SCOTUS, Politics, Speech, and Money

[GGT]

Justices Block Key Part of Campaign Law


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 21, 2010
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01 ... ml?_r=1&hp

[EyeKhan]

Why do we keep stumbling backwards?

Equating spending money with speech, either on the individual level or the corporate level, is a terrible idea vis a vis elections. Absofuckinglutely terrible. The more money you have, the more say you have and the more a politician better listen to you, vs. John Q Citizen who really needs the protections only the government can give. Bad bad bad bad.

If the US wants functional governance and law making done in the interests of the nation, our elections should/must be publicly funded. And television/radio advertising must be limited to publicly funded spots that all candidates get equal access to.

[']['ear]

Yay! Our system is even more of an auction now!

Surprised it was even 5-4. All of the justices of the last generation, R- or D-nominated, have been ardently pro-business.

[Being]

Why should I, having more money than you, not be allowed to have more say in the laws of the land?

[Lewkowski]

['ear]Yay! Our system is even more of an auction now!

Surprised it was even 5-4. All of the justices of the last generation, R- or D-nominated, have been ardently pro-business.

Because who cares about the constitution eh?

I've always been completely stunned how the most sacred of all forms of speech (political speech) is the one that people have no problem restricting.

[']['ear]

Did I miss something? Was somebody talking about curtailing somebody's ability to go out and speak?

I'm talking about their ability to buy politicians. That's not speech. That's bribery.

[Being]

Because who cares about the constitution eh?

I've always been completely stunned how the most sacred of all forms of speech (political speech) is the one that people have no problem restricting.

It's your independant voice that is being throttled. Only collectives gain from this. And here I was convinced you didn't care for unions.

[Lewkowski]

['ear]Did I miss something? Was somebody talking about curtailing somebody's ability to go out and speak?

I'm talking about their ability to buy politicians. That's not speech. That's bribery.

Oh so its only the spoken word that is OK? As soon as someone says something on TV the government should stifle that speech as it sees fit?

What about print? Or on the internet?

[EyeKhan]

Why should I, having more money than you, not be allowed to have more say in the laws of the land?

Because we are both citizens of the nation and that means we are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. There arn't supposed to be First Class and Coach Class citizens but everyone gets an equal voice and equal treatment. By what you're saying, why vote at all? Whoever has the most money wins! Yay for democracy!

[EyeKhan]

Oh so its only the spoken word that is OK? As soon as someone says something on TV the government should stifle that speech as it sees fit?

What about print? Or on the internet?

Who wants to throttle speech? It should be EXPANDED so every candidate has equal access to speech and leveled so that the fortunate son of a self-made millionaire doesn't have a greater voice than the working man, like you. Let the candidate who doesn't have a giant party structure, a corporate donor, or a union behind him have the same voice as all of them if he's on the ballet. It would only make our democracy better for everyone!

[Being]

Because who cares about the constitution eh?

I've always been completely stunned how the most sacred of all forms of speech (political speech) is the one that people have no problem restricting.

It's your independant voice that is being throttled. Only collectives gain from this. And here I was convinced you didn't care for unions.

[EyeKhan]

You said that already.

[Being]

You said that already.

Important points are worth repeating. Lewk hates the unions yet here he is applauding a victory that benefits them more than him.

[EyeKhan]

Important points are worth repeating. Lewk hates the unions yet here he is applauding a victory that benefits them more than him.

Lewk also doesn't reply to posts that grab him by the balls. Even when repeated.

[Lewkowski]

Because we are both citizens of the nation and that means we are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. There arn't supposed to be First Class and Coach Class citizens but everyone gets an equal voice and equal treatment. By what you're saying, why vote at all? Whoever has the most money wins! Yay for democracy!

Equal in the eyes of the law but not equal. One person may be more persuasive then another, should we limit that person because he has an unfair advantage? Of course not.

If you want to spend money spreading your view point, more power to you. It is not the governments job to restrict speech. It is not the governments job to ensure "fairness" however you choose to define it. We have a constitution that states what can and can not be done by the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech is a sacred right, political speech the most important part of that. Look at the community. We have just had a major exodus to another forum because someone tried to stifle speech. It was their property and they had every right to choose to ban certain types of speech. But no one has the right to ban this kind of speech on places they do not own. Either you believe the government should own the various channels of communication or you think they should not. Its obvious to me that several of you think that big brother should decide what it is fair. You should you don't want to go back to the Kindergarten forums?

[Being]

Wow, Lewk actually does support unions.

[Dreadnaught]

I think there are two issues here being addressed: campaign contribution limits and advertising restrictions.

I think the advertising restrictions are silly and unconstitutional. The laws basically set up an inferior class of entities and individuals that couldn't say certain things on certain media mediums in certain periods before elections.

That's really simply free speech. And you are also free to ignore and vote as you please.

I get more uncomfortable with the idea of unlimited campaign contributions. While the principles make sense to me, I fail to see how this won't lead to interest groups bankrolling candidates re-elections any more than they already do.

It's not the principle that bothers me, it's the practical implications.

[Being]

I think there are two issues here being addressed: campaign contribution limits and advertising restrictions.

Isn't the sole purpose of campaign contributions to support spreading the word? I don't see your distinction as a logical argument. If you limit campaign contributions, you are limiting the right to spread the word.

[Dreadnaught]

Campaign contributions are also meant to fund a candidate's activities in a variety of areas.

In other words, it's the difference between the check going to a newspaper or TV stations, and the check going to a candidate themselves.

[GGT]

So...precedent says corporations are the same as real people/individuals, and free speech applies.

Individuals and corporations are limited by how much they can contribute directly, but corporations aren't limited by how much they can contribute indirectly.

huh?

[Being]

Campaign contributions are also meant to fund a candidate's activities in a variety of areas.

In other words, it's the difference between the check going to a newspaper or TV stations, and the check going to a candidate themselves.

What areas of activity are not directed toward spreading the word that the candidate should be elected?

[Dreadnaught]

Organizing, get out the vote drives, bussing people to polls, etc. But the limits seem to be pretty unlimited now. It can include plane trips to help the candidate "campaign" or "learn about the issues", etc.

[Being]

Organizing, get out the vote drives, bussing people to polls, etc. But the limits seem to be pretty unlimited now. It can include plane trips to help the candidate "campaign" or "learn about the issues", etc.

organizing = advertising
get out to vote drives = advertising
bussing people to polls = discrimination
campaign = advertising
learn about the issues = deciding what to advertise about

The one thing you mentioned that didn't have to do with advertising happens to be illegal.

[Hazir]

organizing = advertising
get out to vote drives = advertising
bussing people to polls = discrimination
campaign = advertising
learn about the issues = deciding what to advertise about

The one thing you mentioned that didn't have to do with advertising happens to be illegal.

Why should it be discrimination/illegal to enable people to vote who otherwise might not have voted for no other reason than that they had problems reaching a polling station?

[Dreadnaught]

organizing = advertising
get out to vote drives = advertising
bussing people to polls = discrimination
campaign = advertising
learn about the issues = deciding what to advertise about

The one thing you mentioned that didn't have to do with advertising happens to be illegal.

Campaign machinery is widely recognized as something else than advertising, that's why it wasn't as restricted under the law that was thrown out.

Also, the plane trips are lobbying.

[EyeKhan]

Equal in the eyes of the law but not equal. One person may be more persuasive then another, should we limit that person because he has an unfair advantage? Of course not.

Straw man. We're not talking about personal charisma. We're not talking about validity of ideas either. We're talking about MONEY! $$$ Is this government by the people for the people or government by the money for the money? (I think we just got a difinitive open ended answer to that question)

If you want to spend money spreading your view point, more power to you.

Though you didn't mean it that way THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. The more MONEY you have the more VOICE you have and the more POWER you have. Government BY THE MONEY FOR THE MONEY.

It is not the governments job to restrict speech.

Then why not expand speech instead of allowing it to be restricted to people who have the MONEY?

It is not the governments job to ensure "fairness" however you choose to define it.

Really? REALLY? It's not the government's job to ensure FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS? What the FUCK are you thinking?????? So what you mean is corruption, vote rigging, ballot stuffing is fine and dandy??? Can't have the government policing fairness. We should drop all civil law. Can't have the government interfering with any kind of fairness between its citizens. Don't need those judges anymore, do we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

#1. Nothing in here equates money to speech. #2. Nothing in here equates a corporation to a citizen of the US.

Freedom of speech is a sacred right, political speech the most important part of that. <snip the stupidity> You should you don't want to go back to the Kindergarten forums?

How would you like it if the number of posts you could make in this forum were determined by your personal annual income? Send in your tax return and the mods will rank everyone by income and those with the lowest incomes only get to post one time in three threads per day. Those with the highest incomes get to post as much as they want. Sounds good, doesn't it?

[EyeKhan]

Wow, Lewk actually does support unions.

The unions couldn't begin to spend the kind of money their corporate counterparts can.

[GGT]

First Amendment folks might love this, but it's opened up a whole can of worms regarding our process and structure for voting.

Now we not only have to filter out PACs and lobbyists machinations, but corporations too. And we all know our two party system is a vehicle for MONEY, to buy attention/advertising/loyalty. yay.

What's this going to mean for state laws and campaign money?

[GGT]

Secondary issues:

1) Will these corporations be required to fully disclose their spending?
2) Who keeps track and how?
3) How will loopholes impact the ability of the Press to disseminate information?

The Fourth Estate is part of the First Amendment, too.




How do other countries manage and regulate their campaign financing?

[']['ear]

Corporations aren't people. Whoops.