What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled

Discussion in 'Politics' started by CMike, Jan 29, 2010.

  1. CMike
    Offline

    CMike Zionist, proud to be

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,900
    Thanks Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,408
    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.
     
  2. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,245
    Thanks Received:
    19,821
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,326
    Embarassment for the Supreme Court

    They will be held accountable in American History
     
  3. Oldandtired
    Offline

    Oldandtired BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,618
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island
    Ratings:
    +349
    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.
     
  4. CMike
    Offline

    CMike Zionist, proud to be

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,900
    Thanks Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,408
    The liberal god has spoken, thus it must be true.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM]YouTube - Funniest Movie Line Ever[/ame]
     
  5. blastoff
    Offline

    blastoff Undocumented Reg. User

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    13,494
    Thanks Received:
    1,707
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    In a galaxy far far away...
    Ratings:
    +4,594
    Well you're wrong because Barry said so the other night.
     
  6. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    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...
     
  7. Oldandtired
    Offline

    Oldandtired BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,618
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island
    Ratings:
    +349
    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.
     
  8. Jay Canuck
    Offline

    Jay Canuck by Crom you'll pay!

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,090
    Thanks Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +212
    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
     
  9. Zona
    Offline

    Zona A guy in ariZONA

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Messages:
    13,874
    Thanks Received:
    941
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ.
    Ratings:
    +942
    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?
     
  10. Zona
    Offline

    Zona A guy in ariZONA

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Messages:
    13,874
    Thanks Received:
    941
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ.
    Ratings:
    +942
    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.
     

Share This Page