Supreme Court Blocks Key Part of Campaign Law

[Winehole23]

Preventing your union from running issue ads is now considered an uncons utional 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 ing 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 sucker 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 cons utionality 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 do entaries 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 uncons utional, 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 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 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 sucker is a "fascist," 'tis you.

The totalitarian mind in a nut-s (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/cons utional issues:

Citizens United
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 cons utional 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 uncons utional, 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/show...&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 An rust 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 cons uent 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.