News Stories

[andyjay729]

Wow, I didn't expect an offhand "civil war" comment to turn into another gun debate. If you want to look at it that way, I think anybody would take to the streets if pushed hard enough. That said, even though I'm a registered Democrat, I know that a LOT of the military staff and soldiers are pretty right-wing. And, umm, all the missle silos are in red states...

But really, I just meant the "civil war" comment to highlight the viciousness on both sides of the culture war, the healthcare debate, and a whole lot of other shit. I personally wouldn't have much issue if some states wanted to leave the union, like Texas' Rick Perry vaguely threatened recently and like some Vermonters considered during the Bush years. It's about their citizens' happiness, and if they can't tolerate this nation's federal government anymore, that's their decision. (I guess you could say I think the South had the right to secede in 1861; they just did so for the wrong reason. And no offense Vexx; you're from Texas, right?)

[Nosauz]

January 21, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key provisions of some of the central laws governing how the nation's political campaigns are financed just ahead of the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional primaries and election season.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, overturning a 20-year-old decision that barred such contributions.

"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

The new ruling blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also strikes down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned unions and corporations from paying for political ads in the waning days of campaigns.
Read The Ruling
Supreme Court Decision: 'Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission'

It could take weeks to sort through the full ramifications of the landmark ruling, but its ripple effects could unleash a whole new flow of new corporate cash into the political realm and transform how political ads are regulated.

For example, the decision also removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

At the same time, NPR's Peter Overby points out that one important limit remains intact: Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That limit dates back to 1907. The justices also upheld some other restrictions, including disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that advocate for political candidates.

The original case before the court seemed an improbable vehicle for such a dramatic re-examination of campaign funding regulations.
The Supreme Court decision on corporate spending in political campaigns overturns a 20-year-old rule
Getty Images

The Supreme Court decision on corporate spending in political campaigns overturns a 20-year-old ruling.

Brought by Citizens United, a nonprofit group, against the Federal Election Commission, the case presented a seemingly straightforward question: Do campaign finance restrictions on corporate spending apply to Citizen United's plan to run advertisements for an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary at the peak of her 2008 presidential run?

But the high court ended up in a much broader examination of constitutional issues that questioned the entire system that has been built up over decades to regulate the role of corporate money in politics.

Ever since justices first heard arguments on the Citizens United case last March, they have gone to unusual lengths before rendering a decision.

The court scheduled a rare re-argument in September — a month before the fall term officially began. And justices ordered lawyers from both sides to expand their scope to address not just the corporate electioneering issue at play in Citizens United, but the constitutionality of all limits to corporate political speech.

Thursday's decision was even issued on a day the court does not normally deal with such issues.

At the center of the court's inquiry is the McCain-Feingold law, which prohibited "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or unions from being broadcast or transmitted 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before the general election. Opponents of the law say it allows the Federal Election Commission to in effect restrict free speech.

But the court also reached even further back to re-examine a 1990 precedent that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates. Some watchdog groups fear that if the limits are scrapped completely, it could open a massive spigot of special interest money from deep-pocketed companies.

The 2008 case was originally launched by Citizens United, a nonprofit group that advocates for conservative ideals and candidates.

Citizens United wanted to air a 90-minute documentary chronicling Clinton's more than 30 years in public life from a conservative perspective through news clips, interviews with acquaintances and other material. Citizens United spokesman Will Holley said the film was sold online and through retailers for $19.95 and was in limited distribution at select movie theaters during 2008.

But questions arose when Citizens United sought to advertise Hillary The Movie on television in January 2008 — the same month as major Democratic primaries — without running any disclaimers or disclosures of donors.

The FEC barred the ads from running without the disclaimers. Citizens United claimed that the advertisements were commercial speech more akin to a documentary, rather than opposition to candidate Clinton.

Oh lawdy, if you thought the lobby had power during the Abramoff years boy were you wrong, welcome to the United States of Corporate America, because corporations matter more than you citizen.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Oh lawdy, if you thought the lobby had power during the Abramoff years boy were you wrong, welcome to the United States of Corporate America, because corporations matter more than you citizen.

Corporations/companies still cannot donate directly to campaigns, but must do it via lobbyists. The majority opinion is using a First Amendment argument to weigh its case; there is something... peculiar about this that I don't much like - i.e., it doesn't 100% fit, IMHO - but I'm too tired ATM to think it through.

What does the minority opinion say, however? It's a 5:4 decision in the end. This decision was not heavily favored certainly.

I would imagine that this precedent would be useful to not just companies, but also to other types of entities like churches, unions, and etc., though? It's... stretchable. In such a case, U.S. elections will be... interesting to watch - preferably from a distance, IMHO. Right vs Left. Companies vs Unions. Popcorn sounds good for that for the viewing audience.

Brown arrives on Capital Hill and meets with senators

WASHINGTON – Sen.-elect Scott Brown came to Congress Thursday, proclaiming Washington needs help in solving the country's problems because "we've sort of lost our way."

Still basking in the glow of his stunning victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election against Martha Coakley, Brown said he looks forward to getting to work. "I plan to look at every bill and make a rational decision," said Brown, speaking to reporters outside a Senate office building after he arrived on Capitol Hill.

Is he going to be pushed through by MA then, or will they, like some pundits had thought, drag out the process for awhile?

[cors8]

With the recent SC ruling on corporations and campaign finance, it's going to be awful television commercials as it gets closer and closer to election day.

If you thought it was already annoying now, it's going to be a whole lot worse.

[karthak]

Looks like the US government will truly be owned by corporations from now on.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Oh lawdy, if you thought the lobby had power during the Abramoff years boy were you wrong, welcome to the United States of Corporate America, because corporations matter more than you citizen.

Yep, the last tenuous claim that United States politicians were not literally bought by various corporations (or their dummy firms) was just cut, and for something as pathetic as Citizens United's fake Hilary Clinton propaganda piece. All we can do now is hope that the current populous rage will extend to any and all politicians that run on serious money (or are supported via advertisements) by large corporations. But, considering just who the leaders of the current populist “revolt” are, I expect a very blind eye will turned to this travesty of justice (that might be a little too hyperbolic, but ti is close)…

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by james0246

Yep, the last tenuous claim that the countries politicians were not literally bought by various corporations (or their dummy firms) was just cut, and for something as pathetic as Citizens United's fake Hilary Clinton propaganda piece. All we can do now is hope that the current populous rage will extend to any and all politicians that run on serious money (or are supported via advertisements) by large corporations. But, considering on just who are the leaders of the current populist “revolt”, I expect a very blind eye will turned to this travesty of justice (that might be a little too hyperbolic)…

what pisses me off is that they extended 1st amendment rights to corporations, why not extend all bill of rights to corporations, because in a sense if first amendment rights apply to corporations then all amendments apply to corporations. It's complete tom foolery but it seems no body cares that these corporations will run america into the ground and just leave as they have been for the past 2 decades.

[ChainLegacy]

Welcome to the United Corporations of America! Joyous day!

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

what pisses me off is that they extended 1st amendment rights to corporations, why not extend all bill of rights to corporations, because in a sense if first amendment rights apply to corporations then all amendments apply to corporations. It's complete tom foolery but it seems no body cares that these corporations will run america into the ground and just leave as they have been for the past 2 decades.

Basically, over the last century - corporations have been given all the privileges of personhood and none of the responsibility or little of the accountability. Couple that with the inherent sociopathy of the entity (i.e. myself, control, and money are all that matter) and its a ticket for the disaster we see ourselves in.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666&ft=1&f=1001

it also said unions

[cors8]

Originally Posted by mg1942

it also said unions

Unions shouldn't be able to do this too. However, the money corporations have to throw around much larger than unions.

[jsieczkar]

Originally Posted by cors8

Unions shouldn't be able to do this too. However, the money corporations have to throw around much larger than unions.

Not true the major Unions have very large lobbyist budgets on par with that of major corporations.

[MeoTwister5]

Not so shocking. It just pretty much confirms the legality of what corporations have been getting away with for years. At least now everyone knows that corprorations can run you and your government's collective asses to the ground and there's little of a damn thing you can do about it.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by jsieczkar

Not true the major Unions have very large lobbyist budgets on par with that of major corporations.

That's true, and organizations like unions and special interest groups have, IMHO, less stigma to their sponsoring political candidates first hand. Aside from their being more acceptable (esp. these days!) to the public, they can also do more to "get out the vote" via their people. The AARP was - and still likely is - a big SIG; the elderly tend to be more political active. Money for media campaigns, offices and travel to meet voters, and etc is nice and needed, but in the end, a candidate needs votes. Corporations can have more money, but SIG's tend to have a better/more positive... emotional effect on potential voters.

At and above the city level of politics, darn near everyone owes someone a favor or three...

A corporation (big or small) is, by law, considered to be its own entity; Vexx is right. An entrepreneur can set up his own company in, say, Delaware with just himself as its only employee so long as everything else is in order. It may make sense from a tax or legal perspective, for example. If a company's product is faulty and is then sued, the "buck" stops at that level; the suit can't go against the company's people's assets unless they too are willfully at fault. For a mom-and-pop shop or a partnership, say, that can be different.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Basically, over the last century - corporations have been given all the privileges of personhood and none of the responsibility or little of the accountability. Couple that with the inherent sociopathy of the entity (i.e. myself, control, and money are all that matter) and its a ticket for the disaster we see ourselves in.

One can ironically view this, not without the tongue firmly in the cheek, mind, as a reversal to the old ancien régime days, when people were defined by their "corporations" -- their professions, their collective bodies, their ranks, etc. -- rather than as individuals. Back in the good old days of one vote for nobles, one vote for the Church, and one worthless vote for the vast majority of humanity. Except this time the bourgeoisie gets all the fun. People aren't people. Power defines your rights and worth.

Voltaire and liberalism (in more than one sense of that subversive, evil word) just got their beautiful behinds shoved out the door, lol? Another victory for the Forces of Reaction (yes, I've been reading too many French books lately).

[Autumn Demon]

I usually agree with the Supreme Court's four liberals, but they got it wrong on campaign finance. Corporations are run and owned by people so they should be able to spend their money how they please. Today's decision is a win for free speech and correct from a Constitutional point of view.

Even the practical ramifications of the decision are good. In America incumbent politicians have an easy time getting re-elected because it's easiest for them to raise money under the current system (although this year for the first time in a long time incumbents everywhere are in trouble). This caused the McCain-Feingold Act to be nicknamed the Incumbent Protection Act.

From The Economist:

Originally Posted by The Economist

Until today, firms that wanted to express political views near election time had to form a political action committee (PAC), clear many regulatory hurdles and accept only limited amounts of money from each donor. Fans of McCain-Feingold denied that this chilled free speech. But the court’s majority, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, disagreed.

The rules are so confusing that even experts struggle to follow them. Senator John McCain, who co-wrote the bill, was accused of a serious violation of it during his presidential campaign in 2008. Big firms with expensive lawyers can usually navigate the system, but small players flounder. In the states, campaign-finance laws have been used to stifle debate. Prosecutors in Washington state claimed that favourable radio coverage of an anti-tax campaign was a “donation” that the campaigners should have disclosed. In Colorado, a group of homeowners protesting against plans to incorporate their neighbourhood into a nearby town were sued for not registering as a PAC. Both groups won, but they needed lawyers.

The effect of the law, said Justice Kennedy, is that “a speaker who wants to avoid threats of criminal liability…must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak.” That, he said, was “analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England” which is precisely the sort of thing that “the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit”.

Besides, money matters less in the age of youtube and blogging. And TV commercials are starting to matter less too with things like TiVo and torrents around. And there's always good old fashioned campaigning which won Iowa for Mike Huckabee against Mitt Romney's huge wallet.

[Vexx]

The *people* within corporations have always been able to "spend their money as they wish".... *corporations* are not people. I also contest the "money=speech" equivalency.

[iLney]

Agreed. Money of corporations is nobody's money. Likewise, public's property or the people's welfare is nobody's.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

I usually agree with the Supreme Court's four liberals, but they got it wrong on campaign finance. Corporations are run and owned by people so they should be able to spend their money how they please. Today's decision is a win for free speech and correct from a Constitutional point of view.

And that is where you are wrong. No law is stopping Presidents and CEOs from Major Companies and corporations from contributing their hard earned money to any political campaign they wish to. The pre-exsisting laws merely prevented coroprations, with their very limited "personhood", from using their vast economic capitol toward a specific political campaign. As Vexx says, nothing was stopping the "people" from enacting their freedom of speech. The McCain-Feingold Act is certainly a shitty piece of work, but this SC decision went so far above and beyond what was at stake in this case that the decision is just plain silly and very dangerous...

[mg1942]

Corporations SHOULD be able to defend themselves politically - The government drums up support for taxes / regulations, they should be able to support whomever they wish. Corporations also have a built-in set of checks and balances - stockholders and consumers, both can vote with their feet in reaction