Citizens United: One Year Later

[goldcatt]

Wrong.

There are no requirements for public disclosure, but that does not change the fact that these organizations still have to file tax returns and obey other US laws. Or are you going to try to argue that Citizens United also eliminated these corporations from filing taxes? Or that any group that engages in political or election advocacy is not required to file with with the FEC?

What is the problem with groups that are not responsible to either party speaking up? Why should the fact that independent groups spent more in 2010, but less than they did in 2008 scare me?

Independent groups spent $296 million dollars last year, and $302 million in 2008. I would like to point out that that spending in 2008 was before McCain-Feingold was overruled.

The two parties spent a combined $1.4 billion, and the incumbents in Congress spent an additional $1.8 billion. If you check you will see that Democrats outspent Republicans by almost 2 to 1 even after you factor in the independent groups and their spending. If money was all it took to win an election the Democrats would have a huge majority in Congress right now.

May I point out that they do not?

The numbers, after I get a good look at them, do not scare me. I am not the one raising up strawmen here, Modbert is, and you have bought into it.

Still, the amount citizen groups spent in 2010 pales next to these enormous sums: $1.35 billion spent by the two major political parties and an additional $1.8 billion by candidates for Congress. While citizens making independent expenditures increased their election spending to nearly $300 million in 2010, that remains less than one-tenth of the more than $3 billion spent by political parties and their candidates. So why all the hysteria from incumbents? Perhaps because independent spending by citizens has shifted away from Democratic candidates. In 2006, liberal interest groups tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics outspent conservative interest groups by a 2-to-1 margin. By 2010, the trend had reversed, and conservative groups were outspending the liberal groups 2 to 1.
We suspect that what most upsets incumbent politicians about Citizens United is not the fact that conservative groups temporarily have gained the upper hand in independent spending. (Does anyone really think labor unions will not try to even the score in 2012?) Instead, what most bothers the political class is that the speech that surged in 2010 was independent. Politicians could not control the message, so they vilified such speech as "unaccountable." Indeed, the Democratic majority was so unnerved that it cobbled together legislation to make such independent speech as burdensome as possible, complete with a misleading mom-and-apple-pie title: the Disclose Act. But this effort to stifle debate unraveled when it was disclosed that the bill included exceptions favoring powerful interest groups.
As the Supreme Court has ruled, Congress should get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas and placing its thumb on the scale of federal elections. In Citizens United, the court reminded us that when our government seeks "to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought." The government argued in Citizens United that it could ban books advocating the election of a candidate if they were published by a corporation or labor union. Today, thanks to Citizens United, we may celebrate that the First Amendment confirms what our forefathers fought for: "the freedom to think for ourselves."

David N. Bossie and Theodore B. Olson - How the Citizens United ruling freed political speech

Your only real argument is that there needs to be some sort of accountability. I agree, if they do something wrong, they need to be accountable. What we do not need, however, is a complete list of donors to every political organization out there. The laws already exist that prevent any foreign money from contributing to our elections, either directly or indirectly. Corporations are transparent to both the FEC and the IRS. I know that federal law makes it all but impossible for foreigners to donate to them.

The law exists, and is enforced. If you can prove it is not, talk to me, and I will howl right along with you. Just do not expect me to get up in arms about making people jump through the same hoops again just because you do not like on SCOTUS decision.

The law does not apply to independent organizations advertising under CU. This is a huge argument put forth in the dissent to CU, and one of the biggest things CU's critics have been arguing about for a year now.

Under CU, the right belongs to the organization, as its right of free speech related to its corporate personhood and derivative of the association of its principals. With me so far?

How is the citizenship and residency of a corporation as an entity determined? By the state where it is incorporated, not the nationality of the principals.

Any person, anywhere in the world, with a few hundred dollars can open a PO Box in Delaware and file that piece of paper starting up a sub-S. That sub-S is an American "person" under the law.

Absent any requirements to report the source of funds, that money can come from literally any place, any group, with any agenda anywhere in the world and not only would nobody even know about it, but under the CU decision only the identity and nationality of the organization matters - so it would be perfectly legitimate.

Don't take my word for it.

The majority opinion argues against both the ability of corporations to form PACS to do on their behalf what they can now do individually and FEC reporting requirements for PACS as a restriction on speech because both setting up the structure and reporting the sources of income were too onerous.

READ AGAIN: Standard FEC reporting requirements as they apply to PACs were considered a restriction on the speech of corporations by the majority in CU:

Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell , 540 U. S., at 330–333 (opinion of Kennedy , J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b’s expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak—and it does not—the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations.

*snip*

...And that is just the beginning. PACs must file detailed monthly reports with the FEC, which are due at different times depending on the type of election that is about to occur:

“ ‘These reports must contain information regarding the amount of cash on hand; the total amount of receipts, detailed by 10 different categories; the identification of each political committee and candidate’s authorized or affiliated committee making contributions, and any persons making loans, providing rebates, refunds, dividends, or interest or any other offset to operating expenditures in an aggregate amount over $200; the total amount of all disbursements, detailed by 12 different categories; the names of all authorized or affiliated committees to whom expenditures aggregating over $200 have been made; persons to whom loan repayments or refunds have been made; the total sum of all contributions, operating expenses, outstanding debts and obligations, and the settlement terms of the retirement of any debt or obligation.’ ” 540 U. S., at 331–332 (quoting MCFL , supra , at 253–254).

PACs have to comply with these regulations just to speak. This might explain why fewer than 2,000 of the millions of corporations in this country have PACs. See Brief for Seven Former Chairmen of FEC et al. as Amici Curiae 11 (citing FEC, Summary of PAC Activity 1990–2006, online at http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/ 20071009pac/sumhistory.pdf); IRS, Statistics of Income: 2006, Corporation Income Tax Returns 2 (2009) (hereinafter Statistics of Income) (5.8 million for-profit corporations filed 2006 tax returns). PACs, furthermore, must exist before they can speak. Given the onerous restrictions, a corporation may not be able to establish a PAC in time to make its views known regarding candidates and issues in a current campaign.

Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The decision specifically and categorically rejects typical FEC reporting requirements for corporations as they apply to PACs because the burden of reporting is "chilling" on speech. It puts no alternate requirements nor sets acceptable guidelines for reporting in any other, less onerous fashion in place. It merely rejects the burden of reporting per se.

The Court also never addressed the question of foreign nationals participating in the election process through foreign-controlled corporations, it simply ducked it. From the link above:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national&#8221. Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders.

However, because the right belongs to the corporate entity and not to the individuals making up the "association", only the nationality of the organization is at issue. The Court in the majority makes no distinction between corporations controlled by foreigners and those controlled by US citizens:

More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could “ ‘enhance the relative voice’ ” of some ( i.e. , humans) over others ( i.e. , nonhumans). Ante , at 33 (quoting Buckley , 424 U. S., at 49). 51 Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech. 52

In short, the Court dramatically overstates its critique of identity-based distinctions, without ever explaining why corporate identity demands the same treatment as individual identity. Only the most wooden approach to the First Amendment could justify the unprecedented line it seeks to draw.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.

Howling yet?

 

[goldcatt]

To continue.....the disclosure requirement upheld by the majority in CU is the spoken disclaimer and disclosure requirement in the ad itself.

Citizens United sought to broadcast one 30-second and two 10-second ads to promote Hillary . Under FEC regulations, a communication that “[p]roposes a commercial transaction” was not subject to 2 U. S. C. §441b’s restrictions on corporate or union funding of electioneering communications. 11 CFR §114.15(b)(3)(ii). The regulations, however, do not exempt those communications from the disclaimer and disclosure requirements in BCRA §§201 and 311. See 72 Fed. Reg. 72901 (2007).

*snip*

Citizens United argues that §311 is underinclusive because it requires disclaimers for broadcast advertisements but not for print or Internet advertising. It asserts that §311 decreases both the quantity and effectiveness of the group’s speech by forcing it to devote four seconds of each advertisement to the spoken disclaimer. We rejected these arguments in McConnell, supra, at 230–231. And we now adhere to that decision as it pertains to the disclosure provisions.

*snip*

With this information, the disclosure and disclaimer, the court concluded both shareholders and the public, using the internet, would achieve full transparency:

With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “ ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” 540 U. S., at 259 (opinion of Scalia , J.); see MCFL , supra , at 261. The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

Not exactly a whole lot to go on when so much information is protected by the corporate veil, is it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no problem with transparency, but it depends.........who would you go about managing the information once its collected? Lets say everyone who contributes to either side, they all send information to a body for a review....do we make this information public?

I am not sure thats the way to go, if we had a body that reviewed the information and kept it to themselves after reviewing it for legality etc. I would not have a problem with that.

We already do. Current laws already prohibit foreign contributions to campaigns, and both the IRS and the FEC insure that these laws are followed. Yet, somehow, that is not good enough now, and we must require everyone to spend more money, and use up their air time and ad space, to inform us of who is behind every single ad. that would stifle free speech, and stop none of the things that everyone claims to be worried about.

Uhm I know, this is how things got unraveled for clinton etc. ...it was a rhetorical device.......I had a post all ready and waiting to go, you just blew it up!!!!!

Sorry, but feel free to post it if you want, it would save me some time looking up all the links.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The law does not apply to independent organizations advertising under CU. This is a huge argument put forth in the dissent to CU, and one of the biggest things CU's critics have been arguing about for a year now.

Under CU, the right belongs to the organization, as its right of free speech related to its corporate personhood and derivative of the association of its principals. With me so far?

How is the citizenship and residency of a corporation as an entity determined? By the state where it is incorporated, not the nationality of the principals.

Any person, anywhere in the world, with a few hundred dollars can open a PO Box in Delaware and file that piece of paper starting up a sub-S. That sub-S is an American "person" under the law.

Absent any requirements to report the source of funds, that money can come from literally any place, any group, with any agenda anywhere in the world and not only would nobody even know about it, but under the CU decision only the identity and nationality of the organization matters - so it would be perfectly legitimate.

Don't take my word for it.

The majority opinion argues against both the ability of corporations to form PACS to do on their behalf what they can now do individually and FEC reporting requirements for PACS as a restriction on speech because both setting up the structure and reporting the sources of income were too onerous.

READ AGAIN: Standard FEC reporting requirements as they apply to PACs were considered a restriction on the speech of corporations by the majority in CU:



*snip*



CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The decision specifically and categorically rejects typical FEC reporting requirements for corporations as they apply to PACs because the burden of reporting is "chilling" on speech. It puts no alternate requirements nor sets acceptable guidelines for reporting in any other, less onerous fashion in place. It merely rejects the burden of reporting per se.

The Court also never addressed the question of foreign nationals participating in the election process through foreign-controlled corporations, it simply ducked it. From the link above:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders.

However, because the right belongs to the corporate entity and not to the individuals making up the "association", only the nationality of the organization is at issue. The Court in the majority makes no distinction between corporations controlled by foreigners and those controlled by US citizens:

More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could “ ‘enhance the relative voice’ ” of some ( i.e. , humans) over others ( i.e. , nonhumans). Ante , at 33 (quoting Buckley , 424 U. S., at 49). 51 Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech. 52

In short, the Court dramatically overstates its critique of identity-based distinctions, without ever explaining why corporate identity demands the same treatment as individual identity. Only the most wooden approach to the First Amendment could justify the unprecedented line it seeks to draw.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.

Howling yet?

Wow, are you reading the wrong sources.

(b) The disclaimer and disclosure requirements are valid as applied to Citizens United’s ads. They fall within BCRA’s “electioneering communication” definition: They referred to then-Senator Clinton by name shortly before a primary and contained pejorative references to her candidacy. Section 311 disclaimers provide information to the electorate, McConnell, supra, at 196, and “insure that the voters are fully informed” about who is speaking, Buckley , supra , at 76. At the very least, they avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party. Citizens United’s arguments that §311 is underinclusive because it requires disclaimers for broadcast advertisements but not for print or Internet advertising and that §311 decreases the quantity and effectiveness of the group’s speech were rejected in McConnell. This Court also rejects their contention that §201’s disclosure requirements must be confined to speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy under WRTL’ s test for restrictions on independent expenditures, 551 U. S., at 469–476 (opinion of R oberts , C.J.). Disclosure is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations. Such requirements have been upheld in Buckley and McConnell. Citizens United’s argument that no informational interest justifies applying §201 to its ads is similar to the argument this Court rejected with regard to disclaimers. Citizens United finally claims that disclosure requirements can chill donations by exposing donors to retaliation, but offers no evidence that its members face the type of threats, harassment, or reprisals that might make §201 unconstitutional as applied. Pp. 52–55. (c) For these same reasons, this Court affirms the application of the §§201 and 311 disclaimer and disclosure requirements to Hillary . Pp. 55–56.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

I may be misreading this part of the decision, put if I am not the disclosure requirements still exist. The part that was chilling was where the corporations were required to make those disclosures in their ads, not to the FEC or the IRS. I know people have been howling about this for a year, but others have been pointing out that they are wrong just as long.

 

[goldcatt]

The law does not apply to independent organizations advertising under CU. This is a huge argument put forth in the dissent to CU, and one of the biggest things CU's critics have been arguing about for a year now.

Under CU, the right belongs to the organization, as its right of free speech related to its corporate personhood and derivative of the association of its principals. With me so far?

How is the citizenship and residency of a corporation as an entity determined? By the state where it is incorporated, not the nationality of the principals.

Any person, anywhere in the world, with a few hundred dollars can open a PO Box in Delaware and file that piece of paper starting up a sub-S. That sub-S is an American "person" under the law.

Absent any requirements to report the source of funds, that money can come from literally any place, any group, with any agenda anywhere in the world and not only would nobody even know about it, but under the CU decision only the identity and nationality of the organization matters - so it would be perfectly legitimate.

Don't take my word for it.

The majority opinion argues against both the ability of corporations to form PACS to do on their behalf what they can now do individually and FEC reporting requirements for PACS as a restriction on speech because both setting up the structure and reporting the sources of income were too onerous.

READ AGAIN: Standard FEC reporting requirements as they apply to PACs were considered a restriction on the speech of corporations by the majority in CU:



*snip*



CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The decision specifically and categorically rejects typical FEC reporting requirements for corporations as they apply to PACs because the burden of reporting is "chilling" on speech. It puts no alternate requirements nor sets acceptable guidelines for reporting in any other, less onerous fashion in place. It merely rejects the burden of reporting per se.

The Court also never addressed the question of foreign nationals participating in the election process through foreign-controlled corporations, it simply ducked it. From the link above:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national&#8221. Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders.

However, because the right belongs to the corporate entity and not to the individuals making up the "association", only the nationality of the organization is at issue. The Court in the majority makes no distinction between corporations controlled by foreigners and those controlled by US citizens:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.

Howling yet?

Wow, are you reading the wrong sources.

Click on the links provided, QW. It's all right, they wont bite.

All quotes are from the majority decision of CU itself, save the last which is from the dissent - the 4 Justices who disagreed with the majority opinion. Tell me, what blog have you read that is a better source than the decision itself?

(b) The disclaimer and disclosure requirements are valid as applied to Citizens United’s ads. They fall within BCRA’s “electioneering communication” definition: They referred to then-Senator Clinton by name shortly before a primary and contained pejorative references to her candidacy. Section 311 disclaimers provide information to the electorate, McConnell, supra, at 196, and “insure that the voters are fully informed” about who is speaking, Buckley , supra , at 76. At the very least, they avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party. Citizens United’s arguments that §311 is underinclusive because it requires disclaimers for broadcast advertisements but not for print or Internet advertising and that §311 decreases the quantity and effectiveness of the group’s speech were rejected in McConnell. This Court also rejects their contention that §201’s disclosure requirements must be confined to speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy under WRTL’ s test for restrictions on independent expenditures, 551 U. S., at 469–476 (opinion of R oberts , C.J.). Disclosure is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations. Such requirements have been upheld in Buckley and McConnell. Citizens United’s argument that no informational interest justifies applying §201 to its ads is similar to the argument this Court rejected with regard to disclaimers. Citizens United finally claims that disclosure requirements can chill donations by exposing donors to retaliation, but offers no evidence that its members face the type of threats, harassment, or reprisals that might make §201 unconstitutional as applied. Pp. 52–55. (c) For these same reasons, this Court affirms the application of the §§201 and 311 disclaimer and disclosure requirements to Hillary . Pp. 55–56.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

I may be misreading this part of the decision, put if I am not the disclosure requirements still exist. The part that was chilling was where the corporations were required to make those disclosures in their ads, not to the FEC or the IRS. I know people have been howling about this for a year, but others have been pointing out that they are wrong just as long.

Corporations were never required to make any more than the standard spoken disclosure and disclaimer in their ads. And that is what they still have to make now, plus report the amount of their expenditures - but not the breakdown of the sources and payouts that are required of PACs and other political groups under FEC regulations.

The FEC reporting requirements were considered to be so chilling to speech that having corporations speak through fully owned and operated organizations who had to comply with them was an unacceptable restriction, remember?

And that does not address the question of foreign nationals participating in the process through their funding and control of US-based organizations - neither did the Court.

 

[goldcatt]

Have a look at the legislation connected to the CU decision introduced in the first half of 2010 alone, to give you an idea what Congress thinks is and is not covered:

Legislation Introduced in Response to Citizens United

(1/20/2010 to 4/30/2010; listed in order of introduction)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting corporations and labor organizations from using operating funds for advertisements in connection with any campaign for election for Federal office. H.J. Res 68. Introduced 1/21/2010 by Sheila Jackson-Lee.

To require the approval of a majority of a public company's shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company's products or services. HR 4487. Introduced 1/21/2010 by Alan Grayson.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations in which foreign principals have an ownership interest. HR 4510. Introduced 1/26/2010 by Alan Grayson.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit corporations which employ or retain registered lobbyists from making expenditures or disbursements for electioneering communications under such Act, and for other purposes. HR 4511. Introduced 1/26/2010 by Alan Grayson.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations which are owned or controlled by foreign principals, to increase the civil penalties applicable to foreign nationals who violate the ban, and for other purposes. HR 4517. Introduced 1/26/2010 by John Hall.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations which are owned or controlled by foreign principals. HR 4522. Introduced 1/26/2010 by Bill Pascrell Jr.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations whose shareholders include any foreign principals. HR 4523. Introduced 1/26/2010 by Thomas Perriello.

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporation which are owned or controlled by foreign principals. S 2954. Introduced 1/26/2010 by Robert Menendez.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require certain campaign-related communications paid for by a corporation or labor organization to include a statement identifying the chief executive officer of the corporation or the president of the labor organization, and for other purposes. HR 4527. Introduced 1/27/2010 by Steve Driehaus.

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the express authorization of a majority of shareholders of a public company for certain political expenditures by that company, and for other purposes. HR 4537. Introduced 1/27/2010 by Michael Capuano.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend the ban on election activity by foreign nationals to election activity by domestic corporations which are subsidiaries of foreign principals. HR 4540. Introduced 1/27/2010 by Rosa Delauro.

To prohibit entities from using Federal funds to contribute to political campaigns or participate in lobbying activities. HR 4550. Introduced 1/27/2010 by Niki Tsongas.

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to protect Federal, State, and local elections from the influence of foreign nationals. S 2959. Introduced 1/27/2010 by Al Franken.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech. HJ Res 74. Introduced 2/2/2010 by Donna Edwards.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require certain campaign-related communications which are paid for by certain tax-exempt organizations or political organizations to include a statement naming their five largest donors, and for other purposes. HR 4583. Introduced 2/3/2010 by John Boccieri.

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that certain entities exempt from taxation (including business leagues and chambers of commerce) disclose sources and amounts of contributions. HR 4605. Introduced 2/4/2010 by Steve Israel.

A bill to require notification to and prior approval by shareholders of certain political expenditures by publicly traded companies, and for other purposes. S 3004. Introduced 2/4/2010 by Sherrod Brown.

A bill to amend the securities laws to require that registration statements, quarterly and annual reports, and proxy solicitations of public companies include a disclosure to shareholders of any expenditure made by that company in support of or in opposition to any candidate for Federal, State, or local public office; to the Committee on Financial Services. HR 4630. Introduced 2/22/2010 by Gary Ackerman.

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit a corporation from making any independent expenditure or disbursing funds for any electioneering communication without obtaining the prior approval of a majority of its shareholders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on House Administration. H.R. 4644. Introduced 2/22/2010 by Joe Sestak.

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. S.J. Res 28. Introduced 2/24/2010 by Chris Dodd.

To clarify the situations in which a corporation may be treated as a person under Federal law. HR 4729. Introduced 3/2/2010 by Linda Sanchez.

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reduce the limit on the amount of certain contributions which may be made to a candidate with respect to an election for Federal office; to the Committee on House Administration. H.R. 4739. Introduced 3/3/2020 by Michael Capuano.

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require personal disclosure statements in all third-party communications advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, to require the disclosure of identifying information within communications made through the Internet, to apply disclosure requirements to prerecorded telephone calls, and for other purposes; to the Committee on House Administration.H.R. 4749. Introduced 3/3/2010 by David Price.

A bill to prevent funding provided through the Federal Reserve System from being made available to corporations that finance political campaigns or political propaganda, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.H.R. 4768. Introduced 3/4/2010 by Alan Grayson.

A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require shareholder authorization before a public company may make certain political expenditures, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. H.R. 4790. Introduced 3/9/2010 by Michael Capuano.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit an authorized committee of a candidate for election for Federal office from disbursing any amount received as a contribution to the committee until the committee posts on a public Internet site the identification of the person who provided the contribution, and for other purposes. H.R. 5086. Introduced 4/20/2010 by James Sensenbrenner.

Expressing disapproval of the decision issued by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. H. Res 1275. Introduced 4/20/2010 by John Yarmuth.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes. H.R. 5175. Introduced 4/29/2010 by Chris Van Hollen.

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes. S. 3295. Introduced 4/30/2010 by Charles Schumer.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giving Congress power to regulate campaign contributions for Federal elections. H.J.Res. 84. Introduced 5/13/2010 by Kurt Schrader.

Citizens United Policy Recommendations - OpenCongress Wiki

Now, I realize you're looking at this through a strictly partisan lens, or have been so far. But try to get past the party to the facts and issues.

There is a LOT that this decision didn't address, or left so vague or contradictory as to be meaningless. It will be years before its full impact is known, and will take a lot of revisiting I'm sure.

But as of right now....take a look at the suggestions for FEC regarding corporations and labor unions at the bottom of the link provided earlier in this post. You'll note all requirements and suggestions for handling data on disclosures have to do solely with expenditures, NOT sources. That's because sources do not have to be reported - only where it goes, not where it comes from.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Click on the links provided, QW. It's all right, they wont bite.

All quotes are from the majority decision of CU itself, save the last which is from the dissent - the 4 Justices who disagreed with the majority opinion. Tell me, what blog have you read that is a better source than the decision itself?

I quoted the decision myself, it doesn't scare me. Nor do the people that are trying to tell me that it overturned a century of law impress me. The attempt to stifle free speech in elections is only 20 years old.

Corporations were never required to make any more than the standard spoken disclosure and disclaimer in their ads. And that is what they still have to make now, plus report the amount of their expenditures - but not the breakdown of the sources and payouts that are required of PACs and other political groups under FEC regulations.

The FEC reporting requirements were considered to be so chilling to speech that having corporations speak through fully owned and operated organizations who had to comply with them was an unacceptable restriction, remember?

Citizens United upheld the reporting requirements in McCain-Feingold, even if it overruled how the FEC required them to be implemented.

Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibited—and still does prohibit—corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, in connection with certain qualified federal elections. 2 U. S. C. §441b (2000 ed.); see McConnell, supra, at 204, and n. 87; Federal Election Comm’n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. , 479 U. S. 238, 249 (1986) (MCFL) . BCRA §203 amended §441b to prohibit any “electioneering communication” as well. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2006 ed.). An electioneering communication is defined as “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. §434(f)(3)(A). The Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) regulations further define an electioneering communication as a communication that is “publicly distributed.” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2) (2009). “In the case of a candidate for nomination for President … publicly distributed means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election . . . is being held within 30 days.” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions are barred from using their general treasury funds for express advocacy or electioneering communications. They may establish, however, a “separate segregated fund” (known as a political action committee, or PAC) for these purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). The moneys received by the segregated fund are limited to donations from stockholders and employees of the corporation or, in the case of unions, members of the union. Ibid.

One amici brief asks us, alternatively, to construe the condition that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii)(A), to require “a plausible likelihood that the communication will be viewed by 50,000 or more potential voters”—as opposed to requiring only that the communication is “technologically capable” of being seen by that many people, Brief for Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae 5. Whether the population and demographic statistics in a proposed viewing area consisted of 50,000 registered voters—but not “infants, pre-teens, or otherwise electorally ineligible recipients”—would be a required determination, subject to judicial challenge and review, in any case where the issue was in doubt. Id. , at 6. In our view the statute cannot be saved by limiting the reach of 2 U. S. C. §441b through this suggested interpretation. In addition to the costs and burdens of litigation, this result would require a calculation as to the number of people a particular communication is likely to reach, with an inaccurate estimate potentially subjecting the speaker to criminal sanctions. The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day. Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speech: People “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.” Connally v. General Constr. Co. , 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926) . The Government may not render a ban on political speech constitutional by carving out a limited exemption through an amorphous regulatory interpretation. We must reject the approach suggested by the amici . Section 441b covers Hillary .

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but saying the FEC overstepped in making the regulations it did does not mean they cannot make regulations.

And that does not address the question of foreign nationals participating in the process through their funding and control of US-based organizations - neither did the Court.

You are right, they did not.

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process. See Broadrick , 413 U. S., at 615.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3251067

Which means that any regulations and/or laws that apply to foreign corporations are still in effect because they were not addressed, or over turned by Citizens United. In other words, despite the doom saying of the critics, and you, nothing has changed from before the decision to after it regarding foreign donations, and the FEC regulations prohibiting them still hold force.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now, I realize you're looking at this through a strictly partisan lens, or have been so far. But try to get past the party to the facts and issues.

There is a LOT that this decision didn't address, or left so vague or contradictory as to be meaningless. It will be years before its full impact is known, and will take a lot of revisiting I'm sure.

But as of right now....take a look at the suggestions for FEC regarding corporations and labor unions at the bottom of the link provided earlier in this post. You'll note all requirements and suggestions for handling data on disclosures have to do solely with expenditures, NOT sources. That's because sources do not have to be reported - only where it goes, not where it comes from.

And the people proposing a constitutional amendment, on the other hand, are only concerned with protecting me from the evil corporations.

If you want to know where my partisan outlook comes from, I suggest reading this article.

Print|Email|Single Page
You Are Now Free to Speak About Politics

Why do some people fear a less restricted debate?

Jacob Sullum from the December 2010 issue

As Democrats headed for what promised to be a midterm election fiasco of historic proportions, a pre-emptive excuse began to circulate: It was all the Supreme Court’s fault. In an August Washington Post column, Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, said Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the January decision in which the Court overturned restrictions on political speech by corporations, had created a “very alarming” situation in which democracy (not to mention Democrats) would be swept away by “a flood of corporate campaign cash” because “there is no way private citizens can match the resources available to corporations to make their voices heard.” In a radio address around the same time, President Barack Obama dreaded “a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names,” unleashed by a ruling that “allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.”
In September a front-page New York Times story seemed to confirm these antediluvian prophecies. The paper reported that “outside groups supporting Republican candidates in House and Senate races across the country have been swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts on television.” The Times worried that “a relatively small cadre of deep-pocketed donors, unknown to the general public, is shaping the battle for Congress in the early going.” It said “Democratic officials” believed “corporate interests, newly emboldened by regulatory changes,” were trying to “buy the election.” In short, the spending patterns seemed to be “a fulfillment of Democrats’ worst fears after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.”
Except that, as the Times conceded in the next paragraph, “it is not clear…whether it is actually an influx of new corporate money unleashed by the Citizens United decision that is driving the spending chasm.” Other factors—“notably, a political environment that favors Republicans”—might be at work. In fact, the spending cited in the story was mostly by rich individuals or by groups organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, both of which were legal before Citizens United.
An October story in The Washington Post likewise suggested that Citizens United helped explain the Republicans’ spending lead but was hazy as to how. “The outside group spending is primarily being driven by the political climate,” a campaign finance expert told the Post. “Organized groups are looking at great opportunity, and therefore there’s great interest to spend money to influence the election.”
When you get beyond the scaremongering about deluges of dollars, the practical consequences of Citizens United so far seem to be much less dramatic than its critics predicted. But how could they not be? “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation,” Justice John Paul Stevens warned in his dissent. “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” The New York Times said the “radical” and “disastrous” decision “strikes at the heart of democracy.” Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Citizens United was “the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott,” because “it leads us all down the road to serfdom.”
President Obama managed to outdo them all, declaring that he “can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” To Obama, apparently, the prospect of a less restricted political debate was more horrifying than an economic collapse, a military coup, or a nuclear war. Although it’s too early to predict exactly what will happen as a result of Citizens United, it seems safe to say that plenty of things are more harmful to the public interest. Among them are laws that seek to silence some so that others may be heard.
Everything Is Incorporated
The over-the-top reactions to Citizens United reflect a view of corporations as giant, soulless automatons that are fine for producing goods and services in a regulated environment but bound to wreak havoc if let loose in the halls of political power. That view obscures the fact that corporations, no matter how large or profit-driven, are by definition associations of individuals who have joined together for a common purpose. It also misleadingly suggests that behemoths such as Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil are typical corporations, when in fact the vast majority of the 6 million or so corporations registered in the United States are small businesses or nonprofits.
“In 2010 almost everything is incorporated,” notes Allison Hayward, a former George Mason University law professor who recently became vice president of policy at the Center for Competitive Politics, which favors deregulation of political speech. “Anything you want to do as a group with other people—apart from the context where partnerships might work, like practicing law—you’re going to do through a corporate form of some kind.” Civil society, including churches, charitable organizations, and grassroots political groups of every interest and ideology, consists largely of corporations.
For an illustration, one need look no further than the case the Supreme Court decided. Citizens United, founded by the conservative activist Floyd Brown in 1988, is not a huge corporation seeking subsidies or permission to pollute. It is a nonprofit, ideological organization with an annual budget of $12 million that wanted to run a documentary about Hillary Clinton on pay-per-view TV. It was forbidden to do so, under threat of fine and imprisonment, because a) Clinton was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and b) the documentary made her look bad. The movie therefore violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold, which banned “electioneering communications,” defined as TV or radio ads sponsored by unions or corporations that mention a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Contrary to all the rhetoric about corporations drowning out the voice of the people, corporations are the voice of the people—people who pool their resources because they hate Hillary Clinton, love the rainforest, worry about the national debt, support gay marriage, think abortion is murder, oppose gun control, or even believe that corporations have too much influence on politics. McCain-Feingold told these groups they were not allowed to talk about their issues close to an election if the discussion happened to mention any politicians running for federal office.
The ban on electioneering communications was supposed to strengthen a pre-existing ban on spending by unions or corporations “in connection with” a federal election. That prohibition, originally imposed by Congress in 1947, was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, which Congress amended in 1974 following the Watergate scandal to impose new restrictions on contributions and spending, require detailed recordkeeping and reporting by political committees, and create the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to oversee the new regulatory system.

You Are Now Free to Speak About Politics - Reason Magazine

I'd also like to point out something you might be overlooking.

If the decision had gone the other way and the district courts decision had been upheld the only effective difference in election spending would be that the ads could not name specific candidates in a negative manner close to an election. Think about those issue ads form 2006 and 2008. Do you really prefer ads like that?

 

[goldcatt]

Back it up, you're missing the whole point.

The Court in the majority was clear - the right belongs to the organization as an entity. The entity's nationality and residency is determined not by its ownership, control or principals, but by where its charter is filed. Period. That is a very basic, simple principle of the corporate entity.

Prior to this decision, the right did not exist. Corporations, some non profits and unions had to work through PACs which have strict regulatory and reporting requirements. They, themselves, were under the Austin rule where they were not treated on a par with individuals and did not have the same level of rights. The right was created, but even though the right belongs solely to the corporate entity and the decision makes clear the First Amendment cannot distinguish between natural humans and corporate persons as far as speech rights (in some places it even uses the term "citizen"), corporations can be owned, operated, controlled and capitalized by anyone, anywhere in the world and so long as they are formed in the US they are American persons.

The Court does not make clear what to do about American entities under foreign ownership, control or capitalization. It refuses to address the issue at all. What it DOES make clear is that the corporate entity of any size or type, the non profit and the union, all have the same speech rights as individuals when it comes to campaign expenditures and speech rights.

The right belongs to the organization, the organization is American, so what if the principals controlling it are Chinese, right? You do not, according to this decision, have a basis for restricting the speech of that American organization. None. There is no exception carved out, the right is absolute. Constitutional decisions outweigh statutory law which outweighs administrative regulation, remember. Basic hierarchy of laws.

The reporting requirements are clear - the organizations only have to report their expenditures, not their source of funds. It is presumed in your own quoted text that the money will come from the organization's general funds - yet many of these organizations solicit and receive contributions, whether from their own principals or from outside sources. That's sec. 201 that's referred to in the earlier quoted text, BTW. The actual reporting requirements that were upheld.

Some nonprofits will have to reveal the names of donors, if they were required to prior to the ruling. This is relevant to the contest of hte case because Citizens United falls into this category to whom reporting requirements already applied. Unions, for-profit corporations and others who could only work through PACs prior to CU did not have those reporting requirements in place, as they, themselves were not accepting contributions for political purposes. And the language quoted above regarding the chilling effect of reporting requirements for PACs makes it more than clear no such regulatory scheme breaking down and categorizing sources of revenue, debt and expenditures will be acceptable. But it does not say what would be acceptable, except to point out that expenditures posted online should be enough to inform the shareholders and public.

They must disclose in a broadcast advertisement only the name of the organization, if applicable its CEO's name, and read a standard disclaimer. That's sec. 311 that is referenced in earlier quoted parts of the text - and was upheld. The reference to 4 seconds of air time is in regards to the spoken disclaimer and disclosure for this section, remember?

The quotes you pulled from the decision in your last post (EDIT - you posted again while I was typing, so that's actually 2 posts ago) describe the portion of McCain-Feingold that was overturned, sec. 441, that required corporate entities to work through PACs. In the second quoted portion it's discussing an argument from an amicus brief that was rejected concerning placing limitations based on the number of people an ad will reach. Neither one has anything to do with reporting.

I really want to reach through the screen and shake you, you know that. You're usually sharper than this, what's up with the reading skills on this case?

 

[goldcatt]

Now, I realize you're looking at this through a strictly partisan lens, or have been so far. But try to get past the party to the facts and issues.

There is a LOT that this decision didn't address, or left so vague or contradictory as to be meaningless. It will be years before its full impact is known, and will take a lot of revisiting I'm sure.

But as of right now....take a look at the suggestions for FEC regarding corporations and labor unions at the bottom of the link provided earlier in this post. You'll note all requirements and suggestions for handling data on disclosures have to do solely with expenditures, NOT sources. That's because sources do not have to be reported - only where it goes, not where it comes from.

And the people proposing a constitutional amendment, on the other hand, are only concerned with protecting me from the evil corporations.

If you want to know where my partisan outlook comes from, I suggest reading this article.

Print|Email|Single Page
You Are Now Free to Speak About Politics

Why do some people fear a less restricted debate?

Jacob Sullum from the December 2010 issue

As Democrats headed for what promised to be a midterm election fiasco of historic proportions, a pre-emptive excuse began to circulate: It was all the Supreme Court’s fault. In an August Washington Post column, Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, said Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the January decision in which the Court overturned restrictions on political speech by corporations, had created a “very alarming” situation in which democracy (not to mention Democrats) would be swept away by “a flood of corporate campaign cash” because “there is no way private citizens can match the resources available to corporations to make their voices heard.” In a radio address around the same time, President Barack Obama dreaded “a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names,” unleashed by a ruling that “allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.”
In September a front-page New York Times story seemed to confirm these antediluvian prophecies. The paper reported that “outside groups supporting Republican candidates in House and Senate races across the country have been swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts on television.” The Times worried that “a relatively small cadre of deep-pocketed donors, unknown to the general public, is shaping the battle for Congress in the early going.” It said “Democratic officials” believed “corporate interests, newly emboldened by regulatory changes,” were trying to “buy the election.” In short, the spending patterns seemed to be “a fulfillment of Democrats’ worst fears after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.”
Except that, as the Times conceded in the next paragraph, “it is not clear…whether it is actually an influx of new corporate money unleashed by the Citizens United decision that is driving the spending chasm.” Other factors—“notably, a political environment that favors Republicans”—might be at work. In fact, the spending cited in the story was mostly by rich individuals or by groups organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, both of which were legal before Citizens United.
An October story in The Washington Post likewise suggested that Citizens United helped explain the Republicans’ spending lead but was hazy as to how. “The outside group spending is primarily being driven by the political climate,” a campaign finance expert told the Post. “Organized groups are looking at great opportunity, and therefore there’s great interest to spend money to influence the election.”
When you get beyond the scaremongering about deluges of dollars, the practical consequences of Citizens United so far seem to be much less dramatic than its critics predicted. But how could they not be? “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation,” Justice John Paul Stevens warned in his dissent. “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” The New York Times said the “radical” and “disastrous” decision “strikes at the heart of democracy.” Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Citizens United was “the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott,” because “it leads us all down the road to serfdom.”
President Obama managed to outdo them all, declaring that he “can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” To Obama, apparently, the prospect of a less restricted political debate was more horrifying than an economic collapse, a military coup, or a nuclear war. Although it’s too early to predict exactly what will happen as a result of Citizens United, it seems safe to say that plenty of things are more harmful to the public interest. Among them are laws that seek to silence some so that others may be heard.
Everything Is Incorporated
The over-the-top reactions to Citizens United reflect a view of corporations as giant, soulless automatons that are fine for producing goods and services in a regulated environment but bound to wreak havoc if let loose in the halls of political power. That view obscures the fact that corporations, no matter how large or profit-driven, are by definition associations of individuals who have joined together for a common purpose. It also misleadingly suggests that behemoths such as Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil are typical corporations, when in fact the vast majority of the 6 million or so corporations registered in the United States are small businesses or nonprofits.
“In 2010 almost everything is incorporated,” notes Allison Hayward, a former George Mason University law professor who recently became vice president of policy at the Center for Competitive Politics, which favors deregulation of political speech. “Anything you want to do as a group with other people—apart from the context where partnerships might work, like practicing law—you’re going to do through a corporate form of some kind.” Civil society, including churches, charitable organizations, and grassroots political groups of every interest and ideology, consists largely of corporations.
For an illustration, one need look no further than the case the Supreme Court decided. Citizens United, founded by the conservative activist Floyd Brown in 1988, is not a huge corporation seeking subsidies or permission to pollute. It is a nonprofit, ideological organization with an annual budget of $12 million that wanted to run a documentary about Hillary Clinton on pay-per-view TV. It was forbidden to do so, under threat of fine and imprisonment, because a) Clinton was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and b) the documentary made her look bad. The movie therefore violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold, which banned “electioneering communications,” defined as TV or radio ads sponsored by unions or corporations that mention a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Contrary to all the rhetoric about corporations drowning out the voice of the people, corporations are the voice of the people—people who pool their resources because they hate Hillary Clinton, love the rainforest, worry about the national debt, support gay marriage, think abortion is murder, oppose gun control, or even believe that corporations have too much influence on politics. McCain-Feingold told these groups they were not allowed to talk about their issues close to an election if the discussion happened to mention any politicians running for federal office.
The ban on electioneering communications was supposed to strengthen a pre-existing ban on spending by unions or corporations “in connection with” a federal election. That prohibition, originally imposed by Congress in 1947, was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, which Congress amended in 1974 following the Watergate scandal to impose new restrictions on contributions and spending, require detailed recordkeeping and reporting by political committees, and create the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to oversee the new regulatory system.

You Are Now Free to Speak About Politics - Reason Magazine

I'd also like to point out something you might be overlooking.

If the decision had gone the other way and the district courts decision had been upheld the only effective difference in election spending would be that the ads could not name specific candidates in a negative manner close to an election. Think about those issue ads form 2006 and 2008. Do you really prefer ads like that?

The point is not the ads or their content (and you're a little bit mistaken about what CU does and does not do, but it's close enough for now), or who benefited or who's trying to sell what to get you to vote for their guys. I couldn't give a shit less what happens with a few seats in a single election cycle under this decision, that's not the point. The point is twofold: the court created a sweeping right that was never intended with no or next to no accountability, and the wide-open loophole for foreign intervention in the system.

Partisan rah-rah is irrelevant to the real issue here. There are a LOT of holes and contradictions in the case with potentially very serious long-term consequences if not fixed, patched, damage controlled or otherwise resolved. The system was never created to grant this right, neither the corporate structure nor the law concerning speech. So if it was to be granted without serious screwups, it needed a comprehensive and coherent analysis to create a useable framework. That didn't happen.

THAT is far more important than who gets what or which ad runs in a single election cycle.

Do I like the concept of individual liberties being granted to fictitious entities? Hell no. But the genie is out of the bottle and I'm not sure there's any going back, so the least they could have done is gotten it right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Back it up, you're missing the whole point.

The Court in the majority was clear - the right belongs to the organization as an entity. The entity's nationality and residency is determined not by its ownership, control or principals, but by where its charter is filed. Period. That is a very basic, simple principle of the corporate entity.

Prior to this decision, the right did not exist. Corporations, some non profits and unions had to work through PACs which have strict regulatory and reporting requirements. They, themselves, were under the Austin rule where they were not treated on a par with individuals and did not have the same level of rights. The right was created, but even though the right belongs solely to the corporate entity and the decision makes clear the First Amendment cannot distinguish between natural humans and corporate persons as far as speech rights (in some places it even uses the term "citizen"), corporations can be owned, operated, controlled and capitalized by anyone, anywhere in the world and so long as they are formed in the US they are American persons.

The Court does not make clear what to do about American entities under foreign ownership, control or capitalization. It refuses to address the issue at all. What it DOES make clear is that the corporate entity of any size or type, the non profit and the union, all have the same speech rights as individuals when it comes to campaign expenditures and speech rights.

The right belongs to the organization, the organization is American, so what if the principals controlling it are Chinese, right? You do not, according to this decision, have a basis for restricting the speech of that American organization. None. There is no exception carved out, the right is absolute. Constitutional decisions outweigh statutory law which outweighs administrative regulation, remember. Basic hierarchy of laws.

The reporting requirements are clear - the organizations only have to report their expenditures, not their source of funds. It is presumed in your own quoted text that the money will come from the organization's general funds - yet many of these organizations solicit and receive contributions, whether from their own principals or from outside sources. That's sec. 201 that's referred to in the earlier quoted text, BTW. The actual reporting requirements that were upheld.

Some nonprofits will have to reveal the names of donors, if they were required to prior to the ruling. This is relevant to the contest of hte case because Citizens United falls into this category to whom reporting requirements already applied. Unions, for-profit corporations and others who could only work through PACs prior to CU did not have those reporting requirements in place, as they, themselves were not accepting contributions for political purposes. And the language quoted above regarding the chilling effect of reporting requirements for PACs makes it more than clear no such regulatory scheme breaking down and categorizing sources of revenue, debt and expenditures will be acceptable. But it does not say what would be acceptable, except to point out that expenditures posted online should be enough to inform the shareholders and public.

They must disclose in a broadcast advertisement only the name of the organization, if applicable its CEO's name, and read a standard disclaimer. That's sec. 311 that is referenced in earlier quoted parts of the text - and was upheld. The reference to 4 seconds of air time is in regards to the spoken disclaimer and disclosure for this section, remember?

The quotes you pulled from the decision in your last post (EDIT - you posted again while I was typing, so that's actually 2 posts ago) describe the portion of McCain-Feingold that was overturned, sec. 441, that required corporate entities to work through PACs. In the second quoted portion it's discussing an argument from an amicus brief that was rejected concerning placing limitations based on the number of people an ad will reach. Neither one has anything to do with reporting.

I really want to reach through the screen and shake you, you know that. You're usually sharper than this, what's up with the reading skills on this case?

The court ruled that the right belongs to the corporation, but it did not address anything about them being foreign or not. That means that the current laws and regulations about foregin spending are still in effect, and, if they are to be overturned, it will take a separate case to do so. Your insistence that that is somehow not true is strange.

I would like to point out that, until a few years ago, the right did exist. Court precedent had always come down on the side of allowing speech, and against restricting it. If the Supreme Court had decided to uphold McCain-Feingold Congress could easily have amended the law to ban the same type of speech by new organizations because they are also corporations. Do you think that is a good idea, or do you think they has a separate constitutional right to argue that they are exempt from laws like this? If you do, you are the only person I ever talked to that does.

As I pointed out earlier, FEC v Wiconsin Right to Life effectively gutted McCain-Feingold and the type of spending you are complaining about anyway. CU going the other way would not have stopped Karl Rove, prevented any of the donations he recieved, it would have just prevented him targeting specific candidates by name if they were running for federal office.

Ever notice how that law does not prevent incumbents from doing any of the things that are evil and bad for our Democracy? Think about that for a while.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The point is not the ads or their content (and you're a little bit mistaken about what CU does and does not do, but it's close enough for now), or who benefited or who's trying to sell what to get you to vote for their guys. I couldn't give a shit less what happens with a few seats in a single election cycle under this decision, that's not the point. The point is twofold: the court created a sweeping right that was never intended with no or next to no accountability, and the wide-open loophole for foreign intervention in the system.

Partisan rah-rah is irrelevant to the real issue here. There are a LOT of holes and contradictions in the case with potentially very serious long-term consequences if not fixed, patched, damage controlled or otherwise resolved. The system was never created to grant this right, neither the corporate structure nor the law concerning speech. So if it was to be granted without serious screwups, it needed a comprehensive and coherent analysis to create a useable framework. That didn't happen.

THAT is far more important than who gets what or which ad runs in a single election cycle.

Do I like the concept of individual liberties being granted to fictitious entities? Hell no. But the genie is out of the bottle and I'm not sure there's any going back, so the least they could have done is gotten it right.

I know I don't have all the details, I am just glad I am getting the gist of it.

This right was not created by CU, it existed before. It wasn't until Buckley v Valelo that corporations were prohibited from spending money from their general treasury.

- Google Scholar

The things is that those fictitious entities are nothing but groups of people, some of which exist expressly to talk about issues they think are important. You are a lawyer, you know corporations exist only to facilitate people doing things. There is no reasonable, or constitutional justifiable, way to permit some corporations to enjoy the right to speak about political issues, and deny that same right to others.