The Court's Blow to Democracy
Published: January 21, 2010
With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court's conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.
Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.
As a result of Thursday's ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We'll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.
The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. (The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend, though they have far less money at their disposal.)
=======
After the court heard the case, Senator John McCain told reporters that he was troubled by the "extreme naïveté" some of the justices showed about the role of special-interest money in Congressional lawmaking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday, said he hadn't read the decision but thought that it was headed that way when he listened to arguments presented last fall. McCain said he does not think it completely repudiates the law he wrote with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.
Feingold issued a statement that notes the decision does not overturn the ban on soft money donations to political parties, which can then distribute cash to candidates.
Hasn't Tyson/Cargill/JBS already attained the influence needed to control the beef industry under the "100 years of precedent" and McCain-Feingold?Oldtimer said:The Court's Blow to Democracy
Published: January 21, 2010
With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court's conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.
Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.
As a result of Thursday's ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We'll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.
The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. (The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend, though they have far less money at their disposal.)
=======
After the court heard the case, Senator John McCain told reporters that he was troubled by the "extreme naïveté" some of the justices showed about the role of special-interest money in Congressional lawmaking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html
The SCOTUS yesterday just threw out over 100 years of precedent- on their move to give corporations the same rights as individuals- and the ability of these corporate giants to better put politicians in their pockets- and buy the best law money can buy....More influence for the Tyson/JBS/multinational corporate money/etal-- and less for the working man and small businessman/cattle producer.....
Ben H said:Easy now putting everyone with an Ivy League education in the same category...
Ivy League educated elitist
I believe in corporations. They are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; but I believe that they should be so supervised and so regulated that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole.
~Theodore Roosevelt
Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures.
But there is another harm; and it is evident that we should try to do away with that. The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.
~Theodore Roosevelt
Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.
~Theodore Roosevelt
We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.
~Theodore Roosevelt
RobertMac said:Oldtimer said:The Court's Blow to Democracy
Published: January 21, 2010
With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court's conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.
Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.
As a result of Thursday's ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We'll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.
The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. (The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend, though they have far less money at their disposal.)
=======
After the court heard the case, Senator John McCain told reporters that he was troubled by the "extreme naïveté" some of the justices showed about the role of special-interest money in Congressional lawmaking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html
The SCOTUS yesterday just threw out over 100 years of precedent- on their move to give corporations the same rights as individuals- and the ability of these corporate giants to better put politicians in their pockets- and buy the best law money can buy....More influence for the Tyson/JBS/multinational corporate money/etal-- and less for the working man and small businessman/cattle producer.....
Hasn't Tyson/Cargill/JBS already attained the influence needed to control the beef industry under the "100 years of precedent" and McCain-Feingold?
Do you want government regulating what movies can be shown to the public? Do you want the government determining what movies can be advertised? Or what books can be sold? Well, the Obama administration actually argued for these regulations before the Supreme Court in defending campaign finance regulations. Actually, they went even further and said that such regulations were essential to limiting how much money is spent on political campaigns.
Indeed, when President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March, Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations.
Campaign finance regulations that limit donations or campaign expenditures also have another downside: they entrench incumbents. It is a lot easier for incumbents, who have had years to determine who their actual and potential donors are, to raise small amounts from a lot of donors. It is also a lot more important for a relatively unknown challenger to spend money on his campaign than it is for the incumbent.
President Obama is already moving to overturn Thursday's Supreme Court decision. "I am instructing my administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision," President Obama warned after the ruling.
But is this the type of country we want to live in? It is not just health care that the government wants to take over. Now they want to restrict what information we can receive. The very fact that a high-ranking administration official argues for banning certain books right before an election is scary and reminds us of the Chinese Government's attempt to restrict Google, not of free debate in a free country.
January 22, 2010
Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech"
But have mixed views on other issues at heart of new Supreme Court ruling
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx
Oldtimer said:RobertMac said:Oldtimer said:The SCOTUS yesterday just threw out over 100 years of precedent- on their move to give corporations the same rights as individuals- and the ability of these corporate giants to better put politicians in their pockets- and buy the best law money can buy....More influence for the Tyson/JBS/multinational corporate money/etal-- and less for the working man and small businessman/cattle producer.....
Hasn't Tyson/Cargill/JBS already attained the influence needed to control the beef industry under the "100 years of precedent" and McCain-Feingold?
So we should just give Tyson/Cargill/JBS/multinational corporates another way to further influence the beef industry :???:
I've been reading over this ruling and basicly the Supreme Court has said it is constitutional for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their own money to run ads and otherwise attempt to elect or defeat candidates for public office. This decision reverses long-standing rules preventing corporate money from being spent to directly influence elections.
As an example, just now when many cattle producers are trying to put stricter labeling laws on grass fed and natural beef so they can develop some truth and transparency for their home markets-- the Tysons/JBS's of the world would rather have it left for their own designs so they could sell it one day after it was taken off the steroids, chicken litter, and whatever else cheap feed they can find.. Tyson "All Natural"- we've seen in the chicken industry what they want there...
And as many producers are fighting to get enforcement of - and stronger wordage to the Packers and Stockyards Act-- the Tyson/etal lobbyists could go to specific members of Congress and openly say: "Either you vote against these proposals or we are going to spend $10 million to defeat you in November."
And any chance of getting Congressional help for enforcement of M-COOL could be out the door..JBS definitely doesn't want that...
Definitely not a procattleman decision unless you are the King Ranch, Parker Ranch or Ted Turner...
You, like most liberals, learned nothing from the Mass. Senate election...voters are going to hold corrupt politicians accountable and the standard for accountability will be the Constitution. Progressives want to ignore or change the Constitution...they are going to be voted out!!!RM said:You, like most liberals, must believe all voters are stupid and need some Ivy League educated elitist to tell us what is right or wrong!!!
RobertMac said:Oldtimer said:RobertMac said:Hasn't Tyson/Cargill/JBS already attained the influence needed to control the beef industry under the "100 years of precedent" and McCain-Feingold?
So we should just give Tyson/Cargill/JBS/multinational corporates another way to further influence the beef industry :???:
I've been reading over this ruling and basicly the Supreme Court has said it is constitutional for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their own money to run ads and otherwise attempt to elect or defeat candidates for public office. This decision reverses long-standing rules preventing corporate money from being spent to directly influence elections.
As an example, just now when many cattle producers are trying to put stricter labeling laws on grass fed and natural beef so they can develop some truth and transparency for their home markets-- the Tysons/JBS's of the world would rather have it left for their own designs so they could sell it one day after it was taken off the steroids, chicken litter, and whatever else cheap feed they can find.. Tyson "All Natural"- we've seen in the chicken industry what they want there...
And as many producers are fighting to get enforcement of - and stronger wordage to the Packers and Stockyards Act-- the Tyson/etal lobbyists could go to specific members of Congress and openly say: "Either you vote against these proposals or we are going to spend $10 million to defeat you in November."
And any chance of getting Congressional help for enforcement of M-COOL could be out the door..JBS definitely doesn't want that...
Definitely not a procattleman decision unless you are the King Ranch, Parker Ranch or Ted Turner...You, like most liberals, learned nothing from the Mass. Senate election...voters are going to hold corrupt politicians accountable and the standard for accountability will be the Constitution. Progressives want to ignore or change the Constitution...they are going to be voted out!!!RM said:You, like most liberals, must believe all voters are stupid and need some Ivy League educated elitist to tell us what is right or wrong!!!
Your argument is like that of liberals that blame the gun and not the murderer that used the gun. Money is not corrupt, it's the politician that is corrupt. "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem." paraphrased Reagan
Mr. Ex-sheriff, where did I say anything about (R) or (D)? I'm talking about the ideology of liberals/progressives that want "to fundamentally change America"...which means, in their eyes, changing the Constitution. Please try to stay on topic! :roll:Oldtimer said:Are you trying to imply that just because someone has an (R) by their name they can't be corrupt crooks- or on the takeRM said:You, like most liberals, learned nothing from the Mass. Senate election...voters are going to hold corrupt politicians accountable and the standard for accountability will be the Constitution. Progressives want to ignore or change the Constitution...they are going to be voted out!!!
Your argument is like that of liberals that blame the gun and not the murderer that used the gun. Money is not corrupt, it's the politician that is corrupt. "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem." paraphrased Reagan
If your choice is always between two crooks- a crook will always win....
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
You beat me to it, Hypo!hypocritexposer said: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
Where does it say it only pertains to individuals? Is the Press an individual or a business?
The Court overturned an unconstitutional provision of the law. The people speaking through their representatives do not have the right to violate the Constitution - their only option is to amend the Constitution if they want a law that the Constitution prohibits.
In the US, the Constitution comes first and sits atop all other considerations, or it is completely meaningless. I understand that it is a shock - and for a liberal, distasteful - when the SCOTUS applies what the Constitution actually says, but it was what they all swore to do. If you don't like that the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law" than work to change it. Whining that people who swore to uphold the Constitution are upholding the Constitution is ridiculous.
RobertMac said:You beat me to it, Hypo!hypocritexposer said: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
Where does it say it only pertains to individuals? Is the Press an individual or a business?
The Court overturned an unconstitutional provision of the law. The people speaking through their representatives do not have the right to violate the Constitution - their only option is to amend the Constitution if they want a law that the Constitution prohibits.
In the US, the Constitution comes first and sits atop all other considerations, or it is completely meaningless. I understand that it is a shock - and for a liberal, distasteful - when the SCOTUS applies what the Constitution actually says, but it was what they all swore to do. If you don't like that the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law" than work to change it. Whining that people who swore to uphold the Constitution are upholding the Constitution is ridiculous.
Typical of liberal/progressive thinking...even back to the early 20th century progressives of T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson.
Free speech...individual, not corporate(unless you are Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity...)
Free press...individual or corporation(unless you are FoxNews, Drudge, conservative blog...)
Keep and bare arms...gov. organized militia, not individual
Liberal/progressives believe the Constitution is a "living document" to be interpretated to their advantage. OT shows his progressivism!
Many Federal laws need to be looked at under the light of the tenth amendment...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
(United States being the Federal Government)
n a ruling that has overwhelming implications for how elections are funded, the Supreme Court has struck down a key campaign-finance restriction that prevents corporations and unions from pouring money into political ads.In a 5-4 ruling, in the Citizens United v. FEC case, the door is now wide open for unrestricted amounts of corporate money to flow into American politics. The Republican-appointed right-wing five members of the court explicitly said that corporations are "persons" under the law, and thus entitled to Constitutional rights just like the Founders fought and died to give to you and me. The four dissenters pointed out that corporations will now own politicians, will dominate our politics, and that democracy itself is now at risk. Bennito Mussolini invented a new form of government where corporations ran the government – he called it "fascism." Welcome to Mussolini's America.
President Obama is proposing now "giving bank regulators the power to limit the size of the nation's largest banks and the scope of their risk-taking activities," an idea "championed by Paul A. Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and an adviser to the Obama administration. The proposal would prohibit commercial banks from proprietary trading for their own accounts. If true, and if he really does it right, this could signal a major change in direction for President Obama, away from giving the banksters whatever they want and toward protecting the average person from these corporate predators.
21 Responses to "No Campaign Limits?"
1.
Dan January 21st, 2010, 1:15 pm
I don't understand how the court doesn't see this as more rights for the corporation than for the individual. If the individual is limited and not allowed to spend freely for a candidate, then how can the corporation be allowed unlimited privilege. I understand the money can't be directly given, but is John Q. Public allowed to take out anti-Palin ads on television by this new standard?
This could be a win for Democrats. In an odd sort of twist, companies that might support Sarah Palin (good Lord), might actually come out of their proverbial closet. I might be able to win the argument with my Republican friends to not vote for her because Exxon is paying for her so they can bilk them on gas later.
A competitive ad might sound like "Sarah Palin is backed by Exxon, but who is backing you America?"
This will backlash. If a corporation is a 'person' under the law, how can they be expected to pay less tax than a 'person'? Equal rights ought to mean equal responsibility.
Nice work Thom in identifying the villians in America.