Conervatives in the Supreme Court just Loosened Rules on Corporate Campagn Contibutions... (how much, politicians)

[just_sayin']

I have never posted in this part of the city-data forum before....but let this just be said. Today will go down in history as the cataclysm of the downfall of America. Stick a fork in us. We're done. Teddy Roosevelt just rolled over in his grave. The American voter is now disenfranchised joke.

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

To think there are people actually applauding this, is simply stunning.

Stunning isn't the word that comes to my mind.

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

I can't help but notice that in this thread, the usual leftists' slavering desire to hurt and destroy the people they whine are somehow "oppressing" them, is far more important to them than protecting the freedoms described in the Constitution.

Apparently the 1st amendment is only important to them when it protects rights THEY want to use. When it protects all American's rights, they are eager to ignore it or throw it out.

Since when is a Corporation "an American"? It's not even a citizen. It's an entity.

Originally Posted by stillkit

Bash the Court for ruling in favor of free speech? Bash the Court for affirming our 1st Amendment rights? I say "BRAVO!" to the Court!

In case you're interested enough to read the Court's decision, here it is:

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

Free speech for who? The 1st Amendment rights of who? Corporate entities that don't even have to be American owned, that's "who"!

Originally Posted by ringwise

Now there's a shock, Liberals ignoring the fact that Unions benefit from this also.

Nobody's ignoring that fact. We're no happier that Unions are now more important than individuals than we are that Corporations are.

Originally Posted by stillkit

Can you be bought?

Of course not; neither can I, so what makes you think your neighbor can?

Are you kidding? Can politicians be bought? Why yes, yes they can. Even Democratic ones! Are you really alleging that "people" are too smart to be bought??? Where on earth would you even get an idea so outlandish?

Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90

We cannot allow the train wreck in Washington to stop our free speech.

Whose free speech?!! YOU have always had free speech.

Originally Posted by stillkit

It's really sad, and a harbinger of future troubles, that so many posters here don't understand or appreciate either the Constitution or our electoral processes. All they seem to know is that there is something, or someone, they don't like hearing from and they'd be more than willing to push them completely out public discourse for it.

So long as people are so myopic, so enchanted with their own opinions, so judgmental and so ready to condemn other opinions to the trash pile, so long will our republic be in danger.

Worse yet, they won't even get what I'm saying.

It's really sad, and a harbinger of future troubles, that so many posters here don't understand or appreciate either the Constitution or our electoral processes. All they seem to know is that there is a lowly group of people they'd rather never hear from, and they'd be more than willing to trample all over them to push them completely out of public discourse in favor of major corporations.

So long as people are so myopic, so enchanted with their own opinions, so judgmental and so ready to condemn other opinions to the trash pile, so long will our republic remain in danger after today's shredding of individual citizens' voices in favor of Big Corporate Interests.

Worse yet, they won't even get what either I or Justice Stevens is saying.

"The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United maybe required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page....rtname=7760143

But I guess Justice Stevens is a moron who won't understand what you're saying either. You really have a bloated sense of your own opinion. As if because you talk all haughty and superior, that makes you right and the rest of us idiots who can't even grasp basic English. Get over yourself. Four out of 9 Supreme Court Justices think those of us arguing against your opinion are more right than you are. It may not have been enough to keep this travesty from happening, but it's proof positive that your arrogant dismissal of those of us who see this as a very, very dangerous step on the wrong direction, is utterly without merit.

[Bub]

It is a Freedom of Speech issue READ IT: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Precendence for the decision came from: NAACP v. 371 U. S. 415, 428–429

HERE is the VOTING RECORD THEY ALL AGREED TO MOST OF IT:
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]C. J., and SCALIA and ALITO, JJ., joined, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SO-TOMAYOR, JJ., joined as to Part IV. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined in part. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part,in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

[azriverfan.]

What conservatives don't understand is that this is a major blow to electoral process. There are plenty of conservatives here that complain about our electoral process or why better candidates don't run. This is why! You have corporations essentially dictating policy and now they are more empowered than ever before. This is a huge blow to Democracy. You wonder why politicians support special interests and now you have your answer. Congratulations, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court just strengthened that idea. Free speech my a#@#@

[hortysir]

Originally Posted by I'minformed2

I have never posted in this part of the city-data forum before....but let this just be said. Today will go down in history as the cataclysm of the downfall of America. Stick a fork in us. We're done. Teddy Roosevelt just rolled over in his grave. The American voter is now disenfranchised joke.

Hear, hear!!

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by I'minformed2

I have never posted in this part of the city-data forum before....but let this just be said. Today will go down in history as the cataclysm of the downfall of America. Stick a fork in us. We're done. Teddy Roosevelt just rolled over in his grave. The American voter is now disenfranchised joke.

Before declaring the "death of America" couldn't this present the opportunity to fix the flaws in McCain-Feingold to legislation that is Constitutional?

[sickofnyc]

Originally Posted by I'minformed2

I have never posted in this part of the city-data forum before....but let this just be said. Today will go down in history as the cataclysm of the downfall of America. Stick a fork in us. We're done. Teddy Roosevelt just rolled over in his grave. The American voter is now disenfranchised joke.

There is no denyng the absolute truth in what you say. If a corporation does not like a candidate, they have the ability to slander him in favor of a candidate that will do their bidding. For anyone on CD that complains that "we are losing our freedoms", you can now legitimately, kiss your vote and democracy good bye.

[sickofnyc]

Corporate Control
" Today’s ruling essentially says that corporations can spend whatever they want to influence elections. Well, at a certain point, they don’t really just “influence” elections. Corporations can now pretty much dictate the outcome of elections. Great. The day after the voters of Massachusetts hand a pivotal Senate seat to the Republicans, the Supreme Court hands the government over to corporations. OK, this decision doesn’t mean that corporations are people like you. Many of them have virtually unlimited spending power, and they never die… so that means they’re nothing like you at all.

The Supreme Court’s decision was 5-4. The delicate balance on the Supreme Court highlights the fact that it’s more important than ever to elect quality people to office... while we still can. In his dissent Justice John Paul Stevens wrote “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Yup. You can pretty much wave goodbye to elected institutions. From now on we’re just going to have selected institutions—selected by corporations. The logic of the majority opinion was hardly worthy of the name logic. Chief Justice Roberts said the limits on corporate money restrained “the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.” Public discourse? With all the corporate money that’s now going to flow into elections, the public will be shut out of the discourse! Justice Anthony Kennedy had the gall to say “The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach.” We, Justice Kennedy? OK, if by “we” you mean Goldman Sachs. And really—vast censorship of corporations? Last time I checked, corporations weren’t having any problem getting their messages out. If you don’t believe me, Justice Kennedy, just check out the ads during the Super Bowl."

Journal - Randi Rhodes

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by Jill61

But I guess Justice Stevens is a moron who won't understand what you're saying either. You really have a bloated sense of your own opinion. As if because you talk all haughty and superior, that makes you right and the rest of us idiots who can't even grasp basic English. Get over yourself. Four out of 9 Supreme Court Justices think those of us arguing against your opinion are more right than you are. It may not have been enough to keep this travesty from happening, but it's proof positive that your arrogant dismissal of those of us who see this as a very, very dangerous step on the wrong direction, is utterly without merit.

Of all people, I do not have a bloated sense of my own opinion. I do, however, have some understanding of the law, how the Court rules and why.

You quote a dissenting opinion from Justice Stevens, but the fact remains that 5 of the 9 Justices ruled correctly in this case, irregardless of what anyone else thinks.

The Supreme Court does not make rulings based upon what they think of an issue. If they did, they'd be those very "activist" judges we all like to rail against. Had they done so in this case, there'd be a whole other group of posters here bemoaning that and being correct in doing so.

In this case, they focused on the underlying issue: free speech. That's what this case was about, not corporations per se. And, they backed up their opinion with a huge number of precedents, which you should know is a very important part of our law. I posted a partial list of the case law the majority considered on another thread and will post it again here, at the bottom.

This thread is long on emotion and short on knowledge. Thank goodness the Court doesn't rule on emotion, but on law and, in this case, they are on solid legal ground, whether we all like it or not. Take the time to read the actual opinion, which I posted earlier, then come back and tell me where they erred. Don't bother telling me how much you don't like their ruling or how you may think it's the end of the world, show me the law. In our country, that's all that matters.



"The Court has recognized that First Amendment protec-tion extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeast-ern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC,
26
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Opinion of the Court
520 U. S. 180 (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727 (1996); Turner, 512
U. S. 622; Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S. 105; Sable Com-munications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989); Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767 (1986); Land-mark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970).The Court has recognized that First Amendment protec-tion extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeast-ern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC,26"

[buzzpost]

Originally Posted by brubaker

When we equate '$$$' with 'free speech' it means some people have much more free speech than others = bullsh*t.
So, can we stay on the topic of bashing the Supreme Court for this ridiculous decision please?

I'm in agreement here. This ruling SUCKS. Get big business and the unions OUT of the political process!!