Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance...

This is just crazy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100121/pl_nm/us_usa_court_politics

Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash

By James Vicini
Thu Jan 21, 2:42 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a landmark decision denounced by President Barack Obama for giving special interests more power.

“The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Obama said after the 5-4 ruling that divided the nation’s high court along conservative and liberal lines.

“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,” Obama said.

Obama said he instructed administration officials “to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue” and “talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.”

The ruling, a defeat for Obama and supporters of campaign finance limits, is expected to unleash a flood of money to be spent in this year’s congressional election and the 2012 presidential contest.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the long-standing campaign finance limits violated constitutional free-speech rights of corporations.

“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” he wrote.

The four liberal dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

RULING COULD UNDERMINE INTEGRITY-DISSENT

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

In the 2008 election cycle, nearly $6 billion was spent on all federal campaigns, including more than $1 billion from corporate political action committees, trade associations, executives and lobbyists.

The ruling will almost certainly allow labor unions to spend more freely in political campaigns also and it posed a threat to similar limits that had been imposed in about half of the country’s 50 states.

The top court struck down the part of the federal law that restricted broadcast advertisements for or against political candidates right before elections that are paid for by corporations, labor unions and advocacy groups.

The 2002 campaign finance law at issue was named after Senator John McCain, the unsuccessful Republican presidential nominee in 2008, and Democratic Senator Russell Feingold.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele praised the ruling and said, “Free speech strengths our democracy.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, long an opponent of the law, said, “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process.”

But the law’s supporters said the ruling will allow corporations to spend unlimited sums to influence elections.

“The bottom line is, the Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November’s election. It won’t be the Republican or the Democrats and it won’t be the American people; it will be corporate America,” Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said.

The decision was a victory for a conservative advocacy group’s challenge to the campaign finance law as part of its efforts to broadcast and promote a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She later became Obama’s secretary of state.

The Obama administration defended the law’s restrictions on election-related spending by corporations, unions and interest groups.

The court’s conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both appointees of then-President George W. Bush, in the ruling made a dramatic change in the campaign finance law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.

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

This is actually a good ruling. Gets the govt out of free speech.

think about the effects this is going to have. this is not a good ruling, and goes against MANY historical rulings.

corporations and unions should have no place in politics, NONE. now we’ve opened the door for even more corporate money buying political influence. this only enhances incumbents’ chances of remaining in office and further alienates you and I from the political process.

Obama, of all people to be upset about this. :rolleyes:

See to have your point of view you have to have some belief that our politicians arent already on the “corporations” dole already.

This doesn’t change that. I bet the average Congressman spends just as much time if not more at fundraisers than they do with their constituents. How much of their campaigns are paid for by companies? They are already corrupt as fuck! How many billions in earmarks get funneled to companies that support politicians with financing?

Just look at Obama care. Bunch of dems spend time at fundraisers with the insurance industry, and then come back and tell the American people you either buy insurance or face fines and/or jail time.

So now they get to buy ads and whatnot. Its still the American people who cast ballots. Its not corporations getting 1000 votes or something. If people can’t make informed decisions because of some ads then they should probably stay home on election day because they are too stupid.

Last…freedom is not free, and there are always consequences to freedom. However freedom must come before some sense of security…in this case about elections. Corporations have a place in politics because they are some of the most affected entities of laws in this nation. Why don’t they have a right to be a part of it too? Maybe they can get some ads out detailing exactly how harmful Obama and his crew has been to business in the last year. Maybe it will help people wake up. The flip side is the libs companies get their say too. Free speech is a right we all have whether as a business owner or not.

They’ve just turned it into Formula 1. Congressmen and women should ALL have to wear ‘bumper stickers’ from each of their constituent corporations and individuals funding them sized accordingly to the amount of funding.

I don’t know how Bush would have gotten in with a Haliburton scroll on his back or Obama with a dozen bank logos.

Let them get all the funding they want though. Just make it clear who’s funding them.

RickRock: I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with anything you’ve ever said until this thread.

Chad: I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with anything you’ve ever said until this thread.

…constitutional free-speech rights of corporations.

That statement makes me want to puke. Granting “Constitutional Rights” to nominal entities is a slap in the face to the Republic.

All this ensures is that now the people who run the government anyway, can operate “freely” to land “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”.

Fucking disgusting.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

It’s not crazy it just returns the system essentially to where it was before McCain-Fiengold. If you want to worry about something related to campaign fiance reform worry about having a sitting President who elected not to take matching funds because McCain-Feingold gave him an unfair advantage over his rival.

I am curious why unions and corporations have no place in the political process? Last time I checked unions and corporations weren’t run by robots but rather by living breathing people who care about their interests. I see no difference between a corporation/union making a donation and an advocacy group like the NRA making a contributions.

They already are on their dime and dole.

Just look at their campaign funding and all the fundraisers they do on these corporations dime. Look at the billions of dollars that then gets funneled to these corporations in ear marks and contracts.

Look at the laws they pass. Gee they go to a bunch of insurance company fundraisers, and then tell the American people buy their product or go to jail.

Unions and Corporations need to have a say in politics. They are affected by political rulings the same as the individual citizen is. A Corporation is a legal entity like a person is.

Govt suppression of free speech rights is wrong.

no, this much is obvious. but removing the mccain feingold restriction makes it much worse.

it makes it much worse.

its almost comparable to giving them 1000 votes though. the candidate who spends more money on advertising has a better chance of winning. this is advertising 101. if you can get your POV out there more than other candidates and have your face out there more than your opponents’ then you have a much better chance at winning.

they have plenty of a say in politics through lobbyists and the like. they already have too much influence over the system as it is. now we’ve opened the floodgates for them to buy influence.

this does nothing but hurt you and i.

No it doesn’t. I do research on candidates and make my choices based on which one I think more closely aligns with my own views.

If people are so easily swayed by some commercials then they are already making poor choices.

And if you don’t like unions or companies having their say then go build up your own company and buy some ad space or start your own union that will favor on party.

The only way it can get worse from “buy my sponsors product or go to jail” is “buy my sponsors product or get beheaded”.

The problem is that career politicians make political choices based upon the wants of those who fund them. Obama with the banks, Bush with the oil industry, and plenty before hand.

You know what corporations are?

Groups of people.

You know what interest groups are?

Groups of people.

People, even in groups, even in groups I don’t like, have the right to free speech.

Perhaps folks should focus on reducing the government’s unsightly presence in damn near every aspect of commerce at every possible layer as a means of reducing corporate interest in politics rather than holding that there’s such a thing as too much free speech.

Just a thought.

“Corporations and unions have no business in politics!!”

…then government has no business in business. The moment you give consent to a regulatory state you put both in politics, and heavy. The idea that unions don’t already have undue influence in politics is ridiculous, especially after they just cut a deal to exempt their “Cadillac” plans from taxation while everyone else’s would be taxed. The idea that now all of a sudden “too much” money will be involved in politics after George Soros is similarly laughable.

The court got this decision right. The whining and preening of liberal nitwits like Chuck Schumer is just that. Schumer and his ilk have demonstrated absolutely no fealty or concern to constitutional principles or great trepidation at passing blatantly unconstitutional pieces of legislation. They are hardly the canary in the mine.

Exactly.

I view it the same as the colonies not having a seat in Parliament.

If you are to enact laws against someone or a business they own then they should have a seat at the table, too.

And yes getting the government out of the asses of our nations businesses would mean businesses no longer have a need to “campaign” in government.

But alas another groups of people have been ingrained with the notion government has the authority to do even half of what they have done to this country, and rule our businesses we all work for in some tyrannical fashion “for the people”. Anytime I hear “for the people” the first thought is “Im from the government and I want more control over something”.

I think it is a very good thing, it is a strong win for freedom of speech. It gives the opportunity for more message and to dilute the politician’s own message.

Obviously if someone pays to run advertising they have an agenda, whether that be the politician, a PAC or a corporation.

The government deciding who can say what to who hurts us far more than corporations endorsing and supporting candidates.

the real problem is the politicians that take the bribes, attacking free speech isnt the answer to this

Imo,
This is not a good ruling.
Corporations are entities.
Entities do not have a soul, ethics or sense of right or wrong.
Only a need to exist and be profitable for their agendas.
When not efficacious they either file BK under the appropriate & relevant chapter.
Then they re-emerge, meld, forge, network, integrate, allign etc. E
et al w/ the continued interest of a revenue generating stream by a number of intricate financial manuevers to generate capitol infusion/continued sustanence etc.

This is not a good thing in the people’s best interest.
Complete juxapositon from previous SC decisions and views.

Posted from my iPhone.