Obama Criticizes Supreme Court in SotU Address, Justice Alito Shakes His Head

[Geezah]

http://www.youtube.com/v/deGg41IiWwU

WTH is Obama the Great thinking, or not.......

[MaNiC]

The constitution gives certain inalienable rights to the people, not corporations. We are a nation of people, not conglomerates. I've never seen a worst interpretation of the constitution in my life.

And don't make it out like Obama is the only critic on this decision. This ruling undoes years and years of legal precedence. He had every right to call them out on what they have done. That's what the SOTU is all about.

[0rphie]

Before, people/companies owing newspapers have all the opportunities trash any political candidate without limits. everyone else was limited by this statue. this ruling provides an opportunity for people/businesses to respond to political attacks from left and right. I totally support it.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

The constitution gives certain inalienable rights to the people, not corporations.I believe I'm correct in saying that corporations have legal rights as well.

[California Joe]

I think the point should be to attempt to take money and lobbyists out of the electoral process, not make it easier for our representatives to whore themselves out. Which this does.

[Brasi]

The constitution gives certain inalienable rights to the people, not corporations. We are a nation of people, not conglomerates. I've never seen a worst interpretation of the constitution in my life.

And don't make it out like Obama is the only critic on this decision. This ruling undoes years and years of legal precedence. He had every right to call them out on what they have done. That's what the SOTU is all about.

Exactly! I have no idea what the justices were smoking that day, and Ginsburg should retire, she doesn't not look healthy at all.

[Chulo]

While i agree with the concept that money should not pay a large part in elections, has anyone read the opinion? The case is called Citizens United v. FEC and available from the SC site http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

The basis of Kennedy's opinion is that the law cannot distinguish between corporations and individuals in prohibiting speech - so free speech rights that apply to the latter must also apply to the former.

Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter's special advantages of e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may "have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas." Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.

The root of this decision is the the difference in the concept of law. Do you rule from the bench and make law, or do you judge the law?

[Castlegrade]

The man backed by George Soros, Ted Turner, and Hollywood is right!

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

The basis of Kennedy's opinion is that the law cannot distinguish between corporations and individuals in prohibiting speech - so free speech rights that apply to the latter must also apply to the former.It might have been my one class in Engineering Law that I heard that corporations are a bit of legal fiction, but they can act as an individual.

[Panchito12]

The concept of corporation as a citizen with the same rights as individual persons under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights goes all the way back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).

Thus:
(1) Obama was wrong in his statement (and from one law graduate to another I'm surprised at such a faux pax), and
(2) Obama was ABSOLUTELY WRONG in his breach of decorum in attacking the SC.:slap:

[Hollis]

It might have been my one class in Engineering Law that I heard that corporations are a bit of legal fiction, but they can act as an individual.


They are a legal entity. They can enter into contracts, are consider responsible for their actions, in many ways they are as a person, but they can not vote. Nothing fictional about them. Many ways they are no different than a soul proprietorship. Advantage is liability, but that is not 100%. Part of the problem is knowing where the money being donated is coming from. A very rich sponsor gives every member of a "group" x amount of dollars that will be donated to a campaign and not have to be recorded VS, the rich sponsor donated all that money under his own name. Most Corps are rather small, look at Sub Chapter S corps. Seems people tend to think corps are all very rich and large.

Chulo's post pointed to the obvious. Thanks

Obviously the problem is money is political power, the more money, the more power. The big but, the election is still up to the voters. Maybe we need voter reform?

[Jobu]

Supreme Court v Supreme Arrogance

Good on Alito for not sitting on his hands while the president lied (again.)

[Kaplanr]

The concept of corporation as a citizen with the same rights as individual persons under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights goes all the way back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).

Thus:
(1) Obama was wrong in his statement (and from one law graduate to another I'm surprised at such a faux pax), and
(2) Obama was ABSOLUTELY WRONG in his breach of decorum in attacking the SC.:slap:

Col. Tack, that's what I remember being taught too. Panchito, I disagree (except about Ginsberg, she looked ready to keel over.) I think he did it with the appropriate decorum, and it's a legitimate complaint; they upended a century of accepted prior judicial decision-making. They were and activist court.

[Geezah]

The man backed by George Soros, Ted Turner, and Hollywood is right!

Exactly.........no-one on the Left cries about this though.....

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I think the point should be to attempt to take money and lobbyists out of the electoral process, not make it easier for our representatives to whore themselves out. Which this does.


They are a legal entity. They can enter into contracts, are consider responsible for their actions, in many ways they are as a person, but they can not vote. Nothing fictional about them. Many ways they are no different than a soul proprietorship. Advantage is liability, but that is not 100%. Part of the problem is knowing where the money being donated is coming from. A very rich sponsor gives every member of a "group" x amount of dollars that will be donated to a campaign and not have to be recorded VS, the rich sponsor donated all that money under his own name. Most Corps are rather small, look at Sub Chapter S corps. Seems people tend to think corps are all very rich and large.

Chulo's post pointed to the obvious. Thanks

Obviously the problem is money is political power, the more money, the more power. The big but, the election is still up to the voters. Maybe we need voter reform?
I'm worry though that structural reforms cannot remedy cynicism and apathy.

I personally think we need two things:
1) Principled representatives who aren't continually seeking re-election, and more importantly,
2) An engaged, well-educated electorate that cares enough to independently investigate the claims of their representatives.

What would happen if we kept the representatives, but allowed the electorate to actually vote on the proposed legislation? All the electorate voting on each law?

Maybe I should find my copy of Aristophanes' The Wasps

[Hollis]

I'm worry though that structural reforms cannot remedy cynicism and apathy.




I think Shakespeare would say, "T'is the rub." Pogo also said it, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." The US is a country of the People, but about half the people don't give a squat. Among the other half, well that is up for grabs in so many different directions. In the US, one might say, keep the people in cynicism and apathy is a way to stay in power.

All I can say, "They walk among us."

[Panchito12]

Col. Tack, that's what I remember being taught too. Panchito, I disagree (except about Ginsberg, she looked ready to keel over.) I think he did it with the appropriate decorum, and it's a legitimate complaint; they upended a century of accepted prior judicial decision-making. They were and activist court.

The "century of accepted prior judicial decision-making" statement was WRONG! Southern Pacific Railroad is the precedent granting the rights of individuals to corporations.

p.s. All courts are activists. That's what you get under a common-law system.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I think Shakespeare would say, "T'is the rub." Pogo also said it, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." The US is a country of the People, but about half the people don't give a squat. Among the other half, well that is up for grabs in so many different directions. In the US, one might say, keep the people in cynicism and apathy is a way to stay in power.

All I can say, "They walk among us."

I wholeheartedly concur.

I've also heard that "In a democracy, people get the government they deserve" (Adlai Stevenson)

The electorate selects its influences. Imho, it has also abdicated it's sovereign reason to them as well.

I think if people were more engaged, we would be better off.

[MaNiC]

I believe I'm correct in saying that corporations have legal rights as well.

That goes without saying. But if you think that their collective voice should be placed ahead of the peoples, then this is where we disagree.

[Hollis]

That goes without saying. But if you think that their collective voice should be placed ahead of the peoples, then this is where we disagree.


Even though corporations are a legal entity, they are still operated and controlled by people. The Board of Directors are still people, whether they act through the corporation or by themselves.

[Nano]

I think the point should be to attempt to take money and lobbyists out of the electoral process, not make it easier for our representatives to whore themselves out. Which this does.
Whores will be whores there is no need to make it easier or harder for whores to whore themselves out they will do it.Obama needs to look at the Patriot Act and criticize the Supreme Court for allowing such a massively intrusive and unconstitutional law to exist. Oh perhaps Obama has changed his tune since he became Ceasar himself. Obama is a lot of talk no substance just like every other politician and president before. He talks tough about the bankers, but he is their 2 dollar whore. White House breakfast with cocksucking bankers what a joke that was some did not even bother showing making lame as **** excuses.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

That goes without saying. But if you think that their collective voice should be placed ahead of the peoples, then this is where we disagree.In terms of political effect or influence, how are the actions wealthy individual different from that of the CEO of a corporation?

But anyway, the SCOTUS exercised its power of judicial review, and there seems to be a precedent.

Which, I believe, is the priciple of stare decisis.

[Hollis]

What ever you do Nano, don't hold your feelings back. I disagree with your assumption about the Patriot Act. I might worry about it if the following was happening.

POTUS is running for his 4th Term, congress is getting ready to suspend the election and announce POTUS would become President for life. Then I would worry. Self protection is allowed with in reason. Yes the PA could be abused, but currently there are still checks and balances on that happening with any regularity or orchestrated to have happen.

[MaNiC]

Even though corporations are a legal entity, they are still operated and controlled by people. The Board of Directors are still people, whether they act through the corporation or by themselves.

All true once again. But you are over-simplifying the issue I believe. Corporations are also a collection of wealth and capital. And if we are to look at the ratio between so called board of directors and executives to the amount of political, financial, and economic capital you will find that there is a disproportion.

Our country (and more specifically the legislative process) is based on representative democracy. That's why there is a census every 10 years so that no one district gets more or less representation in congress than they deserve.

The questions that this ruling creates are serious ones. Will there need to be a majority vote of the board of directors in order for a company to invest in a campaign? What if the board of directors supports one political campaign yet the workers or unions support another? Who will have the final say?

The bottom line is that this ruling will result in people not being treated equally. It is essentially saying that if you have more money (or wealth) then you have more "say" or a louder voice in the political process. That's a wrong direction this country should take in my opinion.

PS - I hope that answers your question as well A. Tack.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I got to admit that this guy sure is one pugnacious little crook. When he’s cornered and the people waking up to his scams, what does he reach back for? It’s not compromise, a bipartisanship reach across the aisle no; he goes for the, win all or lose all hail Mary play of identity politics. Look out people, these crooks will do anything to get to the top of the managerial elite heap to dictate to you how they will steal your money and run your lives.

[Atlantic Friend]

In terms of political effect or influence, how are the actions wealthy individual different from that of the CEO of a corporation?

When it's their own money, people do exert their right of speech. When it's corporate money, doesn't the CEO imposes his own personal political views on the shareholders, in a way?

Basically I don't see how allowing more corporate money into politics (or not capping individual contributions) can be construed as a move strengthening democracy.

[chauncy republicans]

Even though corporations are a legal entity, they are still operated and controlled by people. The Board of Directors are still people, whether they act through the corporation or by themselves.
The lines get fuzzy though, because most large corporations aren't American entities so to speak. We now live in the age of multi-national corporations whose stock is traded internationally, and can enter, or pack up and leave our country on a whim. The irresponsibility of this ruling by the SCOTUS is absolutely incredible, and just goes to show that for most Americans sovereignty is a joke.

[Hollis]

Manic, I don't think it is a corporation issue, most are pretty small (see S Corps). It is more a wealth issue, money is political power. A poor man running for office against a multi-billionaire is at a disadvantage to start with. The poor man may have problems coming up with filing fees, while the rich man has already but advertisements on radio and TV.

Grass roots campaigns do work, but mostly at the lower levels where is possible for the candidate to knock on every door in their district.

All in all, I agree that wealth is a issue.

[MaNiC]

Manic, I don't think it is a corporation issue, most are pretty small (see S Corps). It is more a wealth issue, money is political power. A poor man running for office against a multi-billionaire is at a disadvantage to start with. The poor man may have problems coming up with filing fees, while the rich man has already but advertisements on radio and TV.

Grass roots campaigns do work, but mostly at the lower levels where is possible for the candidate to knock on every door in their district.

All in all, I agree that wealth is a issue.

I agree with you on this. BTW, I was just using corporations as an example.

[Nano]

What ever you do Nano, don't hold your feelings back. I disagree with your assumption about the Patriot Act. I might worry about it if the following was happening.

POTUS is running for his 4th Term, congress is getting ready to suspend the election and announce POTUS would become President for life. Then I would worry. Self protection is allowed with in reason. Yes the PA could be abused, but currently there are still checks and balances on that happening with any regularity or orchestrated to have happen.
LOL Hollis by then it would all be too late no? In the chance of anyone getting a full third term various things would have already happened. A a number of amendments would have been effectively repelled. Just look at the gun laws and ordinances in some places. Washington has by all, but in name outlawed guns/arms and the Supreme Court has taken how long to even bother looking into that issue? The checks and balance have long been gone and they only bother making a show of things at times.(Like Obama did) The tarp bailout/stimulus is all unconstitutional as well why does the Supreme Court not bother looking into that as well. The Supreme Court has long been filled with high priced whores as well in my view. The power rests now with the legislative and executive in terms of the checks and balances.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

When it's their own money, people do exert their right of speech. When it's corporate money, doesn't the CEO imposes his own personal political views on the shareholders, in a way?I think he legally has that power. But, IIRC, he is overseen by the Board of Directors, as HOLLiS has said.


Basically I don't see how allowing more corporate money into politics (or not capping individual contributions) can be construed as a move strengthening democracy.
IMHO, in a healthy democracy, you have individuals doing independent research on their representatives and the legislation before them. Corporations can't legally force any citizen or representative to vote in a particular way.

A neat experiment, as I've said before, would be to have individuals vote on legislation proposed by the reps.

[Jobu]

The lines get fuzzy though, because most large corporations aren't American entities so to speak. We now live in the age of multi-national corporations whose stock is traded internationally, and can enter, or pack up and leave our country on a whim. The irresponsibility of this ruling by the SCOTUS is absolutely incredible, and just goes to show that for most Americans sovereignty is a joke.

Foreigners are still covered under section 441e which was not addressed in this ruling.

Did you even read it?

[Zoomie]

The constitution gives certain inalienable rights to the people, not corporations. We are a nation of people, not conglomerates. I've never seen a worst interpretation of the constitution in my life.

And don't make it out like Obama is the only critic on this decision. This ruling undoes years and years of legal precedence. He had every right to call them out on what they have done. That's what the SOTU is all about.
Newspapers are corperations too. . .what do you think of that?

[SoftLion]

In terms of political effect or influence, how are the actions wealthy individual different from that of the CEO of a corporation?

But anyway, the SCOTUS exercised its power of judicial review, and there seems to be a precedent.

Which, I believe, is the priciple of stare decisis.

You are confusing some legal principles. Judicial review, in an extremely general sense, is the principle whereby the judiciary may invalidate acts by the legislative or executive branch. It is essentially is a part of the doctrine of separation of powers

Stare decisis (let the law stand) is more like a quasi-presumption whereby legal precedent established by the court is afforded a certain amount of weight. Therefore, established principles of law are accorded a modicum of influence when considering challenges to existing laws, much like the law discussed in this thread.

An indispensable feature of the court system, however, is the ability of attorneys to make creative arguments utilizing different angles of attack based on particular set of facts. In this fashion, even well-established precedent, regardless of the doctrine of stare decisis, can be overturned.l

I don't particularly like the outcome of the case at issue, but all the "emotional" discussion in this thread is pointless. The SC made a ruling of law, not of policy. That is their job.

EDIT:
I would add that oftentimes I see members on here calling out and taking offense to certain opinions as "armchair generals" etc., but apparently there are a whole flock of "armchair lawyers" in this thread. Throwing around opinions that have no basis in or recognition of the law or relation to the machinations of the court systems is just, well, baseless opinions for the sake of arguing.

[California Joe]

That's why I was speaking in generalities. Because I sure as hell don't presume to know the law. SL, it's the same way I feel everytime there is a police shooting and every member that's ever gotten a ticket they didn't agree with starts in with the "all cops are trigger happy assholes..." comments.

I still think that money and influence run this country and it has nothing to do with the betterment of the average voter. This seems, on the face of it, to expand corporate and special interests influence. Seems...

[SoftLion]

That's why I was speaking in generalities. Because I sure as hell don't presume to know the law. SL, it's the same way I feel everytime there is a police shooting and every member that's ever gotten a ticket they didn't agree with starts in with the "all cops are trigger happy assholes..." comments.

I still think that money and influence run this country and it has nothing to do with the betterment of the average voter. This seems, on the face of it, to expand corporate and special interests influence. Seems...

I certainly am not trying to say you need to be a lawyer to have an opinion about a court decision or law. I agree with your sentiments. Its the "what the hell were those idiot SC justices doing" type of comments that are annoying.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

You are confusing some legal principles. Judicial review, in an extremely general sense, is the principle whereby the judiciary may invalidate acts by the legislative or executive branch. It is essentially is a part of the doctrine of separation of powers
I don't think anything I said contradicts this.


Stare decisis (let the law stand) is more like a quasi-presumption whereby legal precedent established by the court is afforded a certain amount of weight. Therefore, established principles of law are accorded a modicum of influence when considering challenges to existing laws, much like the law discussed in this thread.
Again, I don't see where I went wrong. I was intending to link the precedent with stare decisis.


The SC made a ruling of law, not of policy. That is their job.I Quite agree. But legislators enact laws and presidents enact executive orders that reflect policy. And the SC makes determinations on constitutionality.


EDIT: I would add that oftentimes I see members on here calling out and taking offense to certain opinions as "armchair generals" etc., but apparently there are a whole flock of "armchair lawyers" in this thread. Throwing around opinions that have no basis in or recognition of the law or relation to the machinations of the court systems is just, well, baseless opinions for the sake of arguing.I'm not offended; I freely admit to my lack of any legal expertise, and I probably shouldn't be using legal terms.

Just speaking more generally on the influence of corporate money, I genuinely feel every person has almost absolute control over who influences them, and you really do have the power to bring persons into the voting booth with you or exclude them, be it George Soros, Jon Stewart, or Bill O'Relly.

[Atlantic Friend]

I think he legally has that power. But, IIRC, he is overseen by the Board of Directors, as HOLLiS has said.

IMHO, in a healthy democracy, you have individuals doing independent research on their representatives and the legislation before them. Corporations can't legally force any citizen or representative to vote in a particular way.

No, or at least not yet (;)), but what are the chances of a grassroots candidate running against someone backed by Microsfot and Soros?

[Mackie]

By going through individual lobbying reports, we identify all lobbying activities by financial institutions related to the regulation of mortgage lending and securitisation. During the period of the boom from 2000 to 2006, we find 16 pieces of federal legislation aimed at enhancing the regulation of predatory lending practices, none of which ever became law. The amounts spent on lobbying in relation to these laws were substantial and were spent mostly by large financial institutions...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/01/nexus_business_money_and_politics

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

No, or at least not yet (;)), but what are the chances of a grassroots candidate running against someone backed by Microsfot and Soros?

Probably slim, but I don't think that's a structural problem.

[SoftLion]

I don't think anything I said contradicts this.


Again, I don't see where I went wrong. I was intendign to link the precedent with stare decisis.

I Quite agree. But legislators enact laws and presidents enact executive orders that reflect policy. And the SC makes determinations on constitutionality.

I'm not offended; I freely admit to my lack of any legal expertise, and I probably shouldn't be using to many legal terms.

Just speaking more generally on the influence of corporate money, I genuinely feel every person has almost absolute control over who influences them, and you really do have the power to bring persons into the voting booth with you or exclude them, be it George Soros, Jon Stewart, or Bill O'Relly.

Sorry - I thought you were saying the court, in overturning their former precedent, was an example of stare decisis. Also, I was not directing the rest of the post at you, but at "SC justices are idiots"-esque crew.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Sorry - I thought you were saying the court, in overturning their former precedent, was an example of stare decisis. Also, I was not directing the rest of the post at you, but at "SC justices are idiots"-esque crew.

I apologize for being unclear (too common with me :))
Believe me when I say I'm very nervous about using legal terms.

[SoftLion]

I apologize for being unclear (too common with me :))
Believe me when I say I'm very nervous about using legal terms.

you had it dead on, as clarified by your prior post, I just confused what you were saying - no apologies necessary!

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

you had it dead on, as clarified by your prior post, I just confused what you were saying - no apologies necessary!

I knew there was a reason that you seem so rational, sir :)
But, Please do correct me when the situation warrants it.

[Wimbly]

Exactly.........no-one on the Left cries about this though.....

Their outrage is based solely on if Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann told them to be.

[Rapier55]

I think the point should be to attempt to take money and lobbyists out of the electoral process, not make it easier for our representatives to whore themselves out. Which this does.QFT! There's way too much money in politics.

[SoftLion]

I knew there was a reason that you seem so rational, sir :)
But, Please do correct me when the situation warrants it.

I would say the same thing to you of me, but I think Dominque has that covered. ;) If not, then please do.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Hey, if we allow newspapers, unions, "community organizations", advocacy groups etc. all pay their way to the legislation they want, I see no reason why corporations should be any different. The ruling only restores a sort of perverse balance in our flawed system. I'm all for taking big money out of politics, but what Obama et al seem to want is to take big money only out of one side of politics.

[Geezah]

Hey, if we allow newspapers, unions, "community organizations", advocacy groups etc. all pay their way to the legislation they want, I see no reason why corporations should be any different. The ruling only restores a sort of perverse balance in our flawed system. I'm all for taking big money out of politics, but what Obama et al seem to want is to take big money only out of one side of politics.

Hear hear...does kinda screw up the Libs World a little.

[budgie]

Geezah, Geezah. Going to bat for the corportations now? They care far less about your rights than the liberals. Do you truly hate the left that much?

Perhaps this is just an example of the partisan foot-stomping the President derided in other parts of his speech. Let me do a Wimbly and ask, why isn't the Media crying louder over this proposed legislation? Why should American elections be given over even further to moneyed interests that benefit a handful of billionaires?

[Kaplanr]

Hey, if we allow newspapers, unions, "community organizations", advocacy groups etc. all pay their way to the legislation they want, I see no reason why corporations should be any different. The ruling only restores a sort of perverse balance in our flawed system. I'm all for taking big money out of politics, but what Obama et al seem to want is to take big money only out of one side of politics.

But i could make the argument that the others (how do newspapers fit in here?) are really collections of individuals, though I'd apply the same restriction to unions as i would to corporations, whereas who does the corporation speak for? I'm a shareholder in xyz companies but I don't always endorse their political views. I might even look at it more greedily than that; those are my dividends they're pissing away on lobbyists.

[Clockwinder]

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter - no individual or organization may second guess their decisions. Once made, they are incontrovertible, except by the SC itself. The President might be made out to be the most powerful man in the world, but in reality that title belongs to Justice Roberts. If the President doesn't like the decision, too bad. Now he just has to live with it, like the rest of us.
Oh wait .... all the above only counts if you believe in a woman's right to choose.

[Zoomie]

But i could make the argument that the others (how do newspapers fit in here?) are really collections of individuals, though I'd apply the same restriction to unions as i would to corporations, whereas who does the corporation speak for? I'm a shareholder in xyz companies but I don't always endorse their political views. I might even look at it more greedily than that; those are my dividends they're pissing away on lobbyists.
Because newspapers ARE corporations:

Corporation
–noun
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
2. (initial capital letterhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
3. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

You might even say that newspapers are more powerful than other corporations through the power they possess.

[maw]

Hey, if we allow newspapers, unions, "community organizations", advocacy groups etc. all pay their way to the legislation they want, I see no reason why corporations should be any different. The ruling only restores a sort of perverse balance in our flawed system. I'm all for taking big money out of politics, but what Obama et al seem to want is to take big money only out of one side of politics.

comparing unions to corporations doesn't work. for all practical purposes unions are democratic in nature. corporations on the other hand beyond being pathological in their operating principles are non-democratic, they operate behind closed doors. anyway, the feca act of 1971/1974 already opened the doors to lobbyists and pac's placing industry groups on the same level as unions.

[JJC]

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter - no individual or organization may second guess their decisions. Once made, they are incontrovertible, except by the SC itself. The President might be made out to be the most powerful man in the world, but in reality that title belongs to Justice Roberts. If the President doesn't like the decision, too bad. Now he just has to live with it, like the rest of us.
Oh wait .... all the above only counts if you believe in a woman's right to choose. Well, one can argue that Congress is really the most powerful and can second guess SCOTUS by passing legislature which can overrule the court's intent, but chances of that happening is usually rare.

It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with the Court's decisions. They are not there to appeal to the right or left but to interpret the laws to the best of their abilities. Judges don't always have to just accept century old precedences like zombies because of some customary practice in law. The President should (almost) never chastise the highest court of the land in public sphere. Will Obama always scream to Congress to change legislation every time the courts won't sing to his tune? Such behavior creates distrust of our judicial branch.

[SoftLion]

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter - no individual or organization may second guess their decisions. Once made, they are incontrovertible, except by the SC itself. The President might be made out to be the most powerful man in the world, but in reality that title belongs to Justice Roberts. If the President doesn't like the decision, too bad. Now he just has to live with it, like the rest of us..

You are forgetting the power of the legislative branch. Based on your statement about the "most powerful man in the world", you should read up on the doctrine of separation of powers. Also, the vote of the Chief Justice of the United States carries no more weight than that of the Associate Justices.


Oh wait .... all the above only counts if you believe in a woman's right to choose.

I don't get it.

Anyway, I think one concerning aspect of the decision is that it may open the door for foreign investment in political campaigns.

[Atlantic Friend]

Anyway, I think one concerning aspect of the decision is that it may open the door for foreign investment in political campaigns.

Why, yes indeed. America's political scene will be more or less on sale...

[Chulo]

Anyway, I think one concerning aspect of the decision is that it may open the door for foreign investment in political campaigns.
Foreign contribution are still restricted. This decision did not change or touch on that.

[SoftLion]

Foreign contribution are still restricted. This decision did not change or touch on that.

Although foreign nationals cannot make indpendent expenditures in US elections, many in the legal community are claiming that restriction has little teeth, and also are opining that it doesn't apply to foreign-owned corporations that have incorporated in the US or have US-incorporated subsidiaries (ie foreign multi-nationals).

This decision may change that and abolutely touched on the issue of foreign expenditures in US elections, albeit in a derivate sense. It did not make foreign expenditures allowable, but, as previously stated, may open the door to this possibiliity.

[Jobu]

As I said earlier, section 441e was not addressed in this case so nothing has changed when it comes to foreign interference in our elections.

[Jobu]

delete pls, double posted

[2Sheds_Jackson]

But i could make the argument that the others (how do newspapers fit in here?) are really collections of individuals, though I'd apply the same restriction to unions as i would to corporations, whereas who does the corporation speak for? I'm a shareholder in xyz companies but I don't always endorse their political views. I might even look at it more greedily than that; those are my dividends they're pissing away on lobbyists.

Well the way I look at it, corporations aren't giant robots sitting on a throne of skulls in a far away land. They have corporate officers, boards, steering committees, and leaders - they decide to spend money on lobbyists in order to further their own interests...which presumably would mean that the executives, upper management, middle management, workers, shareholders and suppliers all benefit. You as a shareholder invest in them because you trust them to make you money - which they do, in part, by trying to craft laws beneficial to the corporation. If they're doing stuff you don't think is wise, don't invest in them, right?


comparing unions to corporations doesn't work. for all practical purposes unions are democratic in nature. corporations on the other hand beyond being pathological in their operating principles are non-democratic, they operate behind closed doors. anyway, the feca act of 1971/1974 already opened the doors to lobbyists and pac's placing industry groups on the same level as unions.

Are you tryin' to tell me that unions are transparent and democratic....if so, I have some swampland in Jersey I can sell you. It's got a few trouble-making union guys buried in it. I've been forced to join unions just in order to work at certain companies. They took my money and did whatever they wanted. They went on strike and prevented me from working. Corporate leadership and union leadership operate exactly the same way, each cutting corners and making secret deals - I simply fail to see why one should be able to spend money (which, by all rights, was granted to them via the work and achievements of the corporations they hold hostage in the first place) while the other is not. It only seems fair to me to let them both do it, or neither.

[Geezah]

^Hear hear............p-)

[SoftLion]

As I said earlier, section 441e was not addressed in this case so nothing has changed when it comes to foreign interference in our elections.

I couldn't disagree more. I assume you are familiar with section 441e, which prohobits contributions and expenditures by "foreign nationals", defined to include any corporation "organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign corporation." Therefore, corporations with their principal place of business in China or Russia or other foreign country are clearly prohibited and correclty point out that 441e was not addressed in the decision.

However, you are overlooking the import of the decision as it applies to multi-national corporations. There are many domestic corporations organized under the laws of the United States that are controlled by foreign parent companies and foreign interests. These corporations, which do not run afoul of the definitino used in section 441e, would presumably be free to spend their corporate treasury funds and therefore have the ability to influence US elections. Long story short: there is no longer a statutory prohibition against foreign-controlled domestic corporations from making expenditures to influence federal elections, following the Citizens United decision.

All of this, of course, is untested. At the same time, to say that "nothing has changed when it comes to foreign interference in our elections" would be failing to understand the import of this decision.

[maw]

Well the way I look at it, corporations aren't giant robots sitting on a throne of skulls in a far away land. They have corporate officers, boards, steering committees, and leaders - they decide to spend money on lobbyists in order to further their own interests...which presumably would mean that the executives, upper management, middle management, workers, shareholders and suppliers all benefit. You as a shareholder invest in them because you trust them to make you money - which they do, in part, by trying to craft laws beneficial to the corporation. If they're doing stuff you don't think is wise, don't invest in them, right?

the problem is that corporations operate without any consideration for the greater good. social concerns and the well being of society are beyond the scope of their charter. they exist exclusively to create profit. they aren't good or bad, they're just very myopic. additionally, although shareholders vote on organizational governance. the vast majority of decisions happen behind closed doors. the only thing 99.999% of shareholders care about is profit. the how does not bother them, all that matters is the end result. this means that there is very little consequence to the corporation for operating against the common good.


Are you tryin' to tell me that unions are transparent and democratic....if so, I have some swampland in Jersey I can sell you. It's got a few trouble-making union guys buried in it. I've been forced to join unions just in order to work at certain companies. They took my money and did whatever they wanted. They went on strike and prevented me from working. Corporate leadership and union leadership operate exactly the same way, each cutting corners and making secret deals - I simply fail to see why one should be able to spend money (which, by all rights, was granted to them via the work and achievements of the corporations they hold hostage in the first place) while the other is not. It only seems fair to me to let them both do it, or neither.

despite what you say, unions are democratic organizations with full member participation in the electoral their own process. are they flawed? isn't everything. but if the members don't like how the union is representing them they can organize and change things. unions are a microcosm of democracy. because of this principle they are able to represent the members through a democratic process which ultimately allows them to dovetail neatly into the larger national political structure. i don't want to get into a "are unions good or bad debate". i'm just emphasizing that their structure is (relatively) open and democratic this is based on their founding principles. corporations have no such principles that dictate that they must be transparent and democratic. that is why they are not equal and that is why they should not have parity in the democratic process.

the feca act of 1971/1974 created parity between labor pacs and business interests. it established that corporations and trade groups could more easily create political action committees, this what caused pacs to go from a couple of dozen to a several hundred today, while the number of lobbyists went from a few hundred to over thirty thousand today.

[SoftLion]

the problem is that corporations operate without any consideration for the greater good. social concerns and the well being of society are beyond the scope of their charter. they exist exclusively to create profit. they aren't good or bad, they're just very myopic. additionally, although shareholders vote on organizational governance. the vast majority of decisions happen behind closed doors. the only thing 99.999% of shareholders care about is profit. the how does not bother them, all that matters is the end result. this means that there is very little consequence to the corporation for operating against the common good.

I would categorize this as several sweeping generalizations, which may or may not have any realistic basis.

[Jobu]

I couldn't disagree more. I assume you are familiar with section 441e, which prohobits contributions and expenditures by "foreign nationals", defined to include any corporation "organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign corporation." Therefore, corporations with their principal place of business in China or Russia or other foreign country are clearly prohibited and correclty point out that 441e was not addressed in the decision.

However, you are overlooking the import of the decision as it applies to multi-national corporations. There are many domestic corporations organized under the laws of the United States that are controlled by foreign parent companies and foreign interests. These corporations, which do not run afoul of the definitino used in section 441e, would presumably be free to spend their corporate treasury funds and therefore have the ability to influence US elections. Long story short: there is no longer a statutory prohibition against foreign-controlled domestic corporations from making expenditures to influence federal elections, following the Citizens United decision.

All of this, of course, is untested. At the same time, to say that "nothing has changed when it comes to foreign interference in our elections" would be failing to understand the import of this decision.

I'm sorry to be so blunt about it but what you just wrote is utter nonsense.

This ruling simply made it so corporations (and unions) could use their general treasury funds for these purposes rather than forcing them to create PACs to do so.

That's it. Any corporation or union that wanted to do the same thing by creating a PAC, could. Now they can simply do it without creating a separate entity. The same rules applied as before when it comes to the national, multi-national, or foreign status of the company. The majority opinion even specifically addressed this:

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."

[SoftLion]

I'm sorry to be so blunt about it but what you just wrote is utter nonsense.

This ruling simply made it so corporations (and unions) could use their general treasury funds for these purposes rather than forcing them to create PACs to do so.

That's it. Any corporation or union that wanted to do the same thing by creating a PAC, could. Now they can simply do it without creating a separate entity. The same rules applied as before when it comes to the national, multi-national, or foreign status of the company. The majority opinion even specifically addressed this:

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."

Cool story, bro. Read the opinion. When four justices of the Supreme Court agreed that the logic of the decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans" to make certain election-related expenditures, I take their concerns to be at least somewhat legitimate. But apparently, you do not.

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."

You do understand that "We need not reach the question..." means they did not address this issue, right?

EDIT:

Justice Stevens stated that the logic of the decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans." From Justice John Paul Stevens opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Citizens United v. FEC - an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (footnotes omitted):
If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by "Tokyo Rose" during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could " 'enhance the relative voice' " of some ( i.e. , humans) over others ( i.e. , nonhumans). Ante , at 33 (quoting Buckley , 424 U. S., at 49). 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.




Anyway, I think one concerning aspect of the decision is that it may open the door for foreign investment in political campaigns.


Emphasis added. Shall we continue this pissing match?

[California Joe]

I'm sorry to be so blunt about it but what you just wrote is utter nonsense.

You're full of sh*t Jobu.

I don't think you're sorry at all.

[IraGlacialis]

I'm worry though that structural reforms cannot remedy cynicism and apathy.

I personally think we need two things:
1) Principled representatives who aren't continually seeking re-election, and more importantly,
2) An engaged, well-educated electorate that cares enough to independently investigate the claims of their representatives.
Is it bad to consider the idea of having to have a citizen, if the want to become part of the electorate, take a test along the lines of the US immigration exam? You get 80% or so, you are able to vote.
If because of that, you get people who are actually well-informed about their own nation and politics, the amount of money/support a corporation, union, or news agency pours into a candidate should be worth only as much as the voters allows themselves to be swayed.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Just what is this “common good”? Most corporations’ pay a considerable tax into the largess pot that DC then redistributes, what else should they be doing? Or, am I hearing a suggestion that the reason they should be denied representation, that others get, is only to insure they are taxed more, or are they supposed to be more altruistic or something, freely give up more money above and beyond taxes? So, the government has a better system for spending our money? If so, why not go all the way and just have a 100% tax. I mean if our managerial elite know better, what’s fair, why not?

I pay my taxes but do my best to legally take advantage of every loophole to prevent DC taking from me. Am I selfish because of that? My money’s so tight right now that I can’t even justify giving ten bucks to that place that god just gave an enema killing off 150k. I’ve got mouths to feed, bills to pay and a future to make just like any corporation and all its employees, shareholders and whatnot do.

If our managerial elite want more then they’ll have to pony up and increase taxes the right way, in public, debating on the Senate and House floor before an intently viewing voter audience. None of these wordy BS shenanigans our glorious sock puppet leader just vomited out desiring to jimmy the system. No more of these inflationary games sucking the value from my money, no more regulatory revolving door government/banking games that indirectly tax you. In effect, no more taxation without representation because that’s exactly what these well dress ivy league PUNKS and con artists are pulling in DC!

It’s my wealth, it’s the corporation’s wealth, it’s your wealth and not the governments so get over it or start a war already. At least that’s honest!

[maw]

Just what is this “common good”?
start with this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
then run a word search for "corporation" in the constitution as well as the declaration of independence.


Most corporations’ pay a considerable tax into the largess pot that DC then redistributes, what else should they be doing? Or, am I hearing a suggestion that the reason they should be denied representation, that others get, is only to insure they are taxed more, or are they supposed to be more altruistic or something, freely give up more money above and beyond taxes?
goldman sachs paid $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008. that comes in under 1%. now how do you suppose they got such a sweet deal?
source (via google): http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18
still think it's a level playing field?

[maw]

I'm sorry to be so blunt about it but what you just wrote is utter nonsense.

This ruling simply made it so corporations (and unions) could use their general treasury funds for these purposes rather than forcing them to create PACs to do so.

That's it. Any corporation or union that wanted to do the same thing by creating a PAC, could. Now they can simply do it without creating a separate entity. The same rules applied as before when it comes to the national, multi-national, or foreign status of the company. The majority opinion even specifically addressed this:

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."

by doing so it allows corporate entities to bypass campaign restrictions. probably the largest single cost attributable to campaigning today is media airtime. a corporation is now able to purchase air time promoting a candidate supporting their political agenda (usually either less regulation or some sort subsidy from the public treasury) within the 30/60 day campaign window directly without having to donate to the campaign or pac which would have fallen under the auspice of campaign finance restrictions. this ruling effectively guts the mccain-feingold act.

[vryhpyammoadded]

start with this
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
then run a word search for "corporation" in the constitution as well as the declaration of independence.
goldman sachs paid $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008. that comes in under 1%. now how do you suppose they got such a sweet deal?
source (via google): http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18
still think it's a level playing field?
You didn’t understand me, or you’re avoiding the points I was making. I was responding to your statements to 2Sheds and now you’re changing the subject. One step at a time please; you answer my questions and then I’ll answer yours.

[maw]

Just what is this “common good”?

our greater national interests.

[maw]

I would categorize this as several sweeping generalizations, which may or may not have any realistic basis.

do you specialize in verbose ambiguity?

[Jobu]

Cool story, bro. Read the opinion. When four justices of the Supreme Court agreed that the logic of the decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans" to make certain election-related expenditures, I take their concerns to be at least somewhat legitimate. But apparently, you do not.

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process."

You do understand that "We need not reach the question..." means they did not address this issue, right?

EDIT:

Justice Stevens stated that the logic of the decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans." From Justice John Paul Stevens opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Citizens United v. FEC - an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (footnotes omitted):
If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by "Tokyo Rose" during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could " 'enhance the relative voice' " of some ( i.e. , humans) over others ( i.e. , nonhumans). Ante , at 33 (quoting Buckley , 424 U. S., at 49). 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.





Emphasis added. Shall we continue this pissing match?






You are aware that, being the minority position, Justice Stevens' opinion holds no legal authority? He could write that the cow jumps over the moon and it would mean as much.

If you want to challenge the statues that restrict foreign involvement, go ahead. It's a separate issue.

[SoftLion]

You are aware that, being the minority position, Justice Stevens' opinion holds no legal authority? He could write that the cow jumps over the moon and it would mean as much.

If you want to challenge the statues that restrict foreign involvement, go ahead. It's a separate issue.

This "you are aware" attempt at saving face is, frankly, pathetic. The portion of the dissent quoted, authored by a respected justice on the SCOTUS and joined by three others, discusses the potential consequences of the decision.

I said the decision may open the door to foreign to foreign investment in political campaigns, based on the interpretation of the consequences of the decision by four justices of the Supreme Court. You said "nothing has changed when it comes to foreign interference in our elections" based on, ummmm, you. You are wrong.

If you feel the need to offer a retort, please offer something of substance to convince me why you are more learned on this particular issue than 44% of the Supreme Court. Thanks.

[SoftLion]

do you specialize in verbose ambiguity?


................................... Nevermind you corporate specialist, you.

[maw]

I would categorize this as several sweeping generalizations, which may or may not have any realistic basis. the cost benefit of public disclosure is an active topic in many of the leading mba programs. a quick google search netted results relating to this topic from wharton, sloan (stanford), tuck (dartmouth) and vanderbuilt. kelly brownell at yale has done some very interesting work documenting the unwritten rule book relating to the strategy of prolonging disclosure and disputing science as a successful business model, i hope he publishes a book on the matter (source: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2136). he contends that big tobacco laid out the blue print but i feel you can go back to the 1940's and look at monsanto's strategy of obfuscation regarding ddt. the culture of opacity is equally prolific in the financial sector, one has merely to read the story about the aig bailout and the ny fed's pressure to suppress details to see the same pattern. the annals of the automotive industry are full of examples of suppressed disclosure to avoid costly recalls, in several cases the federal government had to intervene to save consumer lives. we could go across all of the business sectors and find an abundance of examples. there is a pattern. my point is that what we might consider dishonest behavior isn't endemic to any one industry. the problem is much broader than that.

corporations aren't good or evil. they just happen to be very efficient at what they do which is the pursuit of profit over all else. the problem is the "over all else" part because if consequence free dishonest practices lead to profits then you can sure there'll be a corporation along to fill the slot. forget the obvious targets like union carbide, monsanto, aetna or even goldman sachs; if you think right vs wrong enters the decision making process at even mainstream companies such as coca cola, nike and exxon then you're delusional.

so how does this relate to the thread? corporations are entities whose objectives are very rarely aligned with those of our greater national interests, also the corporate veil and limited liability mean that consequences are different than for individuals and finally decisions made made behind closed board room doors while being necessary in the business world are incongruous to an open democracy. the truth is served by transparency and democracy can't survive without transparency.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

the problem is that corporations operate without any consideration for the greater good. social concerns and the well being of society are beyond the scope of their charter. they exist exclusively to create profit.

I won't argue with that, because I think it's 90% true. But for that point to have any traction within your argument, unions must be shown to operate with consideration for the greater good, right? I don't think they do. I think they're exactly as self-focused as corporations. They push for greater and greater benefits for their members, and their members alone. One could easily argue that they're even willing to sacrifice their rank and file members, as well as the prosperity of the companies that sustain them, in order to enrich those at the top. Not every action a union takes is the result of a rank & file vote - a lot of the decision-making apparatus is concentrated at the top. They're both organizations that wield power from the top and promote their own interests, exclusively...and there's nothing wrong with that...if they're both treated the same.

[Jobu]

This "you are aware" attempt at saving face is, frankly, pathetic. The portion of the dissent quoted, authored by a respected justice on the SCOTUS and joined by three others, discusses the potential consequences of the decision.

I said the decision may open the door to foreign to foreign investment in political campaigns, based on the interpretation of the consequences of the decision by four justices of the Supreme Court. You said "nothing has changed when it comes to foreign interference in our elections" based on, ummmm, you. You are wrong.

If you feel the need to offer a retort, please offer something of substance to convince me why you are more learned on this particular issue than 44% of the Supreme Court. Thanks.



If you're so worried about foreign interference now, why weren't you worried about it before?

Any company which can spend on political advertisements now through their general treasury funds could have done the same thing in the past through PACs.

It's nonsensical to say that it's a problem now but not before since the same rules govern foreign involvement.

[SoftLion]

If you're so worried about foreign interference now, why weren't you worried about it before?

Any company which can spend on political advertisements now through their general treasury funds could have done the same thing in the past through PACs.

It's nonsensical to say that it's a problem now but not before since the same rules govern foreign involvement.

If you can't grasp why the decision being discussed in this thread may open the door for foreign involvement in political campaigns, I can't hold your hand anymore beyond quoting the concerns verbatim from the dissent. Yawn.

[Clockwinder]

If you can't grasp why the decision being discussed in this thread may open the door for foreign involvement in political campaigns, I can't hold your hand anymore as I have already quoted the exact reason verbatim from the dissent. Yawn.
And you can't grasp the fact that everyone is so done with your verbal diarrhea.

[SoftLion]

And you can't grasp the fact that everyone is so done with your verbal diarrhea.

I apologize, I had no idea I was communicating with a 13 year old. Now get your ass in bed.

[sgt_G]

And you can't grasp the fact that everyone is so done with your verbal diarrhea.

will this help?
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6972/200af3e7ae.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/i/200af3e7ae.jpg/)

[Clockwinder]

I apologize, I had no idea I was communicating with a 13 year old. Now get your ass in bed.
Would prefer if you never fvucking communicate with me in any way shape or form ever. At least I can go to bed and sleep the sleep of the just, and not with the gremlins of hate and conspiracy running around inside my empty head, as you do.
No need to apologize, ****head. I already figured you out and forgave you for being an imbecile a long time ago.

[Jobu]

If you can't grasp why the decision being discussed in this thread may open the door for foreign involvement in political campaigns, I can't hold your hand anymore beyond quoting the concerns verbatim from the dissent. Yawn.

I understand perfectly why it's being discussed. It's politics.

Quoting the dissent means nothing since the dissent holds no legal authority. The minority opinion holders can conjecture all they wish and include political rhetoric since it will never have to be defended.

The majority opinion does count and Kennedy clearly says they were not addressing foreign involvement since that is dealt with in other statutes which remain unchanged. So any 'concern' about foreign involvement is the same as it was before this ruling, i.e. it's phony.

[budgie]

Obama Criticizes Supreme Court in SotU Address, Justice Alito Shakes His Head, Geezah gets a semi-

There, Fixed.

[Atlantic Friend]

If you can't grasp why the decision being discussed in this thread may open the door for foreign involvement in political campaigns, I can't hold your hand anymore beyond quoting the concerns verbatim from the dissent. Yawn.

I wholeheartedly concur.

Allowing corporations to fund political campaigns just gives parties a new motivation for pandering AND opens the door for foreign influence. I'm not sure a campaign starring ARAMCO as a major contributor will focus heavily on reducing the US dependence on foreign oil, for example, and I can also see how military procurement could rapidly become an issue if EADS and Boeing start showering presidential candidates with soft money.

[Jobu]

I wholeheartedly concur.

Allowing corporations to fund political campaigns just gives parties a new motivation for pandering AND opens the door for foreign influence. I'm not sure a campaign starring ARAMCO as a major contributor will focus heavily on reducing the US dependence on foreign oil, for example, and I can also see how military procurement could rapidly become an issue if EADS and Boeing start showering presidential candidates with soft money.

What difference does it make if it's a commercial paid for by Boeing or by Boeing PAC?

Aramco and EADS are already barred from this as they are foreign companies. The Citizens United ruling didn't change that.

[SoftLion]

Quoting the dissent means nothing since the dissent holds no legal authority. The minority opinion holders can conjecture all they wish and include political rhetoric since it will never have to be defended.

The majority opinion does count and Kennedy clearly says they were not addressing foreign involvement since that is dealt with in other statutes which remain unchanged. So any 'concern' about foreign involvement is the same as it was before this ruling, i.e. it's phony.

Dead horse, anyone? A dissent in a legal opinion offers 2 things: a minority legal argument which points out why the majority got it wrong, and 2) a discussion of the potential consequences considering the ruling by the majority. I have only discussed #2. You don't see it that way, and that is OK. We shall see whether future rulings are needed to shore up this recent decision, or if everything is honky dory, move on, and nothing to see here. Not that you would take them into account, but a number of "legal experts" and columnists share the conncerns I was discussing. Happy to provide you with links.


I wholeheartedly concur.

Allowing corporations to fund political campaigns just gives parties a new motivation for pandering AND opens the door for foreign influence. I'm not sure a campaign starring ARAMCO as a major contributor will focus heavily on reducing the US dependence on foreign oil, for example, and I can also see how military procurement could rapidly become an issue if EADS and Boeing start showering presidential candidates with soft money.

Just don't tell Jobu.

[Chulo]

Dead horse, anyone? A dissent in a legal opinion offers 2 things: a minority legal argument which points out why the majority got it wrong, and 2) a discussion of the potential consequences considering the ruling by the majority. I have only discussed #2. You don't see it that way, and that is OK. We shall see whether future rulings are needed to shore up this recent decision, or if everything is honky dory, move on, and nothing to see here. Not that you would take them into account, but a number of "legal experts" and columnists share the conncerns I was discussing. Happy to provide you with links.

It only points out why they think the majority was wrong, not why they got it wrong. Because in this case, what is right is what the majority supports

[SoftLion]

It only points out why they think the majority was wrong, not why they got it wrong. Because in this case, what is right is what the majority supports

Yeah, I call that a "minority legal argument as to why the majority got it wrong", as opposed to the "majority opinion". That is not the issue. The issue is: does this ruling (READ, "majority ruling"), allowing political investment by corporations have any potential to open the door to allowing domestic corporations owned by foreign interests to contribute to political campaigns? I think it may based on various interpretations of the decision, not least of which are some of the scenarios raised in the dissent, which I thought were legitimate. If you don't, thats cool. Me, I think this is not as open and shut of a decision as some would like to believe.

[Atlantic Friend]

What difference does it make if it's a commercial paid for by Boeing or by Boeing PAC?

Aramco and EADS are already barred from this as they are foreign companies. The Citizens United ruling didn't change that.

I'd say that having corporations pick up the tab for political campaigns as a whole makes candidates betrothed to said corporations' interests, which can seriously differ from the interests of the American people. Will an AIG6backed Senator speak out against another bailout for the company that pays for his campaign? I rather doubt that.

What would prevent Aramco or EADS to open an American affiliated company through which funds could be channeled to US candidates? Or what would happen if they are bought by an American company? Or if they buy a fledgling US firm to be able to invest in the next President's campaign?

I find it odd that a portion of the US Conservative electorate, after all the ruckus about Soros paying for the Clinton campaign for example, suddenly think it's a good idea to have the candidates bankrolled by corporations and private businesses.

[Jobu]

I'd say that having corporations pick up the tab for political campaigns as a whole makes candidates betrothed to said corporations' interests, which can seriously differ from the interests of the American people. Will an AIG6backed Senator speak out against another bailout for the company that pays for his campaign? I rather doubt that.

This isn't about direct contributions from corporations to candidates. It's about making advertisements, movies, etc in favor of/in opposition to candidates or their positions.


What would prevent Aramco or EADS to open an American affiliated company through which funds could be channeled to US candidates? Or what would happen if they are bought by an American company? Or if they buy a fledgling US firm to be able to invest in the next President's campaign?

The same thing that prevented them from creating a PAC and running advertisements before this ruling.


I find it odd that a portion of the US Conservative electorate, after all the ruckus about Soros paying for the Clinton campaign for example, suddenly think it's a good idea to have the candidates bankrolled by corporations and private businesses.

Once again it's not about bankrolling candidates. It's about being allowed to make commercials, movies, and such in favor of/opposed to candidates or their positions.

[budgie]

Know why the Rpublicans here favor letting corporations run campaigns ? Two reasons:

1) it's the opposite of what Obama wants
2) Since big money - oil, tobacco, insurance - is assumed to prefer the GOP, they think it will give their team the advantage

So there's really no reason to try and justify such cyinically personal preferences.

[Hollis]

Know why the Rpublicans here favor letting corporations run campaigns ? Two reasons:

1) it's the opposite of what Obama wants
2) Since big money - oil, tobacco, insurance - is assumed to prefer the GOP, they think it will give their team the advantage

So there's really no reason to try and justify such cyinically personal preferences.


Do you realize ACORN has a Housing Corporation? Assume all you want, but there are all kinds of sizes of corporations. Some are very "liberal". Many top Dems are also involved in them or connected. You might want to check out Soros' connections to corporations too. Do you know what a corporation is. Heck I even was a principle in one and been connected with others. There are also public corporations, Government held corporations etc. Do you actually know what a corporation is? The term "Percing the corporate vail"? There is nothing mythical about a corporation. They can exist any form of economic structure from Capitalist to Communist.


Edited to add;

Another factor to campaigns are PACs;



When an interest group, union, or corporation wants to contribute to federal candidates or parties, it must do so through a PAC. These PACs receive and raise money from a "restricted class," generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation, and members in the case of a union or other interest group. The PAC may then make donations to political campaigns. PACs and individuals are the only entities allowed to contribute funds to candidates for federal office. Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising. Overall, PACs account for less than thirty percent of total contributions in U.S. Congressional races, and considerably less in presidential races.
Contributions by individuals to federal PACs are limited to $5,000 per year. Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, though they may pay for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union. Corporate-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from executives, shareholders, and their families, while union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members. "Independent" PACs not affiliated with a corporation, union, or trade or membership association may solicit contributions from the general public but must pay their operating costs from these regulated contributions.
Federal multi-candidate PACs are limited in the amount of money they can contribute to candidate campaigns or other organizations:


at most $5,000 per candidate per election. Elections such as primaries, general elections and special elections are counted separately.
at most $15,000 per political party per year.
at most $5,000 per PAC per year.

Under federal law, PACs are not limited in their ability to spend money independently of a candidate campaign. This may include expenditures on activities in support of (or against) a candidate, as long as they are not coordinated with the candidate.
If two or more PACs share the same sponsoring organization, they are considered to be "affiliated" and their total donations are counted under aggregate limits, i.e. the total donations from all may not exceed $5,000 for a specific candidate in a given election.
PACs must report all of the financial activities, including direct donations and other expenses, to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which makes the reports available to the public.

[Hollis]

I'd say that having corporations pick up the tab for political campaigns as a whole makes candidates betrothed to said corporations' interests, which can seriously differ from the interests of the American people. Will an AIG6backed Senator speak out against another bailout for the company that pays for his campaign? I rather doubt that.




Maybe or maybe not. Corps are no different than anyone else. People still vote in the primaries, those that win run in the November elections and the choices can be the lessor of two evils. It is not all that easy to say. My wife and I were pretty involved in Oregon Politics, I was in one PAC and she was in another PAC. I was also a elected official. A political term here is Good Democrat (used by Rs) and good republican (used by Ds) for elected members who will do what is best for Oregon and cross party lines. It still boils down to the tolerance of the voters. The majority of voters are pretty fickle. Look at Obama's approval ratings over the last year, or Bush's over time. I don't expect people out side of the US to understand our politics, heck most Americans probably don't and that is, IMHO, the biggest problems.

[Jobu]

Justice Thomas explained it the other day. I'll paraphrase:

If 10 of you got together and decided to speak as a group, it would be protected free speech under the 1st Amendment.
If 10 of you got together and decided to form a partnership, your speech would be protected under the 1st Amendment.
If 10 of you got together and decided to form a corporation, your speech must still be protected under the 1st Amendment.

[Geezah]

Know why the Rpublicans here favor letting corporations run campaigns ? Two reasons:

1) it's the opposite of what Obama wants
2) Since big money - oil, tobacco, insurance - is assumed to prefer the GOP, they think it will give their team the advantage

So there's really no reason to try and justify such cyinically personal preferences.

HOLLiS touched on Soros. He is evil incarnate.


Obama Meets Party Donors in New York

Senator Barack Obama treaded onto Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s home turf last night to meet with prominent Democratic donors and feel out those who might prefer the sound of President Obama to President Clinton (as in Hillary, not Bill).

Amid intensifying presidential musings by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama met with George Soros, the liberal billionaire philanthropist, then some other donors last night at Mr. Soros’s offices. Afterward he spoke at a charity event that was to be followed by a news conference.

One of the donors who met with Mr. Obama, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to offend Mrs. Clinton, said that he and several others had supported Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaigns but were not committed to her as a presidential candidate.

“I like Hillary a lot, but I’m also impressed with Obama — his message, the way he connects to people,” said the donor, a prominent businessman. “It’s a little too early for Democrats to be certain that Hillary is the strongest bet for 2008. There are a lot of good people interested in running.”

Mr. Obama’s reconnaissance mission came as Mrs. Clinton was starting to talk about 2008 not only with New York elected officials, but also with some prominent donors whom she would like to lock in for a possible White House bid.

John Catsimatidis, a loyal Clinton donor, said he had recently received a phone call from Mrs. Clinton asking to have dinner before the holidays. He believes she wants to run for president and is moving to ramp up her Senate fund-raising operation for a White House campaign.

“I think they have a phenomenal political machine set up that’s far superior to any of the other candidates, or theoretical candidates,” Mr. Catsimatidis said. “Now they’re getting ready to put that machine to use.”

To that end, the Clinton team disclosed yesterday that they had a new national finance director lined up in case the senator decided to run. Jonathan Mantz, a fund-raiser for Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and a former finance official for the Washington-based operations to elect a Democratic House and Senate, has agreed to work for her if she is a candidate.

“It’s not anything that is imminent,” said Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to Senator Clinton. The senator is expected to decide this winter whether to create an exploratory presidential committee.

Derek Shearer, a former ambassador, a donor to President Bill Clinton’s campaigns and a supporter of Senator Clinton, said he believed that Mrs. Clinton’s moves did not reflect concern about financial or political competition from Mr. Obama or others, but rather an orderly process of consultation and preparation.

“She’s very deliberate about these things,” he said. “What most concerns her is, does she think she could win and really make a difference in the country.”

Supporters of Mr. Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, described his New York visit as a combination of fact-finding and meet-and-greet as he considers whether to seek the Democratic nomination. They said, and political analysts echoed, that Mr. Obama acknowledged Mrs. Clinton’s home-state advantage in New York, but that there was surging interest in Mr. Obama, an eloquent antiwar Democrat who, if successful, would be the country’s first black nominee for president.

“Most of the people Barack is seeing are either doing it out of respect for anyone who is a United States senator, or out of curiosity, or to leave their options open in case she decides not to run,” said Ken Sherrill, a political scientist at Hunter College. “I can’t imagine his picking up any significant support, but he can establish good will.”

Mr. Soros, an early supporter, was the host of a fund-raiser during Mr. Obama’s campaign for the Senate in 2004, said Michael Vachon, a senior aide to Mr. Soros. Mr. Obama’s staff asked to use the Soros offices for last night’s meetings since it was near the Midtown hotel where the senator spoke last night at a fund-raiser for K.I.D.S. (Kids in Distressed Situations), which assists children living in poverty.

Mr. Soros has not publicly endorsed or committed to any 2008 presidential hopeful.

While another possible Democratic candidate, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, raised $500,000 in New York last week, others have been less aggressive in reaching out to New York donors than in past cycles, some of these donors say.

Former Senator John Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore have been in New York recently, and others plan to be, including Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa. Yet the donors say that neither Mr. Edwards nor Mr. Obama, who are receiving perhaps the most buzz as possible opponents of Senator Clinton, nor anyone else has made an assertive push to challenge Mrs. Clinton and her local donor base in the aftermath of the 2006 elections.


Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/us/politics/05obama.html?ei=5090&en=d45c54c42290ee99&ex=1322974800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

Soros has supported every Democrat candidate that has run to be President, so it is nothing new and will continue, but now the way things are the playing field has been opened up.

Also, Soros apart from betting against currencies, also funds IANSA which is a hgardcore international anti-firearm group that wants to disarm all the law abiding people in the World that are able to own firerarms.

May want to do abit of research on Soros and his connection to Japan as you live there.

[eskachig]

Once again it's not about bankrolling candidates. It's about being allowed to make commercials, movies, and such in favor of/opposed to candidates or their positions.


Justice Thomas explained it the other day. I'll paraphrase:
If 10 of you got together and decided to speak as a group, it would be protected free speech under the 1st Amendment.
If 10 of you got together and decided to form a partnership, your speech would be protected under the 1st Amendment.
If 10 of you got together and decided to form a corporation, your speech must still be protected under the 1st Amendment.

The big problem here, and why this is such a fuzzy issue, is that paying for campaign ads and bankrolling candidates is sort of the same thing. Why do candidates need to raise a ton of money in the first place? Advertising. And why do they do it? Because Advertising works, pure and simple. It has a huge impact on campaigns and elections in this era.

Justice Thomas's example brings up an interesting point. First Amendment protects free speech not of just citizens, but anyone. A Chinese citizen who is in America legally, on a tourist visa or what not, has a right to free speech. And there is nothing illegal about him buying advertizing space for his products, if he is a businessman. There is nothing illegal about him buying advertising space for his religion, or pretty much anything else. And I'm perfectly comfortable with this. But do we want him buying advertising space and supporting an election candidate? I feel the same way about a corporation, especially a multi-national one where owners and employees are not necessarily US citizens.

And I am also not sure where media corporations fit into this either, because on one hand we of course want freedom of press, but is it good for our democracy when media corporations are used to promote a political party over another?

I'm pretty conflicted on this issue. I'd prefer to sit back and say "the voters have the real choice in the end, let anyone advertise however they feel like", but the problem is, and this is why we don't let foreign entities make contributions to campaigns, is that advertising works.

[Will Clark]

Know why the Rpublicans here favor letting corporations run campaigns ? Two reasons:

1) it's the opposite of what Obama wants
2) Since big money - oil, tobacco, insurance - is assumed to prefer the GOP, they think it will give their team the advantage

So there's really no reason to try and justify such cyinically personal preferences.

This is one issue where it wouldn't matter what side Obama was on, they'll definitely gain the advantage in campaign dollars here. If Obama demanded that they repeal the law, republicans would be behind it rank and file. The supreme court has (or should have) different reasons for supporting it than republicans. They ruled as they did because the 1st amendment demanded it. If you think the decision is so dangerous to our way of life, call your congressman and ask for an amendment.

As I see it, this issue of whether corporations should be allowed to contribute to campaigns is similar to questioning whether people should be allowed to use cars when campaigning. A car doesn't have rights, people with cars have an unfair advantage in political coverage, I don't trust people with cars to think of the greater good, etc; look familiar? The car is merely a tool used by individuals to increase their political impact, as is a corporation.

[HellToupee]

Maybe or maybe not. Corps are no different than anyone else.

Corps are people to! Um no. They are differnet they exist soley for profit and are many times more resources thus power than individuals.

[Geezah]

Corps are people to! Um no. They are differnet they exist soley for profit and are many times more resources thus power than individuals.

WTH is Soros about then?

[HellToupee]

WTH is Soros about then?

Hes about his own beliefs and motovations as hes an individual not an artificial legal construct, not that i support the idea of campaign contrubtions from any 3rd party source corporate or private.

[JKD]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

Wed Feb 17, 9:13 pm ET

Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the Senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.

But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

The findings of the poll are a bit surprising considering the fact that the case split the Supreme Court, with the five conservative justices in favor and the four more liberal justices against it. The decision was almost universally hailed by Republicans in Washington, who saw it as a victory for the free speech provided for under the Constitution, while President Obama and prominent Democrats in Washington almost universally derided it as a dark day for American democracy.

However, Sen. John McCain, one of the original sponsors of the campaign finance law struck down by Court's decision and one of its few prominent Republican opponents, may have been prophetic when he predicted Americans would turn against the Court. McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there would be a "backlash" once awareness grew about "the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns."

Perhaps the new poll numbers show that McCain might have been onto something.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Well at least people can still find something to agree on

[LineDoggie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Well at least people can still find something to agree onOf the 1,004 asked....................

[JKD]

Of the 1,004 asked....................

Well yeah, I've yet to hear of a poll that calls all 300 million Americans.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

My personal opinion is that the electorate is greater need of reform than campaign finance laws.

[Hollis]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Well at least people can still find something to agree on

Problem, the court is not about popularity, it is part of the protecting the minority from excesses of the majority. After the year 2000 public debacle demonstrating it's great misunderstanding of the election in Florida, I don't think many people understand how our laws, let alone, the SCOTUS works. How many people actually read the majority or minority opinion in this ruling? How many people get their facts from "commentators/articles" from other sources? Partisan politics has always been a dog and pony show, why should there be a difference now.

A insight to the politics is in this quote;


The findings of the poll are a bit surprising considering the fact that the case split the Supreme Court, with the five conservative justices in favor and the four more liberal justices against it. The decision was almost universally hailed by Republicans in Washington, who saw it as a victory for the free speech provided for under the Constitution, while President Obama and prominent Democrats in Washington almost universally derided it as a dark day for American democracy.