Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 2ND COMING on January 21, 2010, 10:23:49 AM
-
WASHINGTON (Jan. 21) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.
The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.
The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.
-
Great. I thought CFR was an disgrace when it was passed.
-
Great. I thought CFR was an disgrace when it was passed.
yep. this is definitely a 1st amendment win for americans.
-
How do you think Obama and the dems will fare now that the very companies they deamonise,now have recourse?
-
How do you think Obama and the dems will fare now that the very companies they deamonise,now have recourse?
They have plenty of recourse- AFL/Acorn/Planned Parenthood/Soros/SEIU/AFT/CSEA/ et al now can spend without restraint.
-
yep. this is definitely a 1st amendment win for americans.
Which Americans?
Seems like it's a victory for special interest groups and well funded lobbies and that's about it.
-
Which Americans?
Seems like it's a victory for special interest groups and well funded lobbies and that's about it.
:'(
corporations are still prohibited from giving money directly to candidates...
:'(
-
:'(
corporations are still prohibited from giving money directly to candidates...
:'(
Only the richest Americans can afford free speech. Right/left wingers care more about their individual agendas than they do America or Americans so they don't give a fuck. It's become one of those 'ends justify the means' situations. :)
-
Only the richest Americans can afford free speech. Right/left wingers care more about their individual agendas than they do America or Americans so they don't give a fuck. It's become one of those 'ends justify the means' situations. :)
To me the alternative is worse.
Do you want the govt telling you that as a private citizen you cant spend your own money on an ad to advocate for a particular candidate for office?
-
fucking bullshit. you thought it was bad before, now you're going to be blasted to death by election related shit. More in the day and the election BS will probably start earlier. It's also one more thing that takes the people out of the picture. Some will not get how and disagree, oh well... ::)
-
To me the alternative is worse.
Do you want the govt telling you that as a private citizen you cant spend your own money on an ad to advocate for a particular candidate for office?
gotta love "corporate personhood" ;D
but hey, unions can do it too, why not corporations?
-
gotta love "corporate personhood" ;D
but hey, unions can do it too, why not corporations?
I dont even watch TV and get most of my info from the web and radio. If people want to spend millions on ads, thats their business, not mine.
-
To me the alternative is worse.
Do you want the govt telling you that as a private citizen you cant spend your own money on an ad to advocate for a particular candidate for office?
You'd rather have corporations, special interest groups and foreign countries dictating American policy?!
-
You'd rather have corporations, special interest groups and foreign countries dictating American policy?!
They already do.
-
They already do.
The original law didn't go far enough. This is precisely one of the reasons we're so fucked.
-
The original law didn't go far enough. This is precisely one of the reasons we're so fucked.
The first amendment and legal precedent saying a corporation is the same as a citizen for legal purposes is very clear.
-
The original law didn't go far enough. This is precisely one of the reasons we're so fucked.
Its good. It cuts out the middle man, no more 527's. People (joe schmoe) will actually see who is pulling for who. Maybe now people will be more proactive about it. hopefully.
-
Its good. It cuts out the middle man, no more 527's. People (joe schmoe) will actually see who is pulling for who. Maybe now people will be more proactive about it. hopefully.
At least we won't have to worry about voting anymore. :)
-
Congress and Obama are looking at a constitutional amendment to combat this travesty of a bill.
-
Congress and Obama are looking at a constitutional amendment to combat this travesty of a bill.
Never going to fly.
DU is melting this week. I love it. Whenever "progressives" are miserable and whaling in agony, I smile.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4235518
-
Never going to fly.
DU is melting this week. I love it. Whenever "progressives" are miserable and whaling in agony, I smile.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4235518
Why are you so happy? The freedoms you fight for and love are going to be eroded further by corporate and union interests. This is what you want? More influence?
-
Why are you so happy? The freedoms you fight for and love are going to be eroded further by corporate and union interests. This is what you want? More influence?
No, this ridiculous law applied to individuals as well and under the law. Corporations are treated as individuals for constitutional law purpouses.
Do some damn research bro. If you dont like it, try getting 225 years of legal precedent overturned.
-
Small government conservatives are a thing of the past.
-
Small government conservatives are a thing of the past.
No, CFR was a big govt invention.
The constitutuion is clear on its face and the govt has no business regulating free speech.
-
No, this ridiculous law applied to individuals as well and under the law. Corporations are treated as individuals for constitutional law purpouses.
Do some damn research bro. If you dont like it, try getting 225 years of legal precedent overturned.
I realize they are but that doesn't mean an amendment can't and shouldn't be made.
-
No, CFR was a big govt invention.
The constitutuion is clear on its face and the govt has no business regulating free speech.
Do you believe the forefathers anticipated corporations, special interest groups, abortion, illegal immigrant's children becoming citizens, and so on? It's not that they were short-sighted on some issues, more a matter of thinking life in America wouldn't change to this extent.
-
Do you believe the forefathers anticipated corporations, special interest groups, abortion, illegal immigrant's children becoming citizens, and so on? It's not that they were short-sighted on some issues, more a matter of thinking life in America wouldn't change to this extent.
Those in favor of gun control make the same argument.
-
Those in favor of gun control make the same argument.
The argument has merit. I'm in favor of background checks before concealed permits are issued. Tons of people legally carry... just go to YouTube and search "EDC". :)
-
The argument has merit. I'm in favor of background checks before concealed permits are issued. Tons of people legally carry... just go to YouTube and search "EDC". :)
I would be in favor of banning corps from donating money if they allowed unlimited personal contributions with full disclosure.