board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

SC sides with corporate money and power

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 7 posts ]
Author Message
sauronsfinger
Post subject: SC sides with corporate money and power
Posted: Thu 21 Jan , 2010 7:31 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
In perhaps the single worst US Supreme Court decision since Plessey v. Ferguson way back in 1896, the Court has decided that corporations may indeed spend as much money as they want to to buy the best government that will serve them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/po ... us.html?hp
Quote:
from the online NY Times

WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.


The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

The 5-to-4 decision was a doctrinal earthquake but also a political and practical one. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, an author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, called the ruling “a terrible mistake.”

“Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns,” said Mr. Feingold, a Democrat.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and a longtime opponent of that law, praised the Court’s decision as “an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day.”President Obama issued a statement calling on Congress to “develop a forceful response to this decision.”

“With its ruling today,” he said, “the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

The case had unlikely origins. It involved a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008.

Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it. But the film was shown in theaters in six cities, and it remains available on DVD and the Internet.

The lower court said the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, usually called the McCain-Feingold law, prohibited the planned broadcasts. The law bans the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. That leaves out old technologies, like newspapers, and new ones, like YouTube.

The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applies to communications “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” It also requires spoken and written disclaimers in the film and advertisements for it, along with the disclosure of contributors’ names.

The lower court said the film was a prohibited electioneering communication with one purpose: “to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world and that viewers should vote against her.”

The McCain-Feingold law does contain an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries and editorials.

On its central point, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stevens’s dissent was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

When the case was first argued last March, it seemed a curiosity likely to be decided on narrow grounds. The court could have ruled that Citizens United was not the sort of group to which the McCain-Feingold law was meant to apply, or that the law did not mean to address 90-minute documentaries, or that video-on-demand technologies were not regulated by the law. Thursday’s decision rejected those alternatives.

Instead of deciding the case in June, the court set down the case for a rare re-argument in September. It now asked the parties to address the much more consequential question of whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, along with part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the 2003 decision that upheld the central provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

On Thursday, the court answered its own questions with a resounding yes.
Guess which political party saw its president appoint each of the five who decided with the majority?

Just as slavery and segregation and its effects shaped so much of the politics of the last two centuries, this convinces me more than ever that the next big political fight will be between the interests of private corporations and the interests of common and working people. Pick a side and let your intentions be known. The Supreme Court just did.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Last edited by sauronsfinger on Fri 22 Jan , 2010 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject: Re: SC sides with corporate money and power
Posted: Thu 21 Jan , 2010 8:17 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
A sad day, indeed. The oligarchy rules and the rest of you fall by the wayside.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: SC sides with corporate money and power
Posted: Thu 21 Jan , 2010 8:56 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Sad day Vison. if what I heard from Nina Totenberg on NPR is correct, this decision is even worse that saying corporations can give unlimited amounts to candidates. This decision still keeps the donation limits to a candidate or a party, BUT, it allows the corporation to fund - without any limitations - any ads they want to on their own or in support of anybody they want to.

Think about it this way. If you donate money to a candidate, the candidate is then responsible for the campaign message and their is some direct line of responsibility for it. Under this ruling, a corporation can buy up all the available ad time on network TV, produce their own advocacy commercials without any candidate input, and then flood the airwaves until election day. This is worse than removing limits to candidates.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject: Re: SC sides with corporate money and power
Posted: Thu 21 Jan , 2010 9:35 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
:bawl:

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject: Re: SC sides with corporate money and power
Posted: Thu 21 Jan , 2010 11:07 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
It's laughable that a Republican sees this decision as a good thing. The party of the people, my dick... we should gun down the entire government and start over. I don't care what CIA listener is reading this.

Time to get CiGNA tattooed to my forehead.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject: Re: SC sides with corporate money and power
Posted: Fri 22 Jan , 2010 12:50 am
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
I'm at a point now where I'm almost hoping more things like this will happen so I'll finally be forced say "enough" and try to move somewhere else.


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: SC sides with corporate money and power
Posted: Fri 22 Jan , 2010 2:48 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
I fully realize that Keith Olbermann is not universally loved by all here. But tonight he had a commentary on the Court decision that every thinking person should listen to - at least once.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34985508

He wisely points out the effects of this, both in the short and long term. And he wisely concludes that unless you are a true company man or woman or one of their toadies, you will lose by this decision in the end.

Please listen.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 7 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium”
Jump to: