Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits
 

Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits
James Vicini
WASHINGTON

Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits
Wed, Sep 9 2009WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court struck down on Thursday long-standing limits on corporate spending in U.S. political campaigns, such as this year's congressional races and the 2012 presidential contest.


The 5-4 ruling was a defeat for the Obama administration and the campaign finance law's supporters who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system to promote or defeat candidates.

The ruling by the conservative majority transformed the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in future presidential and congressional elections, which already have broken new spending records with each political cycle.

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

The decision was a victory for a conservative advocacy group's challenge to the campaign finance law as part of its efforts to broadcast and promote a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She later became President Barack Obama's secretary of state.

The justices appeared at a special Thursday session to summarize the ruling and issued a total of five separate opinions exceeding 175 pages.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights. "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote.

The court's conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees, previously voted to limit or strike down parts of the law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.

The court's four liberals, including its newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by Obama, dissented.

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

The problem with this is that $1m will make or break a US congress or senator campaign. But for a company like shell, $1m can fall out of its pockets on its way to lunch. All they need to do is to dump $100m into the political system and they have their way for a few years

The Obama campaign spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars to win in 2008. How effective has this campaign finance law really been?

Its not the total amount of money its the fact that now all of the money can come from one place.

So what?:shrug: They have to report where the money comes from. If Shell did decide to give a candidate $100 mil, you don't think that will be used against the candidate?

Would McCain have won with another $500 million? I really don't think so. Would Obama have won by a larger margin with another $500 million? Again, I don't think so. Judging by what I saw this last election cycle each candidate is taking in enough money to overly innundate the American people with advertising. I don't see how more advertising is going to change anything, and if unpopular companies are donating large sums to a candidate it is going to hurt more than help.

I agree with this ruling.

The majority of that money came from actual people. This gov't is supposed to be of the people, for the people. Corps are not people, no matter what the legal definition.

george soros is people? :Lol:

We know that the majority of the money Obama raised was through private donations because he had to publish his donor list. Would you be likely to vote for a candidate that received $100 million from Shell, Dow Chemical, or Merck? How about Soros Fund Management or Miramax? If companies and candidates want to throw good money after bad that is their choice. Either way it isn't going to buy elections since they are already bought and paid for.

I didn't know Skynet was the only corporation out there.

Corporations can have their entire business destroyed (where PEOPLE from the janitor to the CEO can lose jobs) through legislation from a congressman. I say they should have some say so in what the fuck happens in DC. Besides plenty of businesses and organizations buy there way as it is now. If the unions didn't give craploads of money and support to President Obama do you believe that he would have given them their "Cadillac Health Insurance" tax break?

Whatever I or a collection of Is want to do with their money is their business. McCain-Feingold is a kick in the balls to our constitution and President Bush should have been impeached for signing that bill.

In a high profile race like a presidential election this , hopefully, wouldnt be an issue because it would be all over the news if Haliburton gave a candidate $100M. Its the lower profile, congressional elections where this is dangerous. It wouldnt be hard for a company or a few companies with a common interest to buy seats in congress to get their own way. Who needs lobbyists when corporate sponsorship is now legal.

Naw that could never happen

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/972/senator.jpg

All elections have checks and balances in the form of the opposing candidate(s). If Haliburton gives $50k to a candidate you can bet those running against that candidate will make some noise about it.

Yeh except $50m gives me way more time and ability to talk shit and scream about how bad you are. Plus we sheeple don't care what you really say just how often we hear what we want to hear.

If that $50m comes from an unpopular place the time and ability to talk shit and scream doesn't matter once people discount you and stop listening for being a corporate shill. Either way, a corporation is a legal entity entitled to free speech regardless of the effect of this decision will have.

No, now the opposing candidate will have to find his own corporate sponsorship to compete.

That too, but that in no way prevents them from calling in to question their opponent's motives for accepting however much from whatever company. I don't care what the amount is, how much of a chance does a candidate have if they accept large sums from Haliburton, Citgo, and Blackwater (now Xe)? In most areas of the country the answer is not much of one. The money itself is a form of speech, but the source of the money also makes a statement.

No but What about At&T who want to control a certain frequency spectrum? Or McDonalds who wants to fatten you up to use in their new people burger? Or Walmart who doesnt want to see the federal minium wage increased?

I mean who hates walmart? People that don't live near one?

All i'm saying is that politicians just follow the money

Sounds like a problem with politicians, not money.:shrug:

They do. It's called voting.

So let's make a bad situation even worse?

Free speech my ass. This ruling is an abomination and a fucking disaster for this country.

I think some of you people have completely lost your minds. Do you really believe that any entity should have a bigger say in Government than you do, simply because they have more money than you do?

Everyone favor of this ruling, please PM me your address, and I'll send you a free "I'm A Moron, Please Ass Rape Me" t-shirt.

Any hope we may have had, of turning around the corrupt and bullshit way our government is run, has died, and you're all yelling hooray for free speech.

Fucking unbelievable.

JC

Corporations don't and never will have a bigger say in Government than we do. We can vote, corporations cannot.

What country do you live in? :scratch:

JC

I'm pretty sure it is the same one you do.

Well then I'm confused.

If a corporation can give unlimited amounts of money to a Senator or Representative, you know damn well that Congressman is going to vote for whatever legislation benefits that corporation.

I think we can agree that this is no secret, right?

So yes, corporations can vote just fine, they just don't go into a booth to do it.

Our politicians are in a perpetual state of campaigning. They have one goal, and one goal only, get re-elected. Anyone of them would sell his mother to a pimp, to keep that cushy office job.

But you know what? Fuck it. Let's dissolve Congress all together. We can just let the CEO's of the Fortune 500 make all the laws from now on. Minimum wage? Gone. Child labor laws. Fuck 'em. Don't like mercury in your water? Tough shit, you ain't rich.

That's the direction we're headed in.

I'm amazed anyone could even remotely think this is a good idea.

JC

What was struck down was a provision that banned election communications that mentioned a specific candidate 30 days before a primary/caucus or 60 days before a general election that were paid for by corporations. Before those time periods corporations could do whatever they wanted. All that this has done is removed the advertising restrictions during those time periods. The portion of McCain/Feingold that was struck down did somewhere between little and nothing to stop what you are describing.:skep:

If you run a network that shows the Superbowl, when do you advertise, July? No, you advertise when it will do the most good. Political advertising six months before an election is not very effective.

That's exactly why it's a step in the wrong direction.

The whole thing is bullshit. Some "not for profit" organization makes ads or a "documentary" promoting or demonizing one candidate or another, using funds from corporations with a special interest in what the candidate may do. How much more shady can you get?

It's not like the candidates don't know where the money comes from.

JC

Bullshit or not the Supreme Court believed the law was an unconstitutional restriction of speech and ruled accordingly. Based on the majority belief that law was unconstitutional they could not rule any other way. You can agree or disagree with their ruling (I disagree with some of them), but it is the law of the land.

For now...

This is truly one of the most fundamentally fucked up rulings they've ever made. We can only hope one those idiots drops dead sooner, rather than later.

JC

I don't think it holds a candle to the stupidity of Korematsu v. United States, but that is just my opinion.:shrug:

Hard to argue with that.

JC

Problem one. Voting is not a right and can be taken away, even from CEOs.

Also you are wanting to be a dickhead and dictate who can give money to whom. You want to put a gun to the head of someone and tell them how to live their life and what to do with THEIR money. Do you want to do it personally? No, but you want to have someone do it for you instead which I think is even more pathetic and cowardly.

You're probably the type of person who believes that Kelo vs New London was a good decision because it can "help the tax base". Infact I love how liberals and democrats have gone apeshit because a person can express themselves by helping pay for a candidate of their choice but Kelo vs New London is jus tto help us. Its all good till they come knocking on your door to rape you and not even give you a T-shirt.

Want to get companies out of the business of government? Well then get the government out of the business of companies. How hard is that one to figure out.

Only from CEO's who happen to be in prison, whom I don't give a fuck about anyway, and WTF does that have to do with anything?

Wow. You're so right! All this time I was thinking that legalizing bribery was a bad idea, but now I see what a dickhead I am, because keeping bribery illegal is telling people who they can and can't give their money to. Hallelujah Brother, I have seen the light!

OK, now you're rambling incoherently. Stop it, it's embarrassing.

Wrong again Bambi.

Kelo vs New London was total bullshit as well. Eminent Domain should only apply to public utilities, and even then, it should used as sparingly as humanly possible, (feel free to embroider that on your little snake flag, with my compliments :dthumb:).

This is not a liberal/conservative issue. This is about TRYING to have a government that isn't completely corrupt.

So, here's a deal for you: How about we let corporations donate as much money as they want, with the proviso being that the legislators they give it to, are required to abstain from any vote that would give a competitive advantage to the donor. Run that up your snake flag pole, and see who salutes...

You really are a babe in the woods aren't you?

I bet you think all those commercials the oil companies make about how they really want to diversify into "green technologies", come straight from their golden love filled hearts. :lol:

Wake up Rube, nap time's over.

JC

I am a fan of this. How do I sign up for your newsletter?:rockwoot:

Seriously, I do think that is a good idea, but I would take it a step further. Force any federal legislator to abstain from any vote that affects anything in the district/state from which they were elected. If they could be prevented from introducing legislation that solely effects their district/state I would probably support that as well. Sure, the backroom trading of influence would continue, but it certainly wouldn't make it any worse.

As I stated before, this is a problem with politicians, not a problem with money. Restrictions on how money can be raised and spent are not going to solve anything. How about we get some politicians who can't be bought.

That's been my point all along, (your newsletter is on the way).

If you liked that idea, you're going to love this one;

The Federal AMJ One Bill At A Goddamn Time Act of 2010. Whereupon it is written that; It will now be considered unlawful to combine any spending measures that do not directly pertain to the goals of the bill in question.

You want a Tea Pot museum? Fine. Let's vote on it, based on its own merits.

JC

Opposing earmarks isn't new. I supported the guy who said he was going to do it in the last election. That didn't work out so well.

I agree with you that politicians are far too corrupted by money. Where we disagree is on the solution to that problem. Controlling the money is a useless endeavor similar to trying to close all the loopholes in the tax code. It's like a kid in Holland trying to plug a leak. The water will find other ways. It is the politicians that need to be controlled. The problem with that is it is the politicians who decide how they are controlled. I hope we aren't fucked, but we very well could be.:shrug:

BTW, your newsletter better not junk up my mailbox and if you sell my info to credit card companies I'm going to be pissed!:lol

He wouldn't have had a better chance getting it done as President, then he does as a Senator anyway.

The problem is so ingrained in our present system, that we would likely have to attack it from both directions, just to keep up with all the lawyers. I'd love to see a public referendum on the issue, but that's not going to happen either.

Shit, there goes my whole plan. :lol:

JC