Supreme Court Blocks Key Part of Campaign Law

[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. 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 bull ter.

[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.

[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 Cons ution did. Certainly not to a fic ious 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 Cons ution did. Certainly not to a fic ious 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 fic ious, 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 en ies 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 cons utes 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 en ies 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 incons utional, 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 cons utes 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:




Saturday, Jan 23, 2010 07:24 EST
Follow-up on the Citizens United case

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 case and with my partial defense of it. 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 cons utionality is being adjudicated (e.g., those who favor same-sex marriage on policy grounds cheer court rulings that such marriages are cons utionally 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 cons utional 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 uncons utional" 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). 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 Cons utional? 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 Cons ution.


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)
----

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 Cons ution:

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 cons utional 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 en ies without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Cons utional rights, what possible cons utional 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 cons utional objection could you have to that?

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/gre...09235aea1.html


I'd love to see the "corporations aren't persons and cons utional 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 Cons ution:

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 en led to due process of law and free expression, but that elective bodies are en led 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 cons utional 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 en ies without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Cons utional rights, what possible cons utional 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 cons utional objection could you have to that?

I'm not sure any cons utional 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/gre...09235aea1.html


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

This is too easy: National Security Letter

[mogrovejo]

This is too easy: National Security Letter

What is this supposed to mean? NSLs are a product of statutory law, they aren't part of the Cons ution. 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 en led to due process of law and free expression, but that elective bodies are en led 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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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 Cons utional 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 Cons ution. 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.