Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 16, 2024, 01:50:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission  (Read 6404 times)
Guderian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 575


« on: February 02, 2010, 03:24:04 PM »

26 states allowed corporate political speech in state and local races before this SC decision. I don't see political process being more corrupt or less democratic in those states because of that. Actually, people who are screaming doom is near are often completely ignorant of the fact that their own state allowed stuff that will now be allowed on federal level.

Look, this decision affects non-profit special interest groups more than it affects big businesses. Big business is unlikely to come out explicitly in favor of candidates because they don't want to piss off potential customers. They will use indirect means they used before (PACs, issue advocacy instead of candidate advocacy and what not). Reason why Democrats around the country are angry is because now NRA and other groups can haunt incumbents all the way to the election day. God forbid legislators actually have to answer for their voting records.

Also, it should be noted that from constitutional standpoint this case is a slam-dunk. SCOTUS minority whining about corporations not deserving free speech rights is 100% politically driven. I'll bet you a federal law that said corporate property can be seized without due process would be struck down 9-0.
Logged
Guderian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 575


« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2010, 05:24:17 PM »

Is there any particular reason why President Obama couldn't theoretically pull an Andrew Jackson, and dare the Court to try to enforce its ruling? 

Supreme Court doesn't have to enforce anything, since this rulling doesn't call for any action to be done but for an action to stop. It's the FEC that is now toothless in enforcing McCain-Feingold. Even if Obama theoretically would order them to continue the practice, nobody would care since penalties can't be enforced anymore in federal courts.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.