The Supreme Court Corporation of America

[Rajiv]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

Adding to the title of the thread -- Supreme Court Dons New Robes™

[Aetius Romulous]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

I guess that's where the NASCAR sponsorships have gone.

[Scot]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

Adding to the title of the thread -- Supreme Court Dons New Robes™

Should distribution of the following corporate funded speech have been prohibited 60 days before the 2004 election?

[Aetius Romulous]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

Sorry Scot, I don't get the connection.

[Scot]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

Sorry Scot, I don't get the connection.

The supreme court decision at issue here overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which had been used by the Federal Election Commission to bar Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary The Movie. The Federal Election Commission had decided that Hillary The Movie was a form of corporate "electioneering communications" and prohibited the advertising. During arguments it was pointed out the Hillary The Movie was financed in a way similar to that of Fahrenheit 911 and that both are political speech funded by for-profit corporations. That the Federal Election Commission did not prohibit advertising for Fahrenheit 911 but did prohibit Hillary The Movie suggested that the Commission was in the position to selectively censor certain political speech -- a violation of the first amendment.

[flintlock]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

While there's room for improvement, I think the Constitution is perfectly adequate as it is. Where we have gone wrong is in the twisted interpretations and the outright ignoring of it .

[raja]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

The banks have their hands full as it is, dealing with the inevitable result of lack of regulation that caused them to fight for consumers and make terrible loans to beat the competition.

Fred, let me rewrite this for you:

The banks have their hands full as it is, dealing with the inevitable result of lack of regulation that caused them to fight for consumers and make terrible loans to beat the competition so the Banksters could earn obscene profits.

It's like saying, "My neighbor is getting rich being a criminal, so I've got to be a criminal, too, because I want to be rich."

The Financial Elite need to be punished severely. NOW!
The Banks should be broken up and turned into non-profit utilities to serve The People. If the Big Banksters don't like it, they can go out in the real world and earn a living doing something useful, rather than sucking the lifeblood out of America !

[tsetsefly]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

Adding to the title of the thread -- Supreme Court Dons New Robes™

Right now that this decision is in corporations will now be able to influence government! oh wait, that was already happening. If anything now we can follow the money easier.

Oh and btw, its good to mention why the law was enacted:

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us.../04scotus.html

Not only was this the correct decision, but its effect on politics is going to be 0. You always had corporations trying to buy votes, and politicians all to willing to dole them out. Why do you think lobbyist exist?

Also to think corporations are only "republican" is naive, isn't obama appointing anyone who worked at goldman sachs as an economic/financial adviser?

[Aetius Romulous]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

Well, that's the technical bits. Which matter of course.

It appears to me that it is a choice between no free speech (every commercial venture as well as most private have some source of corporate funding) or the "yell Fire in the movie house" all out wide open kind. As is usual in America, there is no room for compromise, nor place for logic, and no gray areas what so ever.

So FIRE! in the movie house is good to go.

[Aetius Romulous]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

At the end of the day what you have sanctioned is the sale of political decisions in a democracy...which of course is no democracy at all. Claiming it was happening anyway is a poor excuse when stop it completely was an option.

To claim that this decision will have "0" effect is, well, crazy, as is the "well they did it first" kind of mentality. It's right or it's wrong regardless of who hit who first.

[tsetsefly]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

This has some good points on the issue:

[rosgal]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

The only effective regulation will be one that addresses risk. The evil done by the major banks is not on their balance sheets at this time. They sold it all off to "greater fools". Banks should not be permitted to underwrite anything they are not willing to hold a piece of.

This recession was caused by a view of risk as a "hot potato" to be passed quickly on to another. Problem is that in the limit, the buck stops with the US taxpayer. None of the regulation currently contemplated is going to be effective in putting out the FIRE - it will merely re-direct it to another form/location for reasons discussed in the posts above.

Until bankers adopt the practice of not "doing unto others" what they would not do themselves, the FIRE economy will continue to try to morph and won't die gracefully. After all, what do investment bankers do with their skill set if they aren't investment bankers? Mostly they will whine about wages, methinks.

[Aetius Romulous]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

That was slick and well done.

In jurisprudence, it is the trend or direction of law that matters most. The summation of a chain of decisions that each refine the last. Or at least it is that way here in Canada. American legal types can set me straight.

If you believe - philosophically - that there should be no avenue available for corporations to influence democratic elections, then this is a bad decision. If you believe otherwise, it is at best moot as you argue (although I disagree), and at worst one more piece of statute that reinforces the status quo.

Really depends on your definition of democracy, and what amount of "free speech" your modern democracy can withstand.

Time will tell in the absence of logic.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: The Supreme Court Corporation of America

If anything now we can follow the money easier.

I hear this often mentioned by the apologists for this decision.

Baloney.

Quick as a wink they'll have a little daisy chain of corp. entities, so the ads will be funded by "citizens for smiling while stealing, inc", who will be spending money from "amalgamated corporations for change". You'll never see a company like Exxon or DuPont or Ford put their valuable brand name on a potentially unpopular ad. They won't need to.