Supreme Court lifts curbs on corporate political donations

[gravyboy77]

I posted this here because of the NRA. Am i right to assume that the rule barring the NRA and pro-gun organizations from running campaign commercials in the last days of the election just went out the window? Also read the last sentence in this article: to me it means that the unions are barred from huge money dumps from their coffers Like they did in the Mass., SEIU gave Coakley $685,000 for hit pieces on Brown 1 week before election day. Now they have to only use money from voluntary contributions from employees and are barred from using union treasury money. Is this good for us?

 

Link:

Supreme Court lifts curbs on corporate political donations

January 21, 2010 9:25 AM | No Comments | BREAKING STORY

 

The Supreme Court this morning overturned the long-standing federal law that bars corporations from using their money to sway federal elections and ruled companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they want to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.

By a 5-4 vote, the court 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.

 

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

 

The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates.

 

Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

[1957Human]

I posted this here because of the NRA. Am i right to assume that the rule barring the NRA and pro-gun organizations from running campaign commercials in the last days of the election just went out the window? Also read the last sentence in this article: to me it means that the unions are barred from huge money dumps from their coffers Like they did in the Mass., SEIU gave Coakley $685,000 for hit pieces on Brown 1 week before election day. Now they have to only use money from voluntary contributions from employees and are barred from using union treasury money. Is this good for us?

 

Link:

Supreme Court lifts curbs on corporate political donations

January 21, 2010 9:25 AM | No Comments | BREAKING STORY

 

The Supreme Court this morning overturned the long-standing federal law that bars corporations from using their money to sway federal elections and ruled companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they want to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.

 

By a 5-4 vote, the court 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.

 

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

 

The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates.

 

Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

 

McCain-Feingold and the US S.Ct.'s wrongly decided 1990 opinion in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (now overruled) were some of the worst examples of the government suppressing free speech that have come down the pike in decades. Good to the see the S.Ct. admitting it was wrong in the past.

 

But this decision has nothing to do with whether a union can use dues for campaign contributions, because the only question was whether a corporation (and by extension a union) can pay for ads within 30 days of an election. The Trib's statement regarding PAC contributions by unions and businesses is certainly correct, as that has been the law for some time now. It, however, was not a issue before the Court and has nothing to do with this opinion.

 

And, boy, you just got to wonder about judges like John Paul Stevens and his statement that "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." What integrity?

 

We've had congressmen given tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions by big banks in return for, literally, trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds. Congressmen's campaign coffers have been swelled by funds from insurance companies and Big Pharm so the health-care bill will be rewritten in their favor. We've seen whole states getting bonuses of tens of millions of dollars if their Senator will vote for the Democrats' health-care legislation. And we've seen the Senate trying to get that legislation passed before they have to seat a new member. And Stevens thinks it's the information contained in campaign ads that threatens our elected institutions?

[gravyboy77]

The Democrats are freaking out about this, so imagine it is probably good for republicans.

 

One thing that is good about this is that the NRA isn't muzzled right before the election. I thought it was wrong that i could donate money to the NRA to support pro-gun candidates, yet they couldn't run ads 30 days before the election. Thats where the free speech came into this ruling.

[spec4]

Today Rush Limbaugh said Chuckie Schumer is going bananas over this. He is calling for congressional hearings. That tells me it is a good thing for America.

[w00dc4ip]

Depending on how you look at things, this ruling can be both good and bad. I have to agree with the ruling that essentially says anyone who wants to buy advertising should be able to.

 

The downside of this ruling is it gives the campaigns (or more accurately the supporters of certain campaigns) with the deepest pockets the biggest advantage.

 

The only question now is how fair the media will be, or are they required by law to be "fair". For example, let's say my bank is supporting the republican candidate and wants to pay $1000/day for a 30 second, prime-time commercial slot. Let's also say my bank's competitor, the local credit union, supports the democrat candidate and wants to pay $500/day for the same 30 second commercial slot. Is the local news station required to take the banks add over the credit union's since the bank is willing to pay more for the specified air time? Would they have to accept both adds but run the bank's twice as often, or lower the price for the bank because they accepted the lower amount of money from the credit union? The owners of media outlets could have tremendous influence over which adds they choose to accept if they aren't required by law to give preference to those willing to pay more for the same limited air time or print space.

[Buzzard]

Today Rush Limbaugh said Chuckie Schumer is going bananas over this. He is calling for congressional hearings. That tells me it is a good thing for America.

Here we have the quintessential, arrogant democrat throwing a tantrum because this works against their plan to silence conservatives. How can you have the unmitigated gall to call for congressional hearings on a Supreme Court ruling? Careful Chuck, your socialism is showing.

[gravyboy77]

Depending on how you look at things, this ruling can be both good and bad. I have to agree with the ruling that essentially says anyone who wants to buy advertising should be able to.

 

The downside of this ruling is it gives the campaigns (or more accurately the supporters of certain campaigns) with the deepest pockets the biggest advantage.

 

The only question now is how fair the media will be, or are they required by law to be "fair". For example, let's say my bank is supporting the republican candidate and wants to pay $1000/day for a 30 second, prime-time commercial slot. Let's also say my bank's competitor, the local credit union, supports the democrat candidate and wants to pay $500/day for the same 30 second commercial slot. Is the local news station required to take the banks add over the credit union's since the bank is willing to pay more for the specified air time? Would they have to accept both adds but run the bank's twice as often, or lower the price for the bank because they accepted the lower amount of money from the credit union? The owners of media outlets could have tremendous influence over which adds they choose to accept if they aren't required by law to give preference to those willing to pay more for the same limited air time or print space.

 

It doesn't work that way and they can't do that. The have price for each time slot based on ratings no matter what the commercial or for who it doesn't matter. If the price for a 30 second spot is $5000 at 5pm thats the price.

[moparcardave]

I was reading somewhere that the NRA was for this.

.

[gravyboy77]

I was reading somewhere that the NRA was for this.

.

 

Of course they were for this. They were muzzled for 30 days before an election by the McCain/Fiegold law, In other words they could not run political ads pointing out that a candidate was anti-gun a month before an election even if donors like us gave them money to do so on our behalf. Thats where the first ammendment can into play.

 

This is pretty good.

 

Link:

Tough week

This morning, the White House announces, on the front page of the Times and elsewhere, that it's headed for open conflict with the banks.

 

A few hours later, the Supreme Court rules that the banks can spend their money for the first time in decades campaigning against him and his candidates.

 

A friend is reminded of a classic cartoon moment (Tom and Jerry) in which a cat taunts a chained dog, only to learn that the the dog is, in fact, off the chain.

[gravyboy77]

Okay here's a little more on this.

 

Link:

Free Speech Vindicated

 

by Paul A. Rahe

 

Towards the end of post on Wednesday in which I attempted an assessment of George W. Bush’s two terms as President, I took Bush to task for betraying his oath of office and signing McCain Feingold — a bill restricting freedom of speech that he rightly regarded as unconstitutional.

 

“It was,” I wrote,

 

President Bush’s hope and expectation that the Supreme Court would declare McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. Thanks to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which is now before the Supreme Court, his hopes may — as Bradley A. Smith suggests in the current issue of National Affairs — soon be vindicated. But nothing can excuse Bush’s failure as President to do what he knew to be his constitutional duty and veto the bill.

 

What I did not know on Monday, when I drafted that post, was that the Supreme Court would issue its decision one day after the anniversary of Barack Obama’s inauguration. I merely argued as follows:

 

The first and most important of our liberties is political liberty. All of our rights depend upon its being sustained. It is essential that American elections be free and open. That is why we have the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is the most important item in the Bill of Rights. Those who framed this amendment were not concerned with artistic freedom and with freedom of expression; they took moral police and moral censorship at the local level for granted — and rightly so. They stipulated, however, that political speech be free and that the press be free as well, and they did so because they recognized that, in the absence of this freedom, if there was not free and open political debate, we would cease to be a self-governing people.

 

McCain-Feingold is an attempt on the part of progressives to introduce “rational administration” into the messy realm of politics by empowering an appointed commission of putative experts — in no way accountable to the American people — to decide who can say what, when, and where in the political arena. George W. Bush understood this; he expressed his misgivings; then, he signed on. For this, he cannot be forgiven.

 

Today I would like to be able to report that the Supreme Court banned the Federal Election Commission and by a unanimous vote reaffirmed the right of all Americans to engage in public debate concerning policies and characters and to spend their money in complete freedom to promote policies and candidates they favor without governmental interference of any kind. This it did not do. But — by a slender majority of five to four — it took a step in this direction; and, speaking for that majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” For this, we should all be thankful.

 

The fact that the majority was in this decision so slender should, however, be a warning to us all. Political liberty is always and everywhere fragile — and at this point in American history, given the size and scope of the administrative apparatus in Washington, it would not be hard for us to lose it. In the next two electoral cycles, it is vital that we choose a Congress and a President who understand the principles of limited government and American constitutionalism and are firmly committed to them. In 2008, neither of the presidential candidates could have been so described.

[GarandFan]

Several news outlets are making a big deal simply of the strengthened 1A protections ...

 

And in the event that I don't know much about the details of an issue (such as this), my gut tells me that more freedom is better than less. The effects of what happened probably remain to be seen. But in principle, what they did was to limit the scope of the federal government.

[GarandFan]

This is relevant (first two paragraphs posted ... click link for entire article):

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis...ted/#more-15362

 

Analysis: A new law to offset Citizens United?

The President calls for action

Lyle Denniston | Thursday, January 21st, 2010 4:00 pm | Tags: Citizens United, Citizens United v. FEC

 

Analysis

 

President Obama ordered his aides on Thursday “to get to work immediately with Congress” to develop “a forceful response” to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. In a statement, the President denounced the decision, saying it “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.” It was obvious, therefore, that he was interested in working with Congress to overturn the decision, or at least to narrow it significantly.

 

Unless he has in mind an amendment to the Constitution, however, it is most unclear at this point whether the lawmakers could do anything — or much of anything — to cut down on “special interest money” in American politics. This was a constitutional decision, laying down (essentially for the first time), a sweeping free-speech right in politics for “special interest” bodies of all types with the concept of “speech” clearly embracing spending money to influence election outcomes. If individuals have considerable freedom to express themselves politically, corporations, labor unions, and other “special interest” entities now do, too.

 

Remainder of story here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis...ted/#more-15362

[gravyboy77]

Well this explains why the liberal msm has been going nuts over this all day. Guess who was exempt from the McCain/Fiengold legislation? The msm, and who controls a majority of the media? The liberals.

This is way bigger than i thought it was....

 

Link:

The Big Losers in Today’s Supreme Court Decision? The MSM.

Posted by Carissa Mulder Jan 21st 2010 at 1:26 pm

 

This morning, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the case of Citizens United v. FEC. The upshot of the decision is that “the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.” Federal law prohibited corporations from donating money “for speech defined as “electioneering speech” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.” The Court held that corporations cannot be prohibited from speaking on political matters. Predictably, President Obama has already decried the ruling as a blow to the little guy and a helping hand to evil corporations.

 

Lost in most of the coverage of the decision (and conveniently ignored by President Obama, former “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School), is that, as Justice Kennedy points out, the ban on electioneering speech never applied to one type of corporation. And what type of corporation would be exempt from laws and regulations that chill the speech of all its corporate brethren? Why, the media corporation, as Justice Kennedy points out on page 35 of the opinion:

 

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

 

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN.) The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

 

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

 

One of the most cherished metaphors in First Amendment jurisprudence is that of “the marketplace of ideas.” If the little guy is too dumb to sort through the marketplace’s offerings from big government, big journalism, and big oil, how can you expect him to be smart enough to vote?

[Buzzard]

In Obama's eye's, corporations are "special interest," labor unions are not. Look at the way Healthcare was handled.

[1957Human]

How many times must it be said that a congress and president who won't support the people's Second Amendment rights won't protect those under the First Amendment either?

[GarandFan]

Well this explains why the liberal msm has been going nuts over this all day. Guess who was exempt from the McCain/Fiengold legislation? The msm, and who controls a majority of the media? The liberals.

This is way bigger than i thought it was....

 

Well, and I predict they are going to freak when McDonald comes down, too. For different reasons, of course.

[Buzzard]

Remember liberals do not play well with others. When the dems had the supermajority, they flipped republicans the finger and said 'we'll write healthcare the way WE want it written, we don't have to play partisan games." Now, the MSM is asking Scott Brown how much he intends to help the dems acheive their goals. Nevermind that the people elected him to stop the dems.

 

When things are going their way, everythings good. When it's not, everythings wrong. Something needs to be done. Watch for an even more hysterical reaction when the McDonald decision is handed down.

[gravyboy77]

Now the Dems are talking about an ammendment to the constitution.....

I don't think ANYONE would want them going near the constitution after the last year that they have been drunk with power.

[GarandFan]

Amendment.

 

Where are "the dems" talking about such an amendment? Maybe a far-left Huffington Post democrat blogger, but there is much hand-wringing and overblown rhetoric flying around right now. It will settle down soon (as US news cycles are only a few hours or days long, despite how big the issue).

[Buzzard]

Now the Dems are talking about an ammendment to the constitution.....

I don't think ANYONE would want them going near the constitution after the last year that they have been drunk with power.

I've been trying to figure out what's going on in this country. And while I take heart with the Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, I still have no feeling of relief. I don't think this is over yet. Look at the comments from the leftist pundits. Listen to the conviction in Durbins voice when he says they'll still pass healthcare. The Scott Brown win - while it is a victory - really only gives us containment for the moment. I feel something bigger is still coming, and not necessarily good.

The above post is from the "Scott Brown wins" but this is what I'm talking about. What's gonna happen when these people don't get their way?

[Buzzard]

Constitutional Amendment Considered In Response To Supreme Court Decision On Campaign

 

huffingtonpost.com

 

President Obama and congressional leaders have vowed to fight back against Thursday morning's Supreme Court decision rolling back restrictions on corporate campaign spending. Among the possible responses under consideration: an amendment to the Constitution.

 

"It's time to take matters into our own hands to enact a constitutional amendment that once and for all declares that we the people govern our elections and campaigns, not we the corporations," said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) in a video produced by a coalition of progressive groups led by Public Citizen and Voter Action.

 

"This is a ruling that really jeopardizes the rights of ordinary Americans to have a voice in the political process," Edwards told HuffPost.

 

The suggested amendment would strip a corporation's personhood for First Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court ruled that federal restrictions on corporate money for campaign advertisements violated corporations' free speech rights.

 

There is little chance that Democrats can amend the Constitution by Election Day this coming November. Election law professor Rick Hasen called the idea "ridiculous" in a blog post on Thursday.

 

U.S. PIRG said that it is looking at other, more immediate options with the White House and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Said PIRG's Lisa Gilbert, "We need to do something in time for the 2010 elections."

[GarandFan]

Aw gee ... Huffington Post it was.

 

Ridiculous is right.

 

I need to study up on the juriceprudence regarding corporations and other entities (other than individual people) being protected as persons under these various amendments.

 

Clearly, if I want to join with other like minded persons and have a group such as, say, the NRA "speak" for me as per elections, that seems pretty clear. Exxon Mobil and Monsanto on the other hand ... they seem like different animals to me.

[Buzzard]

"We need to do something in time for the 2010 elections."

[1957Human]

Aw gee ... Huffington Post it was.

 

Ridiculous is right.

 

I need to study up on the juriceprudence regarding corporations and other entities (other than individual people) being protected as persons under these various amendments.

 

Clearly, if I want to join with other like minded persons and have a group such as, say, the NRA "speak" for me as per elections, that seems pretty clear. Exxon Mobil and Monsanto on the other hand ... they seem like different animals to me.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

[gravyboy77]

"We need to do something in time for the 2010 elections."

 

Actually they Need it for the 2012 elections. lets not forget how the "Fat Cats" helped Obama amass a $770 million dollar fortune to win the election while McCain had 80 million. It cracks me up when the Democrats talk about Being "outraged" about corporate greed and fat cats.

[w00dc4ip]

I'll tell you, the one "campaign finance reform" I'd support is a rule that all campaign finances not used by a candidate in a given election cycle should be forced to be rolled into the federal "presidential election campaign fund" or whatever it is that question on the top of the tax form always asks about. Candidates should have a choice of spending the money in their campaign funds for the campaign, or donating it to the next presidential campaign. They shouldn't be able to just pay taxes on it and claim it as income when they decide to drop out of the race or retire at the end of their term...

[Ranger]

Once more, it is proven how important it is that the POTUS appoint the right SCOTUS members. Say what you want about Bush; but without his key appointments to SCOTUS; we'd all be lamenting the Heller ruling, this ruling, and the upcoming McDonald ruling. Heller should have been 9-0. It was 5-4. This was 5-4. Who knows... McDonald might even be 5-4. So much rests on just one rational vote. If we're religious, we should each pray daily for the good health of those 5 at least until the libs are out of office!

 

P.S. How did the liberals ever get people to start calling them "progressives" instead of liberals or extremists?

[Ranger]

I'll tell you, the one "campaign finance reform" I'd support is a rule that all campaign finances not used by a candidate in a given election cycle should be forced to be rolled into the federal "presidential election campaign fund" or whatever it is that question on the top of the tax form always asks about. Candidates should have a choice of spending the money in their campaign funds for the campaign, or donating it to the next presidential campaign. They shouldn't be able to just pay taxes on it and claim it as income when they decide to drop out of the race or retire at the end of their term...

 

I agree that the candidate shouldn't get to keep those funds. I'm not sure where they should go; but they shouldn't be converted to personal income.

[Drylok]

Can someone help me understand why the libs are throwing a fit about this decision? It applies to the unions too, not just corporations so what's their problem? I don't get it. And I certainly don't get why anyone or any company of any size should not be able to openly endorse any canidate on any level. What the heck difference does it make?

[anonymous too]

What it means is that a corporation that owns a media outlet(s) has the same rights as a corporation that has no media outlet(s). Corporations that also owned media outlets had restrictions placed upon them while a corporation that owned none did not have the same restrictions.

 

The playing field has been leveled. That's why the lib's are p*****.