Supreme Court Ruling Opens Floodgates

GIANT step backwards in any attempt at campaign finance reform or reducing the role of lobbyists and special interests from what I am hearing. :angry:

The Constitution doesn't protect against bad politics, it just protects our rights. Generally, I think it's misguided to blame the Supreme Court - quite the contrary in fact - they made a very hard but good decision.

Do we have a breakdown of the SC votes, yet?

The Constitution doesn't protect against bad politics, it just protects our rights. Generally, I think it's misguided to blame the Supreme Court - quite the contrary in fact - they made a very hard but good decision.

Could you please point to the section of the Constitution that gives corporations the same rights as all us mere mortals?

Could you please point to the section of the Constitution that gives corporations the same rights as all us mere mortals?

sure -

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Obviously the legality goes very deep, there's the founders intent, past rulings and precedent.. but generally I think it's pretty obvious "Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech" does not specifically identify any individual or group, its intent is to limit government generally, in all cases. I don't think this is about the rights of people vs. rights for companies, it's about limiting government.

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals--and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.

-- Scalia

I'm not saying the results from this will have a positive impact on campaigns, I'm just saying the ruling upheld the Constitution, and that I think this is a good thing.

Do we have a breakdown of the SC votes, yet?

On its central point, Justice Kennedy?s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Justice Stevens?s dissent was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

On its central point, Justice Kennedy?s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Justice Stevens?s dissent was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

The originalists vs. the activists. Not surprising. (Nice to see you didn't stop posting Minnie!)

I was thinking about this some more. The differences of opinion on this ruling do a great job of showing the difference between the activists and the other side of the court. For example, Justice Ginsberg believes the Constitution is a 'living document.' Because of this, she feels she has the right to edit the meaning of the Constitution based on prevailing ideology. In this case, she felt the "freedom of speech" clause should be restricted to individuals only. In effect, she wished to change the following lines from -

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

to

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of an individual person."

Isn't it obvious how this changes the meaning of the phrase? Isn't it obvious how this change gives government more power to control? We The People never voted on this change however, nobody ever asked us our opinion. Ginsberg just decided, "hey, I don't like what these companies will do so I'll just go ahead and amend this to change it." Which is why I think this is such a good ruling. Ginsberg and her fellow activists' views on the power Supreme Court judges should have got shot down the other day. Amen for that! Even if it means we have to put up with more campaign ads as a result.

30ashopper,

This does not uphold the constitution as it actually basically strips the average American of even more rights. Corporations will control campaigns thus violating a basic right of one person one vote. You can hide behind your spin words of "activists vs. originalists" and any number of other things brought to you by, guess what, corporations.

You can spout off about the first amendment all day long, but I'll stick my original point. You still have not shown me where in the constitution it includes corporations. Before restating that it doesn't mention people specifically I'll refer you to the Preamble of the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I went ahead and underlined the key points there. At no point does it mention corporations. This ruling was wholly unconstitutional in the fact that the conservative side of the court (notice I refrained from name calling, insults, or references to Fox News) just undermined the average voter. This allows corporations to determine who will win in elections by backing them with buckets of cash.

You can argue that this doesn't affect voting, but studies and common sense show that people can be swayed by the campaign with the bigger budget. Go ahead, change the subject and start Obama bashing.

interesting to me is that when the founders penned these words, "corporations" as they exist today, did not exist at all,...so, who is the activist....

I think Unions potentially will abuse this well before any corporation. And, I believe the citizens of America will let both unions and corporations know their disdain as we are a consumer driven country governed by a representative government by the right and duty to vote, maintaining a democracy.

I think upholding the Constitution is important. I also think Campaign Finance Reform should include disclosing all contributions starting at $1. We should ensure illegal aliens aren't participating in our politics until and when they become citizens.

When I worked for a large corporation, I never contributed to any PAC because I am an individual and prefer to voice as an individual. What did a large corporation ever do for me? Why should I contribute to their causes politically? Maybe more people will come up with their own kool-aid flavor.

I don't abide that the view that the "founding fathers" were all-knowing, all-seeing, prophets with sacrosanct wisdom. I'm pretty sure they didn't forsee the rise of multi-national corporations and mass media. The constitution has to be a "living document". It has to be interpreted constantly by the courts for the common good. This ruling, which the court went out of their way to make as broad as they can, has nothing to do with the common good. If you think we have been going thru "propaganda wars" up until now, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Lynnie: I don't think you see the ramifications. A corporation like Exxon doesn't need a dime of your contibutions. They have such a vast amount of money that they can literally flood the airwaves with ads that effectively stop the opposition from ever having a voice. And that's just one corporation... think about it.

Lynnie: I don't think you see the ramifications. A corporation like Exxon doesn't need a dime of your contibutions. They have such a vast amount of money that they can literally flood the airwaves with ads that effectively stop the opposition from ever having a voice. And that's just one corporation... think about it.

I know what you are saying. However, I don't think Exxon sees the ramifications of blasting airwaves for their agenda in politics. I have faith in the American people. ;-)

30ashopper,

This does not uphold the constitution as it actually basically strips the average American of even more rights. Corporations will control campaigns thus violating a basic right of one person one vote. You can hide behind your spin words of "activists vs. originalists" and any number of other things brought to you by, guess what, corporations.

You can spout off about the first amendment all day long, but I'll stick my original point. You still have not shown me where in the constitution it includes corporations. Before restating that it doesn't mention people specifically I'll refer you to the Preamble of the constitution:

A couple comments - first, the Constitution does not protect people from their own bad decisions, including decisions revolving around who they vote for or how they come to those conclusions. Second, this ruling does not restrict anyone's rights - I'll reiterate, this was not a ruling that provided rights to anyone or any thing, it was about limiting government. If you can't see that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I went ahead and underlined the key points there. At no point does it mention corporations. This ruling was wholly unconstitutional in the fact that the conservative side of the court (notice I refrained from name calling, insults, or references to Fox News) just undermined the average voter. This allows corporations to determine who will win in elections by backing them with buckets of cash.

You can argue that this doesn't affect voting, but studies and common sense show that people can be swayed by the campaign with the bigger budget. Go ahead, change the subject and start Obama bashing.

I tried to stress I didn't think the results of this ruling would have a positive impact on campaigns. Generally, if people don't like how the First Amendment applies to modern day life, they should call their congressman and ask them to introduce an amendment to change it.

interesting to me is that when the founders penned these words, "corporations" as they exist today, did not exist at all,...so, who is the activist....

Actually, they did. Corporations existed in Europe and were already manipulating financial markets.

Remember from your American History class reading about the Hudson Bay Company? It was a corporation.

I thought a little more on this, also. There is a distinct legal definition of individual or person.....I remembered this from a legal exam I recently had to take. Here it is (a minor is not considered a person):

Person An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.
Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity.
Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.
For example, the US Code defines "person" as follows (at Title 1, Chapter 1, ?1):

In all these posts, and in listening to CNN and MSNBC, I rarely heard one word mentioning the Unions and the fact they will be treated the same as corps. under this ruling. You expect the unions to act any differently? They may not have in total all the resources of corps. but they have more than enough to flood the airwaves as well. Special interests exist on both sides of the fence but it is always targeted to the big bad corps.. If you don't think unions have the ability to exert pressure I have only to direct you to the special deal they got cut on the thankfully aborted health reform debacle and cadillac plans.

In all these posts, and in listening to CNN and MSNBC, I rarely heard one word mentioning the Unions and the fact they will be treated the same as corps. under this ruling. You expect the unions to act any differently? They may not have in total all the resources of corps. but they have more than enough to flood the airwaves as well. Special interests exist on both sides of the fence but it is always targeted to the big bad corps.. If you don't think unions have the ability to exert pressure I have only to direct you to the special deal they got cut on the thankfully aborted health reform debacle and cadillac plans.

I mentioned unions. And, I agree with you. I think this is where the abuse will emanate. My first thought was GM (unions), who BTW manufactures the bullet proof vehicles for the President. Getting deeper~~~~~~

I guess if I'm wrong and SWGB is right, other parts of the First Amendment also apply to the individual, and not corporations.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So where shall we start restricting? I think the part about freedom of the press is a good place. The government should have the right to restrict what the New York Times Corporation prints in its newspapers or what Random House prints in its books. Hmm, also teachers are often represented by unions, so I think the government should have the right to restrict what educators say in the class room.

In all these posts, and in listening to CNN and MSNBC, I rarely heard one word mentioning the Unions and the fact they will be treated the same as corps. under this ruling. You expect the unions to act any differently? They may not have in total all the resources of corps. but they have more than enough to flood the airwaves as well. Special interests exist on both sides of the fence but it is always targeted to the big bad corps.. If you don't think unions have the ability to exert pressure I have only to direct you to the special deal they got cut on the thankfully aborted health reform debacle and cadillac plans.

Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, a major turnaround that threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

Have any of you ever contributed $1 to the presidential campaign via your 1040's? I always check NO.

It's official. SCOTUS just confirmed we are truly an Oligarchy.....and y'all were worried about Socialism?

The Constitution doesn't protect against bad politics, it just protects our rights. Generally, I think it's misguided to blame the Supreme Court - quite the contrary in fact - they made a very hard but good decision.

good decision to allow undue influence? our government was designed with a jaundiced eye toward undue influence. corporate america is the gatekeeper to groundbreaking legislation in this country, and nothing happens for the voters unless corporate america is paid first.

I guess if I'm wrong and SWGB is right, other parts of the First Amendment also apply to the individual, and not corporations.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So where shall we start restricting? I think the part about freedom of the press is a good place. The government should have the right to restrict what the New York Times Corporation prints in its newspapers or what Random House prints in its books. Hmm, also teachers are often represented by unions, so I think the government should have the right to restrict what educators say in the class room.

this the heart of libertarian doctrine doublespeak. unlimited freedom no matter the outcome. oh well, your vote is worthless, but you are free. sure you are!