Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Walt]

While granting corporations and unions the ability to run campaign commercials and yet at the same time restrict direct contributions seems to be a bit of stretch if you are using Free Speech as a justification for doing so. Why? because if it is protected Free Speech then there should be NO LIMITS placed on them at all in terms of direct contributions, because the same argument applies.

"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." Thomas Jefferson

I could not disagree more with the assertion that companies and unions are entitled to free speech when it comes to elections. To do so supposes that these companies and these unions are on equal footing with the individual under the constitution which they clearly are not. It has always been my humble opnion that if one does not have any constitutional ability to vote in an election or determine it's outcome by doing so, then one should NOT have the ability to contribute to it. However, that being said from a pure commercial view these companies depending on where they spend their money if it is not a Govt. regulated commercial airwave, then a good case can be made that they are entitled to do so regardless of content.

Exactly. A corporation or union can give what they want. Yet our "free speech" is limited to 2300.00 dollars. Why does this apply only to them? Why can we not exerise our "free speech" ann give as much as we want?

 

[Liability]

It is also interesting to see the attack on the "legal fiction" that a corporation (which stems from the Latin word, "corpus," for "body") is a person.

Corporations have been deemed to be, for legal purposes, "people" for a very long time. And this is so for good reason.

You can sue a corporation. If they are not deemed to be a "person," they could not sue you, however. Arguably, in fact, if they are not deemed to be "persons," you might not be able to drag them into court, either.

Do you want to work for a corporation? Chances are good that you might like to enter into an employment contract with one, then. If a corporation isn't a "person" then it cannot enter into a contract, so you'd be out of luck.

The Corporation wants to buy your land to build an extension to its line of railroads. Sorry. No can do if the corporation isn't a "person," since it couldn't then buy land (or enter a contract of purchase for the land, for that matter.

When incorporated, corporations are said to be "born.

When they go financially belly-up, they "die."

The attack from the left on the legal ficton of corporate personhood is actually just a continuation of the genral leftist attack on capitalism.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

Best news I've heard all day.

 

[Liability]

New York Business Corporations Law Section 202 - General Powers.

§ 202. General powers.
(a) Each corporation, subject to any limitations provided in this
chapter or any other statute of this state or its certificate of
incorporation, shall have power in furtherance of its corporate
purposes:
(1) To have perpetual duration.
(2) To sue and be sued in all courts and to participate in actions and
proceedings, whether judicial, administrative, arbitrative or otherwise,
in like cases as natural persons.
(3) To have a corporate seal, and to alter such seal at pleasure, and
to use it by causing it or a facsimile to be affixed or impressed or
reproduced in any other manner.
(4) To purchase, receive, take by grant, gift, devise, bequest or
otherwise, lease, or otherwise acquire, own, hold, improve, employ, use
and otherwise deal in and with, real or personal property, or any
interest therein, wherever situated.
(5) To sell, convey, lease, exchange, transfer or otherwise dispose
of, or mortgage or pledge, or create a security interest in, all or any
of its property, or any interest therein, wherever situated.
(6) To purchase, take, receive, subscribe for, or otherwise acquire,
own, hold, vote, employ, sell, lend, lease, exchange, transfer, or
otherwise dispose of, mortgage, pledge, use and otherwise deal in and
with, bonds and other obligations, shares, or other securities or
interests issued by others, whether engaged in similar or different
business, governmental, or other activities.
(7) To make contracts, give guarantees and incur liabilities, borrow
money at such rates of interest as the corporation may determine, issue
its notes, bonds and other obligations, and secure any of its
obligations by mortgage or pledge of all or any of its property or any
interest therein, wherever situated.
(8) To lend money, invest and reinvest its funds, and take and hold
real and personal property as security for the payment of funds so
loaned or invested.
(9) To do business, carry on its operations, and have offices and
exercise the powers granted by this chapter in any jurisdiction within
or without the United States.
(10) To elect or appoint officers, employees and other agents of the
corporation, define their duties, fix their compensation and the
compensation of directors, and to indemnify corporate personnel.
(11) To adopt, amend or repeal by-laws, including emergency by-laws
made pursuant to subdivision seventeen of section twelve of the state
defense emergency act, relating to the business of the corporation, the
conduct of its affairs, its rights or powers or the rights or powers of
its shareholders, directors or officers.
(12) To make donations, irrespective of corporate benefit, for the
public welfare or for community fund, hospital, charitable, educational,
scientific, civic or similar purposes, and in time of war or other
national emergency in aid thereof.
(13) To pay pensions, establish and carry out pension, profit-sharing,
share bonus, share purchase, share option, savings, thrift and other
retirement, incentive and benefit plans, trusts and provisions for any
or all of its directors, officers and employees.
(14) To purchase, receive, take, or otherwise acquire, own, hold,
sell, lend, exchange, transfer or otherwise dispose of, pledge, use and
otherwise deal in and with its own shares.
(15) To be a promoter, partner, member, associate or manager of other
business enterprises or ventures, or to the extent permitted in any
other jurisdiction to be an incorporator of other corporations of any
type or kind.
(16) To have and exercise all powers necessary or convenient to effect
any or all of the purposes for which the corporation is formed.
(b) No corporation shall do business in New York state under any name,
other than that appearing in its certificate of incorporation, without
compliance with the filing provisions of section one hundred thirty of
the general business law governing the conduct of business under an
assumed name.


Last modified: August 10, 2006

New York Business Corporations Law Section 202 - General Powers. - New York Attorney Resources - New York Laws

Some of the powers of a corporation in NY State.

Why do we suppose the law grants these explicit powers to corporations?

 

[Vast LWC]

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections - latimes.com

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.

Sigh. Good luck with your "Tea Party", Good luck with any kind of political movement.

The Republican-appointed Supreme Court just took the ball out of your hands and gave it to the corporations.

Thanks Conservatives. Good work.

"Fascism shoudl rightly be called corporatism as it is the merger of corporate and government power"- Benito Mussolini

 

[Liability]

Free speech, to the liberals, is a threat

to Statism.

 

[US Army Retired]

This is great news. If Palin runs the Oil Companies can endorse her and donate to her campaign. Her massive pipeline was resently given the go creating thousands of jobs.

 

[VaYank5150]

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections - latimes.com

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.

Sigh. Good luck with your "Tea Party", Good luck with any kind of political movement.

The Republican-appointed Supreme Court just took the ball out of your hands and gave it to the corporations.

Thanks Conservatives. Good work.

"Fascism shoudl rightly be called corporatism as it is the merger of corporate and government power"- Benito Mussolini

This is very bad for our already bought and paid for political system....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Free speech, to the liberals, is a threat

to Statism.

Ah, see, immediately the fake populists shed their costumes and let their corporatist colors show through.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections - latimes.com

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.

Sigh. Good luck with your "Tea Party", Good luck with any kind of political movement.

The Republican-appointed Supreme Court just took the ball out of your hands and gave it to the corporations.

Thanks Conservatives. Good work.

"Fascism shoudl rightly be called corporatism as it is the merger of corporate and government power"- Benito Mussolini

This is great litmus test for who amongst the teabaggers and the teabag sympathizers are just corporatists in disguise.

 

[Liability]

Free speech, to the liberals, is a threat

to Statism.

Ah, see, immediately the fake populists shed their costumes and let their corporatist colors show through.

Stupid commentary ^ from stupid liberoidals is not unexpected.

Now back to reality:

I was never a populist nor did I ever lay claim to being a populist.

I am not one of those who objects to the very existence of corporations, either.

Indeed, I actually like capitalism.

This distinguishes me and most other intelligent people from you silly liberoidals.

 

[kwc57]

Free speech, to the liberals, is a threat

to Statism.

You do realize that there are many wealthy liberals running corporations too don't you? Do you think your campaign contributions can match a Microsoft or Google's contributions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe that free speech is a means of exerting political influence,

and if you believe that spending money can be protected as an exercise of free speech,

then you have to believe that those who have the most money should have the most political influence.

 

[Oddball]

Free speech, to the liberals, is a threat

to Statism.

You do realize that there are many wealthy liberals running corporations too don't you? Do you think your campaign contributions can match a Microsoft or Google's contributions?

No...Can't be...

EVERYONE know that big corporations ONLY contribute to republicans!

 

[Liability]

Free speech, to the liberals, is a threat

to Statism.

You do realize that there are many wealthy liberals running corporations too don't you? Do you think your campaign contributions can match a Microsoft or Google's contributions?

Do you imagine that I would object to the RIGHT of Corporations to SAY whatever they believe, merely because I disagree with their political POV?

No no, silly lad.

That kind of unAmerican "thinking" is what libs and related versions of Statists engage in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Free speech, to the liberals, is a threat

to Statism.

Ah, see, immediately the fake populists shed their costumes and let their corporatist colors show through.

Stupid commentary ^ from stupid liberoidals is not unexpected.

Now back to reality:

I was never a populist nor did I ever lay claim to being a populist.

I am not one of those who objects to the very existence of corporations, either.

Indeed, I actually like capitalism.

This distinguishes me and most other intelligent people from you silly liberoidals.

Oh, I have no doubt you're a corporatist, Lardbelly, it fits your persona to a T.

 

[jillian]

The "presumption of innocence" is a legal fiction too.

But, it's a pretty damn powerful one.

As it should be.

No. The presumption of innocence is a rebuttable presumption that sets forth the burdern of proof at trial.

It is not a legal fiction. Or should the government NOT have to prove the charges it levies against a human being?

 

[Liability]

If you believe that free speech is a means of exerting political influence,

and if you believe that spending money can be protected as an exercise of free speech,

then you have to believe that those who have the most money should have the most political influence.

You apparently believe that a louder voice is the one that prevails in an argument.

When I was a kid, my oldest brother took a bite out of a big thick old Chunky Chocolate "bar," once, and ended up with a mouthful of worms, easily visible in the remaining portion of that big gob of chocolate and raisins and nuts.

No matter how often I saw the TV ads trying to sell Chunky, after that, I never bought or tried another one.

The Corporation which manufactured Chunky had a legal right to ptich their product, and they did so a great deal. That didn't amount to persuasion.

 

[Vast LWC]

It is also interesting to see the attack on the "legal fiction" that a corporation (which stems from the Latin word, "corpus," for "body") is a person.

Corporations have been deemed to be, for legal purposes, "people" for a very long time. And this is so for good reason.

You can sue a corporation. If they are not deemed to be a "person," they could not sue you, however. Arguably, in fact, if they are not deemed to be "persons," you might not be able to drag them into court, either.

Do you want to work for a corporation? Chances are good that you might like to enter into an employment contract with one, then. If a corporation isn't a "person" then it cannot enter into a contract, so you'd be out of luck.

The Corporation wants to buy your land to build an extension to its line of railroads. Sorry. No can do if the corporation isn't a "person," since it couldn't then buy land (or enter a contract of purchase for the land, for that matter.

When incorporated, corporations are said to be "born.

When they go financially belly-up, they "die."

The attack from the left on the legal ficton of corporate personhood is actually just a continuation of the genral leftist attack on capitalism.

So, when corporations cause people to die, the shareholders go to jail, right?

When corporations steal money from people, the shareholders go to jail, right?

The answer to both these questions is obviously "no".

It was that great "liberal" Thomas Jefferson who firmly believed that corporations were evil entities because they could do whatever they wanted with limited to no responsibility held by the shareholders.

He said, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

And the fact that you're defending corporate power so vehemently really shows where the true motivations of the right lie.

 

[Vast LWC]

This is great litmus test for who amongst the teabaggers and the teabag sympathizers are just corporatists in disguise.

If Tea Party activists were interested in individual freedoms at all, they would be marching on the supreme court as we speak.