The Latest Supreme Court Blunder

[Rojodi]

Originally Posted by Dr. Fill

As long as they lawfully identify themselves, what's the problem with that?

They should have NO RIGHT to interfer with American Politics!!!!! Hello, you want the Sultan of Brunie to pay for ads to come out against a presidential candidate because said person will treble the tarrifs on goods from there?

[Dr. Fill]

Originally Posted by Rojodi

They should have NO RIGHT to interfer with American Politics!!!!! Hello, you want the Sultan of Brunie to pay for ads to come out against a presidential candidate because said person will treble the tarrifs on goods from there?

Professor Bradley Smith explains:

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they are prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

[Rojodi]

Originally Posted by Dr. Fill

Professor Bradley Smith explains:

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they are prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

that does NOT cover ads they specifically pay for.

[Ernest Nagel]

I don't think money influences elections quite as much as it does candidates once they reach office but so what? As long as the electorate is comprised largely of clueless, soundbite driven, one-issue tabloid/talk radio/Oprah drones we'll continue to endure the best candidates money can buy. I'm not sure it even matters who's paying for them since most big-money donors hedge their bets by greasing both sides.

[The Orange Mage]

This is what happens when we give corporations rights without giving them responsibilities.

Alternatively:

Originally Posted by Ambrose Bierce

corporation: an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility

[Dr. Fill]

Originally Posted by Rojodi

that does NOT cover ads they specifically pay for.

Of course it does. Professor Smith elaborates further:

(1) The Citizens United case dealt with a blanket ban on corporate expenditures. The Court struck down the ban, which is part of 2 USC 441b.

(2) A separate section of the law, 2 USC 441e, prohibits “foreign nationals” from making expenditures or contributions. “Foreign nationals” includes corporations that are not incorporated or headquartered in the United States. This is an extremely broad prohibition that applies to any U.S. election (including state and local elections) and to any activity “in connection with” an election. The Citizens United ruling doesn’t touch this prohibition and specifically notes that it makes no judgment about foreign corporations.

(3) This would allow a U.S. corporation, incorporated and headquartered in the United States, to make expenditures (Obama, remember, referred to “foreign corporations”). But . . .

(4) FEC regulations at 11 CFR 110.20 further delineate the prohibition:

A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.
Additionally, the FEC requires that any funds so spent come from U.S.-generated income (in other words, the parent corporation cannot send capital to the U.S. subsidiary and then have the subsidiary spend that in connection with U.S. elections). Therefore . . .

(5) You could have a foreign-owned but U.S.-incorporated-and-headquartered subsidiary, using U.S. funds, controlled solely by U.S. nationals, make expenditures. However, bear in mind that . . .

(6) Such a corporation is already eligible to operate a PAC — which can make unlimited expenditures and also make contributions directly to candidates (under the same restrictions of U.S. funds managed by U.S. nationals) — and to spend unlimited sums from any source. Its executives and managers who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (i.e., the same people who would have to decide on any corporate spending) are already eligible to spend unlimited sums on U.S. elections.

So claiming that the Citizens United decision will allow “foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections” is as misleading as saying that “Obama and the Democratic Congress have allowed foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections.” The corporate ban is not about foreign contributions, and the government never tried to defend it as such. To suggest that this ruling allows foreign expenditures in elections is wholly misleading.

We might say that the president’s statement is not a lie, because it contains a small kernel of truth. But that kernel of truth is what separates lies from demagoguery. The president’s statement was shameless demagoguery.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School.

[EtobicokeFA]

The problem is that Corporations with more the money that the average citizen competing with you for your government representative. You fill in the blanks.

[tonynyc]

Originally Posted by EtobicokeFA

The problem is that Corporations with more the money that the average citizen competing with you for your government representative. You fill in the blanks.

Just goes to show that there is more than one way to get what you want...

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

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.

Seems rather cut and dried. Someone please point to any part of the 1st Amendment that includes a qualifier such as 'but' and/or 'except for'. I see none and I can find none.

[Dr. Fill]

Originally Posted by EtobicokeFA

The problem is that Corporations with more the money that the average citizen competing with you for your government representative. You fill in the blanks.

Not to mention labor unions and lobbying groups, which, like corporations, are legal but regulated. Any ACLU supporters? AARP members? NRA? The problem is what, exactly?

[Rojodi]

Originally Posted by Dr. Fill

Not to mention labor unions and lobbying groups, which, like corporations, are legal but regulated. Any ACLU supporters? AARP members? NRA? The problem is what, exactly?

What is the NRA? Is it a union of gun-toting wackjobs?

[tonynyc]

Originally Posted by Dr. Fill

Not to mention labor unions and lobbying groups, which, like corporations, are legal but regulated. Any ACLU supporters? AARP members? NRA? The problem is what, exactly?

I thought you would have been a fan of the ACLU ....wonders never cease

[bigmac]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg

Seems rather cut and dried. Someone please point to any part of the 1st Amendment that includes a qualifier such as 'but' and/or 'except for'. I see none and I can find none.

The Bill of Rights enumerates the rights of the people of the United States. The legal fiction that corporations are people is not part of the Bill of Rights -- it was created by judicial fiat a century after the founding fathers penned the Constitution.

And I though Conservatives didn't like judicial activism.

[Keb]

Originally Posted by Rojodi

What is the NRA? Is it a union of gun-toting wackjobs?

The NRA (National Rifle Association) is an organization, which does lobby the government heavily (a fact that seems to shock many for some reason), that represents gun owners, hobbiests, shooters, hunters, and supporters of 2nd ammendment rights. It's been around for over a century, and offers such services as hunter and shooting safety courses, shooting competitions, and educational resources to protect children from gun accidents (like their Eddie Eagle program, which warns children that if they find a gun, they should leave it alone and tell an adult at once).

And yes, it does play heavily in politics, examining and reporting on which politicians are most friendly to its causes and constituents.

There probably are some gun-toting whackjobs who carry memberships, but most of the members I know are incredibly responsible firearms owners, often retired or active military, who believe strongly in constitutional rights and in being conscientious citizens.

One of them is myself. I don't actually own a gun at present, but I know how to fire one safely and I believe in the NRA's core values. I think it's funny that, due to how the NRA has often been represented in the media, a lot of people are really startled by my membership. I've been told several times that I'm too nice, or too -something-, to possibly have such a character flaw as being an NRA member. I always laugh.

Edited to add: By the way, this decision will make the voices of groups like the NRA, which represent people like me, louder. I see that as a good thing, as long as the sources are available for those who want to use their brains to see.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Originally Posted by bigmac

The Bill of Rights enumerates the rights of the people of the United States. The legal fiction that corporations are people is not part of the Bill of Rights -- it was created by judicial fiat a century after the founding fathers penned the Constitution.

I wholeheartedly agree that the legal fictions called Corporations should not be 'persons'. However, we have a fucked up system that allows for them to be 'persons' and therefore the 1st Amendment applies.

And I though Conservatives didn't like judicial activism.

Yea, cause goddamn, its not like there aren't LIBERTARIANS that think this ruling was the right thing. Nope, its only CONSERVATIVES.

I'm sick and goddamn tired of this bullshit Left/Right nonsense.

[bigmac]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg

I wholeheartedly agree that the legal fictions called Corporations should not be 'persons'. However, we have a fucked up system that allows for them to be 'persons' and therefore the 1st Amendment applies.

It applies only as long as the Court's definition applies. All that is needed to remedy the situation is for the Court to reverse itself -- no Constitutional amendment needed.

And the Court has a long history of reversing itself in response to changing social and political realities.

[Dr. Fill]

Great comment from a viewer:

That corporation, just like any group of protestors, does not have a right to an additional vote beyond the single vote per person - but as an association of persons, those corporations have every right to free speech as all other persons.

Your logic would then argue that only individuals have free speech, and when you become part of a group, you loose that free speech. Also, you are aware of the taxation and representation problem with your argument, right? Taxation and conversation?

http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/03/re...ns-not-to-swea

[cheekyjez]

Originally Posted by Keb

Edited to add: By the way, this decision will make the voices of groups like the NRA, which represent people like me, louder. I see that as a good thing, as long as the sources are available for those who want to use their brains to see.

The NRA will only be as loud as it is wealthy. If, say, PETA can scrape more money together, they can buy more ad time and drown out the NRA.

This ruling means... President Michael Bloomberg.

[stan_der_man]

I always find it to be somewhat odd that the Supreme Court associates the spending of money to support a candidate as some sort of protected form of free speech, but has no problem with requiring large groups of citizens having a peaceful gathering (which is specifically protected by the constitution) to obtain a permit for the "right" to gather, as is required by many jurisdictions. The bias towards big money (i.e. big corporations) here in the U.S. is fairly obvious as history has shown us.

[Dr. Fill]

Originally Posted by stan_der_man

I always find it to be somewhat odd that the Supreme Court associates the spending of money to support a candidate as some sort of protected form of free speech, but has no problem with requiring large groups of citizens having a peaceful gathering (which is specifically protected by the constitution) to obtain a permit for the "right" to gather, as is required by many jurisdictions. The bias towards big money (i.e. big corporations) here in the U.S. is fairly obvious as history has shown us.

The association is this: money facilitates free speech. No one is obligated to listen, and free speech, especially political free speech, does not impinge on someone else's rights the way a peaceful gathering might--by occupying public property to the exclusion of others--like blocking streets or the entrance to public buildings. I don't think permits are required for peaceful gatherings on private property.

[stan_der_man]

Originally Posted by Dr. Fill

The association is this: money facilitates free speech. No one is obligated to listen, and free speech, especially political free speech, does not impinge on someone else's rights the way a peaceful gathering might--by occupying public property to the exclusion of others--like blocking streets or the entrance to public buildings. I don't think permits are required for peaceful gatherings on private property.

First Amendment:

"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."

Abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in a public is in fact the abridging of a specifically stated right, whether it be on public property or private. Differentiating between public and private property is irrelevant. Just as a large public gathering may "block access" of right of way (to paraphrase your statement)...

impinge on someone else's rights the way a peaceful gathering might--by occupying public property to the exclusion of others--like blocking streets or the entrance to public buildings.

...the spending of large sums of money by powerful corporations can easily drown out the voice of the average person or organization, by flooding television, radio, other media, etc. with whatever message those who have money wish to convey, impeding upon those with less money. Regulating "free speech" money seems as fair game as regulating public gatherings. And nowhere in the first amendment is the spending of money specifically mentioned as protected speech. I don't see what your point is.

[Dr. Fill]

Originally Posted by stan_der_man

First Amendment:

"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."

Abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in a public is in fact the abridging of a specifically stated right, whether it be on public property or private. Differentiating between public and private property is irrelevant. Just as a large public gathering may "block access" of right of way (to paraphrase your statement)...



...the spending of large sums of money by powerful corporations can easily drown out the voice of the average person or organization, by flooding television, radio, etc. with whatever message those who have money wish to convey, impeding upon those with less money. Regulating "free speech" money seems as fair game as regulating public gatherings. And nowhere in the first amendment is the spending of money specifically mentioned as protected speech. I don't see what your point is.

It's simple. Your rights are protected as long as they don't interfere with someone else's rights when you exercise them. If a gathering blocks a public street, people can't get to work, ambulances can't get to hospital, etc. Does your right to assemble take precedence over that?

The lone voice drowned out by the larger constituency--whether a citizens group, a corporation, or just a majority of independents--is still allowed to speak. Everyone has the right to speak, but no one is guaranteed a right to be heard.

Money doesn't "equal" speech, it merely facilitates it. The regulation you suggest implies that no one should be allowed to speak louder than anyone else. That would only be possible if the press and media were government-run. Oops...there's that pesky First Amendment again.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Rojodi

There's abridging free speech for Americans, the individuals, and that of corporations, which are NOT a PERSON. Also, what's troubling is that this blunder WILL allow foreign corporations and individuals to create ads attacking candidates they deem troublesome to their own interests. Should we allow them the same free speech as Americans? I'm asking you Conservatives out there, if a Congressional resolution is made to close that door, abriding foreign interests right to concern themselves into the elections of American representatives, are you going to call that UNCONSTITUIONAL?

First Amendment Text:
"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 three questions for you:
1) Where in this text is speech attributed to persons? I see speech itself protected. I don't see persons protected to speak.

2) In this case we have...speech, people assembling freely (as a corporation), and the press (the ability to publish and broadcast opinions). Yet, when we combine the three, all of a sudden protection does not apply?

And 3), more esoterically...

Amendment 10 speaks of unenumerated rights, which is to say that the Bill of Rights simply enumerated restrictions on the government that were implicit already in the text of the Constitution. Where in the Constitution can you find the principle that tells us the government is charged with the duty of restricting corporations from being involved in politics?

And finally, restrictions against foreign money in elections are tightly in place. The decision is posted online. Please find it and read it before posting hysterics that aren't true.

[stan_der_man]

Originally Posted by Dr. Fill

...
The lone voice drowned out by the larger constituency--whether a citizens group, a corporation, or just a majority of independents--is still allowed to speak. Everyone has the right to speak, but no one is guaranteed a right to be heard.

Money doesn't "equal" speech, it merely facilitates it. The regulation you suggest implies that no one should be allowed to speak louder than anyone else.

True, no one is guaranteed the right to be heard, but you still aren't making a point as to why money, which you equate as facilitating free speech (which again, isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution) can't be reasonably regulated as peaceful public gatherings are. People can be arrested for speaking loudly, it's called disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct... Police and Department of Transportation officials can regulate traffic to keep access available during large demonstrations, they do it all the time. Why shouldn't government be allowed to create some regulation regarding the flow of money into political contests in public forums, media or whatever to level the playing field in political contests? They do it in many other facets regarding the exercise of free speech... The Supreme Court clearly has a bias towards those who have money.

That would only be possible if the press and media were government-run. Oops...there's that pesky First Amendment again.

Technically, there is nothing forbidding the U.S. government from running media outlets... They did it during both world wars, and continue to do it to this day. Again, what is your point?