SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Thadius -> SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 9:55:04 AM)

Afternoon all,

Today the Supreme Court struck down part of McCain-Feingold. In a split decision (5-4) they removed the restrictions on the ammount of cash corporations can spend in favor or opposition of candidates.

Reuters story on Yahoo

quote:


Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights.

"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote.

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.



Will this ruling have a major impact on the mid-terms? Does it open up the elections to the best candidate that money can buy?

While I understand the First Ammendment implications and the arguments for the repeal of this section of the campaign finance laws, I am not completely sure this was the best decision for an already corporately controlled election process. What do you think?

I wish you well,
Thadius



mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 9:57:50 AM)

Already the best money can buy, they will just buy them more.

Ron



LadyEllen -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 10:14:53 AM)

In the absence of limits, as we have here - though they can be gotten around, I believe that over there, and over here - for we have similar problems, election campaigns should be publicly financed - but that would be socialism I guess, because anything that overturns the status quo is socialist by default it seems.

How one determines the level of finance for any one campaign, and thus the overall tax requirement, is however quite complex. Formulae that rely on number of votes cast last time around, registered voters or other expressions of support this time around, and all manner of methods are all open to as many problems as they should solve.

The two things public funding has going for it is that it limits and controls how much can be spent and so should leave the debate to be about policies, not the slickest or most prevalent presentation, and it means funding for smaller parties quite beyond their current wildest dreams - giving them a chance and the electorate more than a two horse race.

But its not an easy fix, and any move towards it would likely be bogged down or destroyed in a partisan process alike with health reform over there - with the corporations shouting even louder for their cause.

Above all, we need to kick the corporations out of politics; a limited company is not a natural person, having traits, rights and limitations quite out of character with a natural person. The situation as regards constitutional rights for corporations in the US (as I understand it at least) is really quite ridiculous. The situation here, though different in nature, produces the same results plus the distasteful "cash for honours" and "cash for questions" scandals - yes folks, contribute enough (a "loan" is always good to get round the limit thing) and you too can be a 100% bone fide Lord of Somewhereorother.

E



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 10:23:37 AM)

Hi Thadius,

Yes, I just heard this too.

Corporations have always had a heavy hand, right from the start ("taxation without representation" was not the real issue).

Now it's open season, literal, open, no limit corporate money. Keep in mind that, for example, if corporations were countries, Exxon would be one of the ten richest countries. And they're hardly alone in out of proportion economic power.

It's a complete sell-out to big business. A barrage of negative ads can be directed at anyone. Without heavy corporate sponsorship, there's no way a candidate can compete.

A definite sea change.

Live well,

Tim

P.S. Never happen, but I'd be in favor of banning paid campaign advertising. Come talk to people yourself. No way to enforce that with today's technology, I know. But this has become not the Information Age, but the Misinformation Age.






pahunkboy -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 10:30:43 AM)

It wont matter.

People are beginning to see thru the Coke-Pepsi   game.



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 10:33:02 AM)

Not really, pahb...they're beginning to talk about it.

They're doing everything else the same.



Vendaval -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 10:36:51 AM)

I wonder how much is really changed by this ruling.  How often do corporations and lobbyists find ways to circumvent the laws by using some form of proxy or "shell" corps or a go-between?



philosophy -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 10:45:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

I wonder how much is really changed by this ruling.  How often do corporations and lobbyists find ways to circumvent the laws by using some form of proxy or "shell" corps or a go-between?


...probably not a gigantic amount of difference in dollars spent. However, corporations will be free to declare much more openly. Effectively, this ruling is capable of shifting the balance of democracy away from ordinary people and towards corporate interests.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 11:00:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

I wonder how much is really changed by this ruling.  How often do corporations and lobbyists find ways to circumvent the laws by using some form of proxy or "shell" corps or a go-between?


Nothins is changed, you are correct. Take a look at GE and the SEIU if you think there were actually any effective limitations on corporate influence.



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 11:27:57 AM)

Well, among the things changed (and as the dissent points out) is that now a foreign held corporation can legally and openly participate in a U.S. election.




pahunkboy -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 11:41:07 AM)

Corporations have too much power.

We really ought to get rid of the equal personhood that they enjoy.



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 11:54:55 AM)

And four dissenting Justices agree with you.



popeye1250 -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 12:02:54 PM)

It's time to clip the wings of the judiciary in this country. Who "got to them" on this? Exon, Microsoft, ADM?
The root of all corruption in Washington is money and they want more of it?



pahunkboy -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 12:17:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

It's time to clip the wings of the judiciary in this country. Who "got to them" on this? Exon, Microsoft, ADM?
The root of all corruption in Washington is money and they want more of it?


The country has reached a point of being "ungovernable".

Mattel thanks the troops.



Mercnbeth -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 12:25:58 PM)

McCain-Feingold eliminated an individuals ability to run for public office. Worse - it also eliminated the value of an individual citizen's vote. In effect it was a coup d’état giving all power to govern over to the ultra wealthy and corporate interests. SCOTUS, the majority of which it should be pointed out, put in place by the product of the law, just legitimized the take over. Not a shot was fired and has been the case since the law went in effect, citizens will no longer have the opportunity to vote for any candidate not sanctioned, sponsored, bought and paid for by some special interest or corporate entity.

Very sad, but a pragmatic result of McCain-Feingold - a 'bi-partisan' piece of legislation that few citizens were even aware; even fewer realizing the consequences.



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 12:33:03 PM)

Well, actually the result of it being struck down.



Mercnbeth -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 12:39:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, actually the result of it being struck down.


yeah - I've been pissed at this Bill since it was initiated. I forgot about this decision pending and seeing it just set me off.

There's less 'representation' now then when the people revolted under the banner about taxation without it in the last revolution. Per Jefferson we're way overdue for another one.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." ~ T. Jefferson



Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 2:46:06 PM)


When the government begins to limit free speech as Mccain-Feingold did it makes some other entity more equal, in this case big unions and big media.

And big Soros, of course. And big moveon.org...

It isn't the business of government to decide who has a right to say what, it is patently unconstitutional and the Roberts court is absolutely rock solid in finding it so.



philosophy -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 3:35:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


It isn't the business of government to decide who has a right to say what, it is patently unconstitutional and the Roberts court is absolutely rock solid in finding it so.




...so you're totally supportive of the idea that money equals free speech are you? Because that's what this decision means.

Everyone is the US is entitled to exercise their free speech, just that now (by virtue of having way more money to express it with) corporate America is more equal than others.



LadyEllen -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 5:16:10 PM)

Sanity - for the benefit of an ignorant Brit, could you maybe explain (in your own words) why you believe a limited liability corporation whose purpose is to transact business for the profit of its shareholders, should have constitutional rights alike with a natural person?

Just interested in whether this is a considered position you hold or one of convenience or one held for the sake of a party line?

E



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125