It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Supreme Court’s divisive decision Wednesday striking down a Watergate-era limit on campaign contributions was the latest milestone for conservative justices who are disassembling a campaign finance regime they feel violates free-speech rights.
It again reveals a court deeply divided between liberals trying to preserve campaign finance restrictions they say are essential to ensuring democracy is not distorted by the wealth of the powerful, and conservatives who think the First Amendment trumps efforts by the government to control who pays for elections and how much they spend.
The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22]
This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[26] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[27]
Snarl
reply to post by darkbake
Is this really a 'partisan' issue
I'm as conservative as they come, and I see a problem with this decision.
Flatfish
Snarl
reply to post by darkbake
Is this really a 'partisan' issue
I'm as conservative as they come, and I see a problem with this decision.
It is, without a doubt, a partisan issue!
That's why the court's decision was split right down party lines with the four liberals justices voting against it and the five conservative justices voting in favor and ruling the day.
What was is that President Truman said? "How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you turn to see who's hitting you?"
Daedalus
Flatfish
Snarl
reply to post by darkbake
Is this really a 'partisan' issue
I'm as conservative as they come, and I see a problem with this decision.
It is, without a doubt, a partisan issue!
That's why the court's decision was split right down party lines with the four liberals justices voting against it and the five conservative justices voting in favor and ruling the day.
What was is that President Truman said? "How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you turn to see who's hitting you?"
and that, right there, is the problem....
people, prescribing to political lables, are given free license to "interpret" (read; butcher, to suit political agendas) the constitution, and bill of rights...
a prerequisite to being a supreme court justice should be an absolute dedication to neutrality, and absolute willingness to uphold the law, AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as one WISHES it was written.
Flatfish
Yeah and that's why we saw the very same split on the court when it came to the decision determining that "corporations are people too," despite the fact that the word "corporation" never appears anywhere in the Constitution.
It's pretty obvious to me, just who is interpreting the Constitution according to their individual wishes and NOT as written. That would be the five conservative justices.edit on 3-4-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)
Fromabove
I'm happy with the decision. Now we conservative can go toe to toe with all of the democrat unions out there.
Snarl
reply to post by darkbake
Is this really a 'partisan' issue
I'm as conservative as they come, and I see a problem with this decision.