Teabagger judges allow cooperate takeover of politicians

[PublicOption]

you teabaggers cut your own throats and don't even know it....what morons.:lol

[Winehole23]

The appointment of all the SC justices preceeded the Tea Party movement, jackass.

[PublicOption]

asshole those SC judges are the teabaggers type of judges......c'mon even a simple mind like yours knows that.

[DarrinS]

If this SC decision made Keith Olbermann blow a gasket, then I know it was a good one.

[Winehole23]

Unsurprising. It's much easier to check which way the wind blows than to think for yourself.

[Marcus Bryant]

This country is doomed.

[EmptyMan]

Is this one of those things where the corps were already getting the kickbacks behind the curtains and now they can just be more open about it?

[SnakeBoy]

This country is doomed.

How's that?

[Marcus Bryant]

How's that?

From "teabagger" being deemed an acceptable, intelligent part of the public discourse to determining the validity of a given government action by which popular commentator(s) oppose or support it, this country is doomed.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not to mention the retroactive labeling of certain public officials. And thinking that cooperate is the same as corporate. Motherfucker.

[coyotes_geek]

Is this one of those things where the corps were already getting the kickbacks behind the curtains and now they can just be more open about it?

Pretty much. But apparently the possibility of that transparency infringing upon the sanctity of our prime time television shows is too much to stomach.

[SouthernFried]

We should all cooperate to take over the politicians.

[Winehole23]

Pretty much. But apparently the possibility of that transparency infringing upon the sanctity of our prime time television shows is too much to stomach.I'm not so sure transparency is the result. I'm pretty sure disclosure rules went out the window too.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm not so sure transparency is the result. I'm pretty sure disclosure rules went out the window too.

Are you referring to the "this ad paid for by _________" disclaimers? If so, and those did indeed get out then that's not a good thing. But then that would be an issue that goes far beyond just the corporations and unions.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm not so sure transparency is the result. I'm pretty sure disclosure rules went out the window too.

How about the continued affirmation of corporate personhood?

[Winehole23]

Alluding to that apparently makes you a crank in the eyes of some.

[Marcus Bryant]

...or a commie.

[DarrinS]

If you were going to limit the speech of corporations, wouldn't you, by definition, be limiting what the major news networks, radio stations, newspapers, etc. could say?


I'm trying to figure out what's horrible about this ruling?

[Marcus Bryant]

Because it would be so difficult to define news organizations as part of the "free press."

[panic giraffe]

If this SC decision made Keith Olbermann blow a gasket, then I know it was a good one.

really? the "i love it because the guy i hate hates it" wow. what if he blew a gasket over children dying on the street? would you rush out and kill a kid?

damn mindless zombie.

[TeyshaBlue]

Because it would be so difficult to define news organizations as part of the "free press."

:lol

[z0sa]

you teabaggers cut your own throats and don't even know it....what morons.:lol


Teabagger judges allow cooperate takeover of politicians

:lol

[Marcus Bryant]

As if Obama wasn't a beneficiary of corporate contributions, or that he played by the spirit of the campaign finance rules during the last presidential campaign. Oh, it's those "teabaggers" who want to do away with limits on "cooperate" campaign expenditures. The belief that somehow only the GOP receives corporate contributions is one of the more amusing bits of conventional wisdom. Not to mention the bit that union campaign contributions are thought of as good and do anything other than enhance the power of union fiefdoms and enrich their membership.

[DarrinS]

as if obama wasn't a beneficiary of corporate contributions, or that he played by the spirit of the campaign finance rules during the last presidential campaign. Oh, it's those "teabaggers" who want to do away with limits on "cooperate" campaign expenditures. The belief that somehow only the gop receives corporate contributions is one of the more amusing bits of conventional wisdom. Not to mention the bit that union campaign contributions are thought of as good and do anything other than enhance the power of union fiefdoms and enrich their membership.


+100k

[doobs]

Because it would be so difficult to define news organizations as part of the "free press."

That's not what the Free Press Clause means.

[Marcus Bryant]

What does it mean?

[mogrovejo]

I'm not so sure transparency is the result. I'm pretty sure disclosure rules went out the window too.

As I suspected, you didn't even read the decision.

[Winehole23]

I'll readily admit I didn't. Blow me.

[mogrovejo]

Because it would be so difficult to define news organizations as part of the "free press."

Huh? How, barring a constitutional amendment? Care to explain? I thought you defended that only individual speech was protected under the First Amemdment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

If the freedom of speech of corporations isn't protected because they aren't "people", then the freedom of press isn't either.

(Obviously, the 1st Amendment protects speech, regardless of the speakers... as actually reading it makes obvious).

[Winehole23]

Do you read all SC opinions the same day?

[Winehole23]

I did post it for the general edification. You could at least give me credit for that.

[Winehole23]

Btw, will you start answering the question you dodged earlier?

[doobs]

What does it mean?

The Free Press Clause protects the right to publish. It's not a special protection for newspapers.

[Marcus Bryant]

Huh? How, barring a constitutional amendment? Care to explain? I thought you defended that only individual speech was protected under the First Amemdment.

Strawman. I made no such defense or claim.




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

If the freedom of speech of corporations isn't protected because they aren't "people", then the freedom of press isn't either.



The amendment specifically mentions "the press." Why exactly does one have to interpret the entire amendment as applying only to individuals?




(Obviously, the 1st Amendment protects speech, regardless of the speakers... as actually reading it makes obvious).

Obviously the first amendment hit a number of items, and none of them were intended to allow Microsoft to turn into a person.

[spursncowboys]

really? the "i love it because the guy i hate hates it" wow. what if he blew a gasket over children dying on the street? would you rush out and kill a kid?

damn mindless zombie.

Isn't Olbermann pro-choice? So wouldn't it be the opposite: If Olbermann blew a gasket over not being able to kill kids...?

[Marcus Bryant]

The Free Press Clause protects the right to publish. It's not a special protection for newspapers.

Are newspapers not?

[doobs]

Are newspapers not?

Are newspapers not what?

The Free Press Clause was not intended to protect the freedom of an industry from government intervention. It was intended to protect the freedom of an activity: publishing.

Now, if you think corporations are not to be treated like natural persons for First Amendment purposes, then fine. But be consistent: don't try claiming that the Free Press Clause protects them but the Free Speech Clause doesn't.

[Winehole23]

Pussy waited til I logged off. As soon as I answered, he bailed.

[Winehole23]

Guess he wouldn't throw himself in front of that bull. lol.

[coyotes_geek]

CG: A different angle to this story..................

***************

CEOs to Hill: Quit calling us for campaign cash

WASHINGTON – Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.

Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers — and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.

The court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on ads urging people to vote for or against candidates. The decision was sought by interest groups including one that represents American businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They argued that restrictions on ads they could finance close to elections violated their free-speech rights, and the court agreed.

Congressional candidates who find themselves attacked by a flood of special-interest TV ads in the 2010 elections will likely reach out to their party's biggest donors for money to help them counter the blitz.

"Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors," the business executives' letter says. "And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court's decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase."

Among the others signing the letter are current or former executives of Quaker Chemical Corp., Brita Products Co., San Diego National Bank, MetLife and Crate & Barrel.

They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups who hope the Supreme Court ruling will lead Congress to pass public campaign financing legislation they have long been seeking. Others supporting public financing include former campaign strategists for President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush.

A Senate proposal would fund campaigns with a fee on businesses that get $10 million or more in government contracts. The House would finance it with revenue from auctioning off the television broadcast spectrum, which was opened when the country switched to digital broadcasting. Spectrums are the airwaves used by the government, television and radio broadcasters and cell phone companies, among others.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_campaign_finance_ceos;_ylt=AkHUgKjycrk2PGvAXFrO rcfs.6F4;_ylu=X3oDMTNkamRob2FhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAw MTIyL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2VfY2VvcwRjY29kZQNtb3 N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9y aWVzBHNsawNjZW9zdG9jb25ncmU-

[EVAY]

CG: A different angle to this story..................

***************

CEOs to Hill: Quit calling us for campaign cash

WASHINGTON – Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.

Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers — and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.

The court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on ads urging people to vote for or against candidates. The decision was sought by interest groups including one that represents American businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They argued that restrictions on ads they could finance close to elections violated their free-speech rights, and the court agreed.

Congressional candidates who find themselves attacked by a flood of special-interest TV ads in the 2010 elections will likely reach out to their party's biggest donors for money to help them counter the blitz.

"Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors," the business executives' letter says. "And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court's decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase."

Among the others signing the letter are current or former executives of Quaker Chemical Corp., Brita Products Co., San Diego National Bank, MetLife and Crate & Barrel.

They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups who hope the Supreme Court ruling will lead Congress to pass public campaign financing legislation they have long been seeking. Others supporting public financing include former campaign strategists for President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush.

A Senate proposal would fund campaigns with a fee on businesses that get $10 million or more in government contracts. The House would finance it with revenue from auctioning off the television broadcast spectrum, which was opened when the country switched to digital broadcasting. Spectrums are the airwaves used by the government, television and radio broadcasters and cell phone companies, among others.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_campaign_finance_ceos;_ylt=AkHUgKjycrk2PGvAXFrO rcfs.6F4;_ylu=X3oDMTNkamRob2FhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAw MTIyL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2VfY2VvcwRjY29kZQNtb3 N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9y aWVzBHNsawNjZW9zdG9jb25ncmU-

Thank you for posting this. I was reading through these to see if someone had done so already. Now this is the most important thing to me...

How do you all respond to this? I admit I never expected the Supremes to make the determination they did, but since they did, I can hardly imagine Congress not stepping in to rewrite the law in some way. What do you all think about his? Should ONLY public funding be allowed for national campaigns? It has some merit, it seems to me, on the face of it, but I don't honestly know if this would be unconstitutional or not.

It seems to me that we already 'have the best legislators money can buy', but I am bothered by the seeming inequality that will result from corporations completely taking over the financing of campaigns, as this new law appears to enable.

I am asking all of you who know so much more than I do about constitutionality to tell me.

[Winehole23]

A very good question, EVAY.

[mogrovejo]

Btw, will you start answering the question you dodged earlier?

What questions?


I did post it for the general edification. You could at least give me credit for that.

Give you credit for making false statements due to your inability or unwillingness to inform yourself properly? No problem.

You were wrong. Admit it, apologize for writing misleading/wrong info and move on.



Strawman. I made no such defense or claim.





The amendment specifically mentions "the press." Why exactly does one have to interpret the entire amendment as applying only to individuals?



Obviously the first amendment hit a number of items, and none of them were intended to allow Microsoft to turn into a person.[/quote]

You are very confused.

If you believe that the first amendment doesn't give corporations the constitutional right to free speech because corporations aren't people then the same is true for the freedom of press. It's one or the other.

And once for all, try to understand this very simple thing: this isnt' about the person-hood of corporations.

[Winehole23]

What questions?Didn't catch it first time around? :lol

[mogrovejo]

Thank you for posting this. I was reading through these to see if someone had done so already. Now this is the most important thing to me...

How do you all respond to this? I admit I never expected the Supremes to make the determination they did

I did, since the hearings. I'm actually amazed that people were expecting a different outcome.


but since they did, I can hardly imagine Congress not stepping in to rewrite the law in some way. What do you all think about his? Should ONLY public funding be allowed for national campaigns? It has some merit, it seems to me, on the face of it, but I don't honestly know if this would be unconstitutional or not.

It seems to me that we already 'have the best legislators money can buy', but I am bothered by the seeming inequality that will result from corporations completely taking over the financing of campaigns, as this new law appears to enable.

I am asking all of you who know so much more than I do about constitutionality to tell me.

I think people are extremely confused about this issue.

This decision doesn't address campaign financing. Nothing changes in that regard. Corporations aren't allow to give money to politicians or campaigns.

I'm against public funding. I can't see a compelling reason to allow politicians to finance their electioneering activities with others people money without their explicit allowance.

[mogrovejo]

Didn't catch it first time around? :lol

Geez, are you going to point out the questions or not? This is the only thread I've opened today.

[Winehole23]

Too bad you can't keep up.

[mogrovejo]

CG: A different angle to this story..................

***************

CEOs to Hill: Quit calling us for campaign cash

WASHINGTON – Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.

Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers — and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.

The court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on ads urging people to vote for or against candidates. The decision was sought by interest groups including one that represents American businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They argued that restrictions on ads they could finance close to elections violated their free-speech rights, and the court agreed.

Congressional candidates who find themselves attacked by a flood of special-interest TV ads in the 2010 elections will likely reach out to their party's biggest donors for money to help them counter the blitz.

"Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors," the business executives' letter says. "And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court's decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase."

Among the others signing the letter are current or former executives of Quaker Chemical Corp., Brita Products Co., San Diego National Bank, MetLife and Crate & Barrel.

They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups who hope the Supreme Court ruling will lead Congress to pass public campaign financing legislation they have long been seeking. Others supporting public financing include former campaign strategists for President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush.

A Senate proposal would fund campaigns with a fee on businesses that get $10 million or more in government contracts. The House would finance it with revenue from auctioning off the television broadcast spectrum, which was opened when the country switched to digital broadcasting. Spectrums are the airwaves used by the government, television and radio broadcasters and cell phone companies, among others.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_campaign_finance_ceos;_ylt=AkHUgKjycrk2PGvAXFrO rcfs.6F4;_ylu=X3oDMTNkamRob2FhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAw MTIyL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2VfY2VvcwRjY29kZQNtb3 N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9y aWVzBHNsawNjZW9zdG9jb25ncmU-

As I've pointed out yesterday, the CED filled an amicus brief in defence of the government positions. This decision isn't exactly big business friendly (or unfriendly). It's free-speech friendly.

The hysterical know-nothings who think they look smart by screaming "OMG! The Framers weren't corporate lawyers! It's the apocalypse!!!" are, as usual, clueless.

[Winehole23]

...

[mogrovejo]

Too bad you can't keep up.

As usual, you're trolling. Substantive contributes to the discussion=0.

[EVAY]

I'm sorry, Mogrovejo, but I find your distinction between being able to directly fund a politician and/or campaign and being able to 'spend unlimited funds in ads supporting or opposing a candidate or issue' to be a distinction without a difference.

I am certainly willing to admit that I am easily confused by this Supreme Court's decisions. But I am less willing to admit to general stupidity.

[Ya Vez]

In last year's oral argument for Citizen's United, the Court got a preview of how far a ban on corporate-funded speech could reach. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart explained that, under McCain-Feingold, the government had the authority to "prohibit the publication" of corporate-funded books that called for the election or defeat of a candidate.

That was a shock and awe moment at the Court, as it also should have been to a Washington press corps that has too often been a cheerleader for campaign-spending limits. Mr. Stewart was telling a truth already familiar to campaign-finance lawyers and the speech police at the Federal Election Commission. Former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky recalled yesterday that in 2004 the agency investigated whether a book written by George Soros critical of George W. Bush violated campaign laws. Liberals as much as conservatives should worry about laws that allow such investigations.

The Court's opinion is especially effective in dismantling McCain-Feingold's arbitrary exemption for media corporations. Thus a corporation that owns a newspaper—News Corp. or the New York Times—retains its First Amendment right to speak freely. "At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue," wrote Justice Kennedy. "This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment."

Seems reasonable to me..

[Wild Cobra]

How many threads are liberals going to cry through?

[mogrovejo]

I'm sorry, Mogrovejo, but I find your distinction between being able to directly fund a politician and/or campaign and being able to 'spend unlimited funds in ads supporting or opposing a candidate or issue' to be a distinction without a difference.

I am certainly willing to admit that I am easily confused by this Supreme Court's decisions. But I am less willing to admit to general stupidity.

You may think there's no difference, but in that case you're certainly opposed to any kind of limits in campaign contributions.

I believe it makes a huge difference in terms of full disclosure and transparency.


In last year's oral argument for Citizen's United, the Court got a preview of how far a ban on corporate-funded speech could reach. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart explained that, under McCain-Feingold, the government had the authority to "prohibit the publication" of corporate-funded books that called for the election or defeat of a candidate.

That was a shock and awe moment at the Court, as it also should have been to a Washington press corps that has too often been a cheerleader for campaign-spending limits. Mr. Stewart was telling a truth already familiar to campaign-finance lawyers and the speech police at the Federal Election Commission. Former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky recalled yesterday that in 2004 the agency investigated whether a book written by George Soros critical of George W. Bush violated campaign laws. Liberals as much as conservatives should worry about laws that allow such investigations.

The Court's opinion is especially effective in dismantling McCain-Feingold's arbitrary exemption for media corporations. Thus a corporation that owns a newspaper—News Corp. or the New York Times—retains its First Amendment right to speak freely. "At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue," wrote Justice Kennedy. "This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment."

Seems reasonable to me..

Most people aren't simply aware about the kind of power that the BCRA provision invalidated by this decision put on the hands of the bureaucrats appointed by politicians. What would have happened if 3 months before the election the FEC decided to ban the publishing and distribution of "The Audacity of Hope"? Want to download the audio version of Obama's book? Verboten! But for some people, this should be allowed.

[mogrovejo]

From the majority opinion:


The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.…

When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. Under Austin, though, officials could have done more than discourage its distribution—they could have banned the film. After all, it, like Hillary, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be fiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force.

Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits onYoutube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design.

[Marcus Bryant]

Are newspapers not what?

The Free Press Clause was not intended to protect the freedom of an industry from government intervention. It was intended to protect the freedom of an activity: publishing.

Now, if you think corporations are not to be treated like natural persons for First Amendment purposes, then fine. But be consistent: don't try claiming that the Free Press Clause protects them but the Free Speech Clause doesn't.

LOL. Yes, the free press statement covers them. It is not necessary for both to cover them so the one can cover them.

[Marcus Bryant]

Thank you for posting this. I was reading through these to see if someone had done so already. Now this is the most important thing to me...

How do you all respond to this? I admit I never expected the Supremes to make the determination they did, but since they did, I can hardly imagine Congress not stepping in to rewrite the law in some way. What do you all think about his? Should ONLY public funding be allowed for national campaigns? It has some merit, it seems to me, on the face of it, but I don't honestly know if this would be unconstitutional or not.

It seems to me that we already 'have the best legislators money can buy', but I am bothered by the seeming inequality that will result from corporations completely taking over the financing of campaigns, as this new law appears to enable.

I am asking all of you who know so much more than I do about constitutionality to tell me.

It runs both ways. Congressmen can shake down corps just as easily now. Hey, there's nothing stopping you now...

[Marcus Bryant]

You are very confused.

LOL. You're the confused one. God, your fucking argumentation skills come from some kind of third grade manual.



If you believe that the first amendment doesn't give corporations the constitutional right to free speech because corporations aren't people then the same is true for the freedom of press. It's one or the other.


No, it's not. Otherwise it would not have been necessary to make the distinction in the amendment.



And once for all, try to understand this very simple thing: this isnt' about the person-hood of corporations.

Oh really? That was the centerpiece of the decision. Otherwise censoring corporate "speech" in McCain-Feingold would not have been an issue.

[doobs]

LOL. Yes, the free press statement covers them. It is not necessary for both to cover them so the one can cover them.

Explain to me how the Free Press Clause covers corporations, but the Free Speech Clause doesn't. What do you base that on?

[Marcus Bryant]

The free press clause already covered them. This ruling was not necessary for newspaper publishers.

[mogrovejo]

No, it's not. Otherwise it would not have been necessary to make the distinction in the amendment.

What distinction?




Oh really? That was the centerpiece of the decision. Otherwise censoring corporate "speech" in McCain-Feingold would not have been an issue.

No it wasn't. Maybe you should actually read the decision first.

[mogrovejo]

The free press clause already covered them. This ruling was not necessary for newspaper publishers.

Huh? Why does the free press clause covers corporations but the free speech clause doesn't cover corporations?

I've never seen this argument made anywhere. Can you point out some bibliography?

[Marcus Bryant]

What distinction?


speech v press





No it wasn't. Maybe you should actually read the decision first.

It's a given.

[Marcus Bryant]

Huh? Why does the free press clause covers corporations

...which are part of the "free press."




but the free speech clause doesn't cover corporations?


Because those are not natural persons. The court has made a mockery of the Constitution and anyone who doesn't base their jurisprudence on Bastiat could figure that out.



I've never seen this argument made anywhere. Can you point out some bibliography?

Look out the window.

[mogrovejo]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878.html
New money will flow into campaigns this year as a result of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, but will the impact be as dramatic as all the hyperventilating in Washington suggests?

Experts say probably not.


“It’s time for everybody to calm down,” said Ken Gross, a campaign finance expert at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who, like other lawyers in the field, thinks the possible repercussions of the decision have been exaggerated.

The court’s decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission clears the way for corporations and unions to use their general fund cash to run sharp, targeted ads in political campaigns.


It’s a ruling that advocates of campaign finance reform claim will allow businesses to tap into their vast treasuries and flood the airwaves with hard-hitting ads – commercials that Democrats fear will be aimed mostly at them.


That’s certainly possible and, even if corporations hold off initially, they could unleash their cash in the future if relations with Congress truly go bad. In addition, there could well be some ideologically-driven firms that decide to target particular candidates – just as some wealthy individuals have done in the past.



But the reality is likely to be something more modest, mainly a shifting of cash that’s already in the system away from so-called 527 groups.


In the last decade, corporations have actually been trying to get out of the business of big political giving. They sided with reform advocates when the McCain-Feingold law was first challenged in 2003 and testified on behalf of its ban on unlimited corporate giving to the political parties, which were dubbed “soft money” donations.
Ooops. This was such a convenient fable for the know-nothings but reality seems to tell a different story.

ACLU supports this decision; CED and big corporations actually oppose it (as anyone who had consulted the amicus briefs filled would know).

[mogrovejo]

speech v press

Yeah, they're different things.

What I'm asking is why the free press clause covers corporations but the free speech clause doesn't.

I mean, if a corporation emits an opinion through a spokesman, it isn't constitutionally protected. If they do it by printing a pamphlet, it is.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be facetious, but this view is absolutely bizarre (no wonder I've never seen it replicated anywhere).



It's a given.

So here you are trying to lecture others about a decision that you've never read and don't intend to do.

Quite telling.

Once again, the opinion actually states that the personhood of corporate identities is immaterial - the First Amendment is about "speech", not "speakers".



Because those are not natural persons. The court has made a mockery of the Constitution and anyone who doesn't base their jurisprudence on Bastiat could figure that out.

Great argument. Extremely deep.




Look out the window.

Another one. I'll take this as your way of expressing that, in fact, you can't point someone else who holds your interpretation of the First Amendment.

Hey, at least you're original.

[doobs]

MB, the Constitution doesn't just mean what you want it to mean. But let's assume you're right. (You're not.)

Two quick questions:

(1) Who constitutes the "press"? Does it include bloggers? Does it include the National Enquirer? Does it include me?

(2) What is the extent of their "freedom"? For instance, are they immune from prosecution for trespass if they need to do so to "follow a lead"?

[PixelPusher]

If this SC decision made Keith Olbermann blow a gasket, then I know it was a good one.

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaah! Gawd Bless America! Land Of The Free! Home of the...uh...


Should Foreign Corporations Spend Money on U.S. Political Candidates? (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/22/should-foreign-corporations-spend-money-on-u-s-political-candidates.aspx?)
Krista Gesaman

Foreign businesses might be the real winners in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the landmark case that allows corporations and unions to spend limitless amounts of money on presidential and congressional political campaigns. A majority of large businesses are now owned by foreign entities, and this means international corporations could pour tons of money into the United States political scene, potentially swaying the political climate.

The biggest questions with this ruling is the scope of the term "corporation," says Edward Foley, law professor at the Ohio State University College of Law and director of the election-law program. Does the high court want this decision to apply to foreign corporations as well as domestic ones, he ponders? The truth is, the court didn't make a decision one way or the other.

Foley best explains the potential issues by talking about the electronic, video, and communication giant, Sony. The corporation is headquartered in Japan, but a large number of its shareholders reside in the United States. In fact, people can even buy and trade Sony's stock on the New York Stock Exchange. The issue is whether this corporation, with strong ties to a foreign country and the United States, should be permitted to independently contribute money to presidential and congressional campaigns.
Advertisement

The court sought to expand First Amendment protection for corporations, but did it really mean to promote the free flow of ideas from Russian or Chinese corporations, Foley asks? Justice John Paul Stevens focused on the same concerns in his dissenting opinion. The majority's position "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans," he writes.

This afternoon, President Obama asked Congress to "develop a forceful response" to the ruling. But with Congress juggling so many other important issues, it's unlikely that a change will be made in the immediate future. This could mean that foreign cash could be supporting political candidates in next year's congressional midterm elections.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, they're different things.

What I'm asking is why the free press clause covers corporations but the free speech clause doesn't.

I mean, if a corporation emits an opinion through a spokesman, it isn't constitutionally protected. If they do it by printing a pamphlet, it is.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be facetious, but this view is absolutely bizarre (no wonder I've never seen it replicated anywhere).


You haven't seen anywhere because you haven't looked outside your ass.




So here you are trying to lecture others about a decision that you've never read and don't intend to do.

Quite telling.


Right. I don't read 100 page documents because a mayonnaise eater tells me to.




Once again, the opinion actually states that the personhood of corporate identities is immaterial - the First Amendment is about "speech", not "speakers".


I'm not sure why you believe I subscribe to the opinion or am in any well held to it.




Great argument. Extremely deep.


Deep enough for you.



Another one. I'll take this as your way of expressing that, in fact, you can't point someone else who holds your interpretation of the First Amendment.

Hey, at least you're original.

Fuck yeah I'm original, Serbia-Montenegro. I'm not sure where I have ever said I believe in the opinion or that it is correct. That's your strawman, Bosnia.

[Marcus Bryant]

Wee kain't have no damn Moslem korporation en hour powlitiks!

[Marcus Bryant]

MB, the Constitution doesn't just mean what you want it to mean. But let's assume you're right. (You're not.)

LOL. Oh, really? Show me where the Constitution was written to allow Microsoft, GE, et al to 'speak' through spending untold sums of money. You can't, because the original intent has been shit on such that the Constitution no longer means what it did.



Two quick questions:

(1) Who constitutes the "press"? Does it include bloggers? Does it include the National Enquirer? Does it include me?


Sure, it includes the meek.




(2) What is the extent of their "freedom"? For instance, are they immune from prosecution for trespass if they need to do so to "follow a lead"?

You're the one arguing for more. Tell me.

[doobs]

^ OK, I can't take you seriously anymore. Please read some caselaw and do some research on the text and history of the First Amendment.

[Marcus Bryant]

How many threads are liberals going to cry through?

Yay team! Fuck the THEY.

[Marcus Bryant]

^ OK, I can't take you seriously anymore. Please read some caselaw and do some research on the text and history of the First Amendment.

I never took you seriously. You don't read case law, you masturbate to the National Review.

[mogrovejo]

Oops, the kid is having a meltdown.

[Winehole23]

Well, at least your insults are clear. Too bad that isn't true for the rest of what you say. All circumlocution and prescription. You demand others show their work, but instead of making your own case, you usually copy and paste someone else's, load questions, pose false dilemmas or make lame appeals to authority, like a good Tory.

Lazy.

I guess you base everything you say on what other people say. It explains your mania for epigrams and also, incidentally, for self-quotation. You're lost in the epigonism of epigonism, and your vanity demands everyone pay you with the same coin.

Well, fuck that.



It's a weird tack to take for a sports themed bulletin board. Beats me why you think it will be persuasive.

[Winehole23]

I also notice that you have mostly ignored polite earnest questions ( from EVAY and DarkReign) and focused instead on "trolls" like me, whom you affect to disdain.

If only your polite interlocutors were so lucky.

Guess politeness doesn't mean as much to you as you say.

[Winehole23]

But you're not very much for answering others. You mostly demand people respond to your questions. It's the reciprocality thing again. You suck at it.

You duck and dodge, deflect, talk circles around your own point without really revealing it, and scold others for not being on the same page as you.

(Yawn)

How pedantic.

[boutons_deux]

"Quit hitting us up for campaign cash."

This is a window-dressing campaign, probably hatched by CoC or Heritage or some other stink tank, to counter the negative reaction to the ruling.

Those very same corps have been/will be all over DC when legislation that affects them is in play.

"Trust Us! We corporations, "are not now and never have been", really aren't bad guys corrupting Congress to our benefits." :lol GMAFB

[mogrovejo]

Well, at least your insults are clear. Too bad that isn't true for the rest of what you say. All circumlocution and prescription. You demand others show their work, but instead of making your own case, you usually copy and paste someone else's, load questions, pose false dilemmas or make lame appeals to authority, like a good Tory.

Lazy.

I guess you base everything you say on what other people say. It explains your mania for epigrams and also, incidentally, for self-quotation. You're lost in the epigonism of epigonism, and your vanity demands everyone pay you with the same coin.

Well, fuck that.



It's a weird tack to take for a sports themed bulletin board. Beats me why you think it will be persuasive.


I also notice that you have mostly ignored polite earnest questions ( from EVAY and DarkReign) and focused instead on "trolls" like me, whom you affect to disdain.

If only your polite interlocutors were so lucky.

Guess politeness doesn't mean as much to you as you say.


But you're not very much for answering others. You mostly demand people respond to your questions. It's the reciprocality thing again. You suck at it.

You duck and dodge, deflect, talk circles around your own point without really revealing it, and scold others for not being on the same page as you.

(Yawn)

How pedantic.

How sad. Mad much? You really dislike to have your ignorance expose, don't you? Get your act together, kid. Read some books instead of parroting the nonsense you read in the ACM.

I'm the one talking in circles and resorting to circumlocution? You, of all people, accusing someone else of that? LOL.

Talk something substantive. Here, let me help you: why do you disagree/agree with the majority opinion in CU? What's your interpretation of the Free Speech Clause in the 1st Amendment - does it protect speakers or speech, regardless of who produces it? Was the question of the personhood of the corporations relevant to the court decision? If so, why? Was the provision invalidated

I've already, one way or the other, answered all these questions, often more than once - if you want to, I can provide the links to the precise posts.


I also notice that you have mostly ignored polite earnest questions ( from EVAY and DarkReign)

Hello ForumCop. I've answered EVAY's question. If he's not satisfied with the answer, he can certainly make a follow-up one. I dont' see any DarkReign question here, I remember answering a few of them recently in another threads. If I left something unanswered, please have the kindness of linking that post.

[Winehole23]

You really dislike to have your ignorance expose, don't you?Not really. I admitted it totally unprompted. That's how much I hate having it exposed.

You characterize any reply not tailored to your specs or otherwise not agreeing with it as faulty -- thematic for you here. You claim to be interested in what other people say, but you bitch if you hear anything that isn't an echo of you. Better a debtor than pay with a coin that does not bear your image, right?


Talk something substantive. Here, let me help you: why do you disagree/agree with the majority opinion in CU? What's your interpretation of the Free Speech Clause in the 1st Amendment - does it protect speakers or speech, regardless of who produces it? Now, it would seem so. A few days ago, this was hardly clear.


Was the question of the personhood of the corporations relevant to the court decision? If so, why? Was the provision invalidatedNot that I know of.

But the personhood of corporations is hardly irrelevant to the more general discussion we were having, that you are still ignoring -- about the the corporate capture of the electoral process and politicians and the role of MONEY in the whole thing. Your attempt to reduce the whole controversy to technical views of free speech and turn this thread into a citation contest regarding SC opinions not only misses the point but obscures it. But that was probably the intention all along.

One needn't agree with the technicalities of the various cases overturned to be concerned about the result of the ruling. There is little doubt it amplifies the role and prominence of corporate money in elections.

That you continue to blow the free speech absolutists at the ACLU and show so little regard for actual Americans seeing their own influence and importance in their own republic diminished before their eyes, becomes you.

[Winehole23]

If I left something unanswered, please have the kindness of linking that post.If you didn't pay attention in the first place and can't be bothered to reread the threads to see what you might have missed, don't ask me for help.

For someone who hands out so much homework, and twits others so much for their lack of reading, your inattention to the threads themselves is striking.

[Winehole23]

Where, where? you are always saying.

[Winehole23]

It's not my fault you lost your way in the thread.

[Marcus Bryant]

But the Cato Institute said it was a win....

[PixelPusher]

But the Cato Institute said it was a win....

Terrific. I'm sure this will result in less corporate rent-seeking from this point on.