FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

rosborne979 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If one were to outline the problems with our electoral system,
I highly doubt that 'not enough corporate cash' would have been on the list.
[We r lucky that u r not on the USSC.]

I agree. I can't see this being a good thing.

I just don't understand the logic behind allowing corporations
and groups to do the marketing for selected candidates.
How can a candidate not be beholden to whoever paid his/her way into office?

There is no way whatsoever that this won't be the actual result.
The reasoning used by the majority here was specious and ridiculous, [u just detest freedom]
and what more, represents Judicial Activism -
something the right-wing constantly carps about.

Cycloptichorn

There is no way whatsoever that this won't be the actual result.
The reasoning used by the majority here was specious and
ridiculous, and what more, represents Judicial Activism - something the right-wing constantly carps about.

So what's their argument FOR this?
I just don't get it. Apparently it's seen as "free speech",
but that just doesn't make any sense to me

Corporations can always say whatever they want,
but why are campaign contributions treated as "speech"?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem is, the NRA isn't a person and shouldn't have the same rights a person does.

I don't see how this distinction makes a difference. Even if the NRA isn't a person, the people running it and contributing to it are. And they do have the right to speak their mind, and buy TV commercials to broadcast it.

Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330"333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b’s expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak.

PACs have to comply with these regulations just tospeak. This might explain why fewer than 2,000 of themillions of corporations in this country have PACs.

For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 daysbefore the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether CitizensUnited had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period.

The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant.Although they make enormous contributions to our society,
corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed
and controlled by nonresidents, their interests mayconflict in fundamental respects with the interests ofeligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate
concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate
spending in local and national races.

Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540
U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).

Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted
to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech

The only restriction was the corporation couldn't speak using corporate funds.

The court's invalidation of campaign finance reforms over the last few decades isn't about censorship or suppressed speakers or viewpoints. At its core, this line of cases is about dominance of the political and electoral system by wealthy people and corporations and about legitimizing a political and electoral system that is unrepresentative, money-driven, corrupt, outmoded, and dysfunctional. Wealthy people and corporate managers shouldn't dominate politics or have more and better speech rights than the rest of us. That seems like an obvious truth. And yet the Supreme Court's recent decisions move us away from it.

When McCain-Feingold was coming up for a vote,
I kept posting and posting and posting in multiple fora
about how that bill woud rape the First Amendment 4 differet ways.

NO ONE PAID ANY ATTENTION TO ME.

NOW, 5 guys paid attention.

The court's invalidation of campaign finance reforms over the last few decades isn't about censorship or suppressed speakers or viewpoints.[NONSENSE] At its core, this line of cases is about dominance of the political and electoral system by wealthy people and corporations and about legitimizing a political and electoral system that is unrepresentative, money-driven, corrupt, outmoded, and dysfunctional. Wealthy people and corporate managers shouldn't dominate politics or have more and better speech rights than the rest of us. That seems like an obvious truth. And yet the Supreme Court's recent decisions move us away from it.

this ruling confirms Obama's position that one of if not the greatest weaknesses of the current court
is the lack of representation of common sense. This ruling goes far to further weaken an already weak court,
as the common man increasingly feels that the rulings from the court are not legitimate, and there for there is no reason to conform behaviour to the courts rulings.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

When McCain-Feingold was coming up for a vote,
I kept posting and posting and posting in multiple fora
about how that bill woud rape the First Amendment 4 differet ways.

NO ONE PAID ANY ATTENTION TO ME.

NOW, 5 guys paid attention.

You're quite insane, aren't you, David? Why do they let you run around loose, without a keeper?
Not really dangerous, I suppose.

parados wrote:

The only restriction was the corporation couldn't speak using corporate funds.

And how is that distinction justified by the difference between corporate and natural persons?

For the sake of the argument, let's pretend that the difference between legal and natural persons is huge, and that corporations have no First Amendment rights. Even so, corporate funds ultimately belong to natural persons. The First Amendment gives persons the right to speak freely, and to pay TV channels for broadcasting their speech. One way they can pay the TV channels is to take money from a piggy bank labeled "my company's corporate funds". Another is to take money from a piggy bank labeled "my savings account". As long as both piggy banks are theirs, why should the difference matter to the owner's First Amendment rights?

It IS the function of the court to accurately apply the Constitution
NOT to be concerned about how "the common man" ` "FEELS

People may not care for how the court rules, but the constitution provides a remedy for that--amendment.

CNN reports that Obama has pledged to fight the ruling through legislation.

CNN reports that Obama has pledged to fight the ruling through legislation.

But the people who the money belongs to - the shareholders - don't get a say in it. It is the people RUNNING the company who decide who the money is used, and it's not really 'their' money.