US Supreme Court strikes down campaign finance limits

[Reverend Rick]

OTOH, do you think that if some company gave enough money to the candidate you did vote for, he or she might be persuaded to do things you don't agree with?

Yes, I believe they would be more than just tempted.

 

[yossarian22]

But "people" is just the plural of "person", and it's now established that under the law, a corporation is a person. Therefore, the right of the corporations to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No?

Edit: arguably, this would be closer to the strict letter of the amendment, since a corporate private army would be a lot closer to a "well regulated militia" than an armed individual citizen would be.

I have yet to see any legal precedent that leads to corporations being considered persons with all the rights associated with personhood. Corporate personhood is something that everybody in this thread seems to misunderstand. This decision was not caused by considering corporations a separate legal entity (this is what corporate personhood is, and this is necessary to have laws specific to corporations and for contract signing etc).

For people against this decision, what would you have asked the Supreme Court to do? Look at FOX news, they already are extremely political and are only protected due to their dubious distinction as the press, so define "press" in a meaningful and distinct way. Was MSNBC the press when they were owned by GE?

 

[Buttercup]

I have yet to see any legal precedent that leads to corporations being considered persons with all the rights associated with personhood. Corporate personhood is something that everybody in this thread seems to misunderstand. This decision was not caused by considering corporations a separate legal entity (this is what corporate personhood is, and this is necessary to have laws specific to corporations and for contract signing etc).

For people against this decision, what would you have asked the Supreme Court to do? Look at FOX news, they already are extremely political and are only protected due to their dubious distinction as the press, so define "press" in a meaningful and distinct way. Was MSNBC the press when they were owned by GE?

Speaking for myself, the problem I have with the decision is that corporations can now donate endless funds to the candidate of choice whereas before there was a cap. Is that not the case?

 

[gnomon]

Obama takes a swipe at the justices for the decision.

Alito shakes his head. You can feel the 8 seconds of tension in the air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KMKD1Mi8o0&feature=player_embedded

That was an idiotic thing to say.

Making a hyperbolic remark as opposed to saying something actually challenging the specifics.

Speaking for myself, the problem I have with the decision is that corporations can now donate endless funds to the candidate of choice whereas before there was a cap. Is that not the case?

It's not the case. The decision dealt with funding for advertisements. The key issue was that a video was produced regarding Hillary and it violated the McCain-Feingold law. It was determined that, considering corporations were already assumed to possess 1st Amendment rights from a case before the 20th Century, that the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in that it abridged the political speech of corporations.

Now corporations means for-profit organizations, unions, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, non-profits, grass roots organizations, etc. It's across the board. The ACLU actually leaned its support towards Citizen United in the case.

The tricky questions are the reach the SCOTUS made in it's decision by reviewing two other cases on the issue as well.

What I fail to see is how knowing that political ads can now run all the way up until election time, as they could less than a decade ago, truly matters. Actually, I fail to see how these campaign reforms have made a bit of difference. The argument against the SCOTUS decision, any argument, must show how certain (I say certain because I seriously doubt consideration is given to the defining reach of corporation) will effect anything different than the status quo.

Frankly, the opposition on this is starting to sound like those who oppose gay marriage by saying gay marriage will ruin the culture of America. How? Corporations still hold the exact same lobbying influence as they did a few weeks ago.

What gets me is that Hudson v. Michigan, Raich v. Gonzalez/Ashcroft and Kelo v. New London hasn't raised as much ire as FEC v. Citizens United. That's what worries me considering those other three directly dealt with the concept of individual citizens rights against the government. From all these, respectively, the government can keep evidence obtained from an illegal action, claim to control all commerce and products regardless if they are intrastate v. interstate AND take your home or other property and give it to another private party. All concepts traditionally held as being rights to protect citizens against the government and nary a bleep compared to a free speech case over political ads and documentaries (speech) that apparently hasn't changed our political landscape one iota.

 

[Buttercup]

It's not the case. The decision dealt with funding for advertisements. The key issue was that a video was produced regarding Hillary and it violated the McCain-Feingold law. It was determined that, considering corporations were already assumed to possess 1st Amendment rights from a case before the 20th Century, that the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in that it abridged the political speech of corporations.

I still don't like the idea. The horror of endless acerbic, slanderous, aggrandized campaign commercials running on TV, radio, billboards, automobiles, 18 wheelers, ice cream trucks, tricycles, etc, etc for months and months sounds tortuous. How can this decision be a good thing? And try to forget the status quo for a minute.

 

[gnomon]

I still don't like the idea. The horror of endless acerbic, slanderous, aggrandized campaign commercials running on TV, radio, billboards, automobiles, 18 wheelers, ice cream trucks, tricycles, etc, etc for months and months sounds tortuous. How can this decision be a good thing? And try to forget the status quo for a minute.

The funny thing is that I don't like the way things are myself.

I think we, as a nation, need to rethink the role corporations play in our community. But in order to do so we have to revisit the decision that allowed corporations the same Bill of Rights protections as citizens under the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS decided long ago.

That's why I mentioned all those other court decisions that directly involve private citizens. But the current decision is in line with the current understanding of the role of corporations no matter how much I might dislike it. If the SCOTUS views corporations as possessing such rights than the decision is a consistent one.

The only way to effect real change is to improve the education of our children in civics, get the American electorate more involved and to fight back against government malfeasance. But the electorate as a whole has become lazy. Look at Obama. Here's a President that promised so much so called change and has not delivered. Sure, he couldn't get Gitmo closed in a ridiculously planned time frame but he also supports the past President he maligned with the Bagram prison in Afghanistan. People do not look at that.

We, as a nation, spend more to combat illicit drugs while ignoring the fact that the alcohol and tobacco industry are important economic drivers for our economy while spending less to combat modern day slavery which all indicators state is worse now than it has ever been.

Our priorities are wrong. Which is why I believe that the current distaste of a rather simple SCOTUS decision based on simple understanding laid in precedent by so many people obscures even greater issues. Personally, I find the arguments so far not only across the media but on this forum regarding this decision to be likened to the argument against gay marriage. Lots of woe but very little argumentation to support the derision.

edit: And the sick thing with me is that I want the argumentation. Good arguments. But frankly the chicken little responses thus far have been completely pathetic.

 

[Buttercup]

The funny thing is that I don't like the way things are myself.

I think we, as a nation, need to rethink the role corporations play in our community. But in order to do so we have to revisit the decision that allowed corporations the same Bill of Rights protections as citizens under the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS decided long ago.

That's why I mentioned all those other court decisions that directly involve private citizens. But the current decision is in line with the current understanding of the role of corporations no matter how much I might dislike it. If the SCOTUS views corporations as possessing such rights than the decision is a consistent one.

Then why the change now? What's the impetus?

The only way to effect real change is to improve the education of our children in civics, get the American electorate more involved and to fight back against government malfeasance. But the electorate as a whole has become lazy.

Can't argue with that.

Look at Obama. Here's a President that promised so much so called change and has not delivered.

Give him a bit more time. After our last administration, I'm willing to allow Obama the benefit of the doubt for now....at least another year. The Washington machine is vicious.

We, as a nation, spend more to combat illicit drugs while ignoring the fact that the alcohol and tobacco industry are important economic drivers for our economy while spending less to combat modern day slavery which all indicators state is worse now than it has ever been.

Too true.

Our priorities are wrong. Which is why I believe that the current distaste of a rather simple SCOTUS decision based on simple understanding laid in precedent by so many people obscures even greater issues. Personally, I find the arguments so far not only across the media but on this forum regarding this decision to be likened to the argument against gay marriage. Lots of woe but very little argumentation to support the derision.

edit: And the sick thing with me is that I want the argumentation. Good arguments. But frankly the chicken little responses thus far have been completely pathetic.

Well, to defend the average American, including myself, most of us aren't interested in politics enough to do the research it takes to know the issues from top to bottom. We work, we come home to take care of our families and then it's time for bed before another identical round starts the next day. On the weekends we just want to relax. When we do try to stay informed, our easy news sources are TV, newspapers and the internet. You have to really dig to find out anything that isn't whitewashed, coddled for middle America or drown out by advertising. Sometimes there just aren't enough hours in the day to take assessment of how the world turns and the myriad of problems unfolding.

Some issues such as this campaign funding decision strike a chord with people. I need to find out more I'll admit but what I've heard so far, I really don't like.

 

[yossarian22]

Speaking for myself, the problem I have with the decision is that corporations can now donate endless funds to the candidate of choice whereas before there was a cap. Is that not the case?

There was a cap in how much you could donate to a particular organization that created the ads. Nothing, however, stopped corporations from creating support ads that just happened to strongly agree with one candidate and disagree strongly with another. This decision changes nothing really. It just allows explicit support of a political candidate. Ad campaigns provide corporations far less leverage than lobbying (see the success of the health insurance industry) and cost far more. They are also transparent and rarely particularly convincing.

 

[yossarian22]

Well, to defend the average American, including myself, most of us aren't interested in politics enough to do the research it takes to know the issues from top to bottom.

I would hope the average american would take the time to know the first amendment, because that is all the research required to support the supreme court's decision.

 

[Buttercup]

I would hope the average american would take the time to know the first amendment, because that is all the research required to support the supreme court's decision.

It's more complicated than that....I'm not the only one confused. Just trying to decipher how a corporation equates with person hood is baffling enough.

 

[Buttercup]

They are also transparent and rarely particularly convincing.

You really think so? If advertising was so unconvincing, why would Budweiser pay millions of dollars to place a Super Bowl ad? I worked for an advertising agency...you can't imagine the consumer studies done regarding the effectiveness of advertising. Advertising works. No question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ad campaigns provide corporations far less leverage than lobbying (see the success of the health insurance industry) and cost far more. They are also transparent and rarely particularly convincing.

Advertising is powerful. While subliminal messaging doesn't work that well, regular advertising is what lures consumers in. Advertising works by putting out a name, and people probably won't remember the add, but they will remember the name.

 

[yossarian22]

It's more complicated than that....I'm not the only one confused. Just trying to decipher how a corporation equates with person hood is baffling enough.

This decision has nothing to do with corporate personhood.

The first amendment is a restriction on government rights (Congress shall pas no laws). It does not state that people have these rights, simply that Congress cannot restrict them.

While advertising does produce results, it is extremely expensive compared to lobbying and much less effective. Even then, why bother producing advertisements, which people have a tendency to view as misleading, when you can simply influence the media, which people consider far more reliable?

 

[Magic Man]

A couple that makes 250,000 a year is NOT RICH.

Let's say they get 50% of that after taxes. That means they make about $10,400 a month after taxes.

Mortgage - 3,000
Car payments - 1,200
Car insurance - 200
G&E - 300
TV/Phone/Internet - 300
Health insurance - 200
Food - 400
Vacation - 700
Tuition - 1,000
Retirement - 2,000
Savings - 1,100

I mean, look at that. That only leaves them with $1,100 a month in savings (aside from retirement and vacation funds)! I don't know how anyone who would show their face at the country club would ever live on that!

Middle class millionaires cannot even afford to live in Manhattan.

"Middle-class millionaires" So, people making $250,000 aren't super-rich. They're still rich.

 

[DallasApple]

I would put someone making 250,000 a year (depending on where you live) in the "well off" catergory.

Just because you have to budget doesnt change that.I dont think to be considered wealthy means you have to have the ability to spend endlessly.The large majority of us can always point to someone that has more wealth than we do.Where would you draw the line?Sure someone making 250,000 a year can say they are "poor in comparison" to someone making 2x that..But then the ones making 2x that can say they are "poor in comparison" to someone making 2x that.

And what are the standards for "rich" anyway? The size of your home?What kind of vacation you can afford?What part of town you live in?

I feel "well off" compared to many people..And I feel 'poor" compared to others.

Love

Dallas

 

[Reverend Rick]

I would put someone making 250,000 a year (depending on where you live) in the "well off" catergory.



Dallas

Agreed. They are well off not rich.

 

[Buttercup]

This decision has nothing to do with corporate personhood.

The first amendment is a restriction on government rights (Congress shall pas no laws). It does not state that people have these rights, simply that Congress cannot restrict them.

Ok, I have to come forth and admit my ignorance regarding this issue...and I blame the nightly news. You know, I watch American news on television maybe once a month. I hate the hyperbole and scare tactics used by ALL news networks and therefore quite using the TV as a news source. I should have stuck with the program. I watched two night's worth of broadcasting about the decision and was left confused as hell.

So, now that I've read up slightly more on the issue, there are definitely huge differences of opinions regarding the ramifications of this decision, and at this point, it's difficult to know what will happen. The questions I need answered now are about foreign corporations and the influence that's intertwined with American corporations. Do you have any thoughts about that aspect?

While advertising does produce results, it is extremely expensive compared to lobbying and much less effective. Even then, why bother producing advertisements, which people have a tendency to view as misleading, when you can simply influence the media, which people consider far more reliable?

You're probably thinking of television advertising when you say it's extremely expensive but radio advertising is relatively cheap as are billboards and flyers. Online advertising is another venue that can be used profusely. I probably would have killed myself if I had to keep deleting McCain pop up ads the last election go around.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Agreed. They are well off not rich.

How are they not rich? Granted, in some cities $250,000 is just a comfortable living, but in most parts of America, that much money isn't super rich, but indeed it is rich.

 

[yossarian22]

Ok, I have to come forth and admit my ignorance regarding this issue...and I blame the nightly news. You know, I watch American news on television maybe once a month. I hate the hyperbole and scare tactics used by ALL news networks and therefore quite using the TV as a news source. I should have stuck with the program. I watched two night's worth of broadcasting about the decision and was left confused as hell.

So, now that I've read up slightly more on the issue, there are definitely huge differences of opinions regarding the ramifications of this decision, and at this point, it's difficult to know what will happen. The questions I need answered now are about foreign corporations and the influence that's intertwined with American corporations. Do you have any thoughts about that aspect?

The issue of "foreign" corporations is the biggest one caused by this decision, and will probably lead to another case being brought before the court. Most corporations are, at this point, so multinational that you can hardly assign a nationality to them. When that case inevitably makes it way towards the court I would guess that they would have to firmly establish if the bill of rights applies solely to american citizens or not. (there may well already be precedent regarding this, so they will rule along those lines).

You're probably thinking of television advertising when you say it's extremely expensive but radio advertising is relatively cheap as are billboards and flyers. Online advertising is another venue that can be used profusely. I probably would have killed myself if I had to keep deleting McCain pop up ads the last election go around.

That is a possibility, but I'm pretty much convinced that this won't give large corporations any more influence that they already have through lobbying, but it will give smaller ones more options. This ruling does apply to every sort of corporation out there, so we'll probably see unions and the aclu make more use of this new option than, say, the insurance companies.

 

[Magic Man]

Agreed. They are well off not rich.

You apparently decided to ignore the rest of her post. How unsurprising. Also in the unsurprising category: the fact that you ignored my post. Shocker. I forgot how much you dislike facts and specifics, and how much you love to talk in vague terms.