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.

 

Supreme Court rejects Montana corporate campaign spending limits

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
AP
Jun 25, 10:07 AM EDT

Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits
 

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed that Montana Supreme Court decision about limiting corporation contributions to political campaigns !!!!

"Citizens United" applies to States .....



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its two-year-old decision relaxing limits on corporate campaign spending. The justices on Monday reversed a Montana court ruling upholding state restrictions.

By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

The majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.



Link to the Ruling (pdf)
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA
WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC.,
ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MONTANA, ET AL.


No. 11–1179. Decided June 25, 2012
PER CURIAM.
A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” Mont. Code Ann. §13–35–227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.” 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.
The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.
It is so ordered...........




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I don't get why you see humor in this...
2



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I don't get why you see humor in this...
2


Actually it's not all that "funny".

But the main point is the 1st Amendment.

Nobody can get around it.

If they ever do, what would be next ?

Selective censorship based on what ?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Well, it seems that the supreme court doesn't give a snip about a majority of Americans in this case, or state sovereignty.

What are they thinking? This is spitting in the face of our forefathers. What would they say about super PACs? They'd be so terribly confused by the state of this country.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
For those that dont get the language...

It says that "Obama and Romney can keep getting propped up by JP Morgan and the Unions".

The corporate buisness that can build the best president....Wins.


edit-
edit on 25-6-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Corporations are not people.
2



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Unions are not people and if anyone read the ruling it said that they have the right to give money for or agianst, and that pertains to unions it also stated that they have certain rights but not all the rights afforded to a person.

Which reminds me of the 3/5 clause.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
How the hell can you laugh at this?

The nation officially sold out and you're laughing.
Maybe I should join you. You might be on to something.


Better to laugh than to throw up all over myself



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Nope, unions are not people either.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
The principle behind Citizens United is not, nor has it ever been about who is a "person". The decision was, and as it is being applied to Montana - that also comes with a Constitution prohibiting legislatures from abrdging speech - is based upon the express prohibition of legislatures abridging the freedom of speech.

Corporations are, by their very nature, highly regulated entities and there are all sorts of methods by which to restrain them, or even revoke their charters allowing them to exist, but when it comes to the freedom of speech, neither the Constitution for the United States of America nor the Montana state make any distinctions on the prohibition of speech, and both simply prohibit "laws" from being passed that would abridge speech.

The argument of "personhood" is nothing more than obfuscation, and if people were truly so upset about corporations being granted "personhood" they would take the battle to Congress who have defined corporations as a person, not once, not twice, but thrice!

Of course, those attempting to make freedom of speech issues about "personhood" have no intentions of admitting that it was Congress who made corporations a person, have no intentions of holding Congress responsible for it, and will just continue presenting the same old lie over and over and over again hoping it will somehow eventually be accepted as truth.

It doesn't even occur to these people that they got this idea that the Supreme Court "ruled that corporations are persons" from a highly corporatized media who clearly have some insidious agenda in perpetuating this canard. It doesn't even occur to people that a media that is highly reliant upon the First Amendment want you to believe that the First Amendment has no meaning.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I guess my real question is "Why does money equal speech?"

Giving speech to candidacy is fine, we know who's talking, but money. Why obfuscate when you're giving money or who's giving it?

Let's say we don't want to limit speech, we want to limit money.
edit on 6/25/2012 by Anonymous404 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous404
 





I guess my real question is "Why does money equal speech?"


Again, by framing the issue as such it becomes yet another red herring. The money is used to pay for broadcasting rights to air speech.

Declare that money is not equal to speech and suddenly every advertising campaign imaginable is no longer a right but instead, "money".

Extend that same principle to press and suddenly publishing books, pamphlets, newspapers and magazines is no longer a right, but instead "money".



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


But one can speak all one wants without having to spend money. One can spend one's money and publish a book to speak all it wants, or a pamphlet, or any sort of article. But there's a difference in my mind between advertising and silently donating money to a campaign. When was the last time a political campaign with say 20 million dollars less than the other won a campaign?

Would you say it's more fair for one person to get more "exposure for their speech" simply because they provide more money to do so? I guess that's a null question since this isn't about fairness, per se...it's about individual freedom.

I understand what you're getting at.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous404
 


Now the qualification is "silently", which then places any anonymous (boy of if that ain't rich with irony, I don't know what is) speaker or publisher in question. User names on the internet would become subject to the purview of legislators, and were this the spirit of the speech and press the user name Publius for the Federalist Papers would have been suspect.

The very same eraser you wish to use to erase the rights of those you do not approve of will just as easily be used to erase your rights.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You really do make more sense than most politicians and pundits out there.

I never thought of it like that. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous404
 


I think the underlying outrage at corporations spending so much money on political campaigns tends to really be outrage at ourselves. We should not be so easily swayed by political ad campaigns. We all have our own minds and are capable of making our own decisions. People are angry because - at least studies suggest - that we are swayed by political ad campaigns, but the obvious answer is to strengthen our own critical thinking skills, not erase the very same rights we rely upon ourselves.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You know I'm pretty big on individual rights but Citizens United seems a perversion to me. Money does not equal speech and by choosing to recognize that it does creates an uneven playing field. How on earth am I supposed to be heard by my Rep over the flow of thousands and millions of dollars?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It isn't just about ad campaigns though. It is about the cronyism that Citizens United creates as well...and lobbying. Now I'm not advocating ending lobbying anyone should have the ability to talk to any government official. But who is going to get the immediate appointment? My broke ass or the dude with millions at his disposal? I asked first but it won't be me. I likely won't even get an audience at all.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You know I'm pretty big on individual rights but Citizens United seems a perversion to me. Money does not equal speech and by choosing to recognize that it does creates an uneven playing field. How on earth am I supposed to be heard by my Rep over the flow of thousands and millions of dollars?


I've addressed this "money = speech" red herring all ready. You can choose to ignore that address, or you can speak to it. If you are going to ignore my arguments what do you expect me to say?

If corporations spend billions of dollars on political campaign ads that fail to produce their intended results, then I would say the "little guy" those ads are intended for spoke loud and clear.

What you seem to want is protection from yourself, and are willing to distinguish the express prohibition on legislatures regarding speech in order to be protected from your own inability to make your own damn decisions regardless of how much a corporation spends telling you what to think.

Want to argue that this is not true and that you do think for yourself? Then why all the complaining about how much they spend?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





Now I'm not advocating ending lobbying anyone should have the ability to talk to any government official. But who is going to get the immediate appointment? My broke ass or the dude with millions at his disposal? I asked first but it won't be me. I likely won't even get an audience at all.


I know of no genuine reason to talk to Representatives other than to influence their decision making in legislation. I know of no genuine reason to want to influence a legislator than to gain something. I know of know genuine law that exists that benefits some while not benefiting others.

It would be nice if someone or some group actually lobbied legislatures to repeal the vast majority of legislation on the books and simply embrace that legislation which is in line with the protection of rights and failing that the offer of remedy (i.e. conviction of crimes) in its stead, but that just doesn't seem to be the case and the urge to influence legislators for "free money" or political privilege seems to rule the day.

I have long argued, and will continue to do so, that it will be non-acquiescence that will reign an out of control government in. But reigning in out of control governments is not a popular issue, is it?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join