Breaking: Supreme Court strikes down some McCain-Feingold provisions; Update: Opinion added
posted at 10:35 am on January 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court abruptly called a halt to encroachments on political speech in the name of campaign finance reform. It ruled that spending limits imposed on corporations and unions infringed on constitutional rights, ending decades of attempts to limit advertising on their behalf. It also overturned McCain-Feingold provisions barring some kinds of advertising in the weeks before an election :
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
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.
No word yet on language from the opinion, but the ruling shows both an impatience with a utilitarian argument for violating the First Amendment and the fault lines on the current court. I doubt anyone will fail to guess the concurs and the dissents in the 5-4 vote. Anthony Kennedy almost undoubtedly wound up as the swing vote.
In the first challenges to the BCRA (McCain-Feingold), the earlier court appeared to accept the notion that one has to break a few First Amendment eggs to get a clean-elections omelette. This court has apparently decided that Congress should amend the First Amendment if it has grown tired of it, rather than pass laws that contradict it. The fact that only five of the nine justices could reach that rather obvious conclusion shows how much judicial activism and Congressional overreach have in common — especially the sense that they can manipulate clear boundaries of power for whatever end they seek.
Will this open the floodgates to corporate and union money in elections? Well, it never really left. The restrictions in the BCRA and other campaign-finance “reforms” just forced the money into less-transparent channels, creating mini-industries of money laundering in politics. This ruling will just allow the money to be seen for what it is, rather than hiding behind PR-spin PAC names and shadowy contribution trails.
The best campaign finance reform is still transparency. If burning a flag in the street is free speech, then so are political contributions, especially when made in the open. If the reformers in Congress want to clean up elections, then force immediate reporting on the Internet of all contributions to all presidential, Senate, and Congressional races, and full weekly financial reports on expenditures. That will do more than all of the speech-restricting, unconstitutional efforts made since Watergate, and make the entire system a lot more honest.
Update: The opinion has been published here. No great shock to see Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy on one side with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor on the other. Here’s what Stevens sees as the “real issue”:
The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 daysbefore the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether CitizensUnited had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided.
This is, not to be too blunt, patently absurd. Free political speech is not free if the government can dictate when and where you exercise it. It’s true that CU could have run the movie earlier than 30 days before the election. They felt — not without reason — that their speech would be more effective using the same venues within 30 days of the election. Assuming they break no other laws, what gives government the right to dictate when on the calendar they can exercise free political speech? Apparently, being “rich” is a Constitutional exception through which the government can infringe on rights.
I’ll finish with Thomas’ final words on Citizens United v FEC:
I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruinedcareers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive andthreatening warning letters as the price for engaging in“core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’”
Update II: In case you need to come up to speed on Citizens United v FEC, this Cato video does a great job of explaining the case:
Ilya Shapiro reacts at Cato:
Today the Supreme Court struck a major blow for free speech by correctly holding that government cannot try to “level the political playing field” by banning corporations from making independent campaign expenditures on films, books, or even campaign signs.
As Justice Kennedy said in announcing the opinion, if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech.
Update III: An important caveat from a lawyer who reads Hot Air:
Ed: Read your post on CU case after reading the syllabus and glancing at the dissents. Two things not apparent in your post: (1) the Court only struck down limits on independent expenditures, not on contributions (a point still missing from most of the commentary). (2) Thomas, citing threats on supporters of Prop 8 [Calif. gay marriage ban] and a right to “anonymous speech,” dissented on the grounds that disclosure requirements are also unconstitutional. The Majority (all 8 others) upheld the disclosure requirements. Therefore, quoting Thomas’s dissent after making your point that the only thing required is full disclosure is, well, inconsistent. BTW I wholeheartedly agree with you, not J. Thomas, on transparency/disclosure. The Prop 8 problem is the threats, not the disclosure of donor’s names.
I’m a lawyer from Los Angeles.
Duly noted; I had not picked up on that distinction.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
LooseCannon on January 21, 2010 at 1:32 PM
It’s been a really bad day for the far-left national socialists.
We’re here for you sweetie.
Juno77 on January 21, 2010 at 1:32 PM
facts : crr6 :: crosses : vampires
OhioCoastie on January 21, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Absolutely, who ever said a government job is a mandate for unionization or better pay or benefits just because they pass a civil service exam.
Somewhere along the way a government job began to mean something other than hiring the best.
Speakup on January 21, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Well I certainly mangled the formatting on that one, didn’t I?
LooseCannon on January 21, 2010 at 1:32 PM
OT, but can anyone give me a quick tip on getting the paragraphs separated in a comment? I always get them all run together. Thanks.
LooseCannon on January 21, 2010 at 1:34 PM
When you agree to stop unions from participating in elections – giving money and labor – then we can talk. Unions and trial lawyers give the dems far more $$ than corporations give the GOP (which is what you fear). Also, if you look at the big evil corporations, most have been bought by your saviour O!, to shill for obamacare. And, most corporations end up giving money equally to both sides to hedge their bets.
So, your cliched fear of corporations alone is stupid. The unions have had far much more influence in elections than any corporations ever have had. So, ultimately this decision probably helps the left more than the right – yet here is the right happy with a decision that promotes freedom, for the sake of freedom. And the left angry about it b/c they like gov’t control for the sake of gov’t control.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM
No, that is not the text.
tneloms on January 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM
I would use a separate word processor and make sure you have some “carriage returns” in there so that there is a blank spacing between the lines.
Like that I guess.
Then cut and past into the window on the page and apply the html tags.
You can also separately highlight different sections of text so that each has it’s own ‘Blockquote’ tag
Hope this helps.
Juno77 on January 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM
BS.
Grow Fins on January 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Persuasive brevity.
daesleeper on January 21, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Thanks.
LooseCannon on January 21, 2010 at 1:54 PM
I guess Thomas hasn’t read some of the Internet blogs (both left and right) recently.
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Hey GrowBalls, how’s that HOPE and CHANGE workin’ out for ya, turdlet?
OhioCoastie on January 21, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Rush just announced that Schumer is going to call for congressional hearings, on THIS Supreme Court decision. *sigh*
capejasmine on January 21, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Freedom of Speech for all!
Dollayo on January 21, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Schumer “Those Bit*hes”
TheVer on January 21, 2010 at 2:00 PM
While I abhor it from either side, your bs, is….bs.
Republicans say the reason that Mr. Reid and mainly other Democrats filibustered the bill is because it would hurt trial lawyers — Democrats’ biggest group of supporters — who have gleaned large payoffs from victorious asbestos lawsuits. Some companies have been driven out of businesses by such losses.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006/feb/17/20060217-125720-1671r/
Both sides are guilty of this, but laywers, and unions do indeed give more to Democrats, because Democrats support more of their ideologies.
capejasmine on January 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Do unions and trial lawyers give more to Dems than corporate America gives to the GOP? Don’t think so. Glad your kids will be drinking water tainted with chemicals because Mr. Dow convinced us that pollution = progress. Freedom tastes sweet.
Grow Fins on January 21, 2010 at 2:04 PM
If you could cite something that isn’t underwritten by the creepy Mr. Moon, you might have more credibility.
Might.
Grow Fins on January 21, 2010 at 2:06 PM
I was merely responding to you bs comment, to the fact that trial lawyers, and unions give more to Dems, than Repubs.
I will research the latter of your comment, but with the EPA, and government restrictions on corporations, any corporation being able to lobby for that, without being caught, is highly unlikely in my opinion.
capejasmine on January 21, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Ny bust… the header of the site I usualy go to calls it the Freedom of expression in the title…
But the text does say speech…
However, the point still stands, this amendment is a prohibition on CONGRESS… not to limit Speech. It does not say WHOSE speech.
Romeo13 on January 21, 2010 at 2:07 PM
go and look up some figures. Corporate america splits its contributions between the parties pretty evenly. they like to hedge their bets, plus they buy off as many dems and they do republicans, and they are going to support the bought-off incumbent versus the challenger regardless of party.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Companies Shift
More Donations
To Democrats
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117790069010286617-Xz4XikFqFlSwWSokkpgptCULmoo_20080428.html
capejasmine on January 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Capejasmine,
Don’t bother. Growfins has bought into the “Truefact” that evil corporations give all their money to the GOP. The actual facts will never deter him from the “truefact” that his liberal worldview gives him.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:11 PM
About the same I’d say. Now the playing field is more even. Money is speech it always has been. This is fair and this is right. Maybe now we can have real science debates with both sides of arguments get funding instead of the pet projects of the left.
This should help counteract the “non-profit” corruption machines like ACORN as well.
This is good for America. There is nothing inherently evil about a corporation. They are run by people with agendas just like all your causes are. Now they have a voice again. That is a good thing. Less disenfranchisement of voters in America!
petunia on January 21, 2010 at 2:12 PM
LOL Looks like. I’ve offered 2 links, to 2 credible newspapers. It’s not like I culled info from Huffpo, or Kos.
capejasmine on January 21, 2010 at 2:13 PM
If you just listened to Rush, he raises a very good point. If that’s true the Dems are in huge, huge trouble.
rollthedice on January 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM
SSssh. Your honesty is showing. Thought this was about ‘freedom of speech.’
Grow Fins on January 21, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Indeed, who has been in bed with “bigpharma” for the last year trying to push Obamacare?
Moreover, most companies like regulations that make it hard for new competition to enter the marketplace, and thus support dems, even though it is counter-intuitive. And, many big companies do lots of business with the gov’t and thus are interested in keeping relationships they have built up, thus favoring incumbents over challengers. If you go and look at corporate contributions for congress throughout the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, you will see most of the contributions from corporations favored democrats.
I know, I know, facts can really suck when they go against your worldview.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:18 PM
I guess we can thank Obama, and company for that crud swimming around in our drinking water….eh?
capejasmine on January 21, 2010 at 2:20 PM
They are run for profit. If people have to die to make those profits bigger so be it. If they are rich enough to
buy offadvocate in favor of their version of reality (“kids dying because of us”? Naaaahhh”) then so be it.Either you are incredibly naive and believe corporate America exists to serve something other than their bottom line, or you know that and don’t care about those cases where the public interest is, perhaps, not served by the bottom line. In which case, you’re at best callous, and at worse, evil.
Grow Fins on January 21, 2010 at 2:21 PM
What was it?
Juno77 on January 21, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Spin on, shill monkey. You cheque is in the mail.
Grow Fins on January 21, 2010 at 2:23 PM
My honesty about what? I’m using a colloqualism – putting it into liberal cliches I thought you would understand. And, as I pointed out, the dems are just as “bought off” by corporations as the GOP. The difference is the dems are also bought off by unions and trial lawyers, while the GOP is not. So, if you want to talk in terms of corruption, the dems are far worse.
It is about freedom of speech. What you consider “buying off” – i.e., contributing to a campaign or supporting a candidate or issue through advertising – is freedom of speech whether done by a natural person, a corporation, a union, a pac, or the boy scouts of america. Just because you don’t like the speaker does not make the speech any less protected. Nor should it be. Unlike the lefty fascists who want to control speech (like you), I support freedom of speech by my opponents as much as my allies. therefore, I would fight for freedom of speech by unions and other liberal groups.
I find it depressing that to you freedom of speech can be so easily thrown away in favor of a perceived political advantage. It shows such a failure of understanding of what freedom is.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Are you Canadian, or from the UK?
capejasmine on January 21, 2010 at 2:24 PM
The corporations the dems spent years demonizing are now free to come after them in spades.
rollthedice on January 21, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Grow Fins,
Exactly how am I spinning? Your “facts” are clearly wrong and have been demonstrated to be so by numerous cites to credible news reports.
What argument exactly do you think you are making and what facts exactly do you think support such alleged argument? Or is that too hard a question for you? I have yet to see you make one logical argument or cite to one actual fact that is supported by any credible source.
Doesn’t it bother you that to support your side you have to always lie?
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Hey koo koo bird? You have it all figured out? Is there no conspiracy you haven’t mastered the knowledge of? Clearly you are not in the productive sector. Legalzoom.com has to be your greatest enemy as they offer incorporating a business at a discounted price.
daesleeper on January 21, 2010 at 2:27 PM
I heard Rush ask if you know WHY this is a good decision for conservatives. . .
He said it was BECAUSE Schumer is against it.
/remember Rush is right, in so many ways.
Blacksmith8 on January 21, 2010 at 2:27 PM
But corporations are not persons. They are not people. If they have such rights, they don´t come from the constitution.
el gordo on January 21, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Of course, anyone who disagrees with you must be evil, right? Is that what you tell yourself when you find you can’t compete in actual arguments?
Nobody said that corporations aren’t pursuing their own goals – just like the absolutely destructive unions do when they bribe democratic politicans to ruin our country every single day. Yet, I would never call for the non-natural person union organization to be censored because I disagree with them and think they have done more to destroy america than just about anyone. Because, unlike you, I believe in free speech.
What is a union? It is an organization of individuals seeking to help its members make more money / benefits with less accountability and to push an agenda to do that. What is a corporation? it is an organization of individuals (shareholders) seeking to make money for its members and push an agenda to do that.
What is a PAC? An organization of individuals pushing an agenda. What is the ACLU? An organization of individuals pushing an agenda.
Just becuase you have been brainwashed into believing that all corporations are by definition evil, does not make it so. And even if they are evil, they still (as an association of individual people) have the right to push that evil agenda – much like various liberal organizations who hate america are free to push their agenday.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:32 PM
I am going to have to read about this because I do not know enough about the subject. But when I saw that the dems hate it, and that people at Huffington are blowing a gasket over it, I figure it must be good for us.
I bet when I start learning about it, it will be because now unions and pacs will no longer be able to sleeze donations around. Companies will be able to compete in donating.
patriotparty1 on January 21, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Again – a corporation is nothing but an association of individuals (shareholders). A group of individuals has the same freedome of speech rights as each individual in the group.
Or else only actual individuals have freedom of speech – meaning that only a single individual can buy advertisements and groups can’t – in other words only wealthy individuals in not PACS, or Unions, or professional associations, or even political parties. That would make no sense. You would be stating that according to the constitution you have the freedom of association adn the freedom to assemble, but not the freedom to associate and then use the association to make a political statement.
I am honestly amazed that the left is so anti-free speech. Of course, in the left’s mind there is political advantage to censoring corporations b/c they “believe” that corporations give more $$ to the GOP. Which is not true – it is about 50/50. Again, it is sad to see people so willing to piss away freedom for a perceived political advantage. I despise unions but i would never argue that they don’t have the right to engage in political speech.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:38 PM
I highlighted the phrase you left out of your second example. A shill, as I said earlier.
Grow Fins on January 21, 2010 at 2:38 PM
What in the hell does giving money to a politician have to do with free speech?
SoulGlo on January 21, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Also, let me point out that Newspapers and Television news and even alternative lefty rags like Village Voice or Mother Jones are almost all corporations.
If, as grow fins and other argue, corporations have no 1st Amendment rights – then how can there be freedom of the press? If the gov’t is free to censor corporations to their heart’s desire – why then can they not censor the press? I suppose an individual putting out their own little news flyer would be protected, but how could the New York Times corporation have 1st amendment rights to print whatever it wants?
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Corporate America favors the GOP. Check Congressional Quarterly’s Moneyline
Grow Fins on January 21, 2010 at 2:43 PM
Grow fins – grow up and educate yourself. Read my other comments. I readily admit that I hate unions. I think they have done more to destroy america than just about anything else. Yet, as I stated in another comment, I would never claim they don’t have the right to free political speech.
So, considering that I believe in free political speech even if I don’t like the speaker, and you want to censor those you perceive as being your adversary, who is the shill? Really. Be honest with your answer. It clearly is not me. I am advocating for free speech. What exactly are you advocating for?
And please, answer my question about whether the media – run by corporations – has 1st amendment rights, and if so why? They are coporations. By your logic that means no 1st amendment rights.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Okay, that’s a good point – I wasn’t listening at that point.
(Everyone, please don’t flame me for minor indiscretion)
Juno77 on January 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Grow Fins,
First, I clicked your link and it took me to a home page and I did not see the info you are citing. I would need to see the breakdown. Just b/c they favored the GOP during this period does not support your theory. By how much, how much did they give to Dem congressional candidates versus GOP candidates in that period? Was it close to 50/50 as I said, or overwhelming? What about a breakdown in years. I would bet that the $$ in 2007, 2008, and 2009 favored dems while the $$ in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 favored the GOP (as I said previously, corporations tend to favor incumbents).
I would also want to see, as I said, the donations in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s to see who was favored. Every study I have ever seen of corporate contributions has shown that the $$ is pretty evenly split and that corporations favor incumbents. So, when the dems are in controll, they are likely to get a little more $$. And vice versa.
Regardless, even if it were true that corporations favor the GOP – it only matters to the extent that you only wish to censor those you disagree with. That, my friend, is a pretty slippery slope.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:52 PM
from the wallstreet journal article linked to by someone earlier:
Clearly, once dems took control, corporate america started shifting its contributions to dems. I expect that to continue and grow.
And, $140 million over a two year congressional cycle is hardly huge money. Just for comparison’s sake – one union, the SEIU, spent $60 million helping elect Obama. See http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/seiu-prez-union-spent-607-million-to-elect-obama/blog-73625/
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 3:00 PM
I worry about money in politics…and while I understand the idea that money=speech, it makes me feel as if someone like Soros has more speech rights than I do, simply because he has more money…but that is what has happened anyway.
I think the idea behind McCain/Feingold on the part of people like Fred Thompson was to deal with corruption in politics, but obviously that has not happened. Right now in Illinois a Governor is awaiting a corruption and not so long ago scores were arrested in New Jersey on corruption charges as well.
I read not long ago that Americans felt that corruption in government was one of the major problems we face in this country. This is true, but obviously these anti campaign finance laws that have been passed over the years have not worked to make politics any more honest.
And I doubt if transparency will do it either. The folks who want to pull a fast one will just find away to avoid being transparent. Maybe it is just inevitable.
Terrye on January 21, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Suppose that there were no money in politics and we had to depend upon the media to give us all the information? In that case, we would hear all of the views of the candidates – those to the left and those far to the left.
There is no answer to this dilemna other than to make it free for all to participate so that neither side (right and left, not dem or repub) has so much $$ that the other side simply cannot compete.
And, if the left were so concerned about where political donations came from they would want to look into where all the online donations to Obama actually came from. Or whether Clinton got donations from the Chinese as many suspect. I’d be more concerned about foreign influence than corporate influence. I guess it only matters where the $$ comes from to some people when they disagree with the message though.
As for transparency – its a nice thought but is almost impossible. They just make one pac, to give to another pac, etc. until it’s next to impossible to trace and then call an abortion rights group “Mass for Life” when they are trying to defeat an pro-life candidate. The better answer is to teach our populace to use critical thinking and be dubious of all adds without proper back-up information.
It’s unfortunate that we worry so much about who the messenger is when it is the message that should be important.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 3:23 PM
LOL No worries, and a big hug to ya. I wasn’t listening that closely either. Sometimes work gets in the way of important things. It can’t be helped. :D
capejasmine on January 21, 2010 at 3:50 PM
Well, to conservatives money=speech. So the more money you have, the more “free speech” you can have.
In short, the more money you have, the more rights you have. That’s the conservative worldview in a nutshell.
crr6 on January 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM
What is with the paranoid class warfare schtick Karl?
daesleeper on January 21, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Ya know Juno, sometimes you really creep me out.
This is one of those times.
crr6 on January 21, 2010 at 4:06 PM
I always saw the law as a way to keep the fleeced from objecting to the fleecers..How day corporations, special interests, or big organizations demand access to free speech when we want to steamroll them with legislation and the politicians that drive it.
JIMV on January 21, 2010 at 4:10 PM
How is that in any way different than the one we have now, a wholly owned subsidiary of labor unions and far left special interests?
JIMV on January 21, 2010 at 4:13 PM
And, a liberal’s worldview in a nutshell is that the gov’t should control speech along with everything else, and everyone is merely a tool for the gov’t to control and use as it sees fit.
You truly are an idiot, aren’t you?
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM
The funniest thing is, Crr6 supports Obama, who is probably the most corrupt, vote buying, special interest paying off, president we have ever had. Yet he wants to assign monetary malice to his opponents.
Liberals really do project what is worst about themselves onto those they disagree with – i.e., racism, corruption, cronyism, special interest coddling, hateful personal attacks, etc. Everything they accuse the right of doing is stuff they actually do on a daily basis.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 4:23 PM
IMHO “transparency” of the kind Ed insists on is just opening the door to intimidation. Why should everybody who gives $20 or $1000 to a candidate be forced to disclose his name, number, and address on some national database that’s freely accessible by anyone out there with bad intentions (not to mention telemarketers!)
Laws intended to expose, reveal, and spotlight contributions are intended to stifle free speech — it’s hard to imagine anyone who favors free speech ever spontaneously proposing such measures. The first amendment is intended to make sure that any and all opinions can be said; it’s not designed to ensure that all speakers can be targeted.
In a perfect world, you wouldn’t want money from foreign countries allowed in; however, I think a much more practical plan is to keep foreigners out of the voting booths, and not worry so much about who has the right to speak. Massachusetts proves this week that Americans aren’t stupid; they can judge for themselves which messages are right and which are wrong, and quantity of message is a poor substitute for quality.
joe_doufu on January 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM
1. It enables them to buy communication from people who sell it.
2. Until slapped upside the head with the Constitution, they were looking at eeeeevil donations of time and skills. Such as, hotair, blogging in favor of opponents of Democrats. No money changes hands…but…clearly that’s as good as money? Better than money, even, since space on HotAir is not for sale. Can’t ban the SALE of something and then allow it to go for FREE, can you?
Chris_Balsz on January 21, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Ahh … been looking for you – didn’t see you in any of the “Brown” threads. ;)
I think your basic problem – is that you’re anti-free speech … anti First Amendment. This is not surprising since you’re also anti Second Amendment. Why not just abandon the closet there Fins and admit you are ANTI-CONSTITUTION.
Ed is right – if burning a flag in public is “free speech” … then so is this. You can’t have it both ways amigo. :D
And besides – I hoping this new ruling will help facilitate a conservative FLOOD next November. Being a fish – you should be looking forward to that no?
HondaV65 on January 21, 2010 at 4:37 PM
I think we have the opportunity to BURY the Unions here in much the same way Reagan buried the Soviet Union with his “Strategic Defense Initiative”.
If Corporations can pour some serious cash into the next election in the form of ads, etc … then we can get the truth out there. The Unions will be forced to spend even more money to counter the effort – and this will BREAK them.
They were tapped out after the election of Obama – they pulled out all the stops to get him elected. That is why Obama acted so quickly to pay them off in his PORKULUS bill, why he gave them two car companies – and why he was willing to exempt them from significant portions of ObamaCare taxes. The Unions are on the ropes folks – they don’t have the reserves to defend all the Socialist seats that they’ll have to defend this November.
Additionally – in a round-about way – this also cuts the nuts off ACORN and SEIU. They PAY their voter fraud people to go out and register “Mickey Mouse” and dead Uncle Lester to vote. And SEIU pays their thugs to beat up on black conservatives. Soooo … with the unions being forced to put more cash on the PR front to counteract corporate ads – they’ll have less cash for those other “ancilliary” efforts.
Great news for Democracy.
HondaV65 on January 21, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Can someone explain to me the rationale behind not having limits on union or corporation spending but having them on individual contributions? If it’s OK for a union to buy an election, why isn’t OK for Bill Gates to buy one?
ProfessorMiao on January 21, 2010 at 4:55 PM
The first amendment protects individual rights. Not the “rights” of corporations. Do you believe our Founding Fathers intended corporations to be afforded the same constitutional rights as individual Americans?
No one’s anti-2nd amendment. We’re anti-radical, ahistorical readings of the 2nd amendment becoming binding federal law, which is what happened in Heller. That’s for sure. But that’s an argument for another day.
crr6 on January 21, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Lmao! What is it anyways?
Inquiring minds want to know.
How are you doing with all the bad news you’ve had to endure today?
Juno77 on January 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM
Yes, since they were practicing politicians, yet did not attempt to confiscate corporate property, or quarter troops on corporate property, and allowed corporations to take out patents, etc.
1. You’re not entitled to YOUR history, which begins in the 1920s. The actual history of gun law in this country permitted citizens to buy rifles by the railcar, without registration or permission from any government at all.
2. You apparently expect 300 million people to fall down and worship an 80 year old court decision, while you spit on the rulings of THIS court…
Chris_Balsz on January 21, 2010 at 5:14 PM
*Shiver*
crr6 on January 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM
LOL!
Having just too much fun today, but rest assured I’ll be busy tomorrow.
Juno77 on January 21, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Something forgotten perhaps? A corporation is a person in law. A legal person. That means the same rights, obligations and opportunities govern corporations, too. Not subject to argument; settled law.
As far as individual contributions, the suit was brought by a corporation. The ruling applies to corporations and similar groups. For a ruling to apply to individuals, a similar suit must be brought by an individual. The precedent would be there but SCOUS issues very limited rulings so as to affect only the issue under adjudication.
Caststeel on January 21, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Is this the case that Dick Morris is involved in?
Hey, if the Dems come up with legislation to stomp on the court’s decision, how do you think Juan McCain will vote?
stenwin77 on January 21, 2010 at 6:08 PM
So nobody sees any issue with a union or corporation being able to buy a senator or president? The only money in political campaigns should be money donated by private citizens, not businesses or unions.
HeroesforGhosts on January 21, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Why are there limits on individual donations?
Spathi on January 21, 2010 at 6:16 PM
The case is Citizens United vs. FEC. Google CU.
Dick Morris? Maybe commented on it?
Just how will Dems “come up with legislation? Seems a Constitutional question has just been settled by the highest au…
Oh right. Dems are always making unconstitutional laws, especially when they can talk a Rep into co-sponsoring it. Not that it applys in this case. /s
Caststeel on January 21, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Check it.
Caststeel on January 21, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Non Sequiter Assumes situation which is outside the Ruling.
And just how would you resolve the strawman you created? Remember you must stay within the Constitution.
Caststeel on January 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM
Yes fat one, they are. My wife and I own a business, when it makes money, WE make money, when we lose money, it come out of OUR pocket. Not some mythical being.
Think of it this way…Can a single person incorporate? The answer is ‘yes’ of course. Now, can that person give money from ‘his’ company to further ‘his’ political views? Of course. Just because most corporations are owned by hundreds or thousands of people, does not change that it is owned by PEOPLE.
BierManVA on January 21, 2010 at 6:29 PM
Nice evasion of Monkeytoes’ devastating question about 1st am.
protections applying to “news” corporations crr6.You lose by knockout.Well done Monkeytoe.
McBride on January 21, 2010 at 6:32 PM
The Corpulent is partially right, BierMan. Corporation concept is from English law IIRC. A group formed for a specific purpose given (bought?) a charter from the king. e.g. East India Corporation. Nevertheless, a corporation has the legal appearance of an individual.
Would you settle for 99 & 44/100%?
Caststeel on January 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM
You just made a terrific argument against yourself.
If our Founding Father’s had intended “freedom of speech” to cover news corporations, why did they also specifically include “freedom of the press” in the 1st amendment.
Next please.
crr6 on January 21, 2010 at 6:55 PM
I just destroyed that argument in the above post. Another activist, FOunders-hating conservative disposed of.
crr6 on January 21, 2010 at 7:01 PM
Perhaps, although I will always maintain that “the law is a a$$”
BierManVA on January 21, 2010 at 7:16 PM
crr6 said:
The word “press” at the time of the penning of the Bill of Rights referred only to the machine sitting in the printer’s shop. Its use to mean journalists or and institutional press did not come until generations later.
Accordingly, freedom of the press is the freedom enjoyed by each and everyone of us (professional journalists no more and no less) to print up posters, banners, pamphlets, handbills, circulars, broadsheets, blogs, whatever and express our opinions.
Chaz on January 21, 2010 at 7:44 PM
Sorry I’m late. The evening beer called. 100% on the law.
Caststeel on January 21, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back for constructing a strawman. AKA non sequiter.
Caststeel on January 21, 2010 at 8:16 PM
Bring it on troll
Caststeel on January 21, 2010 at 8:19 PM
I’m still too stunned to be angry about this incredible decision by the Supreme Court. The anger will come later. Right now, I grieve for democracy in this country.
“Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don’t even realize it; John Roberts just cut their throats too.” – Keith Olbermann
chumpThreads on January 21, 2010 at 8:57 PM
“I hope we shall . . . crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country”
-Thomas Jefferson
If you’re not frightened, then you’re not paying attention.
chumpThreads on January 21, 2010 at 9:31 PM
“This is, not to be too blunt, patently absurd. Free political speech is not free if the government can dictate when and where you exercise it.”
Really?
They’re called time and place restrictions. They’ve been around forever and they’re perfectly constitutional and allowed under the First Amendment. What matters in Steven’s quote is that he provides no justification such as public safety or prevention of public disorder. It has NOTHING whatever to do with ALL time and place restrictions being contrary to Free Speech as you suggest — they’re NOT.
The only thing “patently absurd” is your exposing of YOUR PROFOUND IGNORANCE every time you type.
In short, you’re a dumbass clown, bereft of any real knowledge of what is or is not Constitutional, and you should probably shut your fucking retard pie-hole until you learn something… anything.
Eyas on January 21, 2010 at 9:39 PM
If you remain unclear, I remain unpersuaded.
Are you talking about a democrat controlled government colluding with democrat controlled companies?
daesleeper on January 21, 2010 at 9:45 PM
It’s not as if you need to be a so-called “Constitutional Scholar” to figure this shit out.
A simple Google search will do. To wit:
Test for Constitutional Validity of Time, Place and Manner Regulations in the Public Forum
1. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest?
2. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of a particular message?
3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest?
4. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating messages?
Steven’s argument fails all four points of this test for time & place restrictions. THAT is what’s wrong with Steven’s opinion. NOT that he suggested that there COULD be time and place restrictions.
YOUR statement that any and all time and place restrictions deny the fundamental right to Free Speech, political or otherwise, is the DUMBEST thing I’ve yet heard anyone say in regard to this case. It’s dumber even than Schumer’s “UnAmerican” comment — which is insanely stupid and evil.
YOUR statement is worse, because it represents the ASTOUNDING LEVEL OF IGNORANCE that passes for “intelligent discussion” on this site.
Ed Morrischmuck, your arrogance, ignorance and double-digit IQ never cease to provide new and unprecedented surprises.
Eyas on January 21, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »