Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[Bono]

Yes about Wikipedia.. one leaves themselves wide open when using it without researching what they used.

However, does a thing really need to be written for people to display common decency?  I would suggest that thinly-veiled support of parties as a means to ensure future profits isn't decent, and that needs no constitution to know that.  Just a right-thinking mind.

And (I know I tried to use the Constitution as part of my argument, but that's because I know you all like to fall back on it to determine your morals when you need back-up), whoever gave people a right to tell people that haven't even been born yet, and had no choice WHERE they'd be born what's what... that seems very un-democratic to me, especially as it's main use seems to be getting mis-used by Republicans to further their own cause, which is possible only because it's outdated like them.  But I guess that's for another thread.

Yea, far better to live in a police state where all your rights can be erased with one simply majority vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes about Wikipedia.. one leaves themselves wide open when using it without researching what they used.

However, does a thing really need to be written for people to display common decency?  I would suggest that thinly-veiled support of parties as a means to ensure future profits isn't decent, and that needs no constitution to know that.  Just a right-thinking mind.

And (I know I tried to use the Constitution as part of my argument, but that's because I know you all like to fall back on it to determine your morals when you need back-up), whoever gave people a right to tell people that haven't even been born yet, and had no choice WHERE they'd be born what's what... that seems very un-democratic to me, especially as it's main use seems to be getting mis-used by Republicans to further their own cause, which is possible only because it's outdated like them.  But I guess that's for another thread.

The Constitution can be amended, you know. But only when there is overwhelming support for doing so. This was a clear case of populist politicians passing and incumbent protection plan, shrouding it in populist rhetoric and violating the constitution in the process.

[Vepres]

It's impossible for the vast majority of people to understand what this decision really means right now. It'll be 15 or 20 years before the full impact begins to be apparent. By that time I expect the skepticism towards this decision will be much greater. But for now it's as if the Supreme Court struck down laws against child labor. "Child labor? What's that? Why's that so bad?"

Yeah, we're returning to an ultra-conservative, corporate-run era like the 60s

[Vepres]

Oh, and with the internet, everybody will know who was financed by whom, whether there are efforts to hide it or not. Money =/= victory.

[Sewer]

Money =/= victory.

lol

[Scam of God]

I am completely opposed to this. No collectivities - not corporations, not unions, not PACs, not interest groups - should be allowed to bankroll a politician. All donations ought to be required to come from individuals.

[Bono]

I am completely opposed to this. No collectivities - not corporations, not unions, not PACs, not interest groups - should be allowed to bankroll a politician. All donations ought to be required to come from individuals.

This decision did not affect contributions, only independent spending.

[minionofmidas]

hopefully in the laws written, disclose all those persons behind the scenes.

LOL.

[hawkeye59]

Even though I disagree with the decision, I don't think it will cause much harm

[pbrower2a]

Unmitigated disaster.

Corporate funding will overpower all other political discussion, and the only politicians capable of winning will be either corporate stooges or those few who represent ultra-safe Democratic districts.

With complete control of legislatures, the government will eventually represent wealth instead of people, much as happened in Mussolini's Italy. We might not have a strutting poseur like Mussolini, but we might have corporations gaining the power to do such things as form private militias that will make the Bloods and Crips look like elementary students resorting to their fists.  

The Supreme Court ruling has all but disenfranchised anyone not a millionaire even if the process will take fully four years to show its fullest ugliness. If you think that Dred Scott was bad, that one at least spared the majority of Americans the fullest effects of tyranny. By no means do I trivialize the nastiness of Dred Scott to blacks -- they had little to lose in 1857 as things were.

This will move us back to the days when you could have rapid swings in the party composition of the House and Senate.

With the exception of wave years. 80% to 90% of incumbents are safe. The big problem has been fundraising. The second big problem is gerrymandering.

If you require full disclosure, what do you guys fear so much about this? Most companies won't back candidates for fear of losing customers. They will however run commericials educating and encouraging support for policies.

I would much prefer Rich people donating to campaigns that have an incumber have 10-1 fundraising advantage and never have to be held accountable to the voters. As I said, Gene McCarthy was backed by a few rich people and he drove LBJ out of the race by doing so well in NH.

This is far worse.

Freedom of speech does not mean the right to a pliant audience, the right to monopolize the media, or the right to drown out alternatives, let alone to slander at will.  Corporate America just won those dubious rights, and it now has the potential to kill democracy. Gross inequality of freedom of speech implies the absence of the freedom of speech.

Politicians will be accountable only to the interests who buy their campaigns, and once those interests buy those campaigns the politicians will remain bought.  If you think incumbency is a problem now, then wait until the only people who can get elected have the predominant cash behind them -- and employers end up with the right to fire people who support the "wrong" politician. There will be political freedom to oppose the leadership, which will become increasingly servile to giant corporations at the expense of everyone else.

Giant businesses will use their legislative power to get even more authority -- including perhaps the "right" to form militias that use deadly force on strikers. After all, workers have the duty to work 70-80 hour workweeks for the bare essence of survival, right?  Such will be the decision of tycoons and executives when they have nothing to fear from democratic opposition.  And if you think that small business will be a viable option, then think again; giant corporations will push legislation that destroys such competition.  

This decision will not cause the immediate cessation of democracy in America, but it could bring about its effective end as early as November. The House and Senate could end up with enough seats filled with enough myrmidons in the Reichstag or Supreme SovietCongress even to impeach in turn Barack Obama and Joseph Biden for strictly-political grounds.

There will be no book burnings; most people will be lacking the money with which to buy books, or even with the aid of the public library, the time in which to read them. There will be no mass rallies;  those take time from toil. Thugs on the street to rough up opponents? The opponents will have nothing to live for but cheap booze.  

Corporate America has behaved badly over the last few decades, and given unlimited power it will act even more atrociously.

Bad as Dred Scott was,  it was nullified in eight years.

I am ready to become a citizen of the Republic of Michigan.

You need help.

First off, Corporations are not going to back candidates because they don't want to risk losing customers. They will back ideas and issues like drilling off shore, investments in Alternative energy, etc, etc.

Second these people are already buying Candidates. Last year, Obama called John McCain, Exxon John. Do you want to know who actually got more money from Exxon, BARACK OBAMA, thats where the change we can beleive in went by the way. They do it through bundling and through personal contributions from the Executives of the Corporations, so technically they aren't directly from the corporation. But the idea that we are not currenltly awash in money is reall, really LOL.

Lastly, did you know, that pryor to 1972, political donations were completely, unregulated. It didn't stip Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ from acheiving progressive reforms. In 1968, Gene McCarthy, the anti-War Senator who drove LBJ out of the 1968 Presidential race, was bank rolled by 5 or 6 millionaries out of California who were tired of Vietnam War.

Corporate money in campaigns is one thing. I have no problem with a political ad that says "Exxon-Mobil endorses Senator Smith", or "Join the friends of Wal-Mart who stand with Mayoral candidate Jones". It's up to people to decide whether they want to vote as Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart,  the Teamsters' Union, Warren Buffett, or even the KKK wants them to vote.  Problems arise when front groups do the dirty work, when people can hide their corporate donations behind organizations that seek not to be identified.

As for corporations being de facto persons -- they are manifestly not humans. They can misbehave, but the punishments applicable to human offenders don't apply to them. They cannot be imprisoned, let alone executed. They have no morality separate from the decisions of owners and managers. 

[Franzl]

You do realize that any commercials that corporations make directly are required to reveal their source?

[Vepres]

If any of you saw John Stewart's reaction to this, hilarious.

[pbrower2a]

You do realize that any commercials that corporations make directly are required to reveal their source?

It's the indirect ones that cause problems.

[Franzl]

You do realize that any commercials that corporations make directly are required to reveal their source?

It's the indirect ones that cause problems.

How is that really affected by this verdict though?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You do realize that any commercials that corporations make directly are required to reveal their source?

It's the indirect ones that cause problems.

How is that really affected by this verdict though?

Yes. In fact this verdict makes it possible for them to come out into open.

I am 100% for Full Disclosure requirements.

I will state again most compainies won't back candidates, they wil back ideas. Oil companies will back OCS. Those commecials for Natural Gas have been running for months. They now can run doing election season.

[Guderian]

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.

[Frodo]

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? 

[hawkeye59]

Because we have a pro-supreme court president.

[Franzl]

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? 

Is that really a precedent we want to be setting?

[Frodo]

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?  

Is that really a precedent we want to be setting?

There are certain decisions that the Supreme Court has made in the past that would have warranted such a response -why not this one?  

[Franzl]

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?  

Is that really a precedent we want to be setting?

There are certain decisions that the Supreme Court has made in the past that would have warranted such a response -why not this one?  

How do we decide which decisons to respect and which not?

I think it sets a really dangerous precedent.....especially for times when we have the wrong president.

[hawkeye59]

If somebody did something like that again, the Supreme Court would pretty much be rendered useless.

[Guderian]

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.

[Franzl]

The whole process is based on respect for judicial rulings. If we make exceptions, even on matters that are considered "important enough"....that defeats the purpose of seperation of powers and the rule of law.

It's not something I would ever be willing to risk.

[Vepres]

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?  

Is that really a precedent we want to be setting?

There are certain decisions that the Supreme Court has made in the past that would have warranted such a response -why not this one?  

Exactly. We're returning the horrible, corporate dominated era that was the 1990s