Teabagger judges allow cooperate takeover of politicians

[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 in bent 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 uncons utional 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 cons utionality 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 ing argumentation skills come from some kind of third grade manual.

If you believe that the first amendment doesn't give corporations the cons utional 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 Cons ution 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 cons utionally 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 iden ies is immaterial - the First Amendment is about "speech", not "speakers".

Because those are not natural persons. The court has made a mockery of the Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 cons utes 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?
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 en ies, 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 cons utionally 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 do ents because a mayonnaise eater tells me to.

Once again, the opinion actually states that the personhood of corporate iden ies 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.

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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 on such that the Cons ution no longer means what it did.

Two quick questions:

(1) Who cons utes 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! 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.