- Banned
- #561
Most of the largest corporations are publicly held, and of course these are the corporations that most people are concerned with.
Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits
- Thread starter toomuchtime_
- Start date
Most of the largest corporations are publicly held, and of course these are the corporations that most people are concerned with.
Most of the largest are publicly owned, but not all. Frankly, from a practical standpoint the ones who worry me are the sub-S corps somebody like Hamas or a Chinese manufacturer will open with a PO Box and a couple hundred bucks.
No public ownership, no fiduciary responsibility, no shareholders with a conscience, just a Constitutionally protected right to funnel as much money and influence as they want through their fictitious entity and into the system to avoid the kind of laws Yurt posted a while back. And all now perfectly legit.
Broad principles of individual liberty aside, I can't understand what the Justices in the majority were smoking.
I fondly remember the $1000.00 donations Hillary got from all those bus boys in China Town.
Didn't Bill get into a fix in one of His Campaigns, His Re Election Campaign/
Bad stuff is going to happen one way or another. Be Vigilant. Spending will help the Economy, that does not guarantee acceptance, just voice. Keep it transparent with full disclosure ( We may be interested in what is behind what, concerning Dummie Corporations).
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,273
- 1,283
- Banned
- #564
Someone wanted this turn of events and planned this outcome.
It sure as hell looks like the BUSH family holds a big part of the responsibility for the Picks of SCOTUS members who effected this change.
Its all in the R court for this one and they have handed our asses to foreign control.
It sure as hell looks like the BUSH family holds a big part of the responsibility for the Picks of SCOTUS members who effected this change.
Its all in the R court for this one and they have handed our asses to foreign control.
I fondly remember the $1000.00 donations Hillary got from all those bus boys in China Town.
Didn't Bill get into a fix in one of His Campaigns, His Re Election Campaign/
Bad stuff is going to happen one way or another. Be Vigilant. Spending will help the Economy, that does not guarantee acceptance, just voice. Keep it transparent with full disclosure ( We may be interested in what is behind what, concerning Dummie Corporations).
Bad stuff is going to happen, but why give it Constitutional protection?
And no, the implication of this ruling is clear. They will not be able to pierce the veil and use the nationality of dummy corporations' owners to "censor" the domestically organized corporation's speech. If a corporation is a person for the purposes of political speech, then as a person it has its own nationality separate from that of its owners. To change that they will have to revisit this decision. Which as we all know would take years. How many dummy corporate shells will spring up and dissolve only to spring up again in the meantime, only to dump money and influence into the system for what agendas?
Go back and read it carefully - the decision only addresses the corporate form, not the nature of the entity or the nationality of its ownership.
THAT is at least part of what the corporation being a completely separate entity in law has to do with free speech. There are other effects, but in practical terms that's the biggie.
- Banned
- #566
Unfortunately, whether legal or not, and no matter which of us supports this or not, this decision effectively is going to take any decision making in the political process out of our hands.
We may as well hang up our keyboards right now, because unless some major legislation is passed to combat this, we may as well be talking to ourselves.
We may as well hang up our keyboards right now, because unless some major legislation is passed to combat this, we may as well be talking to ourselves.
- Banned
- #567
Word.
Chin up, Vast. They don't have the right to vote - yet.
But any future campaign finance reform legislation (and other types of legislation affecting unions and corporations too) will have to be carefully crafted if it's not going to be thrown out under this ruling. Assuming those who benefit from this will want to kill their own golden geese even trying, which is a stretch.
The Justices took a very broad, radical approach and unfortunately most statutes are going to run afoul of it if they place any curbs on corporate money being used in the political process other than direct contributions to candidates. But here's hoping beyond hope!
Liability
Locked Account.
You are beyond clueless. You are retarded.
We have no free speech?
Then what the hell is all this discussion I see about a Supreme Court decision? if we have no free speech, we wouldn't be entitled to discuss a determination of THE GOVERNMENT.
Did somebody stop you from claiming that I was a "fucking idiot?" Seems to me I just read it, so it LOOKS like nobody stopped you from spewing your ignorance.
I have often been highly critical of President Obama and Dingy Harry Reid and Shrieker Pelousy, and lots of libs around these parts had been harshly (and irrationally) critical of our former President and Vice President. Nobody got arrested and nobody prevented any of us from sharing our views.
But to morons like you, "we have no free speech."
You clueless talking-point addicted dork.
we do not have free speech.
free speech doesn't mean there are some things you can say. it doesn't mean you can sometimes criticize your government. it means you can say ANYTHING, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. we don't have that.
i was recently banned from a forum for "hate speech" and before that i was banned from another forum for "promoting pedophilia" etc. you cannot protest in America WITHOUT A PERMIT to protest ( does that make sense to you ? )
and what the fuck is a "designated free speech zone" ? isn't that what the whole of America was supposed to be ?
instead of waking up and fighting for REAL free speech - like the right to protest ( outside the designated free speech zones ) the government WITHOUT A PERMIT that the government itself must give you - no instead of that you want to fight for the rights of the most ruthless, powerful, oppressive entities which are both non-human, fundamentally immoral and immortal.
"[Free Speech] means you can say ANYTHING, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE."
You are indeed retarded. That is not the meaning of "free speech." Only childish imbeciles construe the right to freedom of speech as being absolutely unconditional.
The famous example (one which absolutist morons like you cannot grasp) is falsely yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. The REASONS we are not "free" to use speech in that unprinciple and irrational manner is because it is very dangerous, and the danger is not mitigated by any rational which would justify it.
Similarly, you are not "free" to share with an enemy our national security state secrets.
Again, the reason you lack such "freedom" is because it is way too dangerous and there is no rational principle which would warrant permitting you to do something that stupid.
Getting booted from a fucking privately owned message board has nothing whatsofucking ever to DO with the Freedom of Speech provision of the First amendment, by the way.
If you want to debate whether there is something inherently "wrong" with so-called "free speech zones," that's a worthwhile topic for discussion. But the fact that some such silly things have been crafted over the years also doesn't demonstrate that anybody has been deprived of freedom of speech.
Zoom-boing
Platinum Member
This makes sense to me but . . . . this ruling overturns McCain-Feingold, yes? Didn't this ruling just put things back to what they had been for 200 years or so, to the way things were prior to McCain-Feingold?
This makes sense to me but . . . . this ruling overturns McCain-Feingold, yes? Didn't this ruling just put things back to what they had been for 200 years or so, to the way things were prior to McCain-Feingold?
Yes, and no.
Before McCain-Feingold corporations didn't have the curbs on political spending, but they also were not recognized as "persons" with their own Constitutionally protected right to practically unlimited political speech and spending. They had only a Consitutionally protected right to a more limited realm of "commercial" speech that allowed them the freedom necessary to conduct business affairs. Campaign finance and corporate and union contributions could be reasonably regulated by Congress, they just hadn't been.
Now that corporations - and unions, don't forget - are Constitutionally considered "people" for all political purposes except direct campaign contributions, voting and holding office, there are all kinds of laws that will be overturned or made impossible before they're even in existence. It's out of Congress' hands and into the realm of a Constitutional right.
Future campaign finance reform is one area. It brings rules on corporate or union lobbying into question as well, who knows how many of those will be affected? The implications for foreign contributions have already been discussed. I also have questions about how it will affect the law governing corporations themselves, since it is such a broad and sweeping Constitutional ruling that can be interpreted to say corporations and unions are nothing more than the sum of the individuals involved in them rather than a legal construct created for limiting liability. Is the very nature of the corporate entity being changed, and with what results?
There are alot of unanswered questions here, and honestly I don't know how they're going to come up with one coherent body of law surrounding the Constitutional rights and status of these entities. Stay tuned, this is far from over!
Last edited:
Liability
Locked Account.
It took this President a LONG time to figure out that the folks trying to find newer and ever-more creative ways to kill some of our people are "the enemy" with whom we are at war.
He hasn't quite grasped that their are implications which flow from such remarkable insight.
He's a kind of slow study.
I'm wondering when he will have the crucial flash of insight necessary to grasp that the First Amendment actually DOES mean that laws infringing free speech are prohibited.
Once he grasps that rather plain, obvious, simple and correct statement of fact, perhaps he will spend less time criticizing the Supreme Court of the United States for having the unmitigated audacity to rule accordingly.
He hasn't quite grasped that their are implications which flow from such remarkable insight.
He's a kind of slow study.
I'm wondering when he will have the crucial flash of insight necessary to grasp that the First Amendment actually DOES mean that laws infringing free speech are prohibited.
Once he grasps that rather plain, obvious, simple and correct statement of fact, perhaps he will spend less time criticizing the Supreme Court of the United States for having the unmitigated audacity to rule accordingly.
Have you not noticed with the current Administration, that as far as China is concerned, China can do no wrong, the big issue here, is how much We owe, at least on the surface. The real issue is lack of integrity, but that need not concern Us here. Just keep buying those lead contaminated children's toys and pocket books, and wallets, and God knows what else.
The realization here is being free to decide and voice should not be undersold.
For the first and only time, I agree with Liability.
The proper course of action to ensure corporations do not overwhelm the electoral process by flooding it with money and thereby diminishing the role citizens play in their democracy is not to mangle the First Amendment or limit free speech.
The court ruled properly even if the outcome will be shitty if it's the only change adopted.
The way to deal with this is for the SC to rule as they appropriately did, then for the government to institute publicly financed elections which is so obviously a good idea it hardly needs defending. Elections should be based on the merits and popular support of the candidates, not who has the most money.
Beyond that, it would also be a good idea if either Congress passed a law or the SC revisited the specific issue of corporate personhood and reversed course. Corporate personhood doesn't make sense and is not in keeping with the intent of the Constitution, nor even the Supreme Court decision that granted it. People simply have personhood, guaranteed, endowed, inalienable. No other entity, be it a corporation, union, PAC, or PTA should be treated as such. Fair, equitable, but sensible laws can easily apply to groups that differ from the laws applied to individual citizens without infringing on the rights of the individuals who comprise them.
Last edited:
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
I think it's safe to say that the anti-business climate in congress is about to come to a thunderous halt. Unions and 527's can't compete with the kind of cash that real corporations that generate wealth can put out if they want to. Barring any sort of limitations on this, this could be the first time in what...20...60 years a true competition will exist for the purchase of politicians. It will no longer be just the realm of elusive PACs and 527s with secretive sources of money.
2010 just got outstandingly ugly for anti-capitalists.
I do have to mention a certain fear of a pendulum swing back to the "Guilded Age" style of politics. That would be just as bad as what we've been going through the last few decades though.
2010 just got outstandingly ugly for anti-capitalists.
I do have to mention a certain fear of a pendulum swing back to the "Guilded Age" style of politics. That would be just as bad as what we've been going through the last few decades though.
I'm sorry you still don't get it. Only people enjoy individual protected rights under the Constitution. Not plants, not animals, not objects tangible or intangible.
This Anti Capitalist, Anti Free Market crap has got to be faced up to. we are out of cheeks, to turn and it is bringing Us down. I'm not saying that action does not have consequence. There are no free passes. We pay one way or the other. My preferred way is by consent, not mandate.
You are wrong. Life and Liberty, and Property are All Protected Goldcatt. The part of the Constitution You are stuck on is separate from the First Amendment. Study the Federalist Papers on Free Speech and on Corporations too. Without Free Speech, how do Organizations defend against Attack? You are mixing issues. You are condoning Censorship, which is exactly what this case was about. Your Law was Arbitrary and unfair. No Equal Playing field. One Side couldn't shut up, the other couldn't respond. That is wrong at every level.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
Here is a small bit, feel free to check out the link fully.
(a) Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shallmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibitionon corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the factthat a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an es-sential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Gov-ernment to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor cer-tain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speak-ers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain
4
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Syllabus
preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in thepolitical speech context, the Government may impose restrictions oncertain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this con-clusion. Pp. 20–25.
(b)
The Court has recognized that the First Amendment appliesto corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 778, n. 14, and extended this protection to the context of politicalspeech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428–429. Address-ing challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Buckley Court upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates, 18
U.
S. C. §608(b), recognizing a governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. 424 U. S., at 25–26. However, the Court in-validated §608(e)’s expenditure ban, which applied to individuals,corporations, and unions, because it “fail[ed] to serve any substantialgovernmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of cor-ruption in the electoral process,” id., at 47–48. While Buckley did not consider a separate ban on corporate and union independent expendi-tures found in §610, had that provision been challenged in Buckley’s wake, it could not have been squared with the precedent’s reasoning and analysis. The Buckley Court did not invoke the overbreadth doc-trine to suggest that §608(e)’s expenditure ban would have been con-stitutional had it applied to corporations and unions but not indi-viduals. Notwithstanding this precedent, Congress soon recodified §610’s corporate and union expenditure ban at 2 U. S. C. §441b, the provision at issue. Less than two years after Buckley, Bellotti reaf-firmed the First Amendment principle that the Government lacks thepower to restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. 435 U.S., at 784–785. Thus the law stood until Austin up-held a corporate independent expenditure restriction, bypassing Buckley and Bellotti by recognizing a new governmental interest inpreventing “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggrega-tions of [corporate] wealth . . . that have little or no correlation to thepublic’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” 494 U. S., at
660. Pp. 25–32.
(c)
This Court is confronted with conflicting lines of precedent: a pre-Austin line forbidding speech restrictions based on the speaker’s corporate identity and a post-Austin line permitting them. Neither Austin’s antidistortion rationale nor the Government’s other justifica-tions support §441b’s restrictions. Pp. 32–47.
(1)
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in politicalspeech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Gov-ernment to ban political speech because the speaker is an associationwith a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decision-
Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 5
Syllabus
making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speechcomes from a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 777 (footnote omitted). This protection is inconsistent with Austin’s rationale, which is meant to prevent corporations from obtaining “ ‘an unfair advantage in the political marketplace’ ” by using “ ‘resources amassed in the economic marketplace.’ ” 494 U. S., at 659. First Amendment protec-tions do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Buckley, supra, at 49. These conclusions were re-affirmed when the Court invalidated a BCRA provision that in-creased the cap on contributions to one candidate if the opponent made certain expenditures from personal funds. Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U. S. ___, ___. Distinguishing wealthy indi-viduals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, in-cluding individuals and the media, use money amassed from the eco-nomic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Al-though currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth withthe help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth,and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’ssupport” for those views. Differential treatment of media corpora-tions and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amend-ment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corpora-tions’ political speech. Austin interferes with the “open marketplace”of ideas protected by the First Amendment. New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 208.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Syllabus
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
Here is a small bit, feel free to check out the link fully.
(a) Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shallmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibitionon corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the factthat a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an es-sential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Gov-ernment to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor cer-tain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speak-ers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain
4
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Syllabus
preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in thepolitical speech context, the Government may impose restrictions oncertain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this con-clusion. Pp. 20–25.
(b)
The Court has recognized that the First Amendment appliesto corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 778, n. 14, and extended this protection to the context of politicalspeech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428–429. Address-ing challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Buckley Court upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates, 18
U.
S. C. §608(b), recognizing a governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. 424 U. S., at 25–26. However, the Court in-validated §608(e)’s expenditure ban, which applied to individuals,corporations, and unions, because it “fail[ed] to serve any substantialgovernmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of cor-ruption in the electoral process,” id., at 47–48. While Buckley did not consider a separate ban on corporate and union independent expendi-tures found in §610, had that provision been challenged in Buckley’s wake, it could not have been squared with the precedent’s reasoning and analysis. The Buckley Court did not invoke the overbreadth doc-trine to suggest that §608(e)’s expenditure ban would have been con-stitutional had it applied to corporations and unions but not indi-viduals. Notwithstanding this precedent, Congress soon recodified §610’s corporate and union expenditure ban at 2 U. S. C. §441b, the provision at issue. Less than two years after Buckley, Bellotti reaf-firmed the First Amendment principle that the Government lacks thepower to restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. 435 U.S., at 784–785. Thus the law stood until Austin up-held a corporate independent expenditure restriction, bypassing Buckley and Bellotti by recognizing a new governmental interest inpreventing “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggrega-tions of [corporate] wealth . . . that have little or no correlation to thepublic’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” 494 U. S., at
660. Pp. 25–32.
(c)
This Court is confronted with conflicting lines of precedent: a pre-Austin line forbidding speech restrictions based on the speaker’s corporate identity and a post-Austin line permitting them. Neither Austin’s antidistortion rationale nor the Government’s other justifica-tions support §441b’s restrictions. Pp. 32–47.
(1)
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in politicalspeech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Gov-ernment to ban political speech because the speaker is an associationwith a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decision-
Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 5
Syllabus
making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speechcomes from a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 777 (footnote omitted). This protection is inconsistent with Austin’s rationale, which is meant to prevent corporations from obtaining “ ‘an unfair advantage in the political marketplace’ ” by using “ ‘resources amassed in the economic marketplace.’ ” 494 U. S., at 659. First Amendment protec-tions do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Buckley, supra, at 49. These conclusions were re-affirmed when the Court invalidated a BCRA provision that in-creased the cap on contributions to one candidate if the opponent made certain expenditures from personal funds. Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U. S. ___, ___. Distinguishing wealthy indi-viduals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, in-cluding individuals and the media, use money amassed from the eco-nomic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Al-though currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth withthe help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth,and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’ssupport” for those views. Differential treatment of media corpora-tions and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amend-ment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corpora-tions’ political speech. Austin interferes with the “open marketplace”of ideas protected by the First Amendment. New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 208.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Similar threads
