Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by CyberStray

 

The assertion that foreign corporations will be picking government officials is just another fallacious argument, unless you are admitting by your own post that you can not make your own decisions and will automatically fall prey to any money spent on political campaigns by corporations. If you are afraid of being so swayed by the political campaigns of corporations then don't pay attention to them, that is, after all, you right.

As to me dragging behind, I have been well aware of this thread and others in regard to this issue, but now is the first chance I've had to post, as I have responsibilities in the real world that take up a good portion of my time. If you read the entire thread then you know full well there have been many posts that have showed quite a bit of emotion and expressed quite a bit of outrage. Conversely, I took the time to quote the ruling itself and to speak directly to what was held in that ruling.

You are responsible for your own actions and insisting that you need a nanny state that protects you from the speech of others does not bode well for your own ability to handle consequences.

I'm no genius but any idiot can tell that this decision opens the door to a flood of foreign money into political campaigns.

What kind of moron allows their country to be controlled by corporations?

I don't care how well you did in English, or Comparative Lit, you have an anger issue and should see a Doctor.

Where did you crawl out from dude, you are one twisted cookie.

Cyberstray

Originally posted by CyberStray

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by CyberStray

 

The assertion that foreign corporations will be picking government officials is just another fallacious argument, unless you are admitting by your own post that you can not make your own decisions and will automatically fall prey to any money spent on political campaigns by corporations. If you are afraid of being so swayed by the political campaigns of corporations then don't pay attention to them, that is, after all, you right.

As to me dragging behind, I have been well aware of this thread and others in regard to this issue, but now is the first chance I've had to post, as I have responsibilities in the real world that take up a good portion of my time. If you read the entire thread then you know full well there have been many posts that have showed quite a bit of emotion and expressed quite a bit of outrage. Conversely, I took the time to quote the ruling itself and to speak directly to what was held in that ruling.

You are responsible for your own actions and insisting that you need a nanny state that protects you from the speech of others does not bode well for your own ability to handle consequences.

I'm no genius but any idiot can tell that this decision opens the door to a flood of foreign money into political campaigns.

What kind of moron allows their country to be controlled by corporations?

I don't care how well you did in English, or Comparative Lit, you have an anger issue and should see a Doctor.

Where did you crawl out from dude, you are one twisted cookie.

Cyberstray

Again with the anger thing, and yet it is you using words like "moron" to express your own rage. You ask what kind of moron allows their country to be controlled by corporations and I say; exactly! Will you be controlled by corporations simply because they have the freedom to speech? Do you currently buy Coke because their advertising campaigns tell you too? Do you run out to McDonald's as often as you can because their advertising campaigns tell you too? What kind of person would do that?

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You
Again with the anger thing, and yet it is you using words like "moron" to express your own rage. You ask what kind of moron allows their country to be controlled by corporations and I say; exactly! Will you be controlled by corporations simply because they have the freedom to
speech? Do you currently buy Coke because their advertising campaigns tell you too? Do you run out to McDonald's as often as often as you can because their advertising campaigns tell you too? What kind of person would do that?

Me

Moron is not an angry word, you are confusing yourself.

You try to turn the tables by telling me I should be able to not be controlled, when I am controlled? I'm not controlled by their speech but the money spent by other countries to elect my representatives controls the process. What is wrong with you?

You are either confused or making crazy rationalizations with good grammar, but your metaphors are ridiculous.

You are saying advertising does not influence people.

Where did you get this illusion? Some Buddhist retreat?

"If you do nothing, you ruin nothing" should be your motto.

You are a creepy, and very frustrated confused person.

Cyberstray

Originally posted by CyberStray
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You
Again with the anger thing, and yet it is you using words like "moron" to express your own rage. You ask what kind of moron allows their country to be controlled by corporations and I say; exactly! Will you be controlled by corporations simply because they have the freedom to
speech? Do you currently buy Coke because their advertising campaigns tell you too? Do you run out to McDonald's as often as often as you can because their advertising campaigns tell you too? What kind of person would do that?

Me

Moron is not an angry word, you are confusing yourself.

You try to turn the tables by telling me I should be able to not be controlled, when I am controlled? I'm not controlled by their speech but the money spent by other countries to elect my representatives controls the process. What is wrong with you?

You are either confused or making crazy rationalizations with good grammar, but your metaphors are ridiculous.

You are saying advertising does not influence people.

Where did you get this illusion? Some Buddhist retreat?

"If you do nothing, you ruin nothing" should be your motto.

You are a creepy, and very frustrated confused person.

Cyberstray

It is clear who is confused here, and your language betrays your emotions. Your confusion is evident by your own claims of being a "conservative" until you "read" the ruling rendered by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If you were a conservative before this ruling then what exactly were you conserving if not the Constitution? If you believe SCOTUS took conserving that Constitution too far, then speak intelligently to it, rather than waste your time making fallacious arguments.

It was no doubt a conservative Court that relied upon strict conservative methodology to reason their decision and that reason was that the First Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from making any laws that would abridge the freedom of speech. Is this your problem with the ruling? Do you believe that speech can and should be regulated by Congress? Is that your idea of conservatism?

Originally posted by ventian
reply to post by winston37

 

Heartfelt post but when you have a corporation lets say Wal Mart and they employ lets say 50k people and you give it the death penalty then it only hurts the employees.

I did consider that, however, I feel that if a business is truly indispensable to a community then another entrepreneur will come along to take advantage of the void left in the market. That's how it's supposed to work in a free market...we don't have one though.

Funny though that we don't really take into account the innocent victims of our justice system when we imprison/put to death convicted fellons (ie their friends and family). I guess my point is, would the same argument hold any weight if we tried to apply it to real people.

For example:
"No we can't possibly put that guy to death for killing people. He has too many family members that will suffer far to much emotional distress when he's gone."

If our system doesn't make these considerations for real people then it shouldn't for corporations right?

Edit for grammar


[edit on 23-1-2010 by winston37]

The Court dismissed these sort of dubious waivers as non-binding when what is being waived is an unalienable right. This was a great win for freedom and for the rights of the individual as well as groups including those groups or persons who have incorporated.

This ruling is about freedom of speech not about empowering corporations.

I understand that this case is not explicitly about whether or not a corporation is entitled to the same rights afforded to human beings. It does, however, raise the question in a profound way.

Can you explain why you believe that a corporation should be entitled to these rights?

Can you explain how something without a mouth with which to speak or hands with which to write has the freedom of speech?

I apologize if my question is one that stems from ignorance of the legal system. I've not spent much time studying legalese and as such it is Greek to me. I'm just a lowly musician looking for answers to questions that arise from time to time.

Alright; enough of this. Time to get back to the Superlocrian mode.

Look, these justices need to be impeached. Right the hell now. THIS is Obama's test. I understand he came out strongly against this decision in today's radio address. If he's serious, there had better be a move to impeach, and/or arrest. This is more important than anything else. ANYTHING. He has to stop this right now. If he doesn't, if all we get are just statements denouncing this with no action to stop it, then he, as I posted earlier in this thread, is down with it, and the statements he's making are just to give the illusion that he's on our side. Barack Obama is The President of the United States. Our very existence is now in question. He steps up, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, we have to.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by dragonseeker]

reply to post by dragonseeker


Well it sure isn't being pushed hard by the media. I always look at the stories on Yahoo when I first wake up and the only thing on there was Obama vs Banks and how the lobbyists (the one's he was supposed to get rid of, remember?) are ready to put up a fight.

Originally posted by winston37

The Court dismissed these sort of dubious waivers as non-binding when what is being waived is an unalienable right. This was a great win for freedom and for the rights of the individual as well as groups including those groups or persons who have incorporated.

This ruling is about freedom of speech not about empowering corporations.

I understand that this case is not explicitly about whether or not a corporation is entitled to the same rights afforded to human beings. It does, however, raise the question in a profound way.

Can you explain why you believe that a corporation should be entitled to these rights?

Can you explain how something without a mouth with which to speak or hands with which to write has the freedom of speech?

I apologize if my question is one that stems from ignorance of the legal system. I've not spent much time studying legalese and as such it is Greek to me. I'm just a lowly musician looking for answers to questions that arise from time to time.

Alright; enough of this. Time to get back to the Superlocrian mode.

This very corporation you say lacks a mouth with which to speak or hands with which to write is subject to laws that come with possibilities of imprisonment and/or fines. Of course, there are no prisons that hold mouthless, handless corporations, instead there are prisons filled with former executive officers who presided over corporations and are now in jail for the laws they broke in regards to corporate entities.

This is why Jeffrey Skilling is currently in prison for his involvement in the Enron scandal. This is why Adelphia founder John Rigas and his son Timothy are in prison. As to the freedom of speech issue, in the one of the quoted I provided from the same post you have quoted SCOTUS explains why 441b functions as the equivalent as prior restraint and a chill on speech.

As the Court explains, due to the complexity of the laws, someone with a mouth and hands must petition the government for permission to speak in ways that would not violate campaign finance reform laws. Indeed, the corporation Citizens United did exactly that in attempting to have their documentary Hillary: The Movie released. Some one with a mouth had to ask for that permission which was ultimately denied, someone had to file motions to have this denial challenged in court, and the very arguments made by Citizens United that were ruled not sustainable by SCOTUS were made by someone with a mouth and with hands.

Here's the thing. A corporation is an artifice and a fictitious entity granted existence by statute and in this regard, the charter granted to create a corporation can be revoked. This is what happened to Adelphia when the Rigas' were convicted of a crime, and the corporation was broken apart and its separate parts sold. Those corporations that exist by grant of statute in a particular state in the U.S. are very much beholden to the people of that state and the people can and should demand revocation of any corporation that is acting criminally or engaging in malfeasance.

The people are not helpless to counter the shenanigans of corporations and can do great damage to a corporation through legal means, including relying upon their own freedom of speech and choice and through vocal campaigns and boycotts can create an effect damaging to corporations while attempting to have their charters revoked.

Does it really matter who pays for the ads..?

I mean, if the people are so ignorant and plain stupid, that they vote for the person who has the biggest and brightest ad campaign, then IMO they deserve to get scammed, if the politician turns out to be crooked..

Im from Finland, but I'm sure nearly all of you in the US have internet access and therefore capability to examine in depth the people you choose to represent you..

I know majority of people everywhere just votes with their gut feeling, but that's their fault. You can't blame others for your own mistakes..

This is the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now that you have read it....What don't you understand?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I for one Jean Paul, appreciate your intelligent and informative post, as I am trying to under stand all of this myself,

www.citizensunited.org...

Writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission yesterday, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that campaign-finance laws required that "a speaker wishing to avoid criminal-liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak."

Think about that for a moment: Citizen of the United States needed to seek permission from a government agency before speaking about a politician who ostensibly is a representative of the people. Not only that, but a citizen who spoke without government permission was at risk of a prison sentence.

In 2007, Citizens United Productions released a film entitled "Hillary The Movie."Naturally, we wanted to advertise our film and distribute it to those who wished to see it via cable "on-demand." In an unconscionable violation of our First Amendment rights, the government restricted us from doing so because the film and the advertisements that I produced referenced a candidate for federal office.

I was stunned by the government's decision. I believe that, above every other category of speech, political speech must be the most protected. If our right to political speech can be denied by the government, how are we to hold our representatives to that government accountable for their actions? If we are not permitted to speak about our own government, can it truly be considered "our" government?

Read More...

washingtontimes.com...

Citizens United used 'Hillary: The Movie' to take on McCain-Feingold
www.washingtonpost.com...

But "Hillary: The Movie" never became a blockbuster. The Federal Election Commission restricted Citizens United's ability to advertise the film during the 2008 primary season, a decision that Bossie and other conservative activists saw as a threat to their freedom of speech.

"The marketplace for my movie was completely and totally shut down by the Federal Election Commission," Bossie said in an interview Thursday.

So he sued -- and thus was born Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the legal drama that resulted in Thursday's dramatic Supreme Court decision to overturn restrictions on corporate spending on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates.

Critics said Citizens United created the withering movie knowing that it would fall under the tangle of broadcast and advertising restrictions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

OH wow check this out,

"Hillary: The Movie" was dedicated to his wife, Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator who was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

She was a longtime Clinton critic, working with Bossie in the trenches on Capitol Hill through the 1990s investigations, and wrote the book "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

"Very, very few people in the world knew as much about Hillary and Bill Clinton as Barbara Olson did," Bossie said, adding that Ted Olson "had an emotional connection" to fighting this case.

Well this adds a whole new perspective on the subject.



[edit on 043131p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777]

www.youtube.com...



First I have heard of it.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


See how well the CATO agenda fits your ideology.
Particularly about disclosure of campaign donors.

CATO Institute

From Wikipedia Link To Source

Immigration

Cato staff have angered some conservative activists by strongly advocating the liberalization of immigration laws.[53][54] The Cato Handbook calls for expanded immigration quotas and new visa programs for low-skilled as well as high-skilled workers, and for allowing more refugees to enter.[55] The handbook speaks approvingly of a policy of "immigration yes, welfare no" that resolves the tension between low-skilled immigration and the welfare state not by keeping immigrants out, but by letting them in and making them "ineligible for public assistance." It also characterizes the issues of "immigrant welfare use" as "often overstated."[55]

Call for elimination of ballot referendum disclosure requirements

In March 2007, Cato, along with the Institute for Justice, called for eliminating disclosure requirements for those who contribute funds in support or opposition of ballot measures. One of the primary reasons the two groups cited was the high costs associated with disclosure requirements. At the time, these requirements were already weaker than those required for contributions to a candidate’s political campaign.[56][57]

Howie Rich, a real estate investor and Cato Board Member, had helped to sponsor sixteen different ballot initiatives in 2006. His major effort was the so-called “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” or TABOR, which Rich attempted to place on the ballot in eight states. Courts in five of the states ultimately stripped TABOR from the ballot for numerous reasons, including what one Montana judge called a “pervasive and general pattern of fraud” by Rich and others in their campaign to pass the referendum.[56][58]

The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, an advocacy group in support of ballot initiatives to reach progressive political and policy goals, believe that donor disclosure protects both the voters and the process of direct democracy from secret money and hidden goals. In response to Cato’s position, Kristina Wilfore, the group’s executive director, stated “The problem with being a front group for corporate fat cats like Exxon, Enron, and Howie Rich, is that you are always a little out-of-touch with the public…CATO aligning itself with more corruption in political giving is taking the side of the powerful against the people – and they call themselves libertarian?” [56][59]

Cato and Water Policy

The Cato Institute claims that deregulation of water use will more effectively reduce scarcity than will government management. Jerry Taylor, the Director of Natural Resource Studies at Cato, alleges that water shortages are indeed "the product of government mismanagement," and should therefore be regulated through the market. Terry argues that government regulation of water has kept water prices "artificially low -- about half the price of delivery on a national basis -- with over-consumption the inevitable result." [60] If water use was instead treated as a property right, it would create incentives for those holding the rights to use them efficiently, and then transfer the excess to others at a profit. Cato claims that the market regulation of water use that will develop if water rights are treated as property rights will lead to much greater efficiency and fewer problems with water scarcity. Critics point out that this market based approach to water policy concentrates the rights to use water in the hands of a few powerful people, who become even more powerful by controlling the public's use of something as essential as water. Privatization of water could also lead to corruption and loss of local authority. [61]

Do you trust them?


Ziggy Strange

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Thank you Stormdancer for contributing what you just have. While corporatism is a very serious problem in today's market place, and corporations must be held accountable for their actions, limiting the right to speak is not in anyway a win for the people. It is important to look at this ruling and understand the reasoning behind it and in doing so understand how freedom of speech was respected and revered by this ruling.

It is ironic, as you have so adeptly pointed out, that Hillary: The Movie didn't even do all that well and reached a very small portion of the public in its endeavors to speak politically. Thanks again for your efforts in keeping this debate engaged in civil discourse.

reply to post by ziggystrange


I really don't know what you mean by my ideology, Ziggy.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You are welcome, Jean,

here is a poll,

Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech"

www.gallup.com...

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.

The free-speech question elicits uncommon agreement across party lines. More than 6 in 10 Republicans and Democrats believe campaign donations are a protected form of free speech, but fewer than half of independents (48%) agree.

www.gallup.com...

Originally posted by Carseller4
This is the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now that you have read it....What don't you understand?

How literal the interpretation is. Who interprets it? legally. Supposedly it is the SCOTUS. If no contradiction is allowed, then why have a SCOTUS. Why is morality any part of this at all.

What if they decided that according to the letter of the Constitution voluntary human sacrifice is covered.

List of exceptions in question form.

Why we can't peaceably assemble naked and make love in public places.

Why there are no human sacrifices allowed.

Why EROS based religions may not televise their Rituals.

Why you can be arrested for protesting on an airplane.

Why you can't say bomb on an airplane.

Why you can't stand up in a Church and loudly indict the Religion.

Why we don't have compulsory prayer for every religion in public schools.

Why you can't shout profanities at the children in Kinder garden.

Why we need warning labels on products.

Why we don't allow child pornography.

Why we don't allow pornography in certain places.

Why we are not allowed to follow the instructions of our religions, like stoning people for adultery.

Why not publish all the plans to build any weapon secret or not.

Why there is such a thing as libel.

Why we don't have Freedom of Speech in the workplace.

Why we have verbal harassment laws.

Why we have verbal abuse laws.

And any number of other exceptions to the rule.

My answer is because the Constitution is supposed to adapt, I don't believe everything I mentioned is unconstitutional, but some of it has to be, or at least should be.


Ziggy Strange

Everyone against this ruling is ignorant and doesn't understand the ruling. The ruling was caused because companies with media arms like GE or News Corp could spend unlimited money with journalism (bias)...while other corporations could not advertise within 30 days of an election; that is unconstitutional. The corporations could still advertise...just not within 30 days of an election, this overturns that. Every person I've argued against this with, in the end had no idea what the ruling said, did or what it was for, or even caused by. Not a single one...This is a great day for freedom of speech, and shows that our system of checks and balances still works. No where in the Constitution does it say that "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.....up until _____ amount and within ____ days of an election."

What if you and 100 people overshot your donation to say Ron Paul...but wanted to run ads supporting him, and to avoid lawsuit you got a business license with an LLC. Well guess what, under the old rule you couldn't spend over x amount within 30 days of an election. It's not just about "corporations," it's about any business, or persons...the plaintiff in this case wasn't Exxon, it was a group of voters. I don't understand why people are buying this spin that it is somehow against the people and for the corporations...it's not at all.

Read the case here, unbiased and unspun.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

[edit on 23-1-2010 by yellowcard]

reply to post by yellowcard

Thanks Yellow,

The ruling was caused because companies with media arms like GE or News Corp could spend unlimited money with journalism (bias)...while other corporations could not advertise within 30 days of an election;

What was the reasoning behind this?