US Supreme Court overturns century-old campaign spending limit

[Netto Azure]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/watch2.htmlWell this very interesting debate and issue has been overshadowed by Healthcare reform, but it's impact is still very deep.
​

Bill Moyers: Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission​

The Supreme Court is returning early from its summer recess to consider a potential watermark case that could overturn a century of campaign finance restrictions and clear the way for unregulated spending by corporations on political campaigns. The case, Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission, has grown from a limited question about a political documentary to a broad challenge to the government's right to restrict corporations from spending money to support or oppose political candidates.

Encompassing questions on First Amendment rights, the power of corporations and the influence of money on political elections, it's no wonder the case has created an assortment of strange bedfellows. Conservatives and liberals appear on both sides, either to defend the government's right to restrict corporate political advocacy or, on the other side, to argue that such regulations are a violation of the First Amendment.

Opinions on this very complicated issue. To me as it had bi-partisan support (Hence the latest law was called McCain-Feingold, >.>) I'm willing to support it.

But it is expected to be overturned on a 5-4 Decision as the Conservative tint of the Supreme Court comes to play.

 

[Nanoka-kun]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

I really think this would benefit the public finance.

 

[Phoenicks]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

Opinions on this very complicated issue. To me as it had bi-partisan support (Hence the latest law was called McCain-Feingold, >.>) I'm willing to support it.

You're going to support the law just because it's bi-partisian?

Personally, my opinion on this law is that it needs to be overturned. The 1st Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

McCain-Feingold is completely unconstitutional.

 

[Misty]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

Honestly? Corporations have gotten so good at subverting McCain-Feingold (see "527s") that I don't think this even matters. I say overturn it.

 

[Netto Azure]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

Honestly? Corporations have gotten so good at subverting McCain-Feingold (see "527s") that I don't think this even matters. I say overturn it.

And gut reform even more? While I do know that our patchwork of laws has been subverted so many times, anything on the books is better than nothing at all, as this issue has expanded TO ALL REGULATION. =|

No I support it based off principle, Pheonicks. Obviously. >.>

Heck, I would go ahead and say expand Public Finance and cap all private donations to a low amount. But as we've talked about before, you don't want that.

Plus as was debated in the Journal, Corporations are a government creation.

 

[evkl]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

If you think your TV is painful to watch during election season now...

 

[Big Lutz]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

Heck, I would go ahead and say expand Public Finance and cap all private donations to a low amount. But as we've talked about before, you don't want that.

Problem with that, as proven by the Obama Campaign, not everyone takes Public Financing. And in the day and age where you can get small debit cards and the internet its almost impossible to trace all the amounts coming in. A resourceful group could submit millions of dollars in small private donations through almost untraceable means, and with so much cash coming in you cannot expect campaign officials to be able to trace it all.

 

[Fig]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

Seems like an abominabe result. Unfortunately the constitution arguably support overturning this, and letting corporations effectively run America. (Which shouldn'T be surprising: the constitution wasn't so much written by the people for the people as by the Wealthy Elite for the Wealthy Elite)

And this isn't the sort of issue where the Sups have demonstrated their ability and willingness to artfully dodge the constitution in the past, really.

 

[Phoenicks]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

No I support it based off principle, Pheonicks. Obviously. >.>

Um... Okay then. Which one?

Seems like an abominabe result. Unfortunately the constitution probably support overturning this, and letting corporations effectively run America.

This issue comes down to freedom vs. order. Personally, I prefer freedom. Excuse the use of quotes, but this is the opinion that I personally adopt on the issue:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Of course, if anyone has a different reasoning on this, I'd love to hear it.

 

[evkl]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

Of course, if anyone has a different reasoning on this, I'd love to hear it.

Do you believe that corporations are legally entitled to the same rights as persons?

 

[DerMißingno]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

This issue comes down to freedom vs. order. Personally, I prefer freedom. Excuse the use of quotes, but this is the opinion that I personally adopt on the issue:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Of course, if anyone has a different reasoning on this, I'd love to hear it.

I don't know, speaking as the libertarian of the group, the freedom issue could really go either way on this one. Sure the obvious choice would be to end the regulations, but remember that these are people running for government offices. While government regulation on the private sector is usually bad, it is a fact that government itself must be regulated.

I'll be back to elaborate on this later, I have school related stuff to do for the next 5 hours.

 

[Fig]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

"Freedom" without any order is anarchy, and anarchy is only a clear invitation for the strong to take all at the expanse of the weak.

If everyone is allowed to speak at once, and make as much noise as they want, then the only person who has true freedom of speech is whoever yells loudest. The rest? They only have the illusion of free speech.

The same goes in campaign finances. Average Joe's right to contribute however he will to a campaign is largely meaningless if Corporate Group Y is able to contribute a thousand time as much.

 

[Phoenicks]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

Do you believe that corporations are legally entitled to the same rights as persons?

Corporations are groups of people.

I believe that Corporations receive the same rights that people do. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that rights are not given to corporations.

The wording of the 1st amendment makes that argument moot though. If we're sticking solely based on what is, and not what we think should be, the argument is over whether McCain-Feingold is Constitutional or not. And the 1st clearly says:

"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Freedom" without any order is anarchy, and anarchy is only a clear invitation for the strong to take all at the expanse of the weak.

We have order. It is imposed by our Constitution.

If everyone is allowed to speak at once, and make as much noise as they want, then the only person who has true freedom of speech is whoever yells loudest. The rest? They only have the illusion of free speech.

You're just talking in theory. That's not what happens in practice.

The same goes in campaign finances. Average Joe's right to contribute however he will to a campaign is largely meaningless if Corporate Group Y is able to contribute a thousand time as much.

A corporation can do whatever it can legally do with it's own money.

Again, in practice, people band together for things like political contributions and campaign money. That's the entire point of political parties. >_<

 

[evkl]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

But even in the very liberal American free-speech laws free speech is not absolute. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Furthermore, is spending money really equal to speech? The court has ruled contrarily on that topic in the past. I'm not convinced that money is speech.

 

[Misty]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

And gut reform even more? While I do know that our patchwork of laws has been subverted so many times, anything on the books is better than nothing at all, as this issue has expanded TO ALL REGULATION. =|

Bad regulations are usually *NOT* better than nothing.

 

[Nicoleta01]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

I'm neutral towards this, I need to read up more on it. What I do know is that corporations (Legal ones at least) are given artificial personhood in the eyes of the law, which is why you can sue the corporation and not the owner/founder of it.

Corporations are tricky by nature, it wouldn't be much difference if they donated then say Joe with his sole proprietorship donates to a local election (And there, the business and person are the same, so you can say Joe the Business donated).

 

[Phoenicks]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

But even in the very liberal American free-speech laws free speech is not absolute. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Furthermore, is spending money really equal to speech? The court has ruled contrarily on that topic in the past. I'm not convinced that money is speech.

Shouting fire in a theater is not the same thing. Shouting fire in a theater is akin to threatening to pull a gun on your classmates. However, it's how you use the language, not what you say. Congress can not ban people from shouting fire in a movie theather. They could make a law that punishes individuals who create panic because they shouted fire in a theater.

 

[evkl]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

Shouting fire in a theater is not the same thing. Shouting fire in a theater is akin to threatening to pull a gun on your classmates. However, it's how you use the language, not what you say. Congress can not ban people from shouting fire in a movie theather. They could make a law that punishes individuals who create panic because they shouted fire in a theater.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

What you're suggesting obviously on face abridges the freedom of speech but just as obviously is completely reasonable. My point being that the Constitution's "absolutes" are not absolute.

 

[Phoenicks]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

What you're suggesting obviously on face abridges the freedom of speech but just as obviously is completely reasonable. My point being that the Constitution's "absolutes" are not absolute.

There is a difference between restricting speech and punishing actions. Someone would take action against someone else who shouted 'fire' in a theater because of the panic they caused, not because they actually used the word 'fire'. In the same way, individuals are allowed to have guns, but people can get punished for using those guns to murder someone.

 

[evkl]

Re: US Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform to be overturned?

There is a difference between restricting speech and punishing actions. Someone would take action against someone else who shouted 'fire' in a theater because of the panic they caused, not because they actually used the word 'fire'. In the same way, individuals are allowed to have guns, but people can get punished for using those guns to murder someone.

But without the speech the action can't occur. If you don't yell "fire" there can be no panic in the theater. Similarly, we allow guns because there are plenty of legitimate uses for them. But we don't allow the purchase of shoulder-fired RPGs, because there aren't any legitimate uses for them.