Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Dec 29, 2008
19,673
4,730
280
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for 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 apparently 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.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "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.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html
 
5 out of 9 Justices determined that the First Amendment actually means what it says.

4 out of the 9 expressed deep concern that free speech has implications. And they are right. It does.

There are appropriate ways to deal with the concerns expressed by the dissenters. Stifling free speech is not one of them.

Bravo for the integrity shown by this slim majority!

:clap2:
 
Our elections will now be filled with TV ads , billboards, radio station adds that fight for the corporations and limit the options of regular Americans.

Money = speech now and the corps have HUGE piles of money and me and you dont have enough to make our voices heard.

We are soon to be a corporate owned country.
 
Our elections fwill now be filled with TV ads , billboards, radio station adds that fight for the corporations and limit the options of regular Americans.

Money = speech now and the corps have HUGE piles of money and me and you dont have enough to make our voices heard.

We are soon to be a corporate owned country.

Go peddle your whine to some one with some cheese.
 
Our elections will now be filled with TV ads , billboards, radio station adds that fight for the corporations and limit the options of regular Americans.

Money = speech now and the corps have HUGE piles of money and me and you dont have enough to make our voices heard.

We are soon to be a corporate owned country.
We already are. Surely you noticed the bailouts with taxpayers money already. By the corporates for the corporates is what this country is now.
 

Forum List

Back
Top