It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation. It brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In January 2008, Citizens United released a film entitled Hillary: The Movie. We refer to the film as Hillary. It is a 90-minute documentary about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate in the Democratic Party’s 2008 Presidential primary elections.
Hillary mentions Senator Clinton by name and depicts interviews with political commentators and other persons, most of them quite critical of Senator Clinton.
In December 2007, a cable company offered, for a payment of $1.2 million, to make Hillary available on a video-on-demand channel called “Elections ’08.”
To implement the proposal, Citizens United was prepared to pay for the video-on-demand; and to promote the film, it produced two 10-second ads and one 30-second ad for Hillary.
Each ad includes a short (and, in our view, pejorative) statement about Senator Clinton, followed by the name of the movie and the movie’s Website address. Id., at 26a–27a.
Citizens United desired to promote the video-on-demand offering by running advertisements on broadcast and cable television.
federal law prohibited—and still does prohibit—corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures
that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, in connection with certain qualified federal elections.
Corporations and unions are barred from using their general treasury funds for express advocacy or electioneering communications.
They may establish, however, a “separate segregated fund” (known as a political action committee, or PAC) for these purposes. 2
U. S. C. §441b(b)(2).
Corporations and unions may establish a political action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652,
that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
If you decide to contribute to a political candidate, you should know that the Federal Campaign Finance Law places legal limits on how much and what you can give. Representatives of the candidate's campaign committee should be aware of these laws and inform you of them. But, just in case...
Individual contribution limits for 2009-2010
The following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices.
•$2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
•$30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
•$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees
•$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee
Aggregate Total -- $115,500 per two-year election cycle as follows:
•$45,600 per two-year cycle to candidates
•$69,000 per two-year cycle to all national party committees and PACs
Can anybody contribute?
Certain individuals, businesses, and associations are prohibited from making contributions to Federal candidates or political committees.
Corporations and Labor Unions -- are also prohibited form contributing. This law applies to all incorporated organizations, profit or non-profit. Business owners are not allowed to make contributions from their business accounts. Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish PACs.
Originally posted by seattletruth
You might have read the ruling, but you do not fully grasp the concept of how one single minute ruling can open the floodgates for other implications.
Yes, the ruling might have been in a relatively benign case, but this ruling does make it possible for any corporation, including foreign entities to donate unrestricted to campaigns.
We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.
President Barack Obama and other critics say the court’s decision to let corporations spend their money to directly influence elections opened the floodgates to foreign involvement.
That was a step too far. At the moment, foreign corporations may not spend any money in U.S. elections under a provision of federal election law that was untouched by the high court.
The court’s majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically left for another day "whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our nation’s political process.
Erase all that.
Corporations can spend unlimited amounts.
All you are saying is that the Supreme Court just made it easier for corporations to buy their candidate.
Am I correct?
Originally posted by jam321
Correct me if I am wrong.
but a Supreme Court decision stating that a law is unconstitutional is not the end all.
It is merely saying that the law as written by legislators was not in accordance with the US Constitution.
Therefore, it is up to Congress to decide if they want to give up on the issue or write another law concerning the issue that will meet the Supreme Courts standards.
Do they really want to do it is another question?
The lack of personal responsibility in this country is what is failing...
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
The limits, or lack of, on corporaions and individuals has not changed, for better or worse.
Corporations are now allowed to spend exactly what they were allowed to spend prior to this ruling.
The corporations are not any higher above individuals now than they were prior.
Originally posted by hadriana
The good thing about corporations over people, is it still means that CORPORATIONS can be divided by PEOPLE.
And that's something we need to do to some of them, IMO.
Originally posted by Darky5K
How can a corporation be non-profit?