Alito Was Right? Maybe the Supreems DIDN'T sell us out to the corporations.

Have we been had? Was the recent decision by the Supreem Court REALLY that bad, or did we fall for a batch of pro-invasive government propaganda?

The following article points out that foreign corporations will still be barred from contributing to candidates and US based corporations still won't be able to invest directly in political candidates.

What the decision DID do is throw out the portion of McCain-Feingold law that had prohibited persons who pool their funds or contribute to Political Action Committees (PACs), from spending those funds, directly or through PACs, in the 60 day period preceding an election.

Is that really throwing the gates open to corporate control?

The Supreme Court issued a ruling last week on the campaign finance that is still being discussed all over the country. In fact, it was even mentioned by President Obama at Wednesday night’s State of the Union address. The high court invalidated its own 20-year-old ruling -- which had upheld a one hundred-year-old statute on group political contributions -- and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law.

The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials.

The court also threw out the portion of McCain-Feingold law that had prohibited persons who pool their funds or contribute to Political Action Committees (PACs), from spending those funds, directly or through PACs, in the 60 day period preceding an election. Since that 60 day period preceding the election is the most vital in any campaign, the court held that the prohibition on expenditures during that time was a violation of the free speech guaranteed to all persons, individually and in groups, by the First Amendment.

Thus, as a result of this ruling, all groups may spend their own money as they wish on any political campaigns, but they still may not--as groups--contribute directly to candidates’ campaigns. The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold that prevents corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups from giving money directly to candidates was not challenged in this case, thus its constitutionality was not an issue before the court. Groups will thus effectively be running and financing their own campaigns for candidates independent of those candidates’ campaigns.


During the course of oral argument on this case in October in the Supreme Court, one of the FEC's lawyers replied to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia to the effect that the FEC could ban books if they were paid for by corporations, labor unions, or advocacy groups. This highly un-American statement in the Supreme Court by a government lawyer--that the federal government can ban political books--infuriated a few of the justices. The conservative justices were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote between the conservative and liberal blocs on the Court. The Court's newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined the dissent.

Faux News

Here is the Supreem Court Ruling.

Perhaps we should ALL take the time to read it before jumping to conclutions.

Or do you prefer to have your opinions formed by the MSM?



[edit on 31-1-2010 by FortAnthem]

They still sold us out to corporations and special interests.

As Justice Stevens put it:

...the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.

reply to post by FortAnthem


That's right. Obama lied.
Justice Alito was right.

Absolutely correct.

We've been had.

Here is a thread I did a few days ago.
My thread

Unfortunately, it seems that on this topic, many ATS members would rather believe non-truths that fulfill their desire for conspiracy,
rather than the plain old boring truth.

I sincerely hope your thread has better results than mine did.
S&F

The way I see it, after reading a few hundred threads(ok, maybe not that many but you get the drift). Correct me if I'm wrong.

The SC got it right, free speech and all that.

The reason it sucks is because 130 or so years ago the corporations started fighting for, and got, the status of a person. Which is deplorable IMO.

In a nutshell. Please, correct me if I am missing something or am just plain stupid.

Funny enough is that has been the very argument and facts I have been using to fight back the hysteria here on all the SCOTUS threads that have popped up because of it.

As I believe the reason I, along with others that pointed it out was because we actually read the decision and took the time to understand it. Rather than just taking talking points and scare tactics (Ironic because the very people that hate Fox have been duped by their own MSM or whatever outlet they have been receiving their false information from.)

Post Script:
Good luck FortAnthem...people here are too entrenched in regards to this as it fulfills their deep rooted conspiracy theories. On a more serious note...the ruling everyone should have been upset about and STILL should be upset about is Kelo v. New London. Talk about treachery!

[edit on 1-2-2010 by ownbestenemy]

reply to post by TheLoony


I am not entirely sure that corporations have ever had the status of a person, so much as getting the same Constitutional protections that a person has.

For instance, a corporation can not be elected to office, federal, at least.
There may be some wacky laws in certain states or counties.

To be clear, I said elected.
Anyone or anything can run for office.

I seem to remember someone entering their goldfish in an election years back.
Had the goldfish won, it would not have been able to hold office.

Considering the quality of some of our officials, I'm beginning to rethink this goldfish thing

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Nice to see you on this thread still trying to get the message out.
Deny ignorance.

In my opinion, only you people who now think that this is "not a big deal" have been fooled.

Like I said before, my father is a lawyer who writes law book that is bought all around the world.. He understands the scope of the law.

In his opinion this law truly is horrible. Why?


Although the law does not allow corporations to contribute directly to campaigns, it now allows them to contribute to funds for attack ads, or even positive ad campaigns. Their direct contribution was never the question.

Also, the ruling does not specifically BAR foreign corporations. It simply does not rule against them. You can bet your ass now that the gates have been opened, foreign corporations will invest in these campaign funds, simply because they are not specifically prohibited now.

You people don't seem to understand the concept that one single ruling that is not so bad, or all encompassing, can in effect open the flood gates for other rulings... especially when it comes to the supreme court.

Only the ones who believe this ruling will not have wide sweeping effects are the fools.

Actually, there are laws on the books that prohibit and make it illegal for any candidate or campaign committee to seek out or accept any form of campaign contribution from Corporations/LLC's/Inc.'s.

Any campaign contribution up to & exceeding $50 has to be recorded along with the contributors name and contact information.
Even if John Smith were to make 4 seperate contributions of $25 each. His name and information would have to be recorded and filed once he made the 2nd $25 contribution because his total contribution amount would be $50.

The law also states that in no form whatsoever, shall a candidate or campaign committee be allowed to accept campaign contributions from any person, business, corporation, or government outside of the United States of America. Unless that person is an American Citizen residing out of the U.S. in which case any and all contribution amounts have to be recorded along with the individuals name and information. There is also a maximum amount allowed on those type of contributions.

Just to clarify .. I spoke with the Ethics Committee in Texas that controls the campaign finance scene and this is what the lady told me. She said that the campaign finance laws are the same regardless of the office being sought. From a small local office up to the POTUS, the finance laws are the same and it is considered a federal crime to break those laws.

reply to post by seattletruth


Well, in my opinion I believe it to be a big deal as it was a win for the Constitution.

The very portion of the McCain-Fiengold law that was struck down was in effect a backdoor government sponsored censorship upon political speech. The very speech that is protected via the First Amendment.

It also was sidestepping equal protection under the law as Media outlets were free to politically discuss candidates, have commentators on their shows, etc. during the crucial 30-day prior period of an election. Why should they be given a pass while others are not?

441b, by disguise of reform and fairness subjected not only corporations but everyday, normal everyday citizens from speaking out against or for a candidate during that time period. That is censorship and that is making a law abridging the freedom of speech.

Also you state now foreign corporations can throw money at attack ads or praise ads; they were able to before. Nothing has changed except it can be done up to and through the election.

Also, no flood gates are opened just because corporations sponsor or produce such ads, propaganda, pamphlets, news articles, OpEd pieces, etc. The decision is still left up to you, the voter on the discernment of such pieces. It is up to you to verify and fact-check such ads.

Some additional things to consider:

ATS is an LLC. Candidate A has proclaimed that they will shut down all Conspiracy Web Sites as to reign in the spread of false information.

Shouldn't ATS and by extension their shareholders have the ability to counter that candidate and if need be put their full weight behind Candidate B?

Under the law that was struck down, Candidate A could have continued their promises of legislating law to shut down sites such as these all the way up to their election while ATS would have to remain silent in the manner.

If they didn't, ATS would be subjected to a fine for speech! That again is an effect tool of censorship.


--Sorry if using ATS as an example isn't kosher but maybe a bit of personalization of the issue might help--

There's a lot I don't understand, but I do understand that corporations are not REALLY people, and that corporations can be dangerous without some oversight.

I understand also that George Soros started Move On, and said something about he'd give his last dime - which is a LOT of money - to make what he wanted to happen in America, happen.

I just don't see how it can be good.

Also, Hannity was saying that HE had a corporation all by himself. That is true, not all corporations are owned by investors...so he was saying that why couldn't HIS corporation sponsor an ad.

And I thought, hmmm, seems a good way to obfuscate who is really behind something, and perhaps give the people OWNING corporations DOUBLE rights, in a sense.

I just can't see where it is good myself..not because I don't value free speech, but because I don't think corporations are people, and if they are, lol, well I tend to think of them as really, really BAD people that should have their rights to vote revoked and always be on probation.

Do they get the right to vote next? Was Bush married to one, or was he a polygamist? Does Obama want to promote some, appoint them to various posts? Come on...

reply to post by hadriana


The corporations are not people argument is a red herring and has little to do with the ruling itself. If you want to understand the ruling, it is best you read it, re-read it, and read it again. Keep reading it until you understand it. The 1st Amendment makes no distinction about who or what has the freedom of speech, it instead prohibits Congress from passing legislation that would prohibit this speech.

If that is the case - 'the WHAT' as free speech, the corporations as people - then perhaps I should program some androids robots and claim they should have all have free speech & the right to vote. I could put one on each street corner.

Why do I need androids? Why not little black boxes with speakers that won't shut up?

I think it is VERY relevant that corporations ARE things.

Why is this such a partisan issue?

Originally posted by hadriana
If that is the case - 'the WHAT' as free speech, the corporations as people - then perhaps I should program some androids robots and claim they should have all have free speech & the right to vote. I could put one on each street corner.

Why do I need androids? Why not little black boxes with speakers that won't shut up?

I think it is VERY relevant that corporations ARE things.

Why is this such a partisan issue?

Its not a matter of who or what can assert rights, the matter is in regards to legislation passed by Congress that abridged speech. Have you ever read the 1st Amendment? You think it is relevant that corporations are things because you haven't read the ruling. Are you aware of what the 1st Amendment say's? Do you realize that Congress can make no laws abridging speech. It is a partisan issue because people like you keep attempting to deflect the truth of the actual ruling and make it about something else.

reply to post by Detailed Perfection


I do not know where or who you got your information from but the info is wrong.

From opensecrets.org

The figures profiled here include money from two sources: These contributors were either the sponsors of a PAC that gave to the politician, or they were listed as an individual donor's employer. Donors who give more than $200 to any federal candidate, PAC or party committee must list their occupation and employer. Based on that information, the donor is given an economic code. These totals are conservative, as not all of the individual contributions have yet been classified by the Center. In cases where two or more people from the same family contributed, the income-earner's occupation/employer is assigned to all non-wage earning family members. If, for instance, Henry Jones lists his employer as First National Bank, his wife Matilda lists "Homemaker" and 12-year old Tammy shows up as "Student," the Center would identify all their contributions as being related to the "First National Bank" since that's the source of the family's income. Although individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, in some cases individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors. A contribution to a candidate may be given an ideological code, rather than an economic code, if the contributor gives to an ideological political action committee AND the candidate has received money from PACs representing that same ideological interest.

Also from the Federal election laws-

(c) Recordkeeping. The treasurer of a political committee shall keep an account of— (1) all contributions received by or on behalf of such political committee; (2) the name and address of any person who makes any contribution in excess of $50, together with the date and amount of such contribution by any person; (3) the identification of any person who makes a contribution or contributions aggregating more than $200 during a calendar year, together with the date and amount of any such contribution; § 432 Federal Election Campaign Laws 14 (4) the identification of any political committee which makes a contribution, together with the date and amount of any such contribution; and (5) the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, the date, amount, and purpose of the disbursement, and the name of the candidate and the office sought by the candidate, if any, for whom the disbursement was made, including a receipt, invoice, or cancelled check for each disbursement in excess of $200.

So the 50 and 200 is correct.

With Obama, he had a total of $178 Million of unnamed donors. These are donors under the $200 donor limit. That is 1/4 of the money Obama raised!

With McCain, even though he was not required to give the donors names for those under the limit, he still did!

Transparency, I think not!
Because I decided either candidate would be a detriment to our country, I decided not to vote. So no partisan attack on my side.

Whomever gave you your information may have been state rules, not national.

As for your statement on the non-contribution of foreigners, how are we to determine the source of contributions if it is not required to release the entire donor list?

The Democratic Party is trying to subvert the TRUE intention of their smear campaign against the Scotus.

This is ALL about disinfo and vilifying business in general. Those damn corporations, they do not deserve to exist, government can do a much better job of running things.

I am all about stopping monopolies and the bankster crooks.

BUT, we cannot allow the moves that they are trying to install. Investigate a little into what they are doing.

Nuff said.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by endisnighe]

First off, I have to say, I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED and AMAZED no one bothered to attack me on the source of this story.

I thought it was ATS SOP to immediately dismiss the source of a thread one doesn't agree with. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S FAUX (Fox) NEWS!!

Is this a sign of maturity in the members here or just a GROSS OVERSIGHT?

I'll have to say I was suspicious of the source myself, wondering whether this was just some Neo-Con propaganda but, after reading the article, I found it to be pretty well reasoned. It certailly opened my eyes.

What I find suspicious from all the anti-ruling articles is how they focus on how CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS will benifit from the ruling but they are silent about how the ruling helps ISSUE ADVOCACY GROUPS like the NRA and Pro-Life groups to get their message out.

I remember how people were so upset over the McCain-Feingold bill when it was passed, saying that it was the end of free speach and how the MSM would now have unlimited power to influence elections during the last 60 days before an election.

Now that part of that aweful law has been overturned, many of the same folks who opposed it are crying foul. I myself bought into the initial hysteria over this ruling. Now, I'm not so sure.

I think endisnighe may be right. This is probably a part of the agenda to vilify corporations and bring about the end of privately owned companies.

I think it's time we get over the initial hysteria and take a long, hard look at what this decision REALLY means.

It may not be as bad as we thought.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

Originally posted by seattletruth
In my opinion, only you people who now think that this is "not a big deal" have been fooled.

Like I said before, my father is a lawyer who writes law book that is bought all around the world.. He understands the scope of the law.

In his opinion this law truly is horrible. Why?


Although the law does not allow corporations to contribute directly to campaigns, it now allows them to contribute to funds for attack ads, or even positive ad campaigns. Their direct contribution was never the question.

Also, the ruling does not specifically BAR foreign corporations. It simply does not rule against them. You can bet your ass now that the gates have been opened, foreign corporations will invest in these campaign funds, simply because they are not specifically prohibited now.

You people don't seem to understand the concept that one single ruling that is not so bad, or all encompassing, can in effect open the flood gates for other rulings... especially when it comes to the supreme court.

Only the ones who believe this ruling will not have wide sweeping effects are the fools.

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but wouldn't it be unconstitutional for a law preventing that to be passed?

[edit on 1-2-2010 by angrysniper]

reply to post by FortAnthem


Fox News Channel rules!
Just look at the ratings.
NBC is going out of business.
Keeping going to Fox News. We have the whole truth.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Eurisko2012]

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

Fox News Channel rules!
Just look at the ratings.
NBC is going out of business.

Keeping going to Fox News. We have the whole truth.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Eurisko2012]

You forgot to add your signature