10th Amendment; indeed, this was a ruling issued by a conservative Court considering the First Amendment and overruling earlier decisions on the subject:

Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment . We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted, moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all to interpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious First Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself would create an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would themselves be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.” WRTL , 551 U. S., at 469 (opinion of Roberts , C. J.) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U. S. 254, 269–270 (1964) ).

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

This is a ‘conservative interpretation’ of the role of free speech and corporate finance contributions. Liberals for the most part were opposed to the ruling.

If article one section eight wasent interperited by liberals to mean "congress can do whatever it likes with your money enumerated powers be damned" then there would be little need for corperations to buy polititions for reasons outside the enumerated powers. If atricle 1 section 8 was interperited as James Madision said it was in federalist 41, bailouts, subsidies, and other things of the sort would not exist.