Supreme Court Ruling Opens Floodgates

[30ashopper]

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.

 

[poppy]

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.

 

[Lynnie]

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

 

[Mango]

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

 

[Bob]

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.

 

[Bob]

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!

 

[Matt J]

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.

You'll be thrilled to know it already is. Every penny must be accounted for when dealing with political contributions. That is the main reason that cash donations are so restricted and watched. The current limit is $50.00 and was recently lowered from $100.00.

The reasoning behind that is that it would be very easy for a rich powerful person to simply hand a bag o' cash to any person and have them donate it. By restricting cash contributions there is a nice paper trail to find violations.

 

[Lynnie]

SWGB, I think they all violate this, but Obama raised more money via the small dollar contribution than any other candidate in the history of elections. He was able to forgo the public financing option as well as any matching. I have forgotten the number, but almost 100,000 donations were received by his campaign and not all of those that were small dollars were disclosed. He was asked to disclose, but would not. He had the right to not disclose based upon the rules regarding campaign finance. I think disclosing all contributions AND confirming citizenship should be a large part of campaign finance reform.

I also think upholding the Constitution should be a duty of the Supreme Court Justices, which they have done. I don't like the fact that there aren't limits on corporations and have serious concerns with unions and this law being lifted. But, I have to believe that the American people can and will take a strong position if and when it is abused.

Just my opinion.

Oligarchy is funny! Good one.

 

[idlewind]

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.

Your statement here illustrates a fundemental difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals believe everything is relative and up for interpretation. Conservatives believe that certain core principles found in the Constitution are inviolate.
As to "all-knowing,all-seeing" the Founders were neither. But they were very wise and provided a means to change the document with the times. The amendment process is available to address changes that are needed. If the limitation on corporate campaigning is needed then the Constitution can be amended to reflect that.
The only thing I see is that unions should be under the same restrictions as corporations and churches. That might level the playing field a little.

 

[MommaMia]

". . . the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law.

"It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process . . . It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."

Read more of what Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has to say.