Corporate Money Will Reshape Politics

[classicman]

A bitterly divided Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the government may not ban political spending by corporations, labor unions or other organizations in elections. The court’s majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission swept aside a century-old doctrine in election law, ruling that the campaign finance restriction violated the First Amendment’s free speech principles. The dissenters said opening the floodgates to corporate money will corrupt democracy.

How will this decision play out in American politics?

This is a great day for the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has invalidated a ban which prohibited all corporations and all labor unions from speaking out about government and politics in any way that even mentioned a politician or an incumbent officeholder running for election.
In ruling this ban unconstitutional, the Court emphasized what no one seriously disputes: the primary purpose of the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition is to enhance democracy by insuring an informed electorate capable of self-government.

Today’s Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case is a disaster for the American people. It will unleash unprecedented amounts of corporate “influence-seeking” money on our elections and create unprecedented opportunities for corporate “influence-buying” corruption.

In a stark choice between the right of American citizens to a government free from influence-buying corruption and the economic and political interests of American corporations, five justices came down in favor of corporations. Chief Justice Roberts has abandoned the illusory public commitments he made to “judicial modesty” and “respect for precedent” to cast the deciding vote for a radical decision that profoundly undermines our democracy.

Link
What do you think?

I agree with the second response above. Having the corps be able to spend shareholders money on whatever the corporation wants whether the individual shareholders agree or not is a very dangerous precedent. Corps also have more money to spend and can reap greater rewards from influencing political policy.

[Happy Monkey]

To a certain extent this is a depressing conversion from de facto to de jure.

I'd argue that this...

In ruling this ban unconstitutional, the Court emphasized what no one seriously disputes: the primary purpose of the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition is to enhance democracy by insuring an informed electorate capable of self-government.

...is a fallacy (there's not much chance of a corporate ad assisting an informed electorate), except for the fact that the media is corporate-owned, and usually (especially in television) doesn't provide much more depth than a political ad in the first place.

Maybe we'll get more balance if the unions can do what the corporations have been doing anyway.

Bleh.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In the past, Unions could not use dues for political purposes. That money had to come from separate voluntary donations by the members. I wonder if this affects that policy?

To a certain extent this is a depressing conversion from de facto to de jure.

On the bright side, it may make what's been happening all along, more obvious/less devious and more transparent?
I'm reaching, aren't I?

[classicman]

yes you are, bruce. The more I think about this, the worse it gets.
Any of that Kool-Aid left? I could use a little right about now.

[Pie]

This is terrible. I have long felt that if 'corporations' really are 'legal persons' they should be treated as the rest of us are -- limit them to $2k in campaign contributions.

This goes in the worst possible direction.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Must be that Sotomayor's fault, being the newbie.
Is there a link to how they voted?

Wait, does this mean they can give the money directly to the candidate, or just campaign on their own on behalf of the candidate?

[classicman]

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

On its central point, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stevens’s dissent was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Link

[xoxoxoBruce]

Thanks.

[classicman]

Your welcome, This is totally fucked up. How the hell can they make this decision? This goes beyond any sense, common or otherwise.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Boosting their retirement fund?


Oh, and it's Bush's fault.

[classicman]

[Pie]

WTF was Kennedy thinking???

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

....Oh, and it's Bush's fault.

Nah....Bush was only responsible for Roberts and Alito.

Daddy Bush gets the nod for Clarence Thomas and the credit goes to Reagan for Kennedy and Scalia.



It does strike as odd. to say the least, that the conservative members of the bench, the more "strict" constitutionalists, believe the laws of the land should treat corporations as "people".

WE the people and corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union....

[Happy Monkey]

I gather that Thomas wanted to also eliminate disclosure rules.

[xoxoxoBruce]

WE corporations, and the people we own, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union....