Supreme Court bolsters Citizens United decision by smacking down Montana

posted at 1:21 pm on June 25, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

So, no ObamaCare until Thursday, and the SB 1070 ruling is going to instigate some interesting fallout, but the Supreme Court did issue at least one ruling today that had me smiling.

In 2010, the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision prescribed that corporations, like individuals, are entitled to free speech — and by extension, can spend mucho dinero in support of or opposition to political candidates in federal elections. The highly controversial 5-4 decision split down the conservative-liberal line, and many liberals were positively outraged with corporations’ confirmed newfound spending capabilities. President Obama was no fan of the decision, and plenty of people have pointed to the ruling as a huge factor in the outcome of the November 2010 elections.

Today, the Supreme Court essentially doubled down on that decision by ruling that the state of Montana may not use state laws to subvert the Citizens United case.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday followed up on its 2010 ruling that unleashed corporate spending in federal elections, reversing a decision that upheld a century-old Montana law restricting business political campaign expenditures.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled for three corporations – a political advocacy group called American Tradition Partnership Inc, a nonprofit that promotes shooting sports and a small family-owned painting business – that challenged the law for violating their free-speech rights. …

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the state law, ruling the 2010 decision did not control the outcome because Montana’s law was different and justified by the state’s interest in preventing corporate corruption and influence in politics. …

James Bopp, lead attorney for the corporations, said when he filed the appeal, “If Montana can ban core political speech because of Montana’s unique characteristics, free speech will be seriously harmed. Speakers will be silenced because of corruption by others over a century ago.”

Once again, the liberal justices were less than pleased with the outcome — back in February, Justice Ginsburg urged that the Montana case should be a chance to revisit the Citizens United decision, but nothing doing. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan were in agreement with Breyer’s dissenting opinion:

…[E]ven if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. …

Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case.

Indeed, nothing frustrates liberals like groups of hardworking, wealthy, like-minded people having the ability to influence politics… when it doesn’t benefit them. Jim Geraghty has an apt example of liberals’ outrageous outrage over the decision:

Hollywood director Judd Apatow, who donated $30,800 to the DNC in September and $63,000 to President Obama, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and other Democrats since 2008, responds to today’s Supreme Court ruling striking down state-level restrictions upon political donations by declaring, “Supreme Court Reversed Anti-Citizens United Ruling From Montana – aaaaagg!! More money in politics!!!”

Mm hmm.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

yay

jaymil on June 25, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Thanks for featuring. In the words of Biden “this is a big f’n deal, Mr. President”.

Schadenfreude on June 25, 2012 at 1:23 PM

the Supreme Court did issue at least one ruling today that had me smiling.

same here…

cmsinaz on June 25, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Leftists’ heads to explode, after they belittled corporations with the ‘occupiers’ b/s’ and the “tax the rich” and the “Bain b/s”, etc., etc., etc.,….

Schadenfreude on June 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Commies against corporations?

Say it ain’t so!

OhEssYouCowboys on June 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I wished these Hollyweird types would STFU, no one cares what they think. so sick of these arrogant tools. Libs only like when unions can spend freely.

gsherin on June 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Liberals= lying hypocrites by default.

jawkneemusic on June 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

At least CJ Roberts got this one right. I’m still very disappointed in him for his vote in the AZ case.

AZCoyote on June 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Leftists only want unions and leftist corporations to give to their own causes.

Leftists are not truly liberal, nor progressive, nor for freedom and liberty, except for when it benefits them.

Die of hypocrisy, fools.

Schadenfreude on June 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Hollywood director Judd Apatow, who donated $30,800 to the DNC in September and $63,000 to President Obama, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and other Democrats since 2008, responds to today’s Supreme Court ruling striking down state-level restrictions upon political donations by declaring, “Supreme Court Reversed Anti-Citizens United Ruling From Montana – aaaaagg!! More money in politics!!!”

It’s highly unlikely Judd Apatow even understands his own hypocrisy.

Bitter Clinger on June 25, 2012 at 1:27 PM

At least CJ Roberts got this one right. I’m still very disappointed in him for his vote in the AZ case.

AZCoyote on June 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Dont be too disappointed in his decision on thrusday either

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM

According to David Horowitz, add up the financial resources of all the progressive foundations doing political advocacy, against all the conservative foundations doing political advocacy, and the progressives have a ten to one money advantage. They (the Left) are not concerned about getting a level playing field. They want zero competition. ZERO!

RBMN on June 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Hollywood director Judd Apatow, who donated $30,800 to the DNC in September and $63,000 to President Obama, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and other Democrats since 2008, responds to today’s Supreme Court ruling striking down state-level restrictions upon political donations by declaring, “Supreme Court Reversed Anti-Citizens United Ruling From Montana – aaaaagg!! More money in politics!!!”

So essentially Mr. Apatow is upset that an entity is capable of donating more money than he is for political purposes? I would say Mr. Apatow has considerably more money available to donate to political purposes than I do, so why should Mr. Apatow be allowed to give that much when I cannot?

gravityman on June 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Monied interests!!1!

Herp derp!!1!

/libtard

Kataklysmic on June 25, 2012 at 1:31 PM

…[E]ven if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. …

Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case.

At least Ginsburg is consistent in her stupidity. For her incorporation only counts when she agrees with the original premise. See her 2nd Amendment rulings as well.

NotCoach on June 25, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Hollywood director Judd Apatow, who donated $30,800 to the DNC in September and $63,000 to President Obama, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and other Democrats since 2008, responds to today’s Supreme Court ruling striking down state-level restrictions upon political donations by declaring, “Supreme Court Reversed Anti-Citizens United Ruling From Montana – aaaaagg!! More money in politics!!!”

Look in the mirror, fool, then die of hypocrisy.

Schadenfreude on June 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Hollywood director Judd Apatow, who donated $30,800 to the DNC in September and $63,000 to President Obama, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and other Democrats since 2008, responds to today’s Supreme Court ruling striking down state-level restrictions upon political donations by declaring, “Supreme Court Reversed Anti-Citizens United Ruling From Montana – aaaaagg!! More money in politics!!!”

Hey, Judd. Stick to directing and producing increasingly mediocre “comedies” and lay off the political commentary. Don’t make me hate you as much as your former colleague, Janeane Garofalo.

Doughboy on June 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Jon Tester hardest hit

txmomof6 on June 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Hollywood director Judd Apatow

Great. More movies to avoid? Although I haven’t seen anything of his since Knocked Up.

22044 on June 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Excuse me but I believe the most corrupt influence in politics today is government employee unions pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of Democrats. How much did Montana public employee unions shovel into various campaigns, PACs, and campaign-related spending such as various ads?

Can’t have it both ways.

crosspatch on June 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM

The real hypocrisy is that rich Communists exist, at all.

And, sadly, Congress is full of these hypocritical pigs.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM

NotCoach on June 25, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I guess I should include Breyer in my comment as well. I don’t include Kevin and Soilmyrear because they haven’t been around long enough yet to demonstrate such rank hypocrisy when it comes to incorporation.

NotCoach on June 25, 2012 at 1:37 PM

At least CJ Roberts got this one right. I’m still very disappointed in him for his vote in the AZ case.

AZCoyote on June 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Dont be too disappointed in his decision on thrusday either

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Give it a rest. The AZ ruling is correct. The constitution does specify it is the federal governments job to enforce immigration. As such allowing states to check documents but not allowing them to arrest without the federal governments approval makes sense.

Just imagine what it would be like if each state arrested immigration on their own set of rules, it would be a nightmare. I am a hard core conservative and I agree with this ruling perfectly.

Roberts is not going to uphold the mandate, I would bet my house on that, would you?

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM

gravityman on June 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Doughboy on June 25, 2012 at 1:33 PM

I thought perhaps I had missed the implied /sarc tag in that supposed “quote”. Then I read the actual tweet.

Unfreekin’ believable.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Get corporate money out of politics!!!11!!1!*

*Exclusions for NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, unions, etc

gwelf on June 25, 2012 at 1:44 PM

This shows just close close we are to a precipitous plummet into a “dictatorship of the proletariat” in this country.

Just ONE Supreme Court justice stands in the bulwark between our nation continuing as a Constitutional Republic, or instead having the Constitution thrown out due to political partisanship.

Let’s just say that one of the Constitutionalist justices has some medical mishap, sadly, and Obama gets to put in one more anti-Constitution leftist justice. Then, suddenly, all these rulings would be coming down 5-4 the other way, and things would quickly spiral out of control. “Progressive” nonprofits, knowing that a socialist rubber-stamp awaits them at the end the legal rainbow, would challenge every single existing aspect of our society that they don’t like. The “(un)Fairness Doctrine” would be implemented, unions could influence elections but corporations couldn’t, voter fraud would be allowed, and very quickly there’d be no way to undo the damage, because the propaganda machine would have a hammer-lock on the public discourse and the election process, and there’d be no way to get a Constitutional judge back on the bench.

For the love of Jehosephat, vote Romney like the nation’s life depends on it, no matter how boring or flip-floppy you perceive him to be. The alternative is too horrific to ponder.

Zombie on June 25, 2012 at 1:44 PM

should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana.

Holy crap!

I cannot believe a justice sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States of America wrote that crap.

Essentially Breyer could also argue that a state could pass a law to ban firearms because it could be used in a criminal manner.

Truly scary that we have 4 people sitting up there that believe in this thought process.

ButterflyDragon on June 25, 2012 at 1:44 PM

PAPPY PREDICTION on SCOTUS/ObamaCare..

6-3 to uphold all provisions of the law, just maybe 5-4 on the mandate. If Kennedy and Roberts are willing to not even enforce the laws of Arizona (that copycat the Fed laws) then where are we?

We are in deep doo doo if we don’t even have Roberts.

PappyD61 on June 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM

As such allowing states to check documents but not allowing them to arrest without the federal governments approval makes sense.

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Except the same decision struck down AZ’s provision that immigrants must obtain and carry documentation. So what exactly are LEO’s going to check?

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I hope I’m wrong.

PappyD61 on June 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Obama is definitely going to be scolding SCOTUS at his convention speech, not to mention the end of this week.

Jurisprudence on June 25, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Roberts is not going to uphold the mandate, I would bet my house on that, would you?

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Don’t know. I’m feeling a little Allah eyeoreish after the immigration ruling today. Just saw the founder of Scotusblog on Megyn’s show saying that he thought Roberts and Kennedy could side with the liberals to uphold O-Care.

More worried today that before.

bluealice on June 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Excuse me but I believe the most corrupt influence in politics today is government employee unions pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of Democrats. How much did Montana public employee unions shovel into various campaigns, PACs, and campaign-related spending such as various ads?

Can’t have it both ways.

crosspatch on June 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

This does not compute in liberal logic.

Bitter Clinger on June 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM

This shows just close close we are to a precipitous plummet into a “dictatorship of the proletariat” in this country.

Just ONE Supreme Court justice stands in the bulwark between our nation continuing as a Constitutional Republic, or instead having the Constitution thrown out due to political partisanship.

Let’s just say that one of the Constitutionalist justices has some medical mishap, sadly, and Obama gets to put in one more anti-Constitution leftist justice. Then, suddenly, all these rulings would be coming down 5-4 the other way, and things would quickly spiral out of control. “Progressive” nonprofits, knowing that a socialist rubber-stamp awaits them at the end the legal rainbow, would challenge every single existing aspect of our society that they don’t like. The “(un)Fairness Doctrine” would be implemented, unions could influence elections but corporations couldn’t, voter fraud would be allowed, and very quickly there’d be no way to undo the damage, because the propaganda machine would have a hammer-lock on the public discourse and the election process, and there’d be no way to get a Constitutional judge back on the bench.

For the love of Jehosephat, vote Romney like the nation’s life depends on it, no matter how boring or flip-floppy you perceive him to be. The alternative is too horrific to ponder.

Zombie on June 25, 2012 at 1:44 PM

It is amazing how close we’ve come so far to having free speech hedged in this country. We must always remain vigilant – liberals are always seeking to take away your rights for their corrupt notions of justice.

gwelf on June 25, 2012 at 1:48 PM

PappyD61 on June 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Whoa, I neve agree with Pappy’s doomsday predictions.
Scarily, they sound reasonable today. Dude, I’m worried.

bluealice on June 25, 2012 at 1:51 PM

MSNBC: You know who wins big with this decision? Obama.

The Rogue Tomato on June 25, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Roberts is not going to uphold the mandate, I would bet my house on that, would you?

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM

If the Supreme Court kills the mandate but upholds the rest, they are corrupt to even worse degree than I imagined. In glaring absence of severance clause, the judges shouldn’t follow their “feelings” regarding what may or may not occur if the mandate is thrown out.

Archivarix on June 25, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Except the same decision struck down AZ’s provision that immigrants must obtain and carry documentation. So what exactly are LEO’s going to check?

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Again this makes sense since it is an active limitation which per the constitution only the federal government can enforce. Checking for papers or the “absence of papers” is really all the states can do unless the feds give authority to the states to make arrests in lie of a federal agents involvement.

I would have loved to see more but I do firmly believe the constitution is the constitution and as an originalist needs to be followed as such, this ruling does that.

This ruling easily falls into a pattern of logic that would result in finding the mandate unconstitutional in my opinion.

Not everything written in the constitution will always be what we agree with, that is life. The problem is we have an executive branch willingly violating upholding his oath of office to enforce the laws of the land. That is the real issue.

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 1:54 PM

If the Supreme Court kills the mandate but upholds the rest, they are corrupt to even worse degree than I imagined. In glaring absence of severance clause, the judges shouldn’t follow their “feelings” regarding what may or may not occur if the mandate is thrown out.

Archivarix on June 25, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I actually agree with you here. The democrats actually pulled the sever-ability clause out to make it harder for a court challenge. An honest judgment would then find that if the mandate is not constitutional then the law must be found untenable and thrown out in the entirety.

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Roberts is not going to uphold the mandate, I would bet my house on that, would you?

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 1:40

No I wouldn’t, remember what that moron dingel said in a interview. They passed this bill to control the people.

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM

One other great reason to elect Romney, unless you want Obama selecting the next Supreme Court Justice.

NoDonkey on June 25, 2012 at 2:00 PM

The democrats actually pulled the sever-ability clause out to make it harder for a court challenge.

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Thanks for the correction. I might have been thinking of my future. Being a conservative these days while working for Big Pharma, I do feel some uncertainty.

Archivarix on June 25, 2012 at 2:02 PM

There are silver linings to the dark clouds of the appointments of Kagan and Sotomayor.

Legal lightweights that they are, they are unlikely to be able to advance their liberal political agendas with compelling opinions that reshape the law. They just don’t have the chops. They will be reliable votes for the liberal side of cases before the court, but their opinions (mostly minority dissents) will be the focus of much mockery and derision.

novaculus on June 25, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Zombie on June 25, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I’m 53, and what I’ve seen happen in this country is diabolical. I think that Americans have been duped into believing that tyranny can’t happen here – that we are above that kind of thing. Accordingly, they’ve grown fat and lazy to the concept, at the very time when it has become a very real possibility.

I have no doubt, that a very large percentage of Leftists would be perfectly willing for the State to have total control over their lives, and that they would, also, be perfectly willing to round up and persecute dissenters – those who oppose the will of the State.

The Constitution is now construed as nothing but a political document, that says what the politics of the majority say it says. That means, of course, that when the politics of the majority say that the State has absolute control over the People – then tyranny has been realized.

It can happen here – and I fear it.

I fear for our country, and for our freedoms.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 25, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Just imagine what it would be like if each state arrested immigration on their own set of rules, it would be a nightmare. I am a hard core conservative and I agree with this ruling perfectly.

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM

AZ’s law did not conflict with federal immigration law. And why would it be “a nightmare” if states could impose their own penalties on illegal aliens for the immigration defenses defined by federal law? For example, if federal immigration law prohibits illegal aliens from working in the U.S. (as it currently does), and AZ wants to make it a state-law criminal offense for an illegal alien to take a job in AZ, how does that harm the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts?

AZCoyote on June 25, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Thanks for the correction. I might have been thinking of my future. Being a conservative these days while working for Big Pharma, I do feel some uncertainty.

Archivarix on June 25, 2012 at 2:02 PM

same here

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM

AZ’s law did not conflict with federal immigration law. And why would it be “a nightmare” if states could impose their own penalties on illegal aliens for the immigration defenses defined by federal law? For example, if federal immigration law prohibits illegal aliens from working in the U.S. (as it currently does), and AZ wants to make it a state-law criminal offense for an illegal alien to take a job in AZ, how does that harm the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts?

AZCoyote on June 25, 2012 at 2:04 PM

For the same reason states cannot impose interstate taxes. It would lead to a fractured union. One immigrant could be legal in one state and illegal in another. I get that it shouldn’t matter but the constitution is clear on this. Immigration is specific to the federal government. This should be an issue except for the recalcitrance of the executive branch to enforce the laws as written. Something our for-fathers were weary of thus providing the tools of impeachment, tools that have been rendered moot becuase of the public’s ignorance about the issues and a compromised media.

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I am gonna have to disagree here. I think that preemption should only apply if there is an actual conflict between federal law and state law (concerning an issue delegated to federal authority under the Constitution). But if state law is addressing an issue that federal law fails to address, or state law reinforces federal law, I see no problem. This administration did not bring this case because a conflict of laws. They brought this case because they want to continue to not enforce federal immigration law. Scalia’s dissent hits this point right between the eyes.

NotCoach on June 25, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Yeah, smacked down Ogreedy right along with Montana.

stukinIL4now on June 25, 2012 at 2:25 PM

For the same reason states cannot impose interstate taxes. It would lead to a fractured union. One immigrant could be legal in one state and illegal in another.

That’s simply not true. An illegal alien in AZ would still be an illegal alien in Connecticut, or Montana, or Ohio. AZ simply sought to impose additional penalties on the conduct that the federal government has already defined as illegal. For example, before AZ passed 1070, it was already a federal civil violation for an illegal alien to take a job in the U.S.; AZ simply wanted to make such conduct a state law criminal violation as well. IOW, AZ would have prosecuted the illegal alien in AZ state courts for violating an AZ state law crime. How are federal immigration efforts harmed by that? The federal government claimed that it has limited immigration enforcement resources. Okay, but why do the federal government’s budgetary constraints prohibit AZ from using its own resources to prosecute state crimes committed by illegal aliens within AZ’s borders?

And I don’t understand what you mean by saying that AZ’s law “would lead to a fractured union.” Fractured in what sense? Are you saying that all 50 states should have exactly the same laws on the books? Are you aware that the 50 states have many different laws for the same conduct, with differing degrees of penalties, for things like drug offenses? And are you also aware that some of the state laws impose different penalties for the same drug offenses that federal law also criminalizes? Has that led to a “fractured union” too?

AZCoyote on June 25, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Liberals say no to corp’s but it’s O.K. for unions.

A**holes!

faol on June 25, 2012 at 2:29 PM

{..}I think that preemption should only apply if there is an actual conflict between federal law and state law (concerning an issue delegated to federal authority under the Constitution). But if state law is addressing an issue that federal law fails to address, or state law reinforces federal law, I see no problem.{..}
NotCoach on June 25, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I actually agree with you and rule as such. I can also see the logic the other way. While I do not find it to my way of thinking I can see it as a viable line of thought.

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 2:31 PM

many liberals were positively outraged with corporations’ confirmed newfound spending capabilities

Neither unions nor corporations are individual persons. They are both legal constructs.

Maybe we need to pass a law saying that all legal constructs are treated equally. Either they both can make donations, or they both can’t make donations.

It seems bizarre to me that anyone would think it okay for one group to have more rights than another.

MessesWithTexas on June 25, 2012 at 2:34 PM

AZCoyote on June 25, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I was speaking in a more general sense not specific to the AZ law as far as a fractered union.

To clarify I was saying that like interstate taxes if each state could make its own immigration laws we could have legal immigrants in one state and illegal in another, this would lead to chaos, ergo fractured union. This was the comparative premise I was using with interstate taxes and which is why it is controlled by the feds, to prevent such interstate obstacles to trade or in the case of immigration how immigrants are managed. Both can seriously impact the economies of the states if not controlled by a central authority.

One falls under the interstate commerce law the other immigration both of which the constitution gives specific enumerated powers to the feds, some of the few powers that actually do belong to the feds unlike most government agencies nowadays.

Skwor on June 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM

This entire “corruption or appearance of corruption” nonsense is maddening and should be shot down. Nothing is more corrupt or all-powerful than the government, and the idea that it can spend unlimited taxpayer dollars to promote its corrupt agenda (like ObamaCare) but corporations cannot defend their interests (by supporting candidates for public office) is absurd.

Buy Danish on June 25, 2012 at 2:40 PM

It seems bizarre to me that anyone would think it okay for one group to have more rights than another.

MessesWithTexas on June 25, 2012 at 2:34 PM

In a dispassionate world in which a person has no stake in either side it is bizarre. But we don’t live in such a world. Human nature dictates that people will attempt to skew the field to their advantage. Reasonable people who promote equal treatment under the law are actually suppressing their natural desire to seek advantage. So is it any wonder that the side that promotes sexual promiscuity above all else would also promote an unfair playing field when it comes to political donations? If liberals can’t seem to suppress their sexual desires, why should we expect them to suppress their preference desires?

NotCoach on June 25, 2012 at 2:41 PM

It’s simple, really. If anti-American leftists had a set of ideas they were confident in selling the public, this wouldn’t matter.

They don’t.

MNHawk on June 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

The same libs who wail and gnash teeth over the holding that corporations are “persons” with regard to enjoying the 1st Amendment freedoms of speech would be equally shrill if the court would have ruled that corporations are not people with regard to the first amendment freedom of the press. If corporations aren’t “persons” for the one, then they aren’t for the other either. If a corporation’s speech can be restricted by the government then so can the NY Time’s articles.

tommyboy on June 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Yeah well, enjoy it now. If Obozo gets re-elected he’s going to appoint at least 2 justices….and every case thereafter for 40 years is going to split the other way.

KMC1 on June 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I hope I’m wrong.

PappyD61 on June 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM

No worries. The smart money is against you every time.

MJBrutus on June 25, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Buy Danish on June 25, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Interseting fact: Campaign laws, including finance laws, are written by incumbents. Who do you suppose they favor, incumbents or challengers?

MJBrutus on June 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Judd Apatow? Who is he?

/muahahahahahaha!

Ward Cleaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Liberals say no to corp’s but it’s O.K. for unions.

A**holes!

faol on June 25, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Unions aren’t people. Believe me I am in one. 90% are mouth breathing automatons…in other words, rank and file democrats.

tom daschle concerned on June 25, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Hollywood libtard who donated $$$ to Dems: “aaaaagg!! More money in politics!!!”

Erika: “Mm hmm.”

Good one, Erika! That’s about the only thing you can say to their blind hypocrisy.

KS Rex on June 25, 2012 at 4:19 PM

the Supreme Court did issue at least one ruling today that had me smiling.

…Hot Air Trolls…not smiling!

KOOLAID2 on June 25, 2012 at 5:08 PM

The highly controversial 5-4 decision split down the conservative-liberal line, and many liberals were positively outraged with corporations’ confirmed newfound spending capabilities

As if it were needed, there is no clearer illustration of how libs are eager to violate the Constitution and all legal precedents. The court just decided that corporations may speak freely through SuperPACs. And the libs pretend that the recent decision never happened!

MJBrutus on June 25, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I wished these Hollyweird types would STFU, no one cares what they think. so sick of these arrogant tools. Libs only like when unions can spend freely.

gsherin on June 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Stop buying their junk and watching their garbage. When they lack funding THEN they will STFU, as you so delicately put it.

DevilsPrinciple on June 26, 2012 at 7:23 AM