Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations.

• majorspark

  

  Significant 5-4 ruling. Just in time for this years midterm elections. In summary:
  

  The Supreme Court today overturned a century-old restriction on corporations using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.
  
  In a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections.

  the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

  The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

  
  http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-corporations22-2010jan22,0,4141508.story
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/
  
  I would agree that the government should not restrict legal entities that they can levy taxes against and institute onerous regualtions. Since political ads etc are political speech congress can make no law limiting it.
  
  I do however understand the concern with multinational corporations and possible foreign influence in elections. But in the end citizens are the only ones casting the votes and should be able to hear corporations make their case as well.
• BoatShoes

  Should be some interesting opinions.
  
  I think it's also important to point out that Corporations are state created entities and have things that we humans do not such as potentially everlasting life.
  
  theoretically rights endowed to us humans are endowed by our "creator" or come from some metaphysical place whereas corporations rights are endowed by the States.
  
  That's my two cents until I read the opinions.
• IggyPride00

  

  This was not a positive day for America.
  
  Corporate influence in elections was bad enough already, now we will see elections being bought and sold on a scale the likes of which we have not ever seen.
  
  It is not a Republican/Democrat thing, but an American citizen thing. No rational human being can argue that an inflow of billions of dollars into the election process to buy candidates is a positive development.
• BCSbunk

  IggyPride00 wrote: This was not a positive day for America.
  
  Corporate influence in elections was bad enough already, now we will see elections being bought and sold on a scale the likes of which we have not ever seen.
  
  It is not a Republican/Democrat thing, but an American citizen thing. No rational human being can argue that an inflow of billions of dollars into the election process to buy candidates is a positive development.

  Can you say Plutocracy? And now it is official. Sad sad day for Americans.
• Footwedge

  Lobby priveledge set in motion by the Constitution have been thoroughly abused. Both Boat and Spark touched on it above. This is another sad day for Americans.
  
  When the majority of Special Interest groups have international ambitions, then the economic problems became exacerbated here in the US.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  The only thing interesting that I find, is the date/timing.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Agree with the court decision -- not because I like the system, but because it was the correct call under the First Amendment.
  
  Funny thing about free speech and the expressions thereof, you get a lot of garbage with the good.
• BCSbunk

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Agree with the court decision -- not because I like the system, but because it was the correct call under the First Amendment.
  
  Funny thing about free speech and the expressions thereof, you get a lot of garbage with the good.

  Corporations are not humans. However congratulations to the Republicans and the big business Democrats you win.
  
  I hope everyone enjoys a Plutocracy.
• fish82

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Agree with the court decision -- not because I like the system, but because it was the correct call under the First Amendment.
  
  Funny thing about free speech and the expressions thereof, you get a lot of garbage with the good.

  This.
• BCBulldog

  

  It's my understanding that this has nothing to do with donations to candidates. It only applies to advertising that they are allowed to run themselves or donate to through a non-candidate entity.
  
  If this is the case, then I see absolutely no problem with it. They are not directly influencing the candidates themselves. If we were talking about direct donations to candidates, that is a separate issue.
• 2quik4u

  

  All these says is rich people have more free speech then poor people do
• gut

  What a wonderfully non-value-added waste of money.
• IggyPride00

  

  It's my understanding that this has nothing to do with donations to candidates. It only applies to advertising that they are allowed to run themselves or donate to through a non-candidate entity.
  
  If this is the case, then I see absolutely no problem with it. They are not directly influencing the candidates themselves. If we were talking about direct donations to candidates, that is a separate issue.

  It's no different than lobbying really now, except on a much higher level.
  
  The company doing the advertising may not be directly in contact with the candidate, but let's say Goldman Sachs for example decides to run something crazy like $100 million worth of ads saying vote for candidate X for president, house or senate. Does anyone really think there isn't an implicit wink wink that the ads are being done to influence the future office holder.
  
  Anybody who sees anything but a disaster for American Democracy should look at how beholden government officials are to lobbyists for their donations.
  
  The donations lobbyists make are a small pittance compared to the avalanche of money now available, so when you think about how easily they sell themselves out for small time money now, it is scary to think of what they will be willing to do for the billions that will now be available for them.
• fan_from_texas

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Agree with the court decision -- not because I like the system, but because it was the correct call under the First Amendment.
  
  Funny thing about free speech and the expressions thereof, you get a lot of garbage with the good.

  Corporations are not humans. However congratulations to the Republicans and the big business Democrats you win.
  
  I hope everyone enjoys a Plutocracy.

  Corporate entities are legal persons, which is why agencies can go after them in a criminal context. There are very good reasons for treating corporations as legal persons, and this holding is merely consistent with that. It's entirely in line with the First Amendment.
  
  Whether it causes other problems is a different story. I'm not well-versed enough on 1st A. issues to care too much or have an opinion.
• Footwedge

  "Fascism, pronounced /?fæ??z?m/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10]"
  
  Another step for the globalists in ripping apart the heart and soul of Americans. Hopefully these judges' kids and grandkids will find employment in Laos, Vietnam, India, or China.
• Footwedge

  fan_from_texas wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Agree with the court decision -- not because I like the system, but because it was the correct call under the First Amendment.
  
  Funny thing about free speech and the expressions thereof, you get a lot of garbage with the good.

  Corporations are not humans. However congratulations to the Republicans and the big business Democrats you win.
  
  I hope everyone enjoys a Plutocracy.

  Corporate entities are legal persons, which is why agencies can go after them in a criminal context. There are very good reasons for treating corporations as legal persons, and this holding is merely consistent with that. It's entirely in line with the First Amendment.
  
  Whether it causes other problems is a different story. I'm not well-versed enough on 1st A. issues to care too much or have an opinion.

  Up until recently, corporations were very much shielded from legal issues. That is the main reason why sole proprietors incorporated...to protect their personal assets.
  
  Today, the CEO's are held accountable for certain violations...but there are not human beings....and neither are labor unions for that matter.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Footwedge wrote: "Fascism, pronounced /?fæ??z?m/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10]"
  
  Another step for the globalists in ripping apart the heart and soul of Americans. Hopefully these judges' kids and grandkids will find employment in Laos, Vietnam, India, or China.

  If the liberals don't totally tax us (and businesses) into oblivion, I have confidence in the American system that jobs will be created elsewhere in the economy to offset the losses of those jobs you're talking about.
  
  You want to be the pessimist in the crowd -- have at it. I prefer believing in American ingenuity and creativity.
• eersandbeers

  ccrunner609 wrote: THank you Supreme Court for unholding the constitution. These corporations have power because people are stupid and need told what to do. If people would inform themselves their influences wouldnt be so great.

  
  Their influence is great because they have all the money. It has nothing to do with how much education one has. Although I do have to question the intelligence of those who keep voting for a D or R.
• Paladin

  What a sad,sad day. What man giveth to the Corporations may be time to take away. If you thought the Jack Abramoff scandal was a problem , you ain't seen nothing yet. With endless money to spend, its time that giving the Corps individual rights may need to be revoked.
• eersandbeers

  BCSbunk wrote:
  I hope everyone enjoys a Plutocracy.

  
  Nice, one I didn't even know.
  
  I learned Plutarchy also which would work.
• fan_from_texas

  Footwedge wrote:

  fan_from_texas wrote: Corporate entities are legal persons, which is why agencies can go after them in a criminal context. There are very good reasons for treating corporations as legal persons, and this holding is merely consistent with that. It's entirely in line with the First Amendment.
  
  Whether it causes other problems is a different story. I'm not well-versed enough on 1st A. issues to care too much or have an opinion.

  Up until recently, corporations were very much shielded from legal issues. That is the main reason why sole proprietors incorporated...to protect their personal assets.
  
  Today, the CEO's are held accountable for certain violations...but there are not human beings....and neither are labor unions for that matter.

  Corporate entities still provide their owners with protection, absent fraudulent activities resulting in piercing the corporate veil. That's why if Exxon spills some oil, the government doesn't come after everyone who owns stock in Exxon. True, they're owners of the company, but they have limited liability. I'm not sure why you think this is such a bad thing--it enables people collectively to reduce their exposure to risk, enabling more business innovation without undue personal risk. That's a huge part of our economic system.
  
  If a bunch of people individually can give money to candidates, why can't those people get together, pool their money, and give it to candidates? If the former is protected under the 1st A., why not the latter?
  
  [Edit: I'll sign on to MB's post, below, that points out that there's a difference between limited liability and corporations being immune from lawsuits]
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Up until recently, corporations were very much shielded from legal issues."
  
  That is news to me and the litigation departments of Vault 100 law firms, who are they suing or defending against? On a good day I can run by the PhillipMorris headquarters on West Broad Street in Henrico County, Virginia. How often were they shielded from legal issues? They are constantly facing legal issues, incorporation doesn't prevent you from legal actions. What is "recently"? Do you just make stuff up?
• majorspark

  

  All of you against this decision. What about large media conglomerates? Many of you bitch about biased media outlets. Should they be limited as well? After all corporations are behind them as well. Where to you think Hannity or Olberman get the funding to voice their political opinions. Why should other corporations whose business isn't media be treated differently?
  
  Also this decision affects all groups not just corporations. Unions, NRA, Sierra Club, etc.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote: All of you against this decision. What about large media conglomerates? Many of you bitch about biased media outlets. Should they be limited as well? After all corporations are behind them as well. Where to you think Hannity or Olberman get the funding to voice their political opinions. Why should other corporations whose business isn't media be treated differently?
  
  Also this decision affects all groups not just corporations. Unions, NRA, Sierra Club, etc.

  They are NOT humans and are NOT mentioned in the Constitution.
  
  This shit is not going to fly. Right now an amendment to the Constitution is being worked on.
  
  What is next the corporations get to vote?
  
  http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/amendment_campaigns_launch.php
  
  Look for a much needed amendment to fix this bullshit.
  
  Congress shall make no law to abridge free speech to HUMANS and not paper entities.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  majorspark wrote: All of you against this decision. What about large media conglomerates? Many of you bitch about biased media outlets. Should they be limited as well? After all corporations are behind them as well. Where to you think Hannity or Olberman get the funding to voice their political opinions. Why should other corporations whose business isn't media be treated differently?
  
  Also this decision affects all groups not just corporations. Unions, NRA, Sierra Club, etc.

  They are NOT humans and are NOT mentioned in the Constitution.
  
  This shit is not going to fly. Right now an amendment to the Constitution is being worked on.
  
  What is next the corporations get to vote?
  
  http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/amendment_campaigns_launch.php
  
  Look for a much needed amendment to fix this bullshit.
  
  Congress shall make no law to abridge free speech to HUMANS and not paper entities.

  You are not answering my question. Lets take Hannity. He is funded by "non human" as you say, corporations. They pay him, provide him a studio, and brodcast his opinions to millions. What is the difference between this and funding an add.
  
  You also did not aswer may question about groups who, as you say , are not humans. Take the NRA. Should they be stopped as well?
  
  Congress shall make no law to abridge free speech to HUMANS and not paper entities
  
  Bold is in the constitution.
  Italics is not.