What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled

CMike

Zionist, proud to be
Oct 25, 2009
9,219
1,172
190
The issue was whether corporiations can give money to pay for ads that express political positions.

If it's ads simply pro or con a candidate that's not what the supreme court was talking about.

It was about advocating political positions.

The court ruled that you can not take away people's free speech by not allowing them to promote their ads regarding a political position.

From the actual ruling.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-969.pdf page 4

In light of these considerations, a court should find that an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. WRTL’s three ads are plainly not thefunctional equivalent of express advocacy under this test. First, their content is consistent with that of a genuine issue ad: They focus and take a position on a legislative issue and exhort the public to adoptthat position and to contact public officials with respect to the matter.Second, their content lacks indicia of express advocacy: They do notmention an election, candidacy, political party, or challenger; andthey take no position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, orfitness for office. Pp. 15–22.2.


Because WRTL’s ads are not express advocacy or its functional equivalent, and because appellants identify no interest sufficientlycompelling to justify burdening WRTL’s speech, BCRA §203 is uncon-stitutional as applied to the ads. The section can be constitutionally applied only if it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest. E.g., McConnell, supra, at 205. None of the interests that might jus-tify regulating WRTL’s ads are sufficiently compelling. Although the Court has long recognized “the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption” in election campaigns, Buckley, 424 U. S., at 45, it has invoked this interest as a reason for upholding contribution limits, id., at 26–27, and suggested that itmight also justify limits on electioneering expenditures posing thesame dangers as large contributions, id., at 45. McConnell arguablyapplied this interest to ads that were the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy. See 540 U. S., at 204–206. But to justify regula-tion of WRTL’s ads, this interest must be stretched yet another stepto ads that are not the functional equivalent of express advocacy. Is-sue ads like WRTL’s are not equivalent to contributions, and the cor-ruption interest cannot justify regulating them. A second possible compelling interest lies in addressing “the corrosive and distorting ef-fects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated withthe help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation tothe public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 660. McConnell held that this interest justifies regulating the “functional equivalent” of campaign speech, 540 U. S., at 205–206. This interest cannot be ex-tended further to apply to genuine issue ads like WRTL’s, see, e.g., id., at 206, n. 88, because doing so would call into question thisCourt’s holdings that the corporate identity of a speaker does not strip corporations of all free speech rights. WRTL I reinforced the va-lidity of this point by holding §203 susceptible to as-applied chal-lenges. 546 U. S., at 411–412. Pp. 23–28.
 
Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History
 
Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

SO I guess the ruling was way too much for you to read.

Yes, it is a lot of legalese....but rest assured...the supreme court did not rule that foreign entities will be allowed to influence elections.

And yes...I read it....and I read the original ruling...and I read how the parts of the original ruling that applied to foreign entities was untouched and still 100% in effect.

And in no way does it open the door to campaign contributions from corporations be they national or international.
 
The liberal god has spoken, thus it must be true.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM]YouTube - Funniest Movie Line Ever[/ame]
 
Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

SO I guess the ruling was way too much for you to read.

Yes, it is a lot of legalese....but rest assured...the supreme court did not rule that foreign entities will be allowed to influence elections.

And yes...I read it....and I read the original ruling...and I read how the parts of the original ruling that applied to foreign entities was untouched and still 100% in effect.

And in no way does it open the door to campaign contributions from corporations be they national or international.

Well you're wrong because Barry said so the other night.
 
Obama's open attack on the Court regarding his misunderstanding of the actual issue is already painting him as the increasingly inept moron he is.

Majority of Americans have no clue- but inside the Beltway, Obama lost more credibility, and that will only prove to lessen his already decreased standing from many within his own party...
 
Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

SO I guess the ruling was way too much for you to read.

Yes, it is a lot of legalese....but rest assured...the supreme court did not rule that foreign entities will be allowed to influence elections.

And yes...I read it....and I read the original ruling...and I read how the parts of the original ruling that applied to foreign entities was untouched and still 100% in effect.

And in no way does it open the door to campaign contributions from corporations be they national or international.

Well you're wrong because Barry said so the other night.

Sadly, it is obvious you are being sarcastic, but I have had many say I was wrong for that exact reason.

Amd no one can tell me that Obama did not knnow that the majority of his supporters will believe anything he says...true or not.

I was glad the GOP asked him today about the "party of no" thing. They came right out and said "if you do not thionk we have healthcare ideas, then maybe you should blame the speaker for not presenting them to you"

After stumbling for a few seconds he said "Your ideas have been presented to me"...

So he was then asked "then why does your administration continually say we have not presented ideas"

Again, he stumbled for a few and then said...and I paraphrase..."Your ideas will not work"

There happens to be a big difference between:

"we do not agree with the GOP ideas" and "the GOP has presented no ideas"

The truth is slowly coming out.
 
I guess I'm goin to have to sort this out ....again.

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”


And on Page 75, Stevens wrote: “Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html#ixzz0e1uFBnZg
 
Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.

Whats so wrong with that?
 
Obama's open attack on the Court regarding his misunderstanding of the actual issue is already painting him as the increasingly inept moron he is.

Majority of Americans have no clue- but inside the Beltway, Obama lost more credibility, and that will only prove to lessen his already decreased standing from many within his own party...

Regan on roe v wade...he said he was against it
Bush on roe v wade,....he said he was against it.

What the hell is your point. the president is correct. He is worried about foreigners having any influence on our elections. How can you hacks not get this? I mean I know you HAVE to go along with everything the right does, but this is just embarrassing.
 
roberts-money-is-speech.jpg


Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash
Reuters – Thu Jan 21, 2:42 pm ET
RULING COULD UNDERMINE INTEGRITY-DISSENT
In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."
The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.
In the 2008 election cycle, nearly $6 billion was spent on all federal campaigns, including more than $1 billion from corporate political action committees, trade associations, executives and lobbyists.
The ruling will almost certainly allow labor unions to spend more freely in political campaigns also and it posed a threat to similar limits that had been imposed in about half of the country's 50 states.
The top court struck down the part of the federal law that restricted broadcast advertisements for or against political candidates right before elections that are paid for by corporations, labor unions and advocacy groups.
 
There is a difference between a president being against a ruling, and in the state of the union address, chastizing the Supreme Court members, as they are seated in the front row.

The justices don't have to be there. They only come to show respect for the office of the president and congress.

Unfortunately, Obama is too much of an egocentric shithead to show respect for them.
 
Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.

Whats so wrong with that?

Wrong. The ruling was about political issues, not about political candidates.

Obviously, free speech is a foreign concept to liberals.
 
Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.

Whats so wrong with that?

Wrong. The ruling was about political issues, not about political candidates.

Obviously, free speech is a foreign concept to liberals.

You're free to say what you like, as long as I approve of not only what you are saying, but YOU as well. That's pretty much how libs operate.
 
what is really going to be cool for CMike is when al Quaida has the opportunity to afford some freespeech in the U.S and influence elections!
 
We know that they've advocated the censorship of Limbaugh and other prominent conservatives for years. Yet Air America, who couldn't make a dime if they tried, should have gotten tax money.
 
From the ruling page 4

In light of these considerations, a court should find that an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. WRTL’s three ads are plainly not the functional equivalent of express advocacy under this test. First, their content is consistent with that of a genuine issue ad: They focus and take a position on a legislative issue and exhort the public to adoptthat position and to contact public officials with respect to the matter.Second, their content lacks indicia of express advocacy: They do notmention an election, candidacy, political party, or challenger; andthey take no position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, orfitness for office. Pp. 15–22.
 


osama-wises-up.jpg


Manchurian Candidates
Court allows Saudi Arabia (the guys behind 9-11), others stake in US elections
by Greg Palast

Link Excerpt:
The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates. I’m losing sleep over the millions - or billions - of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from the maker of “New Order” fashions, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation. Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC’s federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA. But under today’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

way to fight the war on terrorism CMike and SCOTUS Republitards!
 
Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.

Whats so wrong with that?

I see you are too lazy to read the ruling as well.
Pitiful how some people prefer to regurgitate what those NOT in the know tell them as opposed to doing a little reading.
 
I guess I'm goin to have to sort this out ....again.

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”


And on Page 75, Stevens wrote: “Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html#ixzz0e1uFBnZg

I suggest you read more, you canadian leech (talk about redundancy...it is like saying "round circle").

Those of us that read it know exactly what part of the ruling was overturned and what part of the ruling remained the same.

You simply did what canadians do...acted as a leech....and let others read it and give you their summation...and that was enough for you.

ANd it makes you look like...well...a weak canadian leech.

(again redundant...."weak canadian leech" is like saying "round circle with no straight edges").
 

Forum List

Back
Top