Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

[ggirod]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Alan Grayson has a solution in the form of five House bills

From his Congressional Website:
Here are the bills that Congressman Grayson has introduced, and what they aim to accomplish:
1) The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
2) The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
3) The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
4) The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
5) The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.

Apparently he introduced another bill yesterday, but I can't find details.

Here is a video:
[MEDIA][/MEDIA]

He also has a Petition Website where you can sign a petition supporting these bills.

His approach is interesting, and just direct enough to make people think. Apparently the bills are four pages or less in length so imagine how direct THAT can be!

Maybe they all should pass. It is so hard to pick a favorite!

[chr5648]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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.

The illusive obvious, it sits right under your nose, without even being aware of it. Terrifying indeed.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Quiz:

Which of the following used to be Enron Stadium?

U.S. Cellular Field
Minute Maid Park
Target Field
Citi Field
Citizens Bank Park
AT&T Park
Tropicana Field

The senator from Microsoft?

Will Rogers is chuckling.

[Rajiv]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Very difficult to do -- see - Can a US Supreme Court justice be impeached and removed from office?

Yes.

Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Article I and II of the Constitution.

Section 1 of Article III states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness the 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it's not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.


The Impeachment Process

Impeachment is a two-step process; the impeachment phase is similar to a Grand Jury hearing, where charges (called "articles of impeachment") are presented and the House of Representatives determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial. If the House vote passes by a simple majority, the defendant is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate.

The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice (or other officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

At the trial a committee from the House of Representatives, called "Managers," act as the prosecutor, and an "Impeachment Trial Committee" of Senators act as the presiding judges. This procedure came into practice in the 1980s, with the passage of Senate Rule XII, and has been contested by several federal court judges, but the Supreme Court has declined to interfere in the process, calling the issue a political, not legal, matter. At the conclusion of the trial, the full Senate votes and must return a two-thirds Super Majority for conviction. Convicted officials are removed from office immediately and barred from holding future office.


Impeachment and Near Impeachment

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

In 1957, at the height of McCarthyism, the Georgia General Assembly passed a joint resolution calling for "The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices" believed to be enabling Communism with their decisions. The resolution targeted Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed (as well as several unnamed deceased Justices) for "...[usurping] the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8, and violated Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment and nullified the 10th Amendment of the Constitution."


Related questions [Edit]

• Who can impeach a US Supreme Court justice?
• Who was the only US Supreme Court Justice to be impeached?
• Which US Supreme Court Justice presides over presidential impeachment proceedings?
• What branch of government can check the power of the judiciary by exercising the power of impeachment?
• Why does the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court preside over a Presidential impeachment trial?
• Who presides over the impeachment trial of a US President?
• Can the US President impeach Supreme Court justices?
• Who can impeach and remove federal judges and justices?
• How can a Supreme Court justice be removed from office?
• Can the US Supreme Court impeach and remove federal judges?
• Who tries the case when a US President is impeached?
• Can a US Supreme Court justice be fired?
• What did Thomas Jefferson's failed attempt to impeach and convict US Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase mean for the government?
• Who was the first Chief Justice to preside over the impeachment trial of a US President?
• What happens if a Supreme Court justice commits a crime?
• Can the US Supreme Court impeach the President?
• What Federalist party US Supreme Court justice was impeached in 1804?
• Has a US Supreme Court justice ever been impeached?
• Can a federal official who has been impeached and removed from office appeal this decision to the US Supreme Court?
• How many US Supreme Court justices have been impeached and removed from the bench?
• Can the President fire US Supreme Court justices?
• Does the US Supreme Court have jurisdiction over cases of impeachment?
• Why is it appropriate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over the impeachment trial of a US President?
• If the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court is impeached who tries the case?
• What constitutional Article states that the Chief Justice presides over a President's impeachment trial?

[oddlots]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Alan Grayson has a solution in the form of five House bills

Apparently he introduced another bill yesterday, but I can't find details.

Here is a video:


He also has a Petition Website where you can sign a petition supporting these bills.

His approach is interesting, and just direct enough to make people think. Apparently the bills are four pages or less in length so imagine how direct THAT can be!

Maybe they all should pass. It is so hard to pick a favorite!

John Grayson meet Jtabeb, Jtabeb, John Grayson.

[lsa420]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

How is this ruling related to the 1st amendment? If free speech is what is at stake and free speech is what the ruling is actually protecting, then I'm all for it.

But I just don't see the correlation, and I'm confused. How is corporations giving an unlimited amount of money to push political agendas a good thing?

Any help?:confused:

[Diarmuid]

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.

Man things are getting seriously hairy now, not just in the US. Brace yourselves, this does not bode well me thinks (IA-03: Boswell introduces constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS ruling), there is a war on and that can often mean collateral damage.

[jtabeb]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

How is this ruling related to the 1st amendment? If free speech is what is at stake and free speech is what the ruling is actually protecting, then I'm all for it.

But I just don't see the correlation, and I'm confused. How is corporations giving an unlimited amount of money to push political agendas a good thing?

Any help?:confused:

A corporation is not a person but a legal construct IMHO. (Is or is not a person, THAT is the question) Supreme Court says yes, Fascist say yes. Most everyone else, NO

[Rajiv]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Before the US Civil War, slaves were not considered persons (legally) -- After the abolition of slavery, laws were enacted to recognize that the freed slaves were in fact "persons." In "Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific (1886)" the corrupt Supreme Court decided that according to the laws designed to get freed slaves their rights -- also allowed corporations to be recognized as "persons."

Then in "Buckley vs Valeo (1976)" the Supreme court decided that spending money was "free speech" -- the court stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns, and that could not be subject to campaign spending limits. This in effect meant that only the really rich could now aspire to public office -- or they at least held an inordinte advantage over people who did not have that largesse available to them.

The current court ruling expands on the previous rulings, and allows corporations much more say into US politics. Paradoxically, it can even allow foreigners to now have a say in who gets elected in the US -see Greg Palast's "Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections"

[jtabeb]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Before the US Civil War, slaves were not considered persons (legally) -- After the abolition of slavery, laws were enacted to recognize that the freed slaves were in fact "persons." In "Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific (1886)" the corrupt Supreme Court decided that according to the laws designed to get freed slaves their rights -- also allowed corporations to be recognized as "persons."

Then in "Buckley vs Valeo (1976)" the Supreme court decided that spending money was "free speech" -- the court stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns, and that could not be subject to campaign spending limits. This in effect meant that only the really rich could now aspire to public office -- or they at least held an inordinte advantage over people who did not have that largesse available to them.

The current court ruling expands on the previous rulings, and allows corporations much more say into US politics. Paradoxically, it can even allow foreigners to now have a say in who gets elected in the US -see Greg Palast's "Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections"

Since the FED can issue an unlimited amount of currency I guess they get to decide all elections from here on out.

(Don't fight the Fed, and Don't vote against them now too.)

Cool, just what was needed in a democracy, a unelected body of Fed Officials gaining power over all elections.

That's JUST what we need.

[Rajiv]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

See also this article - "Corporate Personhood and Political Free Speech (Tin Man K.O.’s Straw Man)"

With a 5-to-4 split decision on the 21st of January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled “that labor unions and corporations can spend unlimited amounts to influence federal elections, throwing out a ban that had been in effect for 63 years and adding an explosive new element to this year’s midterm elections.”

This ruling “dismayed lawmakers and public interest groups that fought for decades to limit the influence of wealthy special interests in politics.” But voices for those interests expressed satisfaction with the success of their tactic of arguing against the ban in court on the grounds it was contrary to the First Amendment, because it was government control of free speech in election campaigns.

The new ruling specifically applies to federal elections, however it is certain to be used as the basis of new lawsuits aimed at overturning state laws, which limit corporate spending to influence state and local elections.

Speaking for the court’s majority (with Alioto, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia), Justice Anthony Kennedy equated corporate and labor union spending on elections to free speech, which needed constitutional protection: “The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach.’’

The ruling also eviscerates the “McCain-Feingold” election campaign finance reform law of 2002, by removing the ban on corporate and union-sponsored “issue ads’’ in the waning days of a campaign. The court left unchanged the dollar limits for contributions to candidates by individuals and political action committees, preserving a fig leaf of respectability against the appearance of bribery.

Justice John Paul Stevens issued a spirited dissent (joined by Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor), saying the majority had committed a grave error in equating corporate speech to that of human beings: “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind… and selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.” The definition of paid media as political free speech is corrupted by the inherent disproportion of wealth, people who can invest in media corporations know “that media outlets may seek to influence elections.”

From the perspective of public good, the fatal flaw here is as Justice Stevens acknowledged: “we have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment,” in many prior Supreme Court decisions.

Indeed, the ideal remedy would be federal legislation — ideally as a constitutional amendment — defining “personhood” as solely the property of individual living human beings, and specifically not so for any corporate entity. Thus, corporations would be stripped of 1st, 5th and 14th Amendment rights. In brief, these Amendments define:

(1st) freedom of: religion, speech, the press, assembly; and freedom to petition;

(5th) indictments, due process, self-incrimination, double jeopardy, eminent domain;

(14th) citizenship.

The pernicious effect of allowing corporations 1st and 14th Amendment rights — hence, the right to lobby Congress — is evident today in the many distortions of government and public institutions to the detriment of the public good: ‘pork barrel nation.’
.
.
.
.
.

See also the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

How is this ruling related to the 1st amendment? If free speech is what is at stake and free speech is what the ruling is actually protecting, then I'm all for it.

But I just don't see the correlation, and I'm confused. How is corporations giving an unlimited amount of money to push political agendas a good thing?

Any help?:confused:

No matter what you think of Ralph Nader, he has been an articulate advocate for ending "coporate personhood" for decades....

Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For All
Outrageous SCOTUS Decision Should Reignite Most Necessary of Debates
by Ralph Nader

Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.

This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is indeed time for a Constitutional amendment to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the civic and political voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow “King Corporation” and restore the sovereignty of “We the People”!

[peakishmael]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Alan Grayson has a solution in the form of five House bills.

He also has a Petition Website where you can sign a petition supporting these bills.

Also this: http://freespeechforpeople.org/

[ggirod]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

The meat of freespeechforpeople.org's petition is as follows:

NOW HEREBY BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.

I considered this to be so weak as to be useless, so I looked up the registrant for the domain freespeechforpeople.org and found it was David Swanson, a progressive activist and author. I was disappointed with that attempt so sent the following comment to their website.

My comment to the freespeechforpeople.org website:
I am curious why the petition simply demands free speech for people, which, last time I checked, we still had and was still more or less defensible, when, in fact, it is corporate and organizational abuse of power through the mode of free speech that is the problem. Then, because corporations would immediately abuse them, non-profits would have to be included. Finally, because any amendment would not ultimately pass without it, labor union organizations need to fall into the same restrictions. The money spent by nonprofits and unions is so small as to be washed away by corporate giants anyway. If corporations, etc. could only advertise the products/services they offer we would be well along the way to reassuming control of our nation. Dissemination of moneys consisting of individual limited donations would also be permitted within the same strictures applied to campaigns. Were such an amendment to pass, the election dialog would finally occur between the candidates and the voters. What a concept.

I hope, in addition to pursuing an improved amendment, that you also back the current bills in the House that begin to restrict the issue. If those bills do not pass there is no way an amendment would survive the many years it takes to ratify it. The bullhorn of the Corporate Masters will certainly drown out any extended effort to quiet them.

I believe that we will fail to control the corporate bullhorn unless we put equal restrictions on unions and non-profits. That fairness in equal treatment, while populist unions and non-profits are much weaker than corporations, would remove much of the justifications for corporations to have the bullhorn in the first place. An amendment that limits expenditures to the total actually donated (with a limited donation ceiling) by individuals could let all organizations have an equal voice. Of course, this would disassemble a lot of paid influence peddlers in Washington, which will, I suspect, garner some resistance. It is, however, how we got here ... and facing the monster is how we get back to a democracy.
-----------------
If you ignore the elephant in the room long enough, you will realize he is not housebroken when he messes all over the place.

[chr5648]

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Alan Grayson has a solution in the form of five House bills

Apparently he introduced another bill yesterday, but I can't find details.

Here is a video:
http://<object width="425" height="3...mbed></object>

He also has a Petition Website where you can sign a petition supporting these bills.

His approach is interesting, and just direct enough to make people think. Apparently the bills are four pages or less in length so imagine how direct THAT can be!

Maybe they all should pass. It is so hard to pick a favorite!

Grayson is paying lip service. Corporations don't even want this.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/22/...lic-financing/

All this ruling does is allow the congress to racketeer corporations and anyone they wish. Whats to keep a congressman from walking into a company and demanding money from the ceo/board/workers to not implement legislation that is detrimental to the corporation.

IMHO the key is to overturn this ruling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_C...cific_Railroad, no person hood for corporations. Next only living breathing mortal human beings can contribute to campaigns. No corporations, no unions, no pacs, no lobbying, no other BS.

BONUS: any body who actually read the 183 page ruling will find it odd that the best argument the government lawyer for the FEC had concerned the confiscation of a book containing political opinions within 90 days of an election. Sort of makes you think the FEC and government wanted this ruling???