Supreme Court Blocks Key Part of Campaign Law

[Nbadan]

No, when it enforces the constitution. However, conservatives do believe in the constitution, when liberals want to destroy it, so maybe you are right?

Can you even hear yourself....do you know how cheesy that sounds?

[Nbadan]

Modern times...

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/hissyspit/story-24.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Can you even hear yourself....do you know how cheesy that sounds?
Immature minds require cheesy replies, otherwise they go over one's head.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Picked up for what? Do we know they are innocent? How do we know they are innocent?

You answered the question. We'll never know if they don't have any recourse.

[Winehole23]

Like what?Like upholding the challenge to the faciality of law Citizens United never made. Or extending relief to for-profit corporations and unions who were not parties in the case, and had demonstrated no harm. To say nothing of the (not improper but)very unusual decison to take the case up again. There is a political trend, reflected by the new majority.

(Does the Supreme Court usually make the case for the appellants in this way? Posing and answering questions on their behalf?)

To be sure, Mr. Justice Stevens hangs a lot on the confusion about the legal personality of corporations, on which the SC decision itself does not really turn, but popular sentiment does.

The Berkeley quotation at page 85 of Stevens's dissent is applicable to both sides IMO.

[Winehole23]

What poses as principle is sometimes just the lingering aftereffect of a political majority.

[Marcus Bryant]

I guess it was inevitable that the Constitution would be interpreted by the SC as protecting the natural rights of the Fortune 500.

[Winehole23]

Free speech has very wide skirts, apparently.

[Winehole23]

Legal fads and novelties swiftly acquire the dignity of custom when they are endorsed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Marcus Bryant]

And, the public is gullible enough to believe that the Bill of Rights was written for Wal-Mart.

[Winehole23]

It is as if free speech never existed before. Lol.

Zero restraint of corporate speech, even within 30 days of an election. Laws in 24 states may be threatened.

[Winehole23]

Isn't the Federalist Society sentimental about the power of the states anymore?

Rofl!

[Marcus Bryant]

We can't limit the power to vote for public officials to human beings, because that would chill voting rights...

[Winehole23]

We can't limit the power to vote for public officials to human beings, because that would chill voting rights...Proleptic. Subjunctive case. That's a fear, I guess.

Isn't it enough that they already hold the marionette strings, now they want to direct the play themselves

, something like that?

[Winehole23]

This decision could roll up 100 years of legal landscape.

[Marcus Bryant]

Where might it end?

Of course, silly me, I thought business organizations were formed to engage in business, and the state conferred limited liability protection on the ownership of those that incorporated.

[Marcus Bryant]

Since the SC is in such an expansive, liberty granting mood, perhaps it can extend limited liability to all...

[Marcus Bryant]

Waiting for mobastiato to show up.

[Winehole23]

Where might it end?

Of course, silly me, I thought business organizations were formed to engage in business, and the state conferred limited liability protection on the ownership of those that incorporated.Concession theory is apparently rendered passe' by this decision, but I am not so sure "natural rights", let alone personhood, have been conferred by it. We'll see.

[Marcus Bryant]

The one thing I will grant the SC is that they were ruling on a shitty law.

The majority decided that it was not possible to discern political speech made by an individual versus that made by a synthetic, state chartered entity. Yes, "conservatives" used to hate and dump on governmental stupidity such as this.

[Marcus Bryant]

This decision could roll up 100 years of legal landscape.

So much for "conservatism" as upholding tradition or stare decisis.

[Winehole23]

Waiting for mobastiato to show up.Digs the prosonomasia.

[Winehole23]

So much for "conservatism" as upholding tradition or stare decisis.Winning, after all, is much more important than moldly old judge-made principle. The majority was aggressive, needlessly so, I thought, since in my estimate they were the narrow winner on the merits. It was a close case.

[Marcus Bryant]

If you don't confer free speech rights on a legal entity, then wars will follow.

:jack

[Winehole23]

Citizens United is a not for profit educational org, right?

[Winehole23]

If you don't confer free speech rights on a legal entity, then wars will follow.

:jackWho said that?

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes. Though McCain-Feingold offered an exemption, provided donations were from individuals only.

[Winehole23]

Oh, Citizens United, right.

[Marcus Bryant]

Who said that?

Just extrapolating. Bastiat originally applied it to trade.

[Winehole23]

I couldn't disagree more with what Citizen's United says, but i'll defend to the death their right to say it. It's not their fault the SC went so far past the relief they asked for, to protect unions and for profit corporations too.

[Marcus Bryant]

CU's problem was that they accepted donations from non-individuals.

[Winehole23]

The majority decided that it was not possible to discern political speech made by an individual versus that made by a synthetic, state chartered entity.Apparently true.

[Winehole23]

CU's problem was that they accepted donations from non-individuals.Corporate sponsorship. Gotcha.

[Marcus Bryant]

What speech is exactly chilled if corporate sponsorship is excluded?

[Winehole23]

That's what I don't get, honestly. Money always gets by the regs.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not hard to be a cynic in these United States, but what is truly lost?

The one thing that seems clear is the idea that individuals, instead of groups speaking through individuals, should not be a significant source of political expression.

[Winehole23]

Let the people have whatever petty rules as they may think diminish corruption or the appearance of corruption in politics. The money will always find a way past them.

[Marcus Bryant]

True, I will grant you that anything such as an outright ban on corporate donations of any type would never come close to passing, at least at the federal level.

[Winehole23]

The one thing that seems clear is the idea that individuals, instead of groups speaking through individuals, should not be a significant source of political expression.I think Citizen's United confirms it is a very significant source. A noble myth of corporate good-citizenship is promulgated.

Without the benevolent and truly civic-minded assistance of corporations, we should all be lost for good information about politics and politicians.

[Marcus Bryant]

I think Citizen's United confirms a noble myth of corporate good-citizenship. Without their benevolent and truly civic-minded assistance, we should all be lost for good information.

Yes.

Also, think about how political discourse these days is centered around certain "stakeholder" groups.

The individual is lost in our politics, other than as the yokel who needs to be conned by a politician (backed by these stakeholder groups) to be elected into office to give the groups what they want.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, we find our meaning in political life by the groups to which we belong. To think that our political life should have regard for the individual as an individual, is heresy.

[Marcus Bryant]

Who knows what the (little) people might do if they came to regard themselves as individuals, or gave a damn about individual liberty.

[Winehole23]

Oh well, legal solemnities touching corporate advertising in the last 30 days before an election are now passe'.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not to mention giving a damn about the usurpation and bastardization of their Constitution.

Of course, perhaps I give them too much credit. Conservatives, at least conservatives of an older vintage, were quite skeptical of the peoples' ability. Today's conservatives champion the people and dismiss "the elite." Though apparently "the people" has come to include General Electric and Boeing.

[Winehole23]

Olly olly oxen free.

[Marcus Bryant]

Some worry about a "socialist" takeover of the federal government which is owned by the Fortune 500.

[Marcus Bryant]

Fuck it.

[Winehole23]

All resistance to corporate boards is normatively socialist in tone and effect.

[Winehole23]

Why do you hate entrepreneurs, MarcusBryant?:lmao

[Marcus Bryant]

Did I miss that in this latest cluster of a thread or are you engaging in subtle (for WaterCloset) mockery?

[Winehole23]

A misfired bit of levity, apparently. I have recomposed myself.

[Winehole23]

You may disregard the levity. It was never intended in earnest.

[Winehole23]

The frame was the comment above it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Rugged American individualism and entrepreneurial vigor is giving GE and friends a change to Section 5 Subsection 4 paragraph iii item 26 line 23 of the federal tax code.

[Marcus Bryant]

You may disregard the levity. It was never intended in earnest.

I enjoyed it. Is quite fitting. "Conservatives" today shit on the very entrepreneurs who serve as backdrops for GOP candidate photo ops.

[Winehole23]

Section 5 Subsection 4 paragraph iii item 26 line 23 of the federal tax codeFor the uninitiated, refers to what please?

[Marcus Bryant]

No idea. I made it up, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it actually exists.

However, one could plausibly run a successful political campaign based on doing away with it in these United States, regardless of its actual existence.

[Winehole23]

I enjoyed it. Is quite fitting. "Conservatives" today shit on the very entrepreneurs who serve as backdrops for GOP candidate photo ops.

http://www.highlydefinedla.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/wahoo.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/8521/kickdrumsut1.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

Maybe the end of all of this is to kick back and enjoy the show.

[Winehole23]

http://www.thefishingline.com/WahooMouthOpensm.jpg

[Winehole23]

Some show.

[Winehole23]

Fish swimming, mouth open.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.highlydefinedla.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/wahoo.jpg
That is just wrong to do to my High School mascot:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/TheDallesIndians.jpg

[Winehole23]

Wahoo!

[Winehole23]

CU's problem was that they accepted donations from non-individuals.You might want to look up news citations for Mr. James Bopp (http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/firmbio.html) on the particulars.

I note with amusement his knock-on crusade: removing disclosure requirements. :lol

[Winehole23]

Mr. Bopp said the next step in his 10-year plan is to roll back the disclosure rules.

“Groups have to be relieved of reporting their donors if lifting the prohibition on their political speech is going to have any meaning,” he said.:blah


Requiring groups that buy political commercials to report their donors is almost as punitive, he said, “as an outright criminal go-to-jail-time prohibition.”http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/hail-bopp-by-digby-first-heres-reminder.html


:lmao

[Winehole23]

Not to mention giving a damn about the usurpation and bastardization of their Constitution.You know, I can see this.

I just don't think very many people actually care about it beneath all their solidly constructed armature related to caring about it.

[Winehole23]

In nuce, the corporation is no longer a mere concessionaire of the various states, in Federal law it is like a guy.

It has federally enforceable free speech rights now... as if it ever substantially lacked them before. That's what I don't get.

[Winehole23]

In Europe, I think -- in France, for sure -- it is a crime to insult a product. Maybe we're gonna start being more like them now.

That French guy who called beaujolais nouveau vin de merde and was threatened with punitive damages for the slur by the growers.

[Winehole23]

http://www.decanter.com/news/65071.html

[Winehole23]

Maybe the end of all of this is to kick back and enjoy the show.Words similar to this sunk Clayton Williams against Ann Richards. :lol

[Nbadan]

Alito..



7KMKD1Mi8o0

...the traitor is saying 'that's not true' while shaking his head

[Winehole23]

Notice how everyone avoided that stinky fish bait, Dan?

Alito is not a traitor for shaking his head and visibly muttering. Saying so is bush league.

Totally bush.

http://a.espncdn.com/travel/080320/travel_dairyday1_590.jpg

[Winehole23]

Some bush leaguers milk a Holstein cow in Visalia during Holstein Days.

[Winehole23]

http://www.philsp.com/data/images/t/thrilling_baseball_1949sum.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://www.blogcdn.com/backporch.fanhouse.com/media/2009/09/flair_ticket.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://img.youtube.com/vi/QLP-hzEX6Uc/0.jpg

[Winehole23]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3270/2733177903_b2df4a670c_m.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

Funny how disagreeing with the POTUS is now treason. About campaign finance, no less.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Just recently heard that Congress is going to try and make those groups making the donations let their employees or union members know of it. I like that. If your union / company is going to be spending on poltical campaigns then your company employees or union memebrs should know about it.

[TheProfessor]

http://img.youtube.com/vi/QLP-hzEX6Uc/0.jpg
WOOOOOOOO! SPACE MOUNTAIN!

More on topic, I don't think anyone's addressed Obama's actual purpose. There's only one branch where he currently doesn't hold a majority, and that's the SCOTUS. He's created an opponent against which he can use that old campaign-underdog, populist tone. And when he's up for reelection, he can point to this decision (and probably a couple of others coming up) where the Court sides with corporate interests, and say that voting for a Republican guarantees the Court will continue to do so. Maybe he does have a little FDR in him...

[TheProfessor]

Just recently heard that Congress is going to try and make those groups making the donations let their employees or union members know of it. I like that. If your union / company is going to be spending on poltical campaigns then your company employees or union memebrs should know about it.
That might fly. From the article:

The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.

[Wild Cobra]

Just recently heard that Congress is going to try and make those groups making the donations let their employees or union members know of it. I like that. If your union / company is going to be spending on poltical campaigns then your company employees or union memebrs should know about it.
What about the unions that make contributions and commercial against the will of half their members?

[George Gervin's Afro]

What about the unions that make contributions and commercial against the will of half their members?



I guess they could quit the union and give up their benefits based on principle.

[Winehole23]

What about the unions that make contributions and commercial against the will of half their members?Why do you hate free speech?

[Wild Cobra]

I guess they could quit the union and give up their benefits based on principle.
So you agree with authoritarian attitudes.

You are a fascist!

[Winehole23]

Disappointed mogrovejo didn't weigh in. I wanted to hear the punch line.

[Winehole23]

What about the unions that make contributions and commercial against the will of half their members?Why do you hate freedom of speech, Wild Cobra?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So you agree with authoritarian attitudes.

You are a fascist!

So now you are against a principled stance. :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you hate freedom of speech, Wild Cobra?
Did you really miss my point, or should I not have defended you when someone called you a moron?

My point was that if corporate speech was to be hated, then so should union speech, etc. Now I disagree with limiting any of it if it isn't going to be equal across the board.

[Wild Cobra]

So now you are against a principled stance. :lmao
Not at all. I am against authoritarians. What principals do authoritarians have that do not exert their will on others?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not at all. I am against authoritarians. What principals do authoritarians have that do not exert their will on others?

Union members or employees can quit if they don't like who their employer supports. simple

[Wild Cobra]

Union members or employees can quit if they don't like who their employer supports. simple
Unions are cohersive. Except for some states, there is no "right to work" for a union unless you pay dues. In such cases, this takes away the rights of both the employees and the businesses.

[Marcus Bryant]

Disappointed mogrovejo didn't weigh in. I wanted to hear the punch line.


http://static.open.salon.com/files/fa-hayek1234292353.jpghttp://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/november29/gifs/friedman.jpghttp://www.france-etatsunis.com/biarritz/images/Images%202006/frederic_bastiat_1.jpg

[xrayzebra]

Absolutely. Free speech is free speech is free speech.

The First Amendment is not a privilege granted to "citizens" or even to "people." It's a limit on the power of Congress: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." What the Court held is that this principle applies regardless of the nature of the speaker, be it an individual, a group with a spokesperson or formal association.


What worries me very much is the fact that in your scenario Microsoft has the incentive to spend millions of dollars influencing the election of a Senator. Why is that so? That's the problem - and a very serious one. Establishing censorship to solve that problem is bad solution that doesn't even work.


Unfortunately, people seem unable to identify that problem and the only single solution for it.

Well said. Congress grants nothing that is already in the Constitution.
But some people forget there is such a document. Including our
Lords of the Manor. Congress.

Some think our founding Father was Karl Marx.

[Winehole23]

Too bad almost none of them post here.

[Winehole23]

There's no valor in taunting an absent retinue (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/retinue), xray.

[Winehole23]

Did you really miss my point, or should I not have defended you when someone called you a moron?I was unaware I stood in need of assistance with SnC to begin with and I do not recall soliciting any help at the time. I appreciated the friendly timbre of your remarks, but then as now their import was not clear to me. They did not disclose much familiarity with the topical material or the thread itself, nor do they now.

Unions along with for profit and non profit orgs, have unfettered federally enforceable free speech now.

Does Citizens United ring any bells with you, WC?


My point was that if corporate speech was to be hated, then so should union speech, etc. Now I disagree with limiting any of it if it isn't going to be equal across the board.There's no limiting any of it related to *speech*. That means putting up with ads that your union paid for that you don't like, for the rest of your life.

Why do you wish to restrict their speech, WC?

You're talking about the bad old days. The conversation has moved on from all that.

[Winehole23]

Overhauled by the emerging facts, you might say.

[Winehole23]

Preventing your union from running issue ads is now considered an unconstitutional restraint of speech, WC.

[Winehole23]

Hence my facetious question. Sorry if that came at you sideways, the question was half serious, too.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you wish to restrict their speech, WC?

why does everyone miss my point?

I am not advocating to take away these things. I am saying that if any organization or group, beyond the press and people, have protected speech, that you don't pick and choose some over others. You don't allow unions the right without allowing corporations the right.

[Marcus Bryant]

Why can't you pick and choose? Corporations are creations of the state, so chartered to conduct business. Not hard to identify a for-profit organization from one not for profit.

And so as to expedite this discussion, I will postulate one example which I am surprised has yet to be brought forward as an argument for your interpretation: the sole-proprietor. Half-man, half-corporate "citizen", no?

[Marcus Bryant]

Here's a crazy idea. What proof is there of any intent on the part of the authors or ratifiers of the Bill of Rights to provide "free speech" rights to state chartered corporations? Yeah, that might overturn the modern American state's apple cart, but this assumption that the founders were nothing more than an informal trade association should be examined.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, how far we have fallen.

[Wild Cobra]

Why can't you pick and choose? Corporations are creations of the state, so chartered to conduct business. Not hard to identify a for-profit organization from one not for profit.

And so as to expedite this discussion, I will postulate one example which I am surprised has yet to be brought forward as an argument for your interpretation: the sole-proprietor. Half-man, half-corporate "citizen", no?
So you would give rights to unions, who end up destroying corporations, unequaled voice to do so?

Who is left to speak the opposition?

Shame on you.

[Wild Cobra]

What are corporations, but a group of individuals who invest and have financial risk? Why should they not have an equal voice to those who oppose them?

You guys are fucking fascists...

[Marcus Bryant]

You wouldn't know fascism if it tapped it in morse code with its foot underneath you bathroom stall when you were cruising.

[Wild Cobra]

You wouldn't know fascism if it tapped it in morse code with its foot underneath you bathroom stall when you were cruising.
My, My...

The random thoughts you have...

I feel sorry for your desires. Just keep me out of your pathetic dreams.

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, of all the things to concern one's self with, the liberty of Wal-Mart would seem to rank rather low.

Fascism is, in part, corporatist. Or, the state directs and gives power to large enterprises. If any cocksucker is a "fascist," 'tis you.

[Marcus Bryant]

There's not much of a difference between you and Barack, young neocon Jedi. Unfortunately you will spend the remainder of your miserable existence oblivious to that.

[mogrovejo]

Like upholding the challenge to the faciality of law Citizens United never made. Or extending relief to for-profit corporations and unions who were not parties in the case, and had demonstrated no harm. To say nothing of the (not improper but)very unusual decison to take the case up again. There is a political trend, reflected by the new majority.

(Does the Supreme Court usually make the case for the appellants in this way? Posing and answering questions on their behalf?)

To be sure, Mr. Justice Stephens hangs a lot on the confusion about the legal personality of corporations, on which the SC decision itself does not really turn, but popular sentiment does.

The Berkeley quotation at page 85 of Stephens's dissent is applicable to both sides IMO.

Although I'm generally in favour of the court deciding cases without reaching the constitutionality of a statute if possible, I doubt anyone would seriously expect a narrower decision after the oral arguments. I mean, it was the government itself that made the case for the impossibility of a narrower decision with their arguments. If the government thinks that they can start banning books and documentaries left and right because they're published by Random Books. When Alito said "Wow, that's pretty incredible", the argument for judicial restraint was dead.

And of course CU argued that Section whatever of the BCRA 2002 was facially unconstitutional, how can you make up that they never challenged it? Your unmatched ability to simply invent stuff out of nothing will never cease to amaze me.

Plus, the Court had already displayed judicial restraint in the Wisconsin Right to Life. What was left? Either the speech from people associated in corporations (companies, unions, news organizations, churches, charities, etc) was protected or it was not. Any other decision - especially vis-a-vis the government position - would produce uncertainty and have a chilling effect on speech.

And I agree Stephens dissent argues on the legality - he simply fails to explain what the fuck his point is.


(Does the Supreme Court usually make the case for the appellants in this way? Posing and answering questions on their behalf?)

What the hell does this mean?

[mogrovejo]

Further, of all the things to concern one's self with, the liberty of Wal-Mart would seem to rank rather low.

Fascism is, in part, corporatist. Or, the state directs and gives power to large enterprises. If any cocksucker is a "fascist," 'tis you.

The totalitarian mind in a nut-shell (or in two paragraphs): liberty is something that arises from the state. You see, this judicial decision "gives" corporations "the liberty". Just like you can "give", you can "take away". Just like the government have the power to censorship a book published by Random Books or a film produced by MGM (because their liberty to speak depends upon the generosity of the politicians and bureaucrats), they have the power to "give them rights". And if it's true for people associated in any form, it's also true for people not associated. And anything out of this mindframe the totalitarian mind is unable to comprehend.

For the fascist mind, the liberty arises from the law. Politicians write law that grants "liberties" and "rights" to their subjects.

[mogrovejo]

Who used to say that "no law" means exactly "no law"? Hugo Black?

[mogrovejo]

Published in the front-page of the extreme-left blog DailyKos by their writer for legal/constitutional issues:

Citizens United (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/27/830892/-Citizens-United:-Dont-Panic)
by Adam B
Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 06:20:05 PM PST

Yeah, I know, I know, evil corporations are about to flood the political process with all sorts of outlandish expenditures certain to wreck our political discourse and install a thousand-year plutocracy. But before we all dive off the deep end, a quick before-and-after.

Before Citizens United:

* Corporations could make direct financial contributions to candidates in 27 states, but not in federal elections.
* In 26 states, corporations could run direct advertising for or against the election of a state/local candidate.
* In all 50 states and in federal elections, corporations could run "issue advertising" against candidates saying "Sen. [X] is wrong on this issue and is a bad person, so call him on the phone and say so," and as long as it didn't say "and you shouldn't vote for him" and wasn't too close to an election, it was legal.

After Citizens United:

* Corporations can make direct financial contributions to candidates in 27 states, but not in federal elections.
* In all 50 states and in federal elections, corporations can run direct advertising for or against the election of a candidate.
* In all 50 states and in federal elections, corporations can run "issue advertising" against candidates saying "Sen. [X] is wrong on this issue and is a bad person" as well as "so don't vote for him."

Is this really that large of a difference? It's worth noting, by the way, that the tax referenda which were passed on Oregon on Tuesday were largely promoted by direct spending from the SEIU, AFSCME and NEA/OEA treasuries, which Oregon already allowed and are now constitutional everywhere. (Unions are corporations protected by Citizens United too. That said, before Citizens United there were legal distinctions between referendum-related speech and candidate-related speech, but not so much any more.)

-------

I love the sarcasm of the first sentence. Compare it with Axelrod's hysterical, fear-mongering, uneducated, false remarks in the SOTU. How sad it is that even the Kossacks are more reasonable than the extremists in the WH?

[Winehole23]

The marginal effect of previously existing restrictions on corporations has been previously noted a small number of times, including by me. Not resting content to call your adversaries fascists and tyrants, you exaggerate what they actually say, per usual.

You can't tell a straight tale, can you mogrovejo?

[Winehole23]

And of course CU argued that Section whatever of the BCRA 2002 was facially unconstitutional, how can you make up that they never challenged it? Your unmatched ability to simply invent stuff out of nothing will never cease to amaze me. It was cited in the Stevens dissent. I'll see if I can find it for you.

[Winehole23]

Here you go: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4024565&postcount=227

[Winehole23]

Care to retract your comment about me making stuff up ex nihilo?

[FromWayDowntown]

It was cited in the Stephens dissent. I'll see if I can find it for you.

Stevens. John Paul Stevens.


John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice, was born in Chicago, Illinois, April 20, 1920. He married Maryan Mulholland, and has four children - John Joseph (deceased), Kathryn, Elizabeth Jane, and Susan Roberta. He received an A.B. from the University of Chicago, and a J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law. He served in the United States Navy from 1942–1945, and was a law clerk to Justice Wiley Rutledge of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1947 Term. He was admitted to law practice in Illinois in 1949. He was Associate Counsel to the Subcommittee on the Study of Monopoly Power of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1951–1952, and a member of the Attorney General’s National Committee to Study Antitrust Law, 1953–1955. He was Second Vice President of the Chicago Bar Association in 1970. From 1970–1975, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. President Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975.

Not sure why that bothers me, but it does . . . .

[Winehole23]

Stevens. John Paul Stevens.



Unless you're talking about Justice Breyer and some friend of his with the same first name.Thank you. A wrong spelling I saw somewhere must have prompted the hypercorrection. I originally had it right.

[doobs]

It bothers me when people confuse the spellings for Steven Jackson (of the NFL) and Stephen Jackson (of the NBA).

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the thing that bothers me most about this whole issue is the notion that the corporation is somehow an actor that is distinct from its constituent parts.

I'll admit that I don't care a great deal about this, haven't bothered to read the entire thread, and won't bother with that. Flame me if you wish. My thoughts on this may be wholly asinine and previously debunked, they may be novel and unexplored. I'm not sure that I actually care.

With that caveat, it seems to me that the functional effect of this ruling is that principal corporate big wigs are now, essentially, double actors in our political scheme. They can choose to throw as much of their individual wealth into politics as they wish, but when they go to work, they can now also do the same with whatever corporate wealth they control.

In a system that had evolved from elitism into something with a semblance of equality (in terms of granting each person a single voice in the conversation, though acknowledging that some can just talk more loudly), it sure seems as though the pendulum is swinging back to elitism.

Maybe we can just cut to the chase and take away the vote from those who don't own land or who are otherwise economically disqualified from participating in our "democracy."

[mogrovejo]

The marginal effect of previously existing restrictions on corporations has been previously noted a small number of times, including by me. Not resting content to call your adversaries fascists and tyrants, you exaggerate what they actually say, per usual.

You can't tell a straight tale, can you mogrovejo?

Uh, what?

I call a tyrant a tyrant, what's your problem with that? For a guy that it's okay with people falsely accusing others of being racists in order to make a political argument, you seem way oversensitive at times. Those who care about libel and defamation are crybabies, but you complain about calling a spade a spade? Nice logic.

[mogrovejo]

With that caveat, it seems to me that the functional effect of this ruling is that principal corporate big wigs are now, essentially, double actors in our political scheme.

Now compared to when?

[mogrovejo]

Citizens United SBrief (http://electionlawblog.org/archives/Citizens%20United--Supplemental%20Brief.pdf). Quoted ipsis verbis:

QUESTION PRESENTED
For the proper disposition of this case, should the
Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and the
part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540
U.S. 93 (2003), which addresses the facial validity of
Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002, 2 U.S.C. § 441b?

[Winehole23]

Uh, what?

I call a tyrant a tyrant, what's your problem with that?You don't show your work, only your conclusions. It's not really distinguishable from bald-name calling. If you're ok with that, I guess I am too.

[Winehole23]

If you don't care to persuade, but only to calumniate, that's fine.

[mogrovejo]

You don't show your work, only your conclusions. It's not really distinguishable from bald-name calling. If you're ok with that, I guess I am too.

Huh? What? If you have any doubts about my position, please explicit them. This oblique, enigmatic, suggestions are nonsense that contribute nothing to the forum.


If you don't care to persuade, but only to calumniate, that's fine.

Great. Now can you stop complaining about others for a minute? This forum would appreciate.

[Winehole23]

When I do it, it is complaining. When you do it it is description, but you never show your sums.

What a bullshitter.

[FromWayDowntown]

Now compared to when?

Well, previously, there was some hope to limit that duality.

And even if there hadn't been, the fact that it persisted doesn't make its existence any more unconcerning -- to me, at least.

[doobs]

Well, previously, there was some hope to limit that duality.

And even if there hadn't been, the fact that it persisted doesn't make its existence any more unconcerning -- to me, at least.

This decision invalidates part of a 2002 law and overrules a precedent from 1990. The biggest effect here is that 24 states will now have their analogous limits on independent corporate expenditures in state elections invalidated.

How long have those limits been in place? I don't know. But at the federal level, we're basically back to pre-McCain-Feingold on one aspect on campaign finance reform.

Here's a good summary about the effects of Citizens United from Eugene Volokh. (http://volokh.com/2010/02/01/corporate-speech-about-candidates-one-important-fact/)

[mogrovejo]

Well, previously, there was some hope to limit that duality.

And even if there hadn't been, the fact that it persisted doesn't make its existence any more unconcerning -- to me, at least.

I can't see your problem with that duality, why on earth would you want to limit it?

People associate to speak every time - heck, that's exactly what the Founding Fathers did with the Declaration of Independence, which wasn't the product of an individual but of an association of individuals, the 2nd Continental Congress; if speech was limited to the individual it'd be too easy to curb-down. The idea that a book from George Soros bashing Bush is admissible if George Soros actually publishes it individually (a complete impossibility in the modern world, where author's edition are limited to pieces of small circulation) but can be censored if he publishes it through Random House or sells it for Kindle through Amazon to prevent a "duality" is, with due respect, bizarre.

The idea that an individual member of ACLU can print a text in his domestic printer supporting a candidate but ACLU cant' publish the same text in their newsletter because "there's a duality" is, with duerespect, bizarre.

The fact that so many people seem to fear free-speech is frightening and want politicians to restrict it is frightening.

[Marcus Bryant]

People also associate speech with an individual, that is, an actual living human being, as the drafters of the Constitution did. Certainly not to a fictitious state chartered "individual." And especially when you consider that their experience with such false individuals was of the British colonial corporation variety. They threw those off as vigorously as they threw off the Crown.

[doobs]

People also associate speech with an individual, that is, an actual living human being, as the drafters of the Constitution did. Certainly not to a fictitious state chartered "individual." And especially when you consider that their experience with such false individuals was of the British colonial corporation variety. They threw those off as vigorously as they threw off the Crown.

What about political endorsements made by the fictitious, state-chartered, part-foreign-owned New York Times company?

[mogrovejo]

Oh no, the "the 1st Amendment Free-Speech Clause isn't applied to corporations but the 1st Amendment Free-Press Clause is and since the NYT is printed in paper then it's protected by the Free-Press Clause" thesis once again!

[FromWayDowntown]

The fact that so many people seem to fear free-speech is frightening and want politicians to restrict it is frightening.

I don't fear free speech at all.

I reject the idea that some people get more free speech than others, simply by virtue of holding positions of power in entities that have the economic means to invest in such speech.

Again, I'm not sure why the CEO of a major corporation can speak his political mind twice while his clerical employee, who fundamentally disagrees with said CEO on such political matters, can't.

[doobs]

^ I think the most reasonable area of disagreement has to do with whether spending money to influence elections constitutes speech. The Supreme Court has held that it does, but I can understand objections to that line of reasoning.

[mogrovejo]

I don't fear free speech at all.

I reject the idea that some people get more free speech than others,

This is absolutely anti free-speech, fuelled by fear or not. Free speech is not equal speech. Some people certainly have more speech than others. It's not up to the government to guarantee that I have a 2 hours program in MSNBC ever week because currently Rachael Madow has more speech than I do.


simply by virtue of holding positions of power in entities that have the economic means to invest in such speech.

Again, I'm not sure why the CEO of a major corporation can speak his political mind twice while his clerical employee, who fundamentally disagrees with said CEO on such political matters, can't.

He can speak it twice why? How does that work? It seems to me that you're saying that only individuals have a right to speech, but that individuals can't associate and speech through a spokesperson because that would be unfair. Well, besides inconstitutional, because the COTUS protects speech regardless of the speakers, that's basically saying that the government should censor speech not coming from individuals. And what if the clerical employee is the union leader?

Btw, why didn't you address the examples given? Do you think the Congress can censorship Soros' book?

[mogrovejo]

^ I think the most reasonable area of disagreement has to do with whether spending money to influence elections constitutes speech. The Supreme Court has held that it does, but I can understand objections to that line of reasoning.

The SCOTUS hasn't held that at all. Can you point out some of those objections? I always thought that argument was somewhat lunatic. Of course money isn't speech. Like the notebook I'm using isn't speech.

[doobs]

The SCOTUS hasn't held that at all.

Buckley v. Valeo


Can you point out some of those objections? I always thought that argument was somewhat lunatic. Of course money isn't speech. Like the notebook I'm using isn't speech.

The objection would be that spending money to influence elections was not something contemplated by the framers of the First Amendment as protected speech. Like I said, I can understand the objection. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

And yes, I agree with you. Money isn't speech. But interfering with the use of money to speak is interference with speech.

[mogrovejo]

Buckley v. Valeo

The objection would be that spending money to influence elections was not something contemplated by the framers of the First Amendment as protected speech. Like I said, I can understand the objection. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

And yes, I agree with you. Money isn't speech. But interfering with the use of money to speak is interference with speech.

I agree with Justice Burger's dissent on Buckley. I hope Buckley is overturned in the near future. But yeah, I can understand the rationale for limiting financial contributions to politicians. I think it's utterly bogus, but I can see it. That's different than saying that money (spent in electioneering or not) is speech though.

[Marcus Bryant]

LOL. Dumbass.

[mogrovejo]

The serious, moderate, left is not as crazy as the know-nothing teenagers in this forum. Excellent article from Glen Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html):

http://images.salon.com/img/branded_features/glenn_greenwald.png (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html)


Saturday, Jan 23, 2010 07:24 EST
Follow-up on the Citizens United case (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II - Update III)
As one would expect, a substantial number of commenters yesterday disagreed with the Supreme's Court ruling in the Citizens United case (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf) case and with my partial defense of it (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html). I say that's to be expected because, in our political discourse, it's virtually always the case that opinions about court rulings perfectly coincide with opinions about the policy whose constitutionality is being adjudicated (e.g., those who favor same-sex marriage on policy grounds cheer court rulings that such marriages are constitutionally compelled, while those who oppose them on policy grounds object to those court rulings, etc. etc.). When a court invalidates Law X or Government Action Y on constitutional grounds, it's always so striking how one's views about the validity of the court's ruling track one's beliefs about the desirability of Law X/Action Y on policy grounds (e.g., "I like Law X and disagree with the Court's ruling declaring Law X unconstitutional" or "I dislike Law X and agree with the Court's striking down Law X"). Campaign finance laws are popular with readers here, and thus a court decision striking down those laws inevitably will be unpopular (though the public at large -- including 2/3 of Democrats -- overwhelmingly agrees with the Court's ruling (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx?CSTS=alert)). It's critical always to note that these are two entirely distinct questions: (1) is Law X/Government Action Y a good thing?, and (2) is Law X/Government Action Y Constitutional? If you find yourself virtually always providing the same answer to both questions -- or, conversely, almost never providing opposite answers -- that's a very compelling sign that your opinions about court rulings are outcome-based (i.e., driven by your policy preferences) rather than based in law or the Constitution.


More important, I want to note one extremely bizarre aspect to the discussion yesterday. Most commenters (though not all) grounded their opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in two rather absolute principles: (1) corporations are not "persons" and thus have no First Amendment/free speech rights and/or (2) money is not speech, and therefore restrictions on how money is spent cannot violate the First Amendment's free speech clause. What makes those arguments so bizarre is that none of the 9 Justices -- including the 4 dissenting Justices -- argued either of those propositions or believe them. To the contrary, all 9 Justices -- including the 4 in dissent -- agreed that corporations do have First Amendment rights and that restricting how money can be spent in pursuit of political advocacy does trigger First Amendment protections. Here's what Justice Stevens himself said in his dissent (p. 54-55):


(whole article (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html))
----

But we'll keep hearing the angry teenagers screaming "Oh noes, now corporations have rights!1! How's that possible!?!" endlessly like it's something new or wrong.

[mogrovejo]

This is excellent


So I'll ask again -- of you and anyone who claims that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights under the Constitution:

Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?


Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?


How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?


The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?


Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?


Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism? What possible constitutional objection could you have to that?


http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html


I'd love to see the "corporations aren't persons and constitutional rights are for persons" crowd here answering these questions.

[Winehole23]

So I'll ask again -- of you and anyone who claims that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights under the Constitution:You may recall my own objection to Citizens United relates not to the merits, (on which I think the majority is narrowly better) but with the broadness of the relief granted, as well as the majority's evident contempt for the traditional powers of the states. It is not my position that corporations are not entitled to due process of law and free expression, but that elective bodies are entitled to considerable deference from the judiciary, along the lines of Rehnquist's Bellotti dissent.


Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?No. But under pretext of the Patriot Act, it may.



Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?Likewise, no. But so long as it is colorable as an anti-terror/anti-violent extremism countermeasure, they can easily get away with it. I disagree that they should be able to, but it is undeniable they can.



How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?Same thing.



The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?

Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?Because "no one" cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. By seizing the property of a corporation in the manner described, you'd be unjustly depriving actual people of their liberty and their property too.


Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism? What possible constitutional objection could you have to that?I'm not sure any constitutional objection would be necessary. Such a measure would be so abhorrent to so many Americans that the attempt to enforce it would tend to discredit any authority attempting to do so.

Besides, I do not deny that corporations can and should exercise free speech, or that the 4th Amendment applies to them. I just don't think that free speech right is absolute.

[ElNono]

This is excellent

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html


I'd love to see the "corporations aren't persons and constitutional rights are for persons" crowd here answering these questions.

This is too easy: National Security Letter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter)

[mogrovejo]

This is too easy: National Security Letter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter)

What is this supposed to mean? NSLs are a product of statutory law, they aren't part of the Constitution. Can you clarify how this answers those questions?



You may recall my own objection to Citizens United relates not to the merits, (on which I think the majority is narrowly better) but with the broadness of the relief granted

I've already asked how could have the Court decided in a narrower way. I mean, even in the alternative universe where the oral arguments didn't happen, what would be the point? What exactly they could have done?


It is not my position that corporations are not entitled to due process of law and free expression, but that elective bodies are entitled to considerable deference from the judiciary, along the lines of Rehnquist's Bellotti dissent.

Rehnquist wasn't exactly a big adept of the First Amendment, to put it gently, he was extremely hostile to free-speech claims. His dissent in Belloti is plain scary. If you agree with Rehnquist, than I'm not sure how do you agree with the rationale for the decision in CU.


I disagree that they should be able to, but it is undeniable they can.

Same thing.

I disagree, but that's beyond the point. Those questions are about constitutional rights, not about the existence of legislation that may or may not violate those rights.


Because "no one" cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. By seizing the property of a corporation in the manner described, you'd be unjustly depriving actual people of their liberty and their property too.

I'm not sure any constitutional objection would be necessary. Such a measure would be so abhorrent to so many Americans that the attempt to enforce it would tend to discredit any authority attempting to do so.


Irrelevant. Your juvenile good-faith is noted, but it's immaterial for the questions.



Besides, I do not deny that corporations can and should exercise free speech, or that the 4th Amendment applies to them. I just don't think that free speech right is absolute.

And who exactly says the free speech right is absolute? Pure strawman.

This is simple: either some Constitutional Rights are applied to corporations and not only to individuals or not.

The answer is quite obvious.

[ElNono]

What is this supposed to mean? NSLs are a product of statutory law, they aren't part of the Constitution. Can you clarify how this answers those questions?

Sure.

Question: Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Answer: Yes, they do have the right to do so under the authority granted to them by the Patriot Act. The tool to do so is the National Security Letter.

The rest of the questions can pretty much be answered the same way basically.

[Winehole23]

I've already asked how could have the Court decided in a narrower way. I mean, even in the alternative universe where the oral arguments didn't happen, what would be the point? What exactly they could have done?Adhere more strictly to their own customs re: judicial restraint, but it is clear they never meant to.


Rehnquist wasn't exactly a big adept of the First Amendment, to put it gently, he was extremely hostile to free-speech claims. His dissent in Belloti is plain scary. If you agree with Rehnquist, than I'm not sure how do you agree with the rationale for the decision in CU. I wouldn't expect federalism to mean much to you.


Irrelevant. Your juvenile good-faith is noted, but it's immaterial for the questions.Yeah, you're probably right. What the little people think of the actions of their government isn't very consequential.


And who exactly says the free speech right is absolute? Pure strawman. Fair enough.

Tell us then, how may the right be abrogated by the state in a way that is legitmate, in your view?


This is simple: either some Constitutional Rights are applied to corporations and not only to individuals or not. It's clear that they are, and were, before this case ever happened. Your point?

[DarrinS]

rUdFaIYzNwU

[Wild Cobra]

What is this supposed to mean? NSLs are a product of statutory law, they aren't part of the Constitution. Can you clarify how this answers those questions?
There seem to be too many people that think a law can override the constitution.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure.

Question: Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Answer: Yes, they do have the right to do so under the authority granted to them by the Patriot Act. The tool to do so is the National Security Letter.

The rest of the questions can pretty much be answered the same way basically.
My God "the no no it all." When you dierected us in the past to the NSL, and I read the law behind it, there were clear avenues to stop such things from happening before they do.

[mogrovejo]

Sure.

Question: Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Answer: Yes, they do have the right to do so under the authority granted to them by the Patriot Act. The tool to do so is the National Security Letter.

The rest of the questions can pretty much be answered the same way basically.

I disagree with your opinion on the practical effect of the NSL and what the government is allowed to do behind it, but that's completely beyond the point. Statutory legislation can't take away constitutional rights by definition; what if the PA and the NSLs are unconstitutional?

Either companies are entitled to protection under the 4th Amendment or not. You can forget the existence of non-constitutional legislation.

[mogrovejo]

Adhere more strictly to their own customs re: judicial restraint, but it is clear they never meant to.

For the nth time, that part I understand. For the nth time, the court starts the syllabus by explaining why a narrower decision, while desirable, wasn't possible. But what you are yet to explain is how exactly would you do it. I mean, narrower how? I mean, how could you decide in favour of CU without killing Section 203? That's what I'd like to now.


I wouldn't expect federalism to mean much to you.

Non sequitur and strawman. You're on a roll.


Yeah, you're probably right. What the little people think of the actions of their government isn't very consequential.

I don't know, but, more importantly, I don't want to be put in a situation where I'd know. That's exactly the point!


Fair enough.

Glad you recognize your tendency to appeal to strawman arguments.


It's clear that they are, and were, before this case ever happened. Your point?

Huh.... I linked some questions directed to those who defend the view that "corporations aren't persons and constitutional rights are for persons". If you don't defend that view, why are you fucking answer to them? My point is that people who believe that corporations aren't entitled to Constitutional protections are flat out wrong.

[Winehole23]

Yes, that is your strawman.

[Winehole23]

And again you dodged a direct question.

[spursncowboys]

WH, you seem to put more stock into the customs of the court hearing than of the sc job in deciding if a law is constitutional or not. Why even give the justices chance to ask questions or even have a trial? My interpretation of judicial activism is the judicial branch making laws, instead of interpreting the constitutionality of law in question.

[Winehole23]

I think the majority was more aggressive than it needed to be.

[Winehole23]

The decision apparently does have political verve.

[mogrovejo]

Yes, that is your strawman.

I'm not sure you know what a strawman argument is. Addressing questions specifically to those who defend the view that "corporations aren't persons and constitutional rights are exclusively for persons" as Greenwald did and I copied, it's NOT a strawman argument.

[Winehole23]

You did and you copied. We all marvel at it.

[mogrovejo]

Whatever, but do you now understand why I haven't made a strawman argument or not?

[Winehole23]

Citizens United SBrief (http://electionlawblog.org/archives/Citizens%20United--Supplemental%20Brief.pdf). Quoted ipsis verbis:

QUESTION PRESENTED
For the proper disposition of this case, should the
Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and the
part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540
U.S. 93 (2003), which addresses the facial validity of
Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002, 2 U.S.C. § 441b?If you disagree that what Stevens said was well founded that is one thing, but that is not what you said. You said I was making stuff up.

Having read the Stevens dissent, as you claim you have, how could you say that with a straight face?

Do you assume nobody else read through? How funny.

You're almost as bad as SnC and WC. You build your castles on the ignorance of your intended audience, plus your laziness, plus your idiosyncrasies.

[mogrovejo]

It's there, quoted and linked for everybody to read: CU taking the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Accordingly to you, something that "Citizens United never made". I don't know what else is here to discuss. Maybe you should read the dissent more carefully, I really don't know what to say. You have problems admitting you were wrong or mis-informed, it seems to me. I really don't care, but my point was just to elucidate and clarify the forum on this issue.

Sorry to insist, but can you now understand why I wasn't making a strawman argument?

[Winehole23]

You're not sorry, and I don't agree.

[Winehole23]

If my restatement of something Stevens said is inaccurate, please do correct it, if you have indeed detected an error.

Sometimes you allude to your own corrections without really making them, profe.

[mogrovejo]

If my restatement of something Stevens said is inaccurate, please do correct it, if you have indeed detected an error.


I don't think it remains any doubt about the inaccuracy - which is solely yours, and not Stevens. Justice Stevens is not to blame for your inability to understand his writings.

I've quote you and Citizens United.



Sometimes you allude to your own corrections without really making them, profe.

This shit again? Sue me. You bitch too much.

[Winehole23]

I don't think it remains any doubt about the inaccuracy - which is solely yours, and not Stevens.Doubtless not.

Again you show your rather ostentatious grasp of the obvious, Maestro, in your usual bad English.


I've quote you and Citizens United. More bad English.


Whatever, sue me.Watching you flip around on the dock is amusement enough for me.

[Winehole23]

This shit again? Sue me. You bitch too much.You came up with a new line.



(golf clap)

[Winehole23]

It is a better line.

[ElNono]

I disagree with your opinion on the practical effect of the NSL and what the government is allowed to do behind it, but that's completely beyond the point. Statutory legislation can't take away constitutional rights by definition; what if the PA and the NSLs are unconstitutional?

Either companies are entitled to protection under the 4th Amendment or not. You can forget the existence of non-constitutional legislation.

But I cannot simply forget, because until challenged and struck down, it's the law of the land and must be complied with. Or you disagree with that?

[mogrovejo]

But I cannot simply forget, because until challenged and struck down, it's the law of the land and must be complied with. Or you disagree with that?

Yes, I don't think people have an obligation to comply with unethical and unjust laws (I don't think NSLs qualify though). That's very beyond the point though. The existence of legislation doesn't change the Constitution. If tomorrow the congress passes a law prohibiting people from talking politics, would that mean that the right to free-speech is no longer constitutionally protected? No.

That's what I'm asking: are corporations entitle to certain Constitutional rights? Enter a suspension of disbelief if you need to.

[Wild Cobra]

You're almost as bad as SnC and WC. You build your castles on the ignorance of your intended audience, plus your laziness, plus your idiosyncrasies.
What if you are the ignorant one for not having the open mind to understand my viewpoint?

Ever consider that?

[ElNono]

Yes, I don't think people have an obligation to comply with unethical and unjust laws (I don't think NSLs qualify though). That's very beyond the point though. The existence of legislation doesn't change the Constitution. If tomorrow the congress passes a law prohibiting people from talking politics, would that mean that the right to free-speech is no longer constitutionally protected? No.

That's what I'm asking: are corporations entitle to certain Constitutional rights? Enter a suspension of disbelief if you need to.

Well, I already stated in this thread that I think they are. I made my position clear early on. But it's on that vein that I criticize anything that is in the way, like the Patriot Act. Practically speaking, it's hard to overturn shitty legislation like that.

[Winehole23]

What if you are the ignorant one for not having the open mind to understand my viewpoint?

Ever consider that?Yours is so open I think your brain fell out.

[Winehole23]

...

[Winehole23]

The Constitution of the United States can be amended in two formal ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution): from the top down and from the bottom up.


But New Mexico legislators have found a third way and, hopefully, other state legislators around the country will follow their lead.


The US Constitution is traditionally amended (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/) via a process that begins with the endorsement of an amendment by the US House and US Senate and then the ratification of that amendment by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures. That’s the top-down route. The bottom-up route begins when two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.


But what if a state legislature tells Congress to get moving?
That’s what happened over the weekend, when the New Mexico state Senate voted 20-9 to approve Senate Memorial 3 (http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/12%20Regular/memorials/senate/SM003.pdf), which calls on the Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. http://www.thenation.com/blog/166222/new-mexico-legislature-congress-amend-against-citizens-united

[Winehole23]

The New Mexico Senate vote, which follows on a January 31 vote by the New Mexico House, aligns the state with Hawaii in calling for the amendment.

[TeyshaBlue]

Strongsauce.


"WHEREAS, the people and states of the United States of
America have strengthened the nation and preserved liberty and
equality for all by using the amendment process throughout
history, including in seven of the ten decades of the twentieth century, and through the amendment process have reversed seven
erroneous supreme court decisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE STATE
OF NEW MEXICO that it express strong opposition to the United
States supreme court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission and call upon the United States congress to
propose and send to the states for ratification an amendment to
the United States constitution to restore republican democracy
to the people of the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be
transmitted to the members of the New Mexico congressional
delegation."
:toast

[Winehole23]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/04/08/Under-the-Supreme-Court-High-court-agrees-to-consider-corporate-free-speech-post-Citizen-United/UPI-85721333873680/?spt=hts&or=1

[Winehole23]

CU's problem was that they accepted donations from non-individuals. You might want to look up news citations for Mr. James Bopp (http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/firmbio.html) on the particulars.

I note with amusement his knock-on crusade: removing disclosure requirements. :lol
On February 17,2012, the Court held a hearing on the motion. Noel Johnson of Bopp, Coleson, & Bostrom and James Edward Brown of Doney Crowley Payne Bloomquist P.e. appeared for the plaintiffs.http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/UnitedStatesDistrictCourtOrderonInjunctionforATP

[boutons_deux]

"I note with amusement his knock-on crusade: removing disclosure requirements"

Nasty assholes, and there's no stopping them.

[Winehole23]

universalize the particular much?

[boutons_deux]

all the evidence points in the same direction.

They'll say, try, do anything to take over power at all levels.

[Winehole23]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/citizens-united-constitutional-amendment-vermont_n_1439002.html?ref=politics

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/citizens-united-constitutional-amendment-vermont_n_1439002.html?ref=politics

Maybe we can also stop big donations from the unions too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/citizens-united-constitutional-amendment-vermont_n_1439002.html?ref=politics

Good news. Unfortunately, Texas is typically the last to cop to such movements.

[greyforest]

More freedom is always better than less.

Absolutely. This is why companies should be allowed to put lead back in our paint, and asbestos in buildings again. Freedom is always better.

[Winehole23]

Maybe we can also stop big donations from the unions too.Sure, why not?

(Rare point of agreement.)

[Winehole23]

Good news. Unfortunately, Texas is typically the last to cop to such movements.Fuck you, I'm from Texas! :lol:toast

[boutons_deux]

TX' 99% is gonna get fucked harder next with RickyBobby's ostentatious, presumptious, "Texas Budget Compact", which is basically cut budget for the 99% and cut taxes and subsidize the 1%. TX is nothing but an oil/gas social/economic backwater.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Perry-touts-anti-tax-Texas-Budget-Compact-3485956.php

[Winehole23]

I'll take it. I like Texas fine.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuck you, I'm from Texas! :lol:toast

i do too. After traveling much of the US, I have come to find it ever more dear to my heart. But soon I will have to choose between Dallas, Houston or San Jose though. Not sure where I want to go quite yet. Austin is not much of an option as much I wish it.

[Winehole23]

The Federal Communications Commission voted 2 to 1 this morning to require broadcasters to post political ad data on the Web, making it easier for the public to see how as much as (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/06/news/la-pn-2012-ads-could-top-3-billion-20111006) $3.2 billion will be spent on TV advertising this election.



The files — which, among other information, detail the times ads aired, how much they cost, and whether stations rejected ad buy requests from campaigns — are currently available only on paper at stations.


The FCC rejected a push (http://www.propublica.org/article/broadcasters-last-ditch-push-to-hide-political-ad-data) by the industry to water down the measure. But the rule as passed also has serious limits. For example, the data will not be searchable or uploaded in a common formatThe rule will first apply to affiliates of the four major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) in the top 50 TV markets. All other stations will have until July 2014 to come into compliance.






http://www.propublica.org/article/fcc-required-political-ad-data-disclosures-wont-be-searchable

[Winehole23]

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-01/metro/31011580_1_advocacy-group-donor-list-disclosure


One of the cases cited repeatedly by Judge Hornby in upholding Maine's disclosure statues is none other than Citizens United. The silver lining in that otherwise black cloud was the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of the constitutionality of disclosure in campaign finance law, which figured prominently in Judge Hornby's reasoning

http://www.mainecleanelections.org/135.html

[Winehole23]

Neither Brian Brown, executive director of the organization, nor the group's attorney, James Bopp Jr., returned calls seeking comment.http://www.kjonline.com/news/group-continues-fight-vs_-disclosure_2012-05-14.html

[Winehole23]

Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are backing Montana in its fight to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending. The states led by New York are asking the high court to preserve Montana's state-level regulations on corporate political expenditures, according to a copy of a brief written by New York's attorney general's office and obtained by The Associated Press. The brief will be publicly released Monday.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/20/twenty-two-states-join-court-fight-to-preserve-campaign-finance-laws-after/

[Winehole23]

Will the Supreme Court take another crack at its ‘Citizens United’ ruling?
Justices are scheduled Thursday behind closed doors to discuss Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the landmark 2010 decision holding that corporations can make unlimited independent expenditures using general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates.


Why would the justices revisit a case so soon after ruling on it? Because a lower court – the Montana Supreme Court – issued a ruling in 2011 that appears to contradict Citizens United.


The Montana court upheld a ban on corporate spending in Montana state elections, ruling that “unlike Citizens United, this case concerns Montana law, Montana elections and it arises from Montana history.”


The Supreme Court agreed in February to block temporarily, or “stay,” the Montana decision from going into effect until it decides whether to take up the case. Now, parties from both sides have issued written briefs in the case, and the Supreme Court must decide how to deal with it.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/citizens-united-bounces-back-to-supreme-court/?fb_ref=.T9i-lE9XEdA.like&fb_source=tickerdialog_multiline

[Bill_Brasky]

"corporations are people" is one of the biggest crocks of shit I've ever heard.

[Winehole23]

Citizens United has its problems, but that isn't one of them.

[boutons_deux]

Citizens United has its problems, but that isn't one of them.

of course it is the fundamental problem, enabling Corporate-Americans' (political) money to be classified as protected Free Speech as if it were speech by a Human-American.

Second, is that the brain-dead opinion accompanying CU ruling that Corps could be trusted to be honest and good faith. G M A F B

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Citizens United has its problems, but that isn't one of them.

Citizen's United lumped all businesses into the same category of persons. The ruling refused to distinguish between the press and any other type of business. That was the core of it. I think it's a big problem.

[Winehole23]

Citizen's United lumped all businesses into the same category of persons.can you point to the relevant language in the decision?

[boutons_deux]

"We reject Citizens United's challenge to the disclaimer and disclosure provisions," he said from the bench. "Those mechanisms provide information to the electorate. The resulting transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and different messages."

"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of
expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with
the information needed to hold corporations and elected
officials accountable for their positions and supporters.
Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's
political speech advances the corporation's interest in
making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."

Crossroads GPS, co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove, joined with a handful of other conservative "social welfare" organizations, spent more than $30 million on ads attacking President Obama through the end of May.

Crossroads then announced a new ad buy of $25 million.

Tax records show that its donors have included between a dozen and two dozen contributors of at least $1 million each. A couple of the contributors gave as much as $10 million.

This handful of anonymous donors accounted for nearly 90 percent of all the money raised by Crossroads GPS in 2010 and 2011.

So what about Justice Kennedy and his call for effective transparency?

"I think what Kennedy was talking about was sort of the almost platonic view of disclosure, that people will receive this information and make some sort of rational decision about what to do about it,"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/06/07/154526639/theres-more-secret-money-in-politics-despite-justice-kennedys-opinion?sc=17&f=1003

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation fromexpressing political views in media beyond those pre-sented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds “that the FEC has never applied this statute to abook,” and if it did, “there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability incivic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.

First one I found. I remember something much more explicit but don't have time to read more of the decision atm.

Nice to see you are still butthurt about me though. Gotta love the passive aggressive sanctimony. toodaloo

[Wild Cobra]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/citizens-united-bounces-back-to-supreme-court/?fb_ref=.T9i-lE9XEdA.like&fb_source=tickerdialog_multiline
Why would they take another crack at it?

If I remember correctly, the case only nullified one part of the law. I see no reason why another case couldn't strip more of it away.

[Winehole23]

First one I found. I remember something much more explicit but don't have time to read more of the decision atm.take all the time you need. so far you got nothing.

[Winehole23]

It is the nightmare scenario for those who worry that the modern campaign finance system has opened up new frontiers of political corruption: A candidate colludes with wealthy corporate backers and promises to defend their interests if elected. The companies spend heavily to elect the candidate, but hide the money by funneling it through a nonprofit group. And the main purpose of the nonprofit appears to be getting the candidate elected.


But according to investigators, exactly such a plan is unfolding in an extraordinary case in Utah, a state with a cozy political establishment, where business holds great sway and there are no limits on campaign donations.


Public records, affidavits and a special legislative report (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1088927-utah-house-special-investigation-committee-final.html) released last week offer a strikingly candid view inside the world of political nonprofits, where big money sluices into campaigns behind a veil of secrecy. The proliferation of such groups — and what campaign watchdogs say is their widespread, illegal use to hide donations — are at the heart of new rules now being drafted by the Internal Revenue Service to rein in election spending by nonprofit “social welfare” groups, which unlike traditional political action committees do not have to disclose their donors.


In Utah, the documents show, a former state attorney general, John Swallow, sought to transform his office into a defender of payday loan companies, an industry criticized for preying on the poor with short-term loans at exorbitant interest rates. Mr. Swallow, who was elected in 2012, resigned in November after less than a year in office amid growing scrutiny of potential corruption.


“They needed a friend, and the only way he could help them was if they helped get him elected attorney general,” State Representative James A. Dunnigan, who led the investigation in the Utah House of Representatives, said in an interview last week.


What is rare about the Utah case, investigators and campaign finance experts say, is not just the brazenness of the scheme, but the discovery of dozens of documents describing it in fine detail.


Mr. Swallow and his campaign, they say, exploited a web of vaguely named nonprofit organizations in several states to mask hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from payday lenders. His campaign strategist, Jason Powers, both established the groups — known as 501(c)(4)s after the section of the federal tax code that governs them — and raked in consulting fees as the cash moved between them. And affidavits filed by the Utah State Bureau of Investigation suggest that Mr. Powers may have falsified tax documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.


“What the Swallow case raises is the possibility that political money is never really traceable,” said David Donnelly, executive director of the Public Campaign Action Fund (http://www.campaignmoney.org/), which advocates stricter campaign finance laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/us/politics/a-campaign-inquiry-in-utah-is-the-watchdogs-worst-case.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

[Winehole23]

The California Senate gave final approval Monday to a measure asking Congress to call a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and overturn the Citizens United court decision that eliminated limits on corporate spending in elections.

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) said California becomes the second state to petition for a change in the Constitution to clarify that corporations can face limits in their campaign contributions because money does not constitute speech and may be legislatively limited.http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-calif-lawmakers-seek-constitutional-convention-on-citizens-united-decision-20140623-story.html

[Winehole23]

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4244041/Screen_Shot_2014-04-04_at_6.19.40_PM.png

[boutons_deux]

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4244041/Screen_Shot_2014-04-04_at_6.19.40_PM.png

thanks, Repug extreme right wing SCOTUS!

"dark money" is the euphemism, "money laundering" by secret donors is what Grayson so accurately calls it,

America is so fucked and unfuckable as BigCorp/United Corporations of America, and 1% buy, actually OWN, ever deeper and wider into govt at all levels, executive, legislative, judicial.

[Winehole23]

FEC to consider closing the loophole allowing corporations owned by foreigners to make unlimited campaign contributions:


“I was pretty pleased to see that [the GOP commissioners] received my specifics pretty warmly,” said Ellen Weintraub, one of the FEC’s Democratic members. “Even if you don’t believe the entire system needs reform, it’s hard to argue that, for example, it would be OK for U.S. corporations totally owned by foreign governments to make unlimited expenditures in U.S. elections.”



The FEC did not vote today on Weintraub’s new proposals. Instead, Matthew S. Petersen, one of the Republican members of the FEC, said he would “noodle through some of these a little bit more, see if … there might be areas of agreement, see if there are counter proposals and get a little bit of a better understanding of the nature of some of these proposals.”



Under current law, any company incorporated in the U.S. is considered to be a U.S. national — even if it is 100 percent owned by foreign individuals, corporations or governments. This quirk unexpectedly gained significance after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections (as long as the expenditures are theoretically “independent” from political campaigns).


During President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address, he predicted Citizens United would therefore “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” Recent reporting (https://theintercept.com/series/foreign-money-2016/) by The Intercept demonstrated that Obama’s concern was justified: A California corporation owned by Chinese nationals donated $1.3 million to a Jeb Bush Super PAC while following advice from Charlie Spies, a top GOP campaign finance lawyer.

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/29/fec-stalemate-on-banning-foreign-money-in-u-s-elections-could-be-ending/

[Winehole23]

ss of billionaires. http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2-17.png

[boutons_deux]

The political systems is, has been for a long time, totally corrupted.

99% of politicians are FOR SALE, and very cheap compared to the deep pockets of the buyers.

San Antonio's Lamar Smith, AGW denier and thrower of subpoenas at govt scientists

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811

[Winehole23]

sure to be appealed:


The decision paves the way for new requirements that could force nonprofits to disclose donors who give least $200 toward influencing federal elections. (Social-welfare nonprofits such as Crossroads GPS are allowed to spend money on elections so long as it's not their "major purpose.")


In the post Citizens United era, spending by these groups has ballooned, but they have largely avoided having to report individual donors as a result of the FEC's belief that their names only need to be disclosed in limited circumstances.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/04/campaigns-dark-money-groups-donors-anonymous-ruling-762440

[Winehole23]

A California corporation owned by Chinese nationals donated $1.3 million to a Jeb Bush Super PAC while following advice from Charlie Spies, a top GOP campaign finance lawyer.

1.3 million FEC fine, related to Jeb Bush 2016:

https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/APIC-graphics-14.png

https://boingboing.net/2019/03/12/charlie-spies.html

[Winehole23]

Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizen's United:

https://teddeutch.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=402908

[Winehole23]

1352948073006313473

[Winehole23]

1394691969595543561

[boutons_deux]

Kevin McCarthy whines that Biden's infrastructure spending is "socialism" :lol, but his district would benefit hugely.

If it passes, KM will claim credit to his voters as the champion of the spending.

[Winehole23]

"the appearance of conflicts of interest shouldn't be a problem"

1394756347665715203

[Winehole23]

[Justice Kennedy"

"We reject Citizens United's challenge to the disclaimer and disclosure provisions," he said from the bench. "Those mechanisms provide information to the electorate. The resulting transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and different messages."

"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of
expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with
the information needed to hold corporations and elected
officials accountable for their positions and supporters.
Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's
political speech advances the corporation's interest in
making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."


http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/06/07/154526639/theres-more-secret-money-in-politics-despite-justice-kennedys-opinion?sc=17&f=1003so much for transparency being a check against unlimited political spending


"f you put the Brnovich and Americans for Prosperity cases together, the court is making it easier for states to pass repressive voting laws and easier for undisclosed donors and big money to influence election outcomes.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf

[ElNono]

so much for transparency being a check against unlimited political spending

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf

The problem is that California's argument wasn't about political disclosure, but against charity fraud.

[Spurtacular]

1394691969595543561

:cry Bad guys pay taxes :cry

:lol Grow up.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-IvgpmUcAM9xrZ?format=jpg&name=mediumhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-Iv9sjUUAECivF?format=png&name=900x900https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/campaign-finance-regulations-and-public-policy/B739B3AB64C90AE652CEE2FF6911883F

[Winehole23]

political money is free speech, but unlike you and me, dark money behind social welfare nonprofits can contribute unlimited funds to candidates without disclosure or penalty


A mysterious entity has given $1.7 million to Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (https://www.rawstory.com/kay-ivey-tim-james-2022/)'s re-election campaign, but she won't say who's behind the record-breaking contributions.


The dark-money group Get Families Back to Work Inc. gave $750,000 to Ivey's campaign on March 31, and it was the single-largest political contribution made to a candidate for state office.
What's more, that record was matched when the same entity gave another $750,000 to the governor eight days later, before giving another $250,000 on April 28, reported AL.com (https://www.al.com/news/2022/05/17-million-of-mystery-money-finances-alabama-governors-campaign.html).
https://www.rawstory.com/get-families-back-to-work/

[Winehole23]

this sort of thing is commonplace now, because the Supreme Court decided that money doesn't corrupt politics.

[Winehole23]

The Supreme Court denying that public officials can be corrupted by money is touchingly naive, and daft.

Direct, quid pro quo arrangement aren't the only way officials can be corrupted. At a certain point, the magnitude of the gift (and the threat of withdrawing it and giving it to one's opponents) becomes politically effective.

1526313819743653888

[Winehole23]

"Putting limits on me (a rich guy, SuperPAC or corporation) buying off public officials abridges my core free speech rights!"

[Winehole23]

"The US Constitution, in its majestic equality, permits the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges and buy off politicians."

[ElNono]

"Putting limits on me (a rich guy, SuperPAC or corporation) buying off public officials abridges my core free speech rights!"


"The US Constitution, in its majestic equality, permits the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges and buy off politicians."

It's like they're not even pretending here...

When the case was argued in January, Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer for Mr. Cruz and his campaign, said contributors should be able to “exercise the First Amendment right to associate with the winner, and to hope that that will result in the kind of influence and access that support for a candidate begets.”

:lol

[Winehole23]

It's like they're not even pretending here...

When the case was argued in January, Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer for Mr. Cruz and his campaign, said contributors should be able to “exercise the First Amendment right to associate with the winner, and to hope that that will result in the kind of influence and access that support for a candidate begets.”

:loldark money put the last three justices(at least) on the bench, to do what they're doing. you're right that they're not pretending, they're rewarding their backers.

[Winehole23]

...with unjudicial swiftness, but perhaps that befits the inherently political nature of the Supreme Court. The judiciary is a political sovereign coequal to the executive and legislative branches.

We currently have nine justices because there used to be nine circuit courts, there are now thirteen. Maybe it's past time for an upgrade.

[Winehole23]

1526635699444797441

[SnakeBoy]

We currently have nine justices because there used to be nine circuit courts, there are now thirteen. Maybe it's past time for an upgrade.

Not yet. Maybe in 2025.

[Winehole23]

Special interest cash suborns local politics and prevents representation of the people's interests.



With the astounding rise in election spendingand divisive dark money campaigns in America,the Pennsylvania 2022 Senate election has been,and will continue to be, dominated by outsidespending groups and a national “donor class.”These donors and outside groups are spendingmillions of dollars to define “viable” candidates,distort facts, hype misleading attacks, and drownout the voices and ideas of ordinary Pennsylvaniavoters. The sheer cost of campaigning has createda “pay-to-play” system, where the only candidateswith a chance are the ones with access to millionsof dollars through personal wealth and/ornational donor networks. The hyper-targetedad campaigns paid for by this money will beoverwhelmingly divisive and negative, and theywill ignore many of the issues of most concern toPennsylvanians.https://americanpromise.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/UnCommonWealth_PA_Spending_report-1.pdf

[Winehole23]

Special interest cash suborns local politics and prevents representation of the people's interests.



With the astounding rise in election spendingand divisive dark money campaigns in America,the Pennsylvania 2022 Senate election has been,and will continue to be, dominated by outsidespending groups and a national “donor class.”These donors and outside groups are spendingmillions of dollars to define “viable” candidates,distort facts, hype misleading attacks, and drownout the voices and ideas of ordinary Pennsylvaniavoters. The sheer cost of campaigning has createda “pay-to-play” system, where the only candidateswith a chance are the ones with access to millionsof dollars through personal wealth and/ornational donor networks. The hyper-targetedad campaigns paid for by this money will beoverwhelmingly divisive and negative, and theywill ignore many of the issues of most concern toPennsylvanians.https://americanpromise.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/UnCommonWealth_PA_Spending_report-1.pdf

[boutons_deux]

Special interest cash suborns local politics and prevents representation of the people's interests.


https://americanpromise.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/UnCommonWealth_PA_Spending_report-1.pdf

Out-of-state dark money is even financing School board elections. The oligarchy will not stop until it has full control of America at all levels

[Winehole23]

A new conservative nonprofit group scored a $1.6 billion windfall last year via a little-known donor — an extraordinary sum that could give Republicans and their causes a huge financial boost ahead of the midterms, and for years to come.


The source of the money was Barre Seid, an electronics manufacturing mogul, and the donation is among the largest — if not the largest — single contributions ever made to a politically focused nonprofit. The beneficiary is a new political group controlled by Leonard A. Leo, an activist who has used his connections to Republican donors and politicians to help engineer the conservative dominance of the Supreme Court (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/us/supreme-court-term-roe-guns-epa-decisions.html) and to finance battles over abortion rights (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/us/conservative-legal-movement-roe-v-wade.html), voting rules (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/us/Voting-republicans-trump.html) and climate change policy (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/climate/supreme-court-climate-epa.html).

This windfall will help cement Mr. Leo’s status as a kingmaker in conservative big money politics. It could also give conservatives an advantage in a type of difficult-to-trace spending that shapes elections and political fights.

The cash infusion was arranged through an unusual series of transactions that appear to have avoided tax liabilities. It originated with Mr. Seid, a longtime conservative donor who made a fortune as the chairman and chief executive of an electrical device manufacturing company in Chicago now known as Tripp Lite.

Rather than merely giving cash, Mr. Seid donated 100 percent of the shares of Tripp Lite to Mr. Leo’s nonprofit group before the company was sold to an Irish conglomerate for $1.65 billion, according to tax records (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22156171-marble-freedom-trusts-2020-form-990-may-1-2020-april-30-2021) provided to The New York Times, corporate filings and a person with knowledge of the matter.

The nonprofit, called the Marble Freedom Trust, then received all of the proceeds from the sale, in a transaction that appears to have been structured to allow the nonprofit group and Mr. Seid to avoid paying taxes on the proceeds.

For perspective, the $1.6 billion that the Marble trust reaped from the sale is slightly more than the total of $1.5 billion spent in 2020 by 15 of the most politically active nonprofit organizations that generally align with Democrats, according to an analysis by The Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html). That spending, which Democrats embraced to aid the campaigns of Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his allies in Congress, dwarfed the roughly $900 million spent by a comparable sample of 15 of the most politically active groups aligned with the Republican Party.

The Marble Freedom Trust could help conservatives level the playing field — if not surpass the left — in such nonprofit spending, which is commonly referred to as dark money because the groups involved can raise and spend unlimited sums on politics while revealing little about where they got the money or how they spent it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/us/politics/republican-dark-money.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[boutons_deux]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/us/politics/republican-dark-money.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


Leonard Leo is yet another Catholic corrupting, degrading America into a one-party fascist state

[Winehole23]

Norm Coleman controls a GOP dark money spigot and lobbies Congress on behalf of Saudi Arabia.


“Coleman is an agent for the Saudi government, representing Saudi government interests, while he’s literally steering money to selected Republican candidates. That should disturb every American, Republican or Democrat.”

Other officials may not be able to follow Coleman’s own path from Congress to foreign agent. A bipartisan group of House members introduced new legislation, “Fighting Foreign Influence Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8106?s=1&r=18).”

The act would impose a lifetime ban on senior military officers, presidents, vice presidents, senior executive branch officials, and members of Congress from ever lobbying for a foreign principal.
https://theintercept.com/2022/09/22/saudi-arabia-norm-coleman-lobbyist-republicans/

[Winehole23]

Dark money swirling around the Supreme Court somehow found its way into Leonard Leo's bank account.


A POLITICO investigation based on dozens of financial, property and public records dating from 2000 to 2021 found that Leo’s lifestyle took a lavish turn beginning in 2016, the year he was tapped as an unpaid adviser to incoming President Donald Trump on Supreme Court justices. It’s the same period during which he erected a for-profit ecosystem around his longtime nonprofit empire that is shielded from taxes. Leo was executive vice president of The Federalist Society at the time.

The for-profit and nonprofit entities share more than just Leo’s involvement: The same longtime ally managing the books for two of his new leading nonprofits, Neil Corkery, is also chief financial officer of Leo’s for-profit company, POLITICO confirmed in IRS filings. One of those nonprofits paid the for-profit $33.8 million over two years.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/01/dark-money-leonard-leo-judicial-activism-00084864

[Winehole23]

“It’s an extraordinary amount of money for a fairly intangible or indistinct product or service,” said Owens.

“That’s where the big problem is going to lie, in whether the goods and services were real and whether they were provided at no more than fair market value,” said Owens, who helped design and enforce federal programs for exempt organizations. Excess payments can trigger penalties and even revocation of tax exempt status, he said

[Winehole23]

Under the reasoning of Citizens United, using gifts and money to buy access to public officials creates no appearance of impropriety, unless accompanied by explicit words describing the quid pro quo.

1646133645198127104

[Winehole23]

Wink and a nod, no quid pro quo.

Once upon a time, judges avoided the mere appearance of such a thing, since it can be damaging to public perception of the legitimacy of the judiciary.

1653054386782756865

[Winehole23]

hard to say "we're just friends" when you're on the record saying "rich money spending their money is politics"

1654094216056717315

[Winehole23]

1654100931435167745

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FwLCsKXacAAJ3Je?format=jpg&name=small