Today's Supreme Court Decision

[( . Y . )Elizabeth Taylor]

The Supreme Court, the conservatives on the court, today ruled that corporations can contribute whatever they want to political candidates. I'm curious what you "Libertarians" out there think about this. My take: the corporations are taking over the world and this decision is a total disaster.

[( . Y . )Bettie Page]

Neither the courts nor the government has the right to say what entities are "good" and which ones are "bad". If a union can spend money without restrictions and a corporation can't, then we don't have equity in freedom of speech. If the Comgress can make laws that restrict the free speech of any group of people, reguardless how they are connected or organized, then every group can be targeted.

If any group can be targeted, how many make a group? Is a collection of individuals with a common political statement an organized group? Then why not restrict the free speech rights of those individuals before they become an organized group.

1. 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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The bill of rights were listed in a specific order with the most important ones (in the eyes of the writers), listed first. Being as cynical as the next guy I believe Congress and The Senate has long ago stopped listening to the will of the people. Put into perspective, the win in Boston by a Republican and this decision are both related and equally important.

[( . Y . ) Grace Kelly]

Political partys should be funded by the tax payer and not by anyone with self motivated reasons....

Remember guys "for the people by the people"

[( . Y . )Elizabeth Taylor]

Bettie: BS. Corporations are controlled by investors...the people that work for the corporations may or may not buy into whatever candidate corporate executives prefer. Unions were banned along with corporations and now both can push whatever candidate they want. If you're on the side of that, then you aren't really for individual rights. We're becoming a two class society...rich and poor. I guess if you're rich you like this ruling. Money overrules almost everything. The special interests win. This is fair and what the founding fathers had in mind? I don't think so. Look at what the justices that opposed this fiasco had to say. Heck even the Pommies get it.....

[HoLyTeRRoR]

Whether you like it or not this is protected by the 1st Amendment.

From Judge Napolitano:

The Supreme Court today invalidated its own 20 year old ruling on group political contributions and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law. The 20 year old ruling had prohibited all political expenditures by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the Court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. Thus, from today forward, all groups are free to spend their own money on their own political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates.

The Court also threw out the portion of McCain-Feingold that had permitted persons to contribute to Political Action Committees (PACs), but barred those PACs from using those funds in the sixty day period preceding an election. Since that sixty day period preceding the election is the most vital in any campaign, the Court held that the prohibition on expenditures during that time was a violation of the free speech guaranteed to all persons, individually and in groups, by the First Amendment.

Thus, as a result of the ruling today, all groups may spend their own money as they wish on their own campaigns, but they still may not--as groups--contribute directly to political campaigns. The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold was not challenged in this case, thus its constitutionality was not an issue before the Court. Groups will thus effectively be running and financing their own campaigns for candidates on their own.

The case arose in the context of a challenge by an advocacy group that produced a 90 minute motion picture called "Hillary: The Movie," a highly critical movie about Hillary Clinton, to a ruling by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC ruled that the movie was in reality an anti-Hillary political ad, and since it was financed by an advocacy group, it was banned under the Supreme Court's 20 year old ruling that was invalidated today. That movie can now, two years after it was made and eighteen months after Sen. Clinton abandoned her presidential campaign, be distributed and viewed. During the course of oral argument on this case in October in the Supreme Court, one of the FEC's lawyers replied to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia to the effect that the FEC could ban books if they were paid for by corporations, labor unions, or advocacy groups. This highly un-American statement in the Supreme Court--that the federal government can ban books--infuriated a few of the justices. The conservative justices were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote between the conservative and liberal blocs on the Court. The Court's newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined the dissent.

[HoLyTeRRoR]

I will type my personal opinion on it later when I am home.

[( . Y . ) Grace Kelly]

Originally Posted by ( . Y . )Jean Arthur[1]

I will type my personal opinion on it later when I am home.

Ooo ooo I can't wait

[( . Y . )Bettie Page]

Structure of any entity, corporation, union, cooperative, civic association, or even gang affiliation is irrellevant. Social class, bank account, political affiliation, ditto.

Am I rich? Hell, no!

I'm a self employed business owner who had the worst year ever last year. But what if I hit the lottery for 300 million and I set myself up as a corporation to protect myself any my assets (yes, an individual can be a corporation). Under your reasoning I would loose my ability to excercise my first amendment rights. Sure I would be able to speak freely, but what if I wanted to put out an ad in the newspaper or on the radio. I would have to pay for it. And since all my money is technically "evil corporation" money, I would be prohibited from doing so.

You don't have to look too far back in American history to find a period when it was decided that an entire group of people for no other reason than simply being accused of a certain political beleif were arrested, denied employment, denied higher education, deported, arrested, and faced the loss of almost every right that all other Americans enjoyed. If anyone playing along needs a hint, think McCarthy.


Noam Chomsky
If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.

[( . Y . )Nan Wynn]

As much as I typically sympathize with Liz, I lean towards this decision being the right one for the simple reason that denying groups this right is really reacting to a symptom, not the underlying problem.

Government is now run by career politicians, who leverage their position and power to gain further position, power and money. Limiting the close associations of lobbyists and lawmakers is appropriate, but denying those same lobbyists their right to be outspoken simply because they can spend enough money for the message to be overwhelming misses the mark. A better option might be to limit how much publicly broadcast or printed media can charge for political advertisements and the frequency with which similar messages appear. If they don't always sell to the highest bidder and the total number is capped then everyone has an opportunity for equal say. (In theory)

Bring back the true nature of government, where people hold office as a form of civic duty not as a profession and things get better, but there's still the problem of someone using their position to achieve a particular goal in exchange for employment, etc. Obama has actually addressed this to some degree for the executive branch. The justices serve for life and play a different and more vetted role so don't apply.

The real problem is Congress. The only effective recourse is MASSIVE public outcry and even that is subject to the periodicity of public elections. We obviously can't hold democratic votes for everything the legislature needs to decide, but the current system of holding senators especially to account isn't working. What if legislators were not allowed to hold consecutive terms or stump for other candidates while in office? That would leave them free to do their job while in office, and assuming they did well, still run for office again in the future.

That's my opinion, but I definitely think any form of speech censorship fails to solve the problem. Yes, our country has LOTS of sheeple, and yes they tend to follow media sensationalism like lemmings off a cliff, but punishing those who seek to profit from such seems more like the whining of a losing team. I don't want campaigns to devolve into PAC mud-slinging contests, but perhaps the better approach to censorship would be to sue some of the loudmouth BS organizations for libel and/or slander... unless of course they're telling the truth.

[( . Y . )Mitzi Gaynor]

Haha, look at the limey git trying to talk American politics. For the people and by the people here in the Colonies, eh, Grace? LMAO.