No Campaign Finance Reform For You

[Danoff]

This comes as a shock to me. I didn't realize that anyone paid attention to the constitution anymore.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

 

[Omnis]

Hopefully this will be used as evidence to make corporations carry personal liability in that upcoming court case.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

(I believe that this affects and now allows pro-gun orgs. to run ads in the media. Art)

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

 

[FoolKiller]

You mean, they recognize rights?

I have to question the president here though:

In a written statement, President Obama said the high court had "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." He called it a "major victory" for Wall Street, health insurance companies and other interests which would diminish the influence of Americans who give small donations. Obama pledged to "work immediately" with Congress to develop a "forceful response."

"The public interest requires nothing less," Obama said.

He makes it sound like they opened the gates for direct financial contributions. I'm not surprised he either doesn't get it or is misconstruing it. And then he goes on to say they must have a forceful response immediately. The Supreme Court ruled it a Constitutional issue. I know that means little to him, but how do you forcefully respond to that?

 

[Danoff]

...by trying again and again to trample the constitution until it works I suppose. He could have just said "we're gonna proceed with business as usual" - it would have meant the same thing.

 

[FoolKiller]

I am hopeful that this will create a trend of pointing out that businesses (or at least their owners) have rights. Perhaps a few of these "public" bans on things can be pulled back.

 

[Dotini]

I can imagine that one of the pernicious effects of this ruling is to reduce the viability of 3rd parties such as Libertarians or the Tea Party to gain political traction. The ruling entrenches the present two party system which caters so well to corporations and their army of lobbyists.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Duke]

And so many people will believe the Obama smokescreen about special interests... as if his special interests are somehow different.

 

[FoolKiller]

And so many people will believe the Obama smokescreen about special interests... as if his special interests are somehow different.

I actually imagine he will get very, very quiet when all the UAW ads supporting everything Obama wants start rolling out.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yeah, that's the thing. Obamarama is up in arms about it, but this pretty much leaves the window open for the unions to send money in using the high-pressure hose. I had a hard time driving home in one piece this afternoon when Newt Gingrich was on the radio talking about this today. How the hell he thinks this is going to "help middle-class Americans get their voices heard" is beyond me.

 

[tyl0r_r]

You mean, they recognize rights?

People should have rights, but I've never been a fan of giving many rights to corporations themselves.

 

[FoolKiller]

People should have rights, but I've never been a fan of giving many rights to corporations themselves.

Why? They are a group of people. It is too easy to see a corporation and think about the rich handful of executives, but attacking them blindly forgets the fact that those corporations also employ thousands of middle class individuals. The more successful the corporation the more people they need to hire to meet customer demand for their goods or services.

Or, if you can't bring yourself to grasp that what is good for executives is good for employees, then think about what this does for something like unions. Say a company with unionized employees does have executives that are willing to sacrifice their employees for some quick profit (this happens and I am not blind to that fact). If that union wants to gain political support to protect themselves they can now have a public voice that is much louder than standing in the street with signs and a bullhorn. See, this works both ways. The Supreme Court did not just favor those with the biggest paychecks here, but opened it up to any group.

And another bonus this adds, and is what started this lawsuit in the first place, is that you or I do not have the money to put out campaign ads. We, as individuals would have been allowed to as long as we did the entire thing on our own, but only people like Warren Buffet can afford that. So, in order to get the voice of people out they have to form groups, or Political Action Committees. The problem is that the law prevented them from making ads during certain time frames. It silenced the speech of the people. In this specific case it prevented a documentary about Hillary Clinton from being marketed and put out during the election, not by a corporation, but by a group pf concerned citizens. But now, you can team up with a group of 1,000 people that think like you on a certain issue, pool your money, and put out an ad at any time.

Well, not you specifically, since you are in Canada.