Citizens United v. FEC
 

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Discuss!

it's a free speech issue.

it doesn't matter that one side has a 50000 watt megaphone turned up to 11 and the other side is cupping their hands around their mouth to be heard over the deafening roar.

it's apparently all the same.

if you thought politicians were subservient to special interests before, just wait until they see a few of their own get picked off by $5 million media buys paid for by some industry they pissed off.

Well, Republicans came out against this too, today - until Mitch McConnell got them backed off.

Elections are about to get really, really ugly.

At least it willbe out in the open for everyone to see vs the way it was slipping bills in peoples back pockets.

we're a capitalist society, a democracy and not a socialest one. Money talks bullshiat walks.

Evidence Conservative radio is king and Al F. is a senator, failed talk show MC and still a clown!

I thought this was a thread about a soccer game coming up......

Yeah..a soccer match...that's the ticket!:D

Yeah, but do you really want to see a billion dollars worth of attack ads against a candidate (pick any, it will be both parties) during every single commercial break on TV, radio, internet, for two months before an election?

What about the previous 100 years of Supreme Court interpretation to the contrary? Do you not find it a little upsetting this sudden turnaround, with zero precedent?

Do you feel foreign-owned corporations - let's say a corp owned by Saudi oil - should be allowed to pour billions into unregulated campaign ads, with zero restriction, in an attempt to influence our elections?

really? they have not been rigged for decades now? we have a monopoly of power. two heads of the same party- the corporate fascist party. theres no difference between a democrat and a republican. then some moron comes on here and says this is democracy. yeah , the guys that wrote the constitution intended it to be this way-money buys elections, power and individuals mean nothing...give me a break....all this under the guise of free speech. in a way its good because until people get screwed enough they won't wake up. somehow buying election=free speech , now i've heard it all! its funny when the crap hit the fan, ordinary people did not get bail out loans...how come? yet, both parties could not pass it fast enough. forget about elections getting ugly....wait until the day people finally wake up and hit the streets...then it will be truly ugly!

It is a great ruling, and about time.
Let corporations or other groups make their case directly to the people if they want. I would prefer that corporations try to sell the public than buying off congressman with lavish trips and sweetheart deals on this or that behind the scenes. I think this ruling takes a bit of power from congress and will make it easier to take out incumbents.

It might not be pretty, but I'm all for opening things up. As long as the names of the corporations appear clearly on the ads, they shouldn't be able to hide behind some phony name thats just a front and disguises the real funder.

I just assumed that in our Idiocracy future, elections and politicians will resemble Nascar racing events. They will have corporate sponsors, wear the logos, etc. Acceptance speeches will begin with "I'd like to thank the entire Tide-CocaCola team that did such a wonderful job getting out the vote.."
okay only joking about that but I wouldn't bet against it.

That a foreign-owned corporation is equal to an American voter?

That a foreign-owned corporation can now place millions and millions and millions of dollars worth of ads - more than any candidate or party - trying to directly influence the outcome of our elections by addressing voters?

With no brakes?

:zz:

You are one of the most ultra-conservative, Libertarian people on this list - you are in favor of judicial activism?

i don't think you're going to see corporate names on the ads. more likely you'll see money funneled through the chamber of commerce or similar organizations.

they already filter the limited pac money through made up names like "americans for a strong economy" instead of "big coal company". why would they treat unlimited corporate cash differently?

here's why i think advocates of an innovative free market should be concerned:

what do large corporations want from washington?

subsidies and regulatory blocks to competition.

they don't want innovation unless they own it. they want to crush small companies with good idea's that might harm their market position.

and guess what? small innovative businesses aren't going to have the money to spend on campaign ad's that their gigantic competitors do.

the idea that all any business wants is an unfettered free market is naive. monopolies maximize profits. it's in their self interest to drive competitors out by any means necessary.

i'm not all that worried about a partisan divide because the bottom line is that corporations will want to sell to me, riot, jim, and cannon. they won't want a "republican" or "democrat" label attached.

but they've just been handed a nuke to use in addition to the heavy artillery they already had while the rest of us get knives.

they won't have to take out the sponsor of a bill they don't like. they'll just need to take out 1 or 2 supporters and then tell the others, "look, we really like you but we're willing to spend anything needed".

because now they can.

This is why you don't elect Republicans. There is a steep price to pay for it. It's not some silly game with ex baseball players n' pick up trucks. It's about real consequences. You had to elect Bush back in 2004. This is the price we all have to pay. No, Democrats wouldn't do this crap. There is a difference, n' this crap can be partly blamed on Independents being so stupid as to think there's no difference between these parties(bullshit.) Look how the justices nominated by the Republicans voted on this. If you voted for them, you deserve this crap. It is crap. Total crap.

it's got nothing to do with party, and everything to do with free speech. it's not perfect-much as we'd like the world to be so, it's not. our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

no one said corporations had no right to speak their mind. they've been active participants in our democracy through lobbying and pac's.

and it isn't as if they've been muzzled. the fact is the influence of large corporations on legislation already far outweighed any other countervailing force. and now that balance is going to tip even farther.

it won't be restricted to legislation. in all likelihood, any limits states have placed on campaign finance is also unconstitutional under this ruling. which means judicial races will be subject to the same corporate influence that already permeates the rest of our elected bodies.

my basic disagreement is with a view that corporations are somehow underrepresented in our current system. if you think otherwise, i'm not sure how i'd convince you of something that i think is self evident.

I have no opinion on whether anyone is over or under represented. All I'm basically saying is that I understand why the court ruled as it did.

This is a totally weird ruling, considering what it's overturned and ignored (the past 100 years of previous judicial interpretation) - and that wasn't even asked for or addressed in lower rulings!

It's a weird ruling coming from the "conservative" side of the Justices, too, as it is far from "conservative" - it is completely opposite to, unsupports and undermines, the simplicity and power of the single voter in our electoral system.

The "tea party patriot" movement has to be going completely ballistic.

Quite the opposite as they aren't afraid of capitalism or freedom of speach!

I'll take some counterpoint to the above comments.

First - the Supreme Court just abused the rights of voters everywhere, by placing non-voting corporate entities in a position greater than us - individual voters - to influence elections.

Secondly - Corporations are not "people", or "voters". They do not go in a voting booth. They are corporate entities, that can be wholly foreign-owned.

Third - corporations have always had a voice in elections, they just have had to do it through political action committees (PACS) that were open to scrutiny, and had financial limitations and transparency.

That was just eliminated.

This hasn't been addressed in the news (as the vote coming up), because nobody, NOBODY, though the Supreme Court would rule in this manner. It's completely in opposition to the way every previous Supreme Court has viewed and voted upon these issues. It is indeed "judicial activism", to overturn 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

This has nothing at all to do with "capitalism" ??? How so?

Corporations are not voters or individuals. They have always had "freedom of speech" as corporate entities to support candidates of their choice financially and in the press, with ads, etc.

I think the "Tea Baggers" are not understanding what just happened here, if they are supporting this.

Are they not against big government, government involvement and interference, corporate control of government, and for the rights of the individual above all else?

This ruling is completely opposite to that :zz:

no problem whatsoever, the foreign companies/entities are doing it now behind the scenes. you think Obama wasn't funded by foreign entities and that they went to great lengths to conceal it? bringing it out in the open is better.

judicial activism in the name of the first ammendment is most welcome.
i'm sure there are candidates and issues that you support who will also take advantage of this new freedom to get their message out.

i suppose you would not be in favor of government muzzling all corporations, say the New York Times for example. why should they have free rein to actively campaign on behalf of Democratic candidates and ideals, while other corporations are muzzled?

the court correctly decided that government cannot pick and chose which companies and associations are allowed to have free speech.

are you afraid that corporate ads will influence your decision about who to vote for? if not what is the problem?

Teabaggers aren't afraid of Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers etc. etc. they are afraid of government controls and violations of freedom of speach whether it be individuals or 'evil' corporations.

Corporations, incidently owned by most anyone with a stock fund or retirement account. The fact that Obama so strongly opposes the ruling and which Justices ruled for it should have been a huge clue on how the patriots feel.

I'm afraid once again its you who doesn't understand. my tea party group sent out a bulletin within the hour after the ruling came down, rejoicing.

big government got smacked down by the court. no longer will they be able to control this fundamental expression of political speech. a right this country was founded on.

tea party people don't demonize corporations, we don't fear corporations or other groups that might have a message. we do fear big government however.

A corporation isn't a citizen. Spare me the bullsht n' go kill something warm.

That's why you should make the leap, and join that Republican mess. If you believe this garbage (you're #1 issue is already the right to have a personal gun shop) then I think your social issue concerns are dwarfed into being almost insignificant. You've shown your loyalty is with corporations. You can't deny that.

But that's the whole point - being "out in the open" has just been repealed by this ruling.

This has undone campaign finance law in like 43 states, plus part of Federal law regarding corporate accountability.

:zz: This isn't a "right vs left" issue at all. It's a "big government run by corporations versus citizens voters" issue. There are plenty of "conservative" Constitutional scholars that are appalled by this ruling.

The Supreme Court just put the influence strength of corporations above we voters!

Corporations have not been muzzled - they have had "free rein" to campaign for whomever they want. They can contribute to campaigns financially, they can run ads :zz:

However, the accountability - the ability of the public to see what corporations are doing, the limitations upon how corporations can influence candidates - has just been removed.

:zz: I don't know where you read that, but that isn't what just happened at all. What has happened is that the one with the most money, now wins.

No, I'm afraid that who I vote for, and who you vote for, and who we contribute to and support, no longer matters at all.

If one supports unregulated increase in big corporations buying and controling our political system, exclusion of the opinions of clamoring masses of voters having town hall meetings and sending e-mails, your dream just came true. Courtesy of the United States Supreme Court.

Well, good luck with that!

Which tea party to you belong to? Are you doing to Nashville?

i'm surprised to hear this framed as a big government issue.

i'll predict right now that more corporate influence over election results leads to additional regulation designed to limit competition, not less. it'll also lead to additional government subsidies given to the new corporate masters.

the voice of your tea party group is going to matter less in the new election paradigm, not more.

when the government is fully in the pocket of corporations, will you still distinguish between "good" corporations and "bad" government?

I am on my phone so I can't post a link. But. I suggest reading the wsj op piece on the ruling

:zz: Again, this is not a "right vs. left" issue. Obama's specialty was Constitutional law. There are plenty of "conservative" Constitutionalists that are shocked at this, too.

You'd better do a good review of your investments, for those "corporations incidently owned by most anyone with a stock fund or retirement account", because controls on what those corporations can do with your profits (politically) just were removed.

I suggest in addition reading something, anything, aside from the WSJ op ed piece on the ruling (which I have read)

They didn't grant corporations the right to vote.
Excluding opinions of voters, town hall meetings and emails? what in the world are you talking about?
Still one vote per person.

if I'm invested with them I trust and in fact am betting on them to utilize their assets to raise profits and increase stock price. The ruling increases their ability to put out a position that is positive for the corporate interests. So instead of being afraid of corporate waste of profit I am pleased government control has been removed. I trust many more of the Idol watching masses will be exposed to the fraud known as Cap and Trade and a welfare like, socialistic health care plan in the next election. :D

Obama's bank regulation announcement did wonders this week for the stock market. The guy doesn't have a clue!

You're right, they didn't grant corporations the right to vote. But they just allowed them to overpower, to the -nith degree, your and my vote.

I'm in favor of Tea Parties, Independents - anything that keeps the flux in a rather strict two-party system.

My fear is that this has just rendered all of us useless, a small voice, crushed under now-unregulated corporate influence.

Government control over your corporations profits has not been changed. What I meant was, corporate accountability to their stockholders, regarding the corporation political expenditures of profit, was just REMOVED.

Right now, when the stock market falls a bit due to politics? It's due to fear their free-for-all party has been busted. Keep that in mind ;) It's generally a good thing.

How exactly are they going to overpower your vote?

No. My number one issue is what's constittional. Its not always pretty tho.
My loyalty is not to corps. I can and do deny that. You tend to confuse someone having a thought about one thing with belonging to a group.

Well, look at Scott Brown's campaign finances, the guy from Mass who was just elected Senator. There's a chart in this article.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/15/wallst-scott-brown/

Less than half his money came from people who want to elect him, those "grass-roots" people who supported his "I drive a truck" campaign and gave him money to help get elected.

But when he came out and said he wouldn't support the tax on bonuses for the banks that put our country into recession and economic freefall (that borrowed money but still are giving record bonuses), Wall Street came out in force to support his election.

Well, of course! He's voting against taxpayers and our deficit reduction, and in favor of banks that took our bailout money not having to be responsible for putting our country into the financial toilet :tro:

But that was certainly fair under campaign law as of last Tuesday. Corporations had the first amendment right to free speech, to support financially and vocally any candidate they want to. And they did.

But there was a limit to what Corps could do: how much they could give, and they had a responsibility to have campaign PAC's, to account for what money went there.

That left the "people" with contributing almost half his campaign finances.

For example, see who one of the "Tea Party" organizations (FreedomWorks) - really is. It's not a group of citizens, it's a Wall Street bank lobbying organization.

But, we get to know that money from "FreedomWorks" is corporate money, due to disclosure requirements.

So half Brown's money came from people who will vote for him, the other half is from Wall Street wanting to elect candidates that serve their special interests.

What the Supreme Court ruling has done is just eliminated limits on what those corporations can contribute, and the accountability.

Thus, any corporation (who has far more money than individual investors -see the individuals in the "Club for Growth" above) can literally just squash a candidate.

First, this renders all the little $5 and $50 contributions people make useless - it's like donating pennies now.

Second, it renders groups like "Club for Growth", above, useless, as even their donations are like donating pennies now.

The largest, richest corporations can literally give a billion dollars to squash or support a candidate now.

It renders you and I pretty useless, especially regarding candidate support in primaries.

Oh, yeah, we still are the ones that technically vote - but corporate money now has unlimited ability to determine what we see and hear about a candidate, what ads we see, and pretty much who will get on the primary ballot (who we will even hear about, who will be able to afford to get on the ballot)

So a movement of "average citizens" wanted to vote for Scott Brown, but any opposing corporation could have just squashed all those TV ads about him and his truck, by running three times the ad numbers showing his Playgirl centerfold.

Of course, then the Wall Street interests - or foreign corporations - could have paid for a billion in pro- Brown ads - but the point is, that you and I voters, the groundswell of people who got interested in this candidate and supported him - no longer matter at all.

The overwhelming number of people in this country say they are not happy with the way the country is going, and they are not happy with Wall Street, the banks, and their lack of responsibility for putting our country (and others) in a deep recession, the mortage and derivative crisis, etc.

And these same "anti-Wall Street" people who are so unhappy with the recession, where our country is financially, think the above Supreme Court decision giving corporations virtually unlimited involvement in American elections is a good thing for the average voter? :zz:

For those who choose to be informed by a source other than our own Ellie Light (Riot)

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw...es.php?ID=7047