It never ceases to amaze me how easily a group of people can be excited into a hysterical mob.
This hysteria usually begins with an event, which is then reported (spun) by the MSM (BOO! Main Stream Media! BOO!) to fit that media’s agenda.
The result is the populace all up in a tither.
Of course that only applies to the common people, the “sheeple”, the unenlightened masses.
It doesn’t apply to us here in the ATS community, right?
The majority of us here are intelligent, critical thinkers who pride ourselves on finding the truth, searching out the real implications, the real
This is why I don’t understand the hysteria that has overtaken much of the ATS community regarding the recent Supreme Court decision regarding
corporate spending and elections.
First off, I am not some corporate shill that believes corporate spending in elections is a positive thing.
I am not.
I am, however, someone who has taken the time to read the decision.
I can only assume that many in the ATS community have not read the decision, and have rather let the MSM, as well as other media outlets form their
The recent ruling changes very little about how corporations will affect our elections.
A history of the events leading to the ruling by the SCOTUS:
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
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
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.
This however was found to be illegal, in that:
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.
So, here we have a non-profit corporation that wanted to air a video they had produced, but couldn’t, due to the fact that it mentioned a candidate
by name, and would be produced by the corporation, rather than a Political Action Committee
set up by this corporation.
Prior to this ruling, and had this corporation set up a PAC, all would have been fine.
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.
This, essentially, is what has been changed by the SCOTUS recent ruling.
It has basically removed the need for a corp. to establish a PAC for electioneering.
It has not allowed for “Communist China” to enter a candidate in an election.
It has not changed laws to now allow Murray Hill, Inc. to run for President.
Here is a link to the entire decision by the SCOTUS for anyone who wishes to find out for themselves,
rather than blindly follow others into a state of hysteria.
Link to SCOTUS decision