Supreme Court Doubles Down On Citizens United

[scott]

if they are uncons utional, then annulling them is still not "activist."

clear to courts.

It was clear to the Supreme Court that Corporations are People. So I guess you don't mean clear to that court?

[boutons_deux]

"Supreme Court that Corporations are People."

not for 100+ years. Then the Repug JINOs got stuffed into the court, and JINO/VRWC politics superseded law and stare decisis.

[TeyshaBlue]

I see you've learned a new word with, apparently, only one viewpoint.

I offer a counter.

http://cons ution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm

[boutons_deux]

cons ution.org is part of the VRWC, as credible as Fox Repug Propaganda network

[TeyshaBlue]

Thanks for your completely empty response.

[boutons_deux]

Thanks for your completely empty response.

Thanks, stalker.

[boutons_deux]

After winning right to spend, political groups fight for secrecy


During their long campaign to loosen rules on campaign money, conservatives argued that there was a simpler way to prevent corruption: transparency. Get rid of limits on contributions and spending, they said, but make sure voters know where the money is coming from.

Today, with those fundraising restrictions largely removed, many conservatives have changed their tune. They now say disclosure could be an enemy of free speech.

High-profile donors could face bullying and harassment from liberals out to "muzzle" their opponents, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a recent speech.

Corporations could be subject to boycotts and pickets, warned the Wall Street Journal editorial page this spring.

Democrats "want to intimidate people into not giving to these conservative efforts," said Republican strategist Karl Rove on Fox News. "I think it's shameful."

Rove helped found American Crossroads, a "super PAC," and Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit group that does not reveal its donors.

"Disclosure is the one area where [conservatives] haven't won," said Richard Briffault, an election law professor at Columbia Law School. "This is the next frontier for them."

A handful of conservative foundations, themselves financed with millions in anonymous funding, have been fighting legal battles from Maine to Hawaii to dismantle disclosure rules and other limits on campaign spending.

One group, the Center for Individual Freedom based in Alexandria, Va., has spent millions on attack ads against Democratic congressmen and state judicial candidates. It also has sued to block laws and court rulings that would have required disclosure of the source of the money for the ads.

A handful of conservative foundations, themselves financed with millions in anonymous funding, have been fighting legal battles from Maine to Hawaii to dismantle disclosure rules and other limits on campaign spending.

One group, the Center for Individual Freedom based in Alexandria, Va., has spent millions on attack ads against Democratic congressmen and state judicial candidates. It also has sued to block laws and court rulings that would have required disclosure of the source of the money for the ads.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=...%3D0%26DPL%3D3

=========

Pitiful, weak 1% and UCA, they don't want any Human-Americans to know how the are buying ads for Repugs who will over Human-Americans, in case the H-As might vote back with their dollars.

[TeyshaBlue]

Thanks, stalker.

In your dreams, Sparky. :facepalm

[boutons_deux]

stalker

[scott]

What's particularly interesting about these cases is not so much that the court is ruling that Corporations protected by the 1st Amendment (which is predictable, quite frankly). The Government CAN restrict Free Speech if it can clearly demonstrate a Governmental Interest in doing so. I find it hard to believe that they've been unable to demonstrate that clear Governmental Interest, as it seems fairly obvious.

So either 1) the lawyers defending campaign finance laws aren't very good 2) the courts don't agree there is a Governmental Interest or 3) the courts don't care.

Let me provide your pre-records boutonbot reponse for you:

the courts don't care they are just a pawn of the VRWC and the UCA %1 prepug JINO buzzword buzzword buzzword

[Winehole23]

MI lame duck lege votes to criminalize disclosure of dark money:

By a vote of 25-12, the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate passed a bill on Nov. 29 that would make it a misdemeanor crime for public officials in Michigan to require nonprofit groups, including those that spend money on elections, to disclose their donors for government or public review.


Under the bill, which is sponsored by Republican Sen. Mike Shirkey, state and local agencies would no longer be allowed to request donor details from any 501(c) nonprofit without a warrant. In order to get a warrant, agencies would have to demonstrate “a compelling need” by providing clear and convincing evidence to the court. It would also ban agencies from requiring government contractors to disclose contributions they have made to nonprofits. Violations of the bill would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days and/or a fine.

https://readsludge.com/2018/12/03/da...closure-crime/

[boutons_deux]

MI lame duck lege votes to criminalize disclosure of dark money:

https://readsludge.com/2018/12/03/da...closure-crime/

no law against it, they are THE lawmakers, no punishment, they will get away with their corruption by the oligarchy floating them in corrupt DarkMoney.

NEVER assume good faith from ANY Repug, it's All Politics All The Time, to maintain/increase power which means increase wealth.