Supreme Court rolls back campaign cash limits - The Orange Mane

TheDave · 01-21-2010, 01:33 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247...supreme_court/

WASHINGTON - In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down laws that banned corporations from using their own money to support or oppose candidates for public office.

By 5-4 vote, the court overturned federal laws, in effect for decades, that prevented corporations from using their profits to buy political campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a ban prohibiting corporations and unions from directly contributing funds to candidates for any use.

In a statement, President Barack Obama said that the decision gives 'a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.' The president pledged to work with Congress to 'develop a forceful response' to the court's ruling.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as November's congressional elections.

The decision removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case.

Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained "the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy."

Stevens complained that those justices overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court.

"Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law," Stevens said.

The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie that was very critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.

But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.

The justices convened in a special argument session in September, Sotomayor's first. The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday.

The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.

WOW...

TheDave · 01-21-2010, 01:36 PM

Not like the practice is anything new... BUT... Buying a politician just became legal.

yavoon · 01-21-2010, 01:43 PM

no it didn't. it just allows corporations and unions to directly advertise in the runup to an election(60 days).

also, the last presidential election was the most expensive ever. so if the idea is to stop money from running politics, it had zero success.

this law also had lots of very uncomfortable cases, like banning citizens from protesting unless they got government approval, and banning talk show hosts from saying certain things unless they paid fines. maybe a new law can be drafted to limit corporations and unions that won't have all those unconstitutional externalities.

TheDave · 01-21-2010, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yavoon

no it didn't. it just allows corporations and unions to directly advertise in the runup to an election(60 days).

also, the last presidential election was the most expensive ever. so if the idea is to stop money from running politics, it had zero success.

this law also had lots of very uncomfortable cases, like banning citizens from protesting unless they got government approval, and banning talk show hosts from saying certain things unless they paid fines. maybe a new law can be drafted to limit corporations and unions that won't have all those unconstitutional externalities.

exactly they can run any commercial or advertising they want... I think most people agree that Obama won in great part because of the money he was able to raise. Now as long as he agrees with certain conglomerates his advertising budget can be as big as his partners are willing to spend.

I think this is absolutely disasterous.

TailgateNut · 01-21-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDave

Not like the practice is anything new... BUT... Buying a politician just became legal.

I guess we should celebrate before the country is completely submerged in sewage and we are all asked to line up for mass butt****ings.

Bronx33 · 01-21-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

In a statement, President Barack Obama said that the decision gives 'a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.' The president pledged to work with Congress to 'develop a forceful response' to the court's ruling.

You had a problem with that then you didn't and now you do again?

TheDave · 01-21-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

I guess we should celebrate before the country is completely submerged in sewage and we are all asked to line up for mass butt****ings.

I think we've been headed down a bad path for a long time... But this is absolute suicide.

TailgateNut · 01-21-2010, 01:58 PM

Now they should rule that religious organizations should be able to support candidates with tax free monies which they extort from their cult members.

This country is going down the ****ter.

TailgateNut · 01-21-2010, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDave

I think we've been headed down a bad path for a long time... But this is absolute suicide.

Anyone who doesn't see the negatives in this ruling is as dumb as a box of rocks.

TailgateNut · 01-21-2010, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronx33

You had a problem with that then you didn't and now you do again?

Can someone translate this into english.

ghwk · 01-21-2010, 02:00 PM

Wonder how McCain feels about htis?

yavoon · 01-21-2010, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDave

exactly they can run any commercial or advertising they want... I think most people agree that Obama won in great part because of the money he was able to raise. Now as long as he agrees with certain conglomerates his advertising budget can be as big as his partners are willing to spend.

I think this is absolutely disasterous.

yes it will be like the 1990's all over again. THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

of course in the 90's less money was spent on election campaigns than now, but plz ignore that. it is irrelevant. THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TailgateNut · 01-21-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yavoon

yes it will be like the 1990's all over again. THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

of course in the 90's less money was spent on election campaigns than now, but plz ignore that. it is irrelevant. THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not ending just returning to its' roots. Kings and servants.

Bronx33 · 01-21-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Can someone translate this into english.

Campaigned against special interests in goverment then catered to special interests and now obama is going to fight against special interests.

yavoon · 01-21-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Not ending just returning to its' roots. Kings and servants.

really america has been a country of kings and servants for 226 years? I always knew the left had a vile view of america. I'm just amazed they're so willing to express it openly.

TheDave · 01-21-2010, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yavoon

yes it will be like the 1990's all over again. THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

of course in the 90's less money was spent on election campaigns than now, but plz ignore that. it is irrelevant. THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you talking about?

I'm guessing you haven't heard of the Tillman Act od 1907, Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, or Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971...

This is ground breaking no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't

Garcia Bronco · 01-21-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yavoon

no it didn't. it just allows corporations and unions to directly advertise in the runup to an election(60 days).

also, the last presidential election was the most expensive ever. so if the idea is to stop money from running politics, it had zero success.

this law also had lots of very uncomfortable cases, like banning citizens from protesting unless they got government approval, and banning talk show hosts from saying certain things unless they paid fines. maybe a new law can be drafted to limit corporations and unions that won't have all those unconstitutional externalities.

This. It has struck down the unconstitutional portion of McCain-Feingold.

cutthemdown · 01-21-2010, 02:40 PM

I have no problem with this unless they can hide who is doing the ad. It will say paid for by blah blah blah. Then you can search blah blah blah and see what corporations are doing the ad. As long as that information is out there smart people should be able to take the message with a grain of salt.

But they let stupid vote so like many of you probably are worried about it can be a problem. I've ran into more people who voted Obama who couldn't name one issue right then any other election. High voter turnout means dumber voters.

TheDave · 01-21-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

This. It has struck down the unconstitutional portion of McCain-Feingold.

Again this ruling struck down not just McCain-Feingold it struck down laws that have been in place for more than 100 years.

TheDave · 01-21-2010, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I have no problem with this unless they can hide who is doing the ad. It will say paid for by blah blah blah. Then you can search blah blah blah and see what corporations are doing the ad. As long as that information is out there smart people should be able to take the message with a grain of salt.

But they let stupid vote so like many of you probably are worried about it can be a problem. I've ran into more people who voted Obama who couldn't name one issue right then any other election. High voter turnout means dumber voters.

They can...

cutthemdown · 01-21-2010, 02:48 PM

Corporations spending big bucks on elections is good for economy. Time to get into advertising huh? Taco should sell a little news ticker on the bottom to some corporation that plows us all with ads on who to vote for.

That will work around here about as well as a bubble screen.

cutthemdown · 01-21-2010, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDave

They can...

So they don't have to put on bottom, this ad was paid for by blah blah blah.

I sort of don't like it as much them. But if people or a company wants to spend there money who am I to say they shouldn't. All I can say is people should be informed and not let TV make up mind for them.

TheDave · 01-21-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

So they don't have to put on bottom, this ad was paid for by blah blah blah.

I sort of don't like it as much them. But if people or a company wants to spend there money who am I to say they shouldn't. All I can say is people should be informed and not let TV make up mind for them.

Come to think of it... I'm not exactly sure if that is the case or not.

I'll look it up.

Garcia Bronco · 01-21-2010, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDave

Again this ruling struck down not just McCain-Feingold it struck down laws that have been in place for more than 100 years.

I can't disagree with the ruling, even if I don't like the consequences. It's free speech and the right to petition the governemnt or the people. However, people need to start taking these asshat commercial makers to the hoop for slander and libel.

ak1971 · 01-21-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDave

Come to think of it... I'm not exactly sure if that is the case or not.

I'll look it up.

wonder if we can break the impaler out of jail now.

Honestly though..does this do anything..the big money was already there, now they dont have to hide

01-21-2010, 01:33 PM	#1
TheDave Sauced... Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 15,120	Supreme Court rolls back campaign cash limits http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247...supreme_court/ WASHINGTON - In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down laws that banned corporations from using their own money to support or oppose candidates for public office. By 5-4 vote, the court overturned federal laws, in effect for decades, that prevented corporations from using their profits to buy political campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states. It leaves in place a ban prohibiting corporations and unions from directly contributing funds to candidates for any use. In a statement, President Barack Obama said that the decision gives 'a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.' The president pledged to work with Congress to 'develop a forceful response' to the court's ruling. Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed. "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues. Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom. The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns. Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as November's congressional elections. The decision removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns. The case does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case. Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained "the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy." Stevens complained that those justices overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court. "Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law," Stevens said. The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie that was very critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign. But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one. The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet. The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending. The justices convened in a special argument session in September, Sotomayor's first. The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday. The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors. WOW...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-21-2010, 01:36 PM	#2
TheDave Sauced... Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 15,120	Not like the practice is anything new... BUT... Buying a politician just became legal.

01-21-2010, 01:43 PM	#3
yavoon Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,260	no it didn't. it just allows corporations and unions to directly advertise in the runup to an election(60 days). also, the last presidential election was the most expensive ever. so if the idea is to stop money from running politics, it had zero success. this law also had lots of very uncomfortable cases, like banning citizens from protesting unless they got government approval, and banning talk show hosts from saying certain things unless they paid fines. maybe a new law can be drafted to limit corporations and unions that won't have all those unconstitutional externalities.

01-21-2010, 01:58 PM	#8
TailgateNut Bleedin' orange! .......as much as tebonites Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mile High Posts: 20,018 Adopt-a-Bronco: Howard Griffith	Now they should rule that religious organizations should be able to support candidates with tax free monies which they extort from their cult members. This country is going down the ****ter.

01-21-2010, 02:00 PM	#11
ghwk Ring of Famer DOOM BOOM! Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,836 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Doomacus	Wonder how McCain feels about htis?

01-21-2010, 02:40 PM	#18
cutthemdown A verbis ad verbera Zimm to HOF Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Long Beach Posts: 32,431	I have no problem with this unless they can hide who is doing the ad. It will say paid for by blah blah blah. Then you can search blah blah blah and see what corporations are doing the ad. As long as that information is out there smart people should be able to take the message with a grain of salt. But they let stupid vote so like many of you probably are worried about it can be a problem. I've ran into more people who voted Obama who couldn't name one issue right then any other election. High voter turnout means dumber voters.

01-21-2010, 02:48 PM	#21
cutthemdown A verbis ad verbera Zimm to HOF Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Long Beach Posts: 32,431	Corporations spending big bucks on elections is good for economy. Time to get into advertising huh? Taco should sell a little news ticker on the bottom to some corporation that plows us all with ads on who to vote for. That will work around here about as well as a bubble screen.