David over at Blue Mass Group points out that in overturning the McCain Feingold Act limiting corporate funding of election campaigns, the US Supreme Court would appear to have thrown out the Massachusetts law which also forbade corporate contributions. David notes,
To be clear: this law is still on the books, and there has been no court decision invalidating it nor (as far as I know) statement from the Attorney General's Office or OCPF that they no longer think it's enforceable. So, for now, the prohibition remains in place. But I can't see how the law can survive a simple challenge.
My take on the Supreme Court decision is that the court took on a non problem and created a real one. I don't think anyone would argue ...
... that corporations suffered from a lack of influence with our elected officials. This ruling creates even more influence. That said, Glenn Greenwald points out that the court's decision got the law right. His post here extends his argument
Kevin Drum has a bit more nuanced opinion of the ruling and wrote here,
In the end, I guess I think the court missed the obvious — and right — decision: recognizing that while nonprofit corporations created for the purpose of political advocacy can be fairly described as "organized groups of people" and treated as such, that doesn't require us to be willfully oblivious to the fact that big public companies are far more than that and can be treated differently. Exxon is not the Audubon Society and Google is not the NRA. There's no reason we have to pretend otherwise.
What do you think about corporations having expanded ability to influence political campaigns?
Posts
69 comments:
I am in agreement with the court's decision. Exxon may not be the Audubon Society but the Teacher's Union is not either.
how can you be in agreement, This court ruling, has opened our politics and politicians to FOREIGN MONEY...multi national corporation that function a base outside of the USA but has subsidarires here in this country can influence our legisltors.
Corporations are formed to protect investors and the owners from personal liability...NOT OT HAVE FREE SPEECH
he sky is falling, the sky is falling....whats wrong with allowing free speech for big business supporting politicians who support big/small businesses?? Get a life.....or a pay check. Your concerned with big business supporting republicans with nasty ad's nothing more. Big business supports both parties if not with cash it's money favors. Nothing has changed....ask Cris Todd.
Free speech is a right afforded by God through our constitution. Corporations are NOT American citizens. I don't want MORE money being poured into our elections even more...and that is exactely what will happen.
For example, a multinational corporation based in afghanistan or Iran CAN influence your elected officials and the policies they propose.
CEOs have free speech...corporations DO NOT...they are not living BEINGS
Tough week for Dems last week huh?
As Justice Kennedy said, corporations are run by human beings for the benefit of other human beings.
Come on 3:13, everyone knows that our wonderful D.C. politicians, elected by and for the people, are not influenced by money from anyone. They only vote in the best interest of their constituents. I think I'll write a suck up letter to one of them now. Maybe I can even convince him to come to Dartmouth for a town hall meeting.
4:59 P.M.
Write your suck up letter to Barney Frank. LOL
run by human beings..who have free speech...they in themselves are NOT...whats next..the right to VOTE....your screwed up!
figure AIG or Goldman Sachs has billions more than the average PAC...they could FLOOD the air waves with "swiftboat" like propaganda...lies, distortion...and GOD HELP US if FOX NEWS endorses a candidate...God Bless the Corporate State of America
If you're worried about FOX News should I worry about ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Oprah...uhhhh you make no sense but thankfully the Supreme Court does.
Must be tough to be a Lib and not like others having liberties.
tell me...how do u feel about foreign national companies influencing our politics...typical republican..."corporate puppets"
How do you separate some corporation (Networks etc...) that have unlimited free speech from others who until this decision , do not.
Let them all in but require disclosure as to who is paying for whatever ads are run.
An unfettered free speech is the greatest defense in an open democracy.
Corporations are an institution...not American citizens...they were made to protect the business owners from liabilities only...not to be influencing our politicians especially when we have multi national corporations involved in our country. All people have freedom of speech...if corporations want free spech...let the CEO speak and buy an AD
Can anyone show me where in the first ammendment free speech is limited to individuals???
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.
same thing goes for marriage, but what we see is the same people advocating for free speech for corporations,deny marriage to gay couples...does the constitution say anything about marriage?
corporations are not PEOPLE..they are created by PEOPLE...which is also why the declaration of independence states.."WE THE PEOPLE" not people and things created by them..
WE THE PEOPLE?? Have you read the Constitution?
The first ammendment covers things such as a FREE PRESS, is that a person?
The first ammendment covers Religion, is that a person?
Honestly, where do you get your information?
Corporations are NOT citizens!!!
Businesses are incorporated for ONE purpose...to PROTECT the OWNERS...that is IT!
The constitution was meant for CITIZENS of the United States of America. Not institutions CREATED by citizens
"The first ammendment covers things such as a FREE PRESS, is that a person?"
The first ammendment covers Religion, is that a person?
Freedom of Religion is for a PERSON
Fredom of the press is for a person
Freedom of speech is for a person
"My information comes from a book called common sense and how to use it...maybe you should read it"
And property owned by Religions is tax free because it is a person?
Free press has NOTHING to do with individual freedoms.
I suggest you do some research on Constitutional descisions, you might just learn something.
Again, show me a single SCOTUS descision that says freedom of speech is only for individuals.
PETA, GREENPEACE, NAACP, and a host of other corporations have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an individual right.
The unlimited money that is going to influence our politics is going to be horrendous.
They (corporations) can take money ourt of their general fund...JUST WRONG
PETA?...they do not endorse candidates....this will open the door for corporate influence in our country even more
our constitution covers HUMAN RIGHTS....corporate puppets like you will make us a fascist state.
our constitution covers HUMAN RIGHTS.
Not true, it governs every aspect of Government and Law withing the United States.
Hollywood and the major networks (corporations) have been funneling money and services to the Democrats for years.
Michael Moore and people like him have been using the silver screen for Democrat talking points for 100 years.
Now you are upset that corporations can influence elections?
Congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are drafting legislation to curb the influence of foreign corporations and foreign governments following the decision. However, the National Journal reported today that corporate lobbyists representing foreign corporations are already organizing to defeat such a proposal. The Organization for International Investment, a trade group representing foreign banks, oil companies, and other foreign corporations operating in the United States, “lashed out” at Van Hollen’s proposals. “The concern over foreign influence in our political system is a red herring,” said Nancy McLernon, the head of OII.
You are specifically advocating for foreign nations to influenceour elections...WELCOME Abu Dabi Oil to influence YOUR POLITICIANS...keep up the good work
Corporations are not PEOPLE Jackass
They have NO GOD GIVEN RIGHTS
Bill, obviously most of your bloggers are right wing zealots, my heart goes out to you
Corporations are not PEOPLE Jackass
They have NO GOD GIVEN RIGHTS
The god given rights in the constitution are life liberty and pursuit of happiness not Freedom of speech mor campaing finances.
I swear you have got to me kidding me, this is like dealing with kindergarten children. Somehow I am the jackass?
Supreme court judges and contsitution scholars have weighed in on this issue, yet these bloggers seem to know more than them.
Amazing that people can misconstrue the Constitution and call me a jackass.
Supreme court judges and contsitution scholars have weighed in on this issue, yet these bloggers seem to know more than them.
4 Supreme Court Justices agree with me and 100 Years of the law being on the books agree with me. Jackass
What's with all the name-calling, 7:51 (and others)?
Name-calling, profanity, and other verbal abuse are signs of insecurity and a lack of self-confidence, all which prompt people who don't feel good about themselves to take it out on others, in an attempt to puff up their low egos.
Some posters are not only profane, but vicious, and it doesn't seem to matter whether they are long-time posters or newbies. Either way, however, you are not presenting yourselves as being a class act, although I would guess you do not care one way or another.
You are probably even quite proud of yourselves.
4 Supreme Court Justices agree with me
Not a single SCOTUS Judge has ever said that freedom of speech is only for individuals. Not one in over 220 yrs.
Not a single SCOTUS Judge has ever said that freedom of speech is only for individuals. Not one in over 220 yrs.
they agreed with me on this ruling!!!..It wasn't unanimous!
they agreed with me on this ruling!!!..It wasn't unanimous!
The Thursday decision invalidates a part of 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law that sought to limit corporate influence.
The decision says nothing regarding Corporations rights to free speech, this is merely campaign financing.
So, once again you are wrong but I like your moxy.
The First Amendment has protected corporations for as long as there has been a First Amendment; among the first beneficiaries of the right to the freedom of speech were newspapers, political organizations, and other such corporations. That's not really a controversial position. The issue at stake is the very narrow issue of whether, and to what degree, the First Amendment prevents the FEC from restricting what the people who manage corporations may use corporate funds to say. This ruling does not conclusively resolve the corporate personhood question; it just grants corporations more power to intervene in elections.
corporations are not PEOPLE..they are created by PEOPLE...which is also why the declaration of independence states.."WE THE PEOPLE" not people and things created by them..
Did you know that the Declaration of Independence does not govern us. It also does not say "We the people" anywhere in the document?
The libs are still fuming about this ruling! How great is that!
Foreign corporations are already prohibited from giving money to political candidates. This SCOTUS ruling does not change that.
Any comments on the POTUS speech last night? Even the Great One had a rough go of it last night.
And well he should.
The libs are still fuming about this ruling! How great is that!
Of course they are, they loved it when the Media and Unions had all the power, now they worry about a level playing field.
oh! another jackass, probably the anti union rant of Bob Michaud...Unions are covered under this ruling not just corporation...get your facts right ,Mister anti union, but benefits from union pension Michaud
.get your facts right
You have made numerous errors and you have the audacity to make that comment?
I don't think Anonymous should have free speech. He or they could be a foreign national or even a Nazi deathcamp guard. One can't tell one of you anonymous a-holes from the next anonymous a-hole.
Did any of you see Alito mouthing back at Obama during the speech? He is one sick little weasel. Never before has a justice mouthed off to the president during a state of the union speech. And where was Thomas? That piece of work was off harassing women somewhere.
If corporations are people and deserving of free speech maybe they should pay taxes at the top individual rate.
How about the R's not in favor of the American taxpayer getting their tax investment back from the TARP payout. The Phonies.
The reality is that exxon/mobile could buy every election Federal/state/local in America from the last election cycle and still have money left over to buy every commercial on network tv just from last years profits. 52 billion! And that is just one company.
The Supremes decision was a move of an activist court. The R's are against Activist courts. Right!
And one more of you knuckleheads say that the US "took over" GM I swear, GM ASKED for help and the taxpayers own 60 % of the company.
To let it die would be like burning your own house down.
And one more bit of idiocy I hear from the Teabaggers. The healthcare bill is 2000 pages because healthcare is 1/8th of our entire economy. Im surprised the bill wasn't 100,000 pages. so teabaggers, Just go back to your tv guides and let smart people save the American economy from rapid decline. when it is 1/5th of the economy will it be a crisis, yet?
The Supremes decision was a move of an activist court. The R's are against Activist courts. Right!
The history of the SCOTUS allowing corporations the same rights as individuals goes back to 1886.
James, perhaps if you spent more time learning history than ranting about bloggers being Nazi's you would have a more rounded education.
Justice Alito was correct, Obama misrepresented the facts of the 90 page majority decision. Don't let that get in the way of your argument and I am sure Alito wasn't the first, he was just the first seen on camera.
Let's not forget that Obama is only the 6th President in history to make disparaging remarks about the SCOTUS in a SOTU address.
I guess anyone came be James. SO you are anonymous afterall!!
Froeign corporations flooding our politics....thank you Republicans...you got what you wanted
Froeign corporations flooding our politics....thank you Republicans...you got what you wanted
There are still laws against that, this ruling had ZERO effect on Foreign corporations. READ the decision please.
I did, which is WHY sen. Chuck Schumer of NY and numerous others are filing legislation to prevent it...
I did, which is WHY sen. Chuck Schumer of NY and numerous others are filing legislation to prevent it...
That doesn't make any sense, if Schumer is trying to get around a SC ruling wouldn't it stand to reason that the legislation would be unconstitutional as well?
Schumer is writing a bill to prevent foreign companies with American subsidiares from offering money. HUGE difference, but thanks for playing.
Current federal law -- legal eagles can find it at 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."
The majority opinion, authored by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, maintained that the court was not specifically overturning this barrier to foreign campaign spending, essentially saying that it was outside the scope of the opinion.
So basically Schumer is proposing legislation that ALREADY exists. Like I said read the opinion.
keep the rhetoric COMING...freedom of speech is one thing...freedom to influence our politics with money is another....
Let the people decide woh is right for the job...NOT CORPORATIONS
Let the people decide woh is right for the job...NOT CORPORATIONS
The people will still decide, Corporations don't vote, but they have the right to fund the person they support!!
keep the rhetoric COMING??
Each time your ramblings are confronted with fact you go off on a different tangent.
I am glad you get a vote, somehow I think corporations would do a better job electing our representatives than you.
Now I see how your brain works...corporations ALWAYS have your best interst in mind...AKA pre existing condition...and dropped coverage..thank you for being a idoit...and allowing others to know you as you are...to bad nobody knows your name, so that we can ridicule you when you show up at various meetings
Now I see how your brain works...corporations ALWAYS have your best interst in mind..
No quite the opposite, as profit driven as corporations are they are not as dumb as you.
Time and time and time and time again.... (you ge the idea) I have corrected your confusion, stupidity, and outright lies.
You misquoted SC decisions, the constitution, the declaration of indepenence, you wrongfully claimed foreign money was going to flood out electoral system, you made up rights and said the right to free speech was given by GOD! You are insane, and I feel for you family.
Honestly, I would much rather have corporations voting for President than a misinformed person such as yourself.
This is all very confusing. is the anonymous idiot who approves of the supreme's ruling the same idiot who thought the term was "access of evil"? And the apparently liberal person who answers the "access of evil" idiot a person incapable of choosing a name so we don't have to confuse him/her with the idiot who also starts his post with the quote from the opposite idiot who also won't chose a name (but he sometimes calls himself Elmer.)
Let us make this easier. The right wing gas bag should be named "elmer" and the left wing gas bag
should be called "bugs".
show me where in the SC ruling where it says it prohibits, foreign corporations with American subsidies to funding ads in favor or opposed to a candidate...show ME...give me a link..
majority opinion
"it would be overbroad even if the Court were to recognize a compelling governmental interest in limiting foreign influence over the Nation’s political process."
That sounds like the Court has left this open to a challenge and looks like they might support allowing foreign companies to spend freely in elections in the United States. I guess this would be the corporate globalization of the U.S. electoral system.
Justice John Paul Stevens focused on the same concerns in his dissenting opinion. The majority’s position “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans,” he writes.
The majority’s position “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans,” he writes.
That might be true, but Justice Stephen's KNOWS there are already laws against that as described above.
get over it you fascist pig...The constitution protects individual rights.
Give me one good reason why a corporation deserves to be a voice in our elections.
let's be clear, the CEO has EVERY RIGHT to sponsor and speak in favor of a candidate. I do not have a problem with that. Corporations don't have rights uder the constitution.
The point of taking a monicker, a nom de plume, a nickname, is so we other blog readers can distinguish one anonymous from another. I could give a rat's a--, who you are but if you chose a name then the rest of us can tell who you are in the thread.
I disagree with the one anonymous that he is more learned than me, he obviously knows nothing about the damage done by unregulated corporations in our nation's history. Or he doesn't care and should therefore be ignored as a sociopath.
let's be clear, the CEO has EVERY RIGHT to sponsor and speak in favor of a candidate. I do not have a problem with that. Corporations don't have rights uder the constitution.
Corporations have had such rights since an 1886 SCOTUS decision. Yes 124 years ago, this is not something new. The COURT affirmed and earlier decision.
James just out of curiosity, what prevents you from posting as James, John, Bob and anonymous?
You can post under James and a host of other names, you are certainly not unique because SOME of the time you use a moniker.
You see "James" repeatedly and you may have some preconceived idea who I am and where my opinions come from. But if I was anonymous one can easily confuse one anonymous from another and these threads are often very confusing. Especially the idiot who quotes the other idiot and then rebutts (poorly) what he quotes. If you paranoid idiots would just chose a fake name and stick to it, the confusing crap would end.
You know a thief thinks everyone is a thief, and these paranoid anonymouses are afraid to put ANY name down because they are the type who would backstab their own neighbor over free speech rather than enjoying it as a lesson in human diversity. I think diversity is scarey to these fearful freaks.
Also name calling. I don't mind name calling. If someone calls me a "Homo" trying to get under my skin. I think, "I'm not a Homo", this guy is really ignorant, -his problem. Once I called a radio staion and talked to this ignorant buffooon named Tom Marr (Limbaugh clone). He called me a Communist or something ignorant. I called him a "tub of lard" He said "this is radio, what makes you think that I am fat?"
I said, "I can hear it in your big fat voice." Apparently I was right because he made a big deal about losing 60 lbs. over the next year.
While he knew he was a tub of lard with a fat voice , I knew I wasn't a Communist, so I just stayed a tall thin and handsome socialist with a wicked smile as always. He never did thank me for en"light"ening him.
You gotta loves James. He is so torn up that things have not gone his way lately. Everyones else is stupid but James is the smart one. Judge Alito a disgrace? Hardly. Pretty boy Obama incorrectly scolding the court during a state of the union address is classless a well as clueless.
For those cheerleading Sen Schumer's efforts - that's a laugh too. You know you're in trouble when your on Schumer's side.
Take a few deep breaths James it'll do you good.
Anybody hear the Mayor of Las Vegas tell pretty boy off today? Priceless!
Hey, James! Where ya been hiding?
Elmer
I have been working 8am to 9 pm going out making obscene amounts of money while working for a Major international corporation. Sales - Philly region. 16 million in bids this January alone (deals take up to a year to close)
Then in the evening I get a fine meal, made by my gorgeous girlfriend.
I open a nice bottle wine and retire w her in front of the fireplace. All the time trying to get time off to take my lawyer girlfriend to my beach house on the Caribbean.
I will bet my house compared to yours it is all true.
How about you, Anonymouse?
My last tax filing was $111,000 paid to the federal government. I get a 1099. I was thrilled to be in the top tax bracket as was my girlfriend. We are both Democrats and each gave maximum amount to Obama ($2300?). I hope he ditches the temporary Bush tax cuts for wealthy people like us. I mean how much we made was solely because we live in the greatest country in the world. I give to charity (Red Cross, and Planned Parenthood.)
I actually dodged stock losses by getting out of the market 9 months before Bush crashed the economy on the rocks like a ship without a captain. Unlike teabaggers - I actually have made major payments into the government coffers.
How about you Elmer, have you had any "Access of Evil" lately?
I liked your idea about corporations getting a vote instead of uninformed voters like you, will my small LLC get your vote, meaning I will get two votes and you none?
I own a multimillion dollar blah blah blah.. I don't believe a word of it.
Even if true SO WHAT?
Houses in the Caribbean are dirt cheap too, maybe you could do us all a favor and move there.
Post a Comment