Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

George Will puts it well.

For almost four decades now, what has been done in the name of “campaign finance reform” has constituted the most dangerous assault on freedom of speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. This is because the government, by regulating what can be spent in order to disseminate political speech and when political speech may occur, has asserted the astonishing right to dictate the quantity, content and timing of speech about the government.

On Thursday, however, the Supreme Court, in a gratifyingly radical decision, substantially pushed back the encroachments that the political class has made on the sphere of free political speech. This was radical only because after nearly four decades of such “reform” the First Amendment has come to seem radical. Which, indeed, it is. The Supreme Court on Thursday restored First Amendment protection to the core speech that it was designed to protect -- political speech. There will be no more McCain-Feingold blackout periods before primary and general elections -- periods during which political advocacy was restricted, just as public attention was most intense.

The court’s decision will be predictably lamented by people alarmed by the prospect of more political money funding more political speech. The Supreme Court has now said to such people approximately this: The First Amendment does not permit government to decide the “proper” quantity of political speech.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...dical_def.html

It appears George Will has his head up his ass and his hand out to corporations, which are not persons.

[Mashuri]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

It appears George Will has his head up his ass and his hand out to corporations, which are not persons.

Actually George has a good point. John Stossel did a great story on how that bill pretty much locked out any grassroots campaign with a monumental amount of legalese and regulation. Also, did that bill really stop the banks from owning our current president? They always find a way.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

It appears George Will has his head up his ass and his hand out to corporations, which are not persons.

Exactly correct on all counts.
While corporations are legally considered a person, they are not.

They are immortal. That's a pretty big advantage that needs checked and balanced.

It's insipid to think limiting corporate speech limits the speech of actual natural people.
Another important point is in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Corporations are created by us. We, the people are their creator. We can decide to not give them a right, or to take away a right. They owe us the obedient respect due from the creature to the creator.

This may be the day American Democracy died.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Actually George has a good point. John Stossel did a great story on how that bill pretty much locked out any grassroots campaign with a monumental amount of legalese and regulation. Also, did that bill really stop the banks from owning our current president? They always find a way.

So if George has a good point, how does that affect the issue that corporations in fact are not people, though apparently the law has personified them. Of course I am no lawyer, but this all likely has to do with the lawmakers and their leanings to support any measure that would bring more money to them and their campaign chests. That is why term limits will never be passed by the people who profit from there being no term limits, and why on-going attempts will continue to keep the monetary spigots open to candidates who will then end up being obliging to the corporations.

Keep re-electing these SOB legislators so we can have some ongoing laughs about how great our political system is.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Actually George has a good point. John Stossel did a great story

When George Will has his head up his ass, John Stossel is all he can see.:mad:

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Exactly correct on all counts.
While corporations are legally considered a person, they are not.

They are immortal. That's a pretty big advantage that needs checked and balanced.

It's insipid to think limiting corporate speech limits the speech of actual natural people.
Another important point is in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Corporations are created by us. We, the people are their creator. We can decide to not give them a right, or to take away a right. They owe us the obedient respect due from the creature to the creator.

This may be the day American Democracy died.

Well, if today is the day that American Democracy died, it has been pretty sick for 150 years. The judicial system in this country has spent that much time giving ever-increasing legal powers to corporations. Is it any surprise that today the Supreme Court ruled as it did? It has a century and a half of legal precedents to draw on. What is terrifying is how few people understand just how far back this goes.

Everyone should drop what they are doing right now and read "Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of American Democracy" by Ted Nace. Buy it from Amazon, or download it for free here: http://www.gangsofamerica.com/

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Well, if today is the day that American Democracy died, it has been pretty sick for 150 years. The judicial system in this country has spent that much time giving ever-increasing legal powers to corporations. Is it any surprise that today the Supreme Court ruled as it did? It has a century and a half of legal precedents to draw on. What is terrifying is how few people understand just how far back this goes.

Everyone should drop what they are doing right now and read "Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of American Democracy" by Ted Nace. Buy it from Amazon, or download it for free here: http://www.gangsofamerica.com/

Lets say everyone stops everything and reads the book. How is that going to change anything?

To change something, there must be new people elected to every office every term, until some get the message and start acting with regard to the population at large. We are a long way from that happening.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Lets say everyone stops everything and reads the book. How is that going to change anything?

To change something, there must be new people elected to every office every term, until some get the message and start acting with regard to the population at large. We are a long way from that happening.

All too true. We see the cliche coming true, that people in a democracy get the government they deserve. We have become a nation of idiots in many regards.

[Rajiv]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

IA-03: Boswell introduces constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS ruling

Representative Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) has introduced a constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case, Iowa Independent reported today.

Boswell is looking for co-sponsors and explained the case for amending the constitution:

“I have introduced this important legislation because the Supreme Court’s ruling strikes at the very core of democracy in the United States by inflating the speech rights of large, faceless corporations to the same level of hard-working, every day Americans,” Boswell said in a statement. “The court’s elevation of corporate speech inevitably overpowers the speech and interests of human citizens who do not have the coffers to speak as loudly.” Boswell said House Joint Resolution 68 would disallow a corporation or labor organization from using any operating funds or any other funds from its general treasury to pay for an advertisement in connection with a federal election campaign, regardless of whether or not the advertisement expressly advocates the election or defeat of a specified candidate.

“Corporations already have an active role in American political discourse through million-dollar political action committees and personal donations to campaigns,” Boswell said. “The legislation I introduced will prevent the Wall Street corporations that received billions in taxpayer bailout dollars from turning around and pouring that same money into candidates that will prevent financial regulation on their industry. No American should have to turn on the TV and see AIG telling them how to vote.”

I totally agree with Boswell, although I'm pessimistic that Congress would pass this kind of amendment. I'm curious to see how many Democrats will back this effort.

[Prazak]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

An interesting bit from Gerald Celente during a recent interview. While he tends to sound a bit dogmatic at times, he's probably one of the more forward looking people out there not just about economics but also politically. Anyhow, one of his comments concerned the rise of alternative media outlets, like iTulip, vs. main stream media channels. Basically, his contention is that the internet will do to main stream television and cable what blogs have done to print media (a.k.a. the newspaper business). This basically means the "democratization of the airways" since anyone with a video camera can create a newscast from their own living room. While most of these folks will not be worth the time to watch, a few will develop a following. Just think iTulip, Zero Hedge, or Denninger with an actual broadcast. The enabler he mentioned will be when folks are able to hook a computer into the flat screen in the living room. I've already done this. Very cool watching reruns of South Park and other TV programs on Hulu. We're already there. I think that this move will remove much of the information asymmetry from the market place.

Isn't that what people said about radio in the early part of the last century?

[Mashuri]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

So if George has a good point, how does that affect the issue that corporations in fact are not people, though apparently the law has personified them. Of course I am no lawyer, but this all likely has to do with the lawmakers and their leanings to support any measure that would bring more money to them and their campaign chests. That is why term limits will never be passed by the people who profit from there being no term limits, and why on-going attempts will continue to keep the monetary spigots open to candidates who will then end up being obliging to the corporations.

Keep re-electing these SOB legislators so we can have some ongoing laughs about how great our political system is.

I should say George has his head up his ass when it comes to the whole corporations as people thing but is right (for possibly the wrong reasons) in supporting the demise of McCain's red-tape monstrosity.

[Prazak]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Exactly correct on all counts.
While corporations are legally considered a person, they are not.

They are immortal. That's a pretty big advantage that needs checked and balanced.

It's insipid to think limiting corporate speech limits the speech of actual natural people.
Another important point is in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Corporations are created by us. We, the people are their creator. We can decide to not give them a right, or to take away a right. They owe us the obedient respect due from the creature to the creator.

This may be the day American Democracy died.

Howling hypocrisy from George Will, who regularly laments activist judges reaching desired results rather than applying settled precedent and making decisions on grounds much broader than necessitated by the facts of the case. Yet here we have a very divided court pontificating on the scope of the First Amendment in a case that required nothing of the sort -- and in a way that overturns its own precedents and some 60 years of state and federal legislation. How's that for strict constructionism?

And what of those great Originalists on the Court, who believe the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Does their decision make any effort to show that the First Amendment was intended to apply to corporations? No.

"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."

I suppose the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" also encompasses corporations? By God, strike down federal antitrust legislation, let the corporations assemble peaceably!

What a travesty of jurisprudence, what a betrayal of conservative legal principles, what a naked politicization of that "most dangerous branch".

I always imagined George a principled conservative, rather than a movement flak.

[loweyecue]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

IA-03: Boswell introduces constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS ruling

There is no need to amend the constitution. We just need to throw out the garbage from the supreme court that is wilfully misinterpreting the constitution to serve their corporate paymasters.

[jtabeb]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

There is no need to amend the constitution. We just need to throw out the garbage from the supreme court that is wilfully misinterpreting the constitution to serve their corporate paymasters.

Ain't that the truth!

[JayS]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

How dare you not bend over and accept the "welcome" of your corporate masters and the American Dream!!!

More Carlin re 'out in the open' and 'buying elections'. Starts at 3:05.