Only idiots think this is a partisan issue. Your speech has been sequestered in favor of multinationals. Nor is this a corporate issue. Most corporations will not benefit. Only the most powerful. THe argument that "they have all the power anyway" is a fail. If they had it, they wouldn't have fought so hard to get this passed. Sorry, to the next generation...you have been enslaved.
You need to see the entire perspective. The lawyer who argued on behalf of Fascists United also argued on behalf of lifting soft money contribution limits to political parties. One can now see the motives of these individuals, hiding behind the veil of "corporations". It did not get thru this time; but eventually it will. Do you think you will benefit?
"Whats wrong with foreign influence?" The fact is Marx, Darwin, foreigners already influence politics. But if Karl Marx spent UNLIMITED amounts, in excess of what smaller groups could spend using the corporate loophole, then that limits YOUR free speech. Finally, citizens are people with inalienable rights. A corporation is not. This is about corporations buying elections, not the fallacy of enforcing free speech perpetrated by the five justices. Nice try, though.
@meadbert Would you like to explain which specific campaign, Marx, Darwin, Hitler were trying to influence the vote on? There is a difference between spending money on theories and direct campaigning for or against an individual. Is congress corrupt? Of course. So why would you want to encourage that with unlimited funding by corporations?
Hitler was trying to influence German elections which he did.
Regarding Marx: Which elections was he not trying to influence? He was trying to convert the whole world to his political view and largely succeeded.
Threatening to criticize or vote against corrupt politicians that pursue policies counter to your interests is not corruption. It is THE appropriate ways to influence politics in a democracy.
Allowing a corrupt congress to censor dissent is corruption.
@meadbert Hitler influenced elections by chaos and force and stealing money from banks and others. Is that an appropriate foreigner to influence OUR politics? Would starting a corporation make that legitimate?
Re: Marx You can't answer the question. Name one campaign that he was trying to influence directly near a primary?
Re: Darwin? You didn't answer. You cant.
You are against a corrupt congress, but you feel its appropriate to provide unlimited funds on their behalf. Ha ha.
@meadbert McCAIN WAS A WAR HERO. He gave up a good portion of his life and health for what he believed. Even though I disagree with him on certain issues; it is wrong for you to suggest he supported protecting corrupt politicians. He is responsible for one of the most important legislations in our nations history to preserve our free speech over corporations. It was squashed by corporate. leaning justices. Justices who care more about corporations than its citizens.
Corporations are also run by people. Churches, not for profit hospitals, local governments, universities and families are all associations of people run by people and all have constitutional rights.
@meadbert Wrong. Corporations don't have NATURAL rights for the same reason governments don't have NATURAL rights. If any artificial entity has natural rights, and they cannot be punished like natural persons can (that is to say, they cannot be put in jail for crimes, or even be killed from without), that suggests REAL people DON'T have natural rights. The people in them may have rights, but cowering behind Limited Liability (A.K.A. unlimited irresponsibility) is monstrous.
Corporations are not people but they still have rights. If the Bill of Rights only applied to individual people, the the Government would have the right to search corporations and seize the property without a warrant. They could wire tap every phone and read every email since all go through corporations. Churches (which are incorpoated) would not have the right to religion. Universities would not have free speech. The right to assemble means nothing if it only applies to an individual.
If they did that no corporation would open shop here. thats a thin arguement. corporations are issued by the government. it used to be for public service like building a bridge, or fixing a road. and in the corporate charter it was stated how long they could operate and how much revenue they could bring in. Fast talking lawyers did away with this over time and this is one step farther. If the people who work in the building have rights, why would there building need them?
If you are interested in this issue... search on YouTube for Corporations Aren't People. They are conducting a $200 first prize video contest. Please let you human voice be heard. on this issue of unlimited money in political speech during elections.
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
If you are interested in this issue search on YouTube for Corporations Aren't People. They are running a viral video contest with a first prize of $200 Bucks. Let's not let America go to corporate wasteland on our watch! We can fight with our intelligence and our ingenuity to allow the voice of people to be heard. Nature allows for diversity not mono-cultures of huge corporations.
Which people make up the corporation? The employees are not allowed to practice political speech at their workplace, nor controls where the corporation spends money, The Shareholders do not control what the corporations say. The people who buy the products or use the services have no say. It is CEO perhaps with the board of directors ONLY. Billions of dollars funneled by one or two people. Corporations are a legal entity formed in a very particular way.
If Corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech. Congress could regulate every newspaper article, television show and even our posts on youtube. This is incompatible with a free society. The supreme court's ruling may not be popular, but they did what they are meant to do which is defend our freedoms from legislative abuse.
@meadbert " If Corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech."
You're confused.
1.That's Free Press, not free speech. (the first two)
2.The people in corporations have free speech, just not the corporation itself (which shouldn't exist btw, it's WRONG for corporations to have limited liability and for REAL people to have unlimited liability.) This ruling has nothing to do with the people in corporations, just the imaginary person itself.
Let me get this straight. General Electric (which owns MSNBC) has freedom of the press and can express whatever opinions it likes, while small companies with a handful of employees do not have freedom of speech? Is that what you call looking out for the little guy?
Are you daft or something? I don't believe non-media corporations should be able to own any media corporation. It creates a inherent conflict of interest that is dangerous to freedom of actual life humans.
Personally, I would prefer all players in the economy be human. The government should stop granting privilege to for-profit join-stock companies like limited liability, idea monopoly, and preferential tax treatment.
Any conflict of interest that exists when for-profit corporations advertise or create media pales in comparison to the conflict of interest that exists when politicians campaign or create media. If Congress were to ban media based on conflict of interest they would have to start by banning themselves from campaigning.
That's nonsensical. I'm not talking about "advertising" I'm talking about "subverting our democratic republic by external ownership of the press." Candidates have to clearly identify themselves in campaign ads. Candidates can't threaten the jobs of newspapers, but corporations that own newspapers can. Our free press isn't free if it's owned by corporations who have a deep interest in protecting the profits of the parent-company at the expense of unbiased media and taxpayer money.
How about one person, one vote. Now that corporations are people that is not true.
Corporations are composed of many workers, who can vote differently from the corporation. They are being disenfranchised, and not given an extra vote, whereas the corporate CEO, and Board members are being given more than one vote. They can vote as individuals (like the Constitution intended), and can vote again as corporations.
When they bought the gang of 5 they should have purchased a better quality product.
Corprations should have the same right as any other citizen and be restricted to the maximum donation as a citizen. Obama campaign has already proven of taking funds from foreign interests and so was McCain. Everyone need to be the same no special advantage because of funds available.
The Roberts Court & the 'gang of 5' are the ones out-of-step. They overturned previous decisions of the Supreme Court: 1990 Austin v. Michigan chamber of Commerce, which restricted corporate spending, & 2003 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission which up held the 2002 Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold),
2007 decision on McCain-Feingold.
Previous Supreme Court decisions made it clear that corporations need to be limited in what activities they can indulge in during federal elections.
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Who's stopping the NY Times from running attack ads on TV, though? They can if they want. I didn't know that legislators had a right to not have attack ads run against them.
So egghead, I guess you believe corporations should be able to use essentially unlimited stockholder's money to extort politicians to do whatever they want??
Egghead, Health Insurers still have a monopoly exemption; Bank & credit card outrages; Wall Street non-regulation of credit default swaps & derivatives; Oil company employees from Bush admin?
See:
Bush Environment Officials now work for Oil Companies.
/watch?v=o5w5R2GSGYY
Meg Whitman running for Governor will probably spend over $130 million of her own $. She's already spent $30 million.
Mr. Lessig if you really "skimmed" through the weighty document like you claim, you'll see that what you're talking about is retarded. I swear sometimes I think people just believe what Keith Olbermann says on television.
Money is a surrogate for political speech because the medium for that speech is primarily costly television advertising. Candidates quickly learn that in an individualistic society like ours, the only way to speak to a sufficient number of voters is to spend millions of dollars on broadcast advertising.
Congress and the FCC have failed -- horribly failed -- to ensure that the publicly owned electromagnetic broadcast spectrum is used for the public interest. Instead, this public resource ...
... is leased for a song to giant media corporations -- who use it for private profit.
It is downright bizarre that broadcaster middlemen hold our democracy hostage for the benefit of their stockholders. When the price of a soapbox requires a bank loan, only the rich get to speak.
The plague on democracy will not abate as long as we argue about regulating the SUPPLY of campaign money, rather than the DEMAND for it. The demand would be severely reduced if the FCC were to require ...
... all broadcasters to provide FREE political advertising to candidates who meet qualifications set by the FCC.
The root of this problem is the failure to regulate the communications industry for the public interest.
Attempts have been made in Congress to pass legislation that would mandate free political advertising, or at least take steps toward that goal. For example, in 2003, there was Senate Bill 1497 -- the "Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act":
Public funding is a supply-side solution to the problem of money in politics. Like most supply-side solutions, it would ultimately fail -- because it would be continually dogged by the issue of free speech.
How does a foreign corporation influence our government? Can they? Yes. Thru PAC'S. As long as they dont directly finance the PAC. They use the subsidiary loophole...very simple. There is a reason why the OII if trying so hard to open all loopholes as wide as possible to allow foreign banks and oil companies to meddle in our country at will.
Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation is a person back in the 1860s. That's settled law. Even if a corporation wasn't a person, it's made up of persons. The first amendment applies, and that's why the court ruled the way that it did. Seriously, how is it harmful for a corporation to mention a candidate in an ad sixty days before an election? Speech hurts nobody; it's "American."
@americanjedi77 .. nail on the head my friend .. nail on the head. The answer that all of you who are filled with fear are looking for is excatly that. Amend your Constitution. If you want Congress to start regulating speech, or campaign contributions, the only way to preserve the integrity of the Constitution is to AMEND IT. and guess what, all of a sudden we would be on the same side of this argument. But for now .. The Supreme Court ruled correctly in this case.
How so? The SCOTUS has one job; to determine the constitutionality of the issue before them. The question was "Does the Constitution give Congress (or by extension the FEC) the power to ban a movie or, for that matter, any other form of political speech?"
The answer: NO, it does not.
.. no amount of fear filled rhetoric or screams about the sky falling changes the fact that our Constitution does not authorize such bans.
Like I already stated, you should read the dissent by Justice Stevens. He answers your questions. In particular, see Section 4:
law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
Despite what you appear to think, the right to free speech is not absolute. (Not yelling "Fire!" in a theater is a classic example.) Stevens describes, in detail, the public interest in anticorruption, antidistortion, and shareholder protection.
Thankfully such gross logic was finally overturned FIFTY years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio, were some common sense prevailed that restricted the encroachment on free speech to situations were the a persons speech only purpose could be to incite imminent lawless action .. such as falsely yelling Fire!
I like the not yelling Fire! analogy though. Good point Very tricky to distinguish. The court used that argument back in 1919 (Schenck v. United States) in order to uphold a ban on the distribution of material opposed to the draft during World War I. The court at that time unanimously argued that speech that serves no purpose and is dangerous such as falsely yelling Fire! or opposing the governments war efforts (as if they were the same) can and should be banned.
"I am trying to see where [Stevens] argues the Constitutionality of the matter."
Check out Section 3, Part 1 -- Original Understandings
For example: "[T]here is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone [in 1791] believed [the First Amendment] would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the CORPORATE form." (emphasis added)
"To the extent that the Framers views are discernible and relevant to the disposition of this case, they would appear to cut strongly against the majoritys position.
This is not only because the Framers and their contemporaries conceived of speech more narrowly than we now think of it ... but also because they held very different views about the nature of the First Amendment right and the role of corporations in society."
"The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the PUBLIC WELFARE. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind."
While Stevens has some good points here, he does not succesfully illustrate where the Constitutional authority for governing how, when and in what way a corporation or union can spend their money, or show their video, or publish their book. Just because the framers couldn't envision our modern world does not give government unlimited authority over it. If government needs new authority you have to amend the Constitution to grant it.
"Stevens ... does not successfully illustrate ... the Constitutional authority for governing [corporate speech]."
Yes, he does. I don't have time to cut and paste more excerpts right now, but you'll find more answers if you consider his numerous references to the Austin and Bellotti cases.
As Stevens noted, the opinions by Kennedy and Scalia are regurgitated from their dissents in the Austin case, and they're way out of bounds, relative to over 50 years of case law.
"Just because the framers couldn't envision our modern world ..."
Huh? The corporate form is NOT a modern concept.
I agree that a Constitutional Amendment would clear up everything, if we just declared that corporations do NOT have the same rights as individuals -- because they are NOT created by God with inalienable rights; they are essentially a creation of the government itself. (Ironic, huh?)
As Stevens pointed out, Kennedy was wrong to use Bellotti to support his case, because Footnote 26 reveals that the opinion was limited in scope to referendums, not candidate elections.
Also ... a nice quote from the dissent of Justice White:
"The State need not permit its own creation to consume it."
@americanjedi77 Unfortunately there is not enough space to explain how full of holes your logic is. Banning books or any form of speech is WRONG! Furthermore, & most imprtantly, the Constitution gives no authority to Congress to do that. Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress a very narrow list of enumerated powers .. they have none beyond that (see 9th & 10th Amendment for further proof). The Supreme Court is tasked with determing Constitutionality. Is this that hard?
@americanjedi77 .. that is ridiculous .. If Americans listen to every BS ad that comes up on there telivision and never bother to pick up a book .. they sadly will get what they deserve. Limited government solves most of the fears people have, but apparently no one wants that!!
It is your job as a citizen to sort out the BS from the truth. Not some remote far off bureaucrat (FEC) usually in the pocket of those already in power.
Whenever the Supreme Court makes a liberal ruling, liberals say, "Nananananana. If you disagree, you hate the Constitution" (like on abortion). Well, you can't have it both ways. If you disagree with this ruling and with the DC handgun ban ruling, you also hate the Constitution.
The DC gun ban is weird but I'd say until they actually reduce the # of gun crimes there it's not a bad call. DC is the #1 gun crime capitol of the US - you think more guns will stop that? This ruling is shit - plain and simple. Anyone arguing that this decision aids free speech needs to read both SC opinions & show the reasonable/provable arguments on both sides. You'll find the majority severally lacking!! Corps are not supposed to have personhood and the Founder's would agree!
@Edgehead10075 - Exactly, only this is definitely a liberal conservative ruling. Both sides do it, trampling one, if that is what it can be legitimately considered to begin with, to elevate another. The sad part is this will work to trample majority rule, the most fundamental concept, from the onset, to American Democracy. Separation of Powers, etc. everything being usurped and the majority rule of the "people" being relegated to some minority status featuring meaningless voting rights.
You're for liberty? Then why are you against a corporation's LIBERTY to run an ad that mentions a political candidate sixty days prior to an election?
Corporations can and are owned by foreign entities and this gives them the ability to influence our elections. At a time when China is actively engaged in corporate and industrial espionage againsts Google an Gupman you want to open up our politics to foreign interests? Nother bad move man... :/
The current conservatives on the Supreme Court have just passed down one the most activist rulings in our country's history. The Corporate overlords don't even have the good decency to let us pretend that we have a democracy any longer. This ruling is beyond belief! The people MUST find ways of fighting back.
How is defending the constitution, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, "activist"? BTW, as a liberal, you should support this "activism." Free speech is free speech, and corporations are PERSONS. They have as much a right as we do to speak.
liberal does not = activist. corporation do not = persons! you want your $65 billion neighbor able to donate whatever to the opposition? What good is it for you to donate to your candidate? Plus corps are legally bound to seek profit - regardless of whether it violates state/fed law. These are the most unscrupulous and foul PERSONS to ever grace the planet and you want them running your politics? Bad call Edgehead. They shouldn't have our right to free speech.
Judaical Activism at it's best, now they will own us all, either we work for pennies on the dollar, or they will crash the markets, close the banks, and fire us all for foreign workers! Can you say third world country! We should end the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court!
@proverb311031@americanjedi77 .. that is ridiculous .. If Americans listen to every BS ad that comes up on there telivision and never bother to pick up a book .. they sadly will get what they deserve. Limited government solves most of the fears people have, but apparently no one wants that!!
It is your job as a citizen to sort out the BS from the truth. Not some remote far off bureaucrat (FEC) usually in the pocket of those already in power.
Its time for everyone to call their congressman. Thats your last chance. I am a financial conservative, yet I have to think about my kids future. There is no guarantee they will make it in the corporate world as it will be very restricted. Giving corps this unlimited power will destroy their chances. Think about it.
THANK YOU CONSERVATIVE WITH A FRICKIN BRAIN!! You're the first Conservative that I've heard that thinks this is a bad decision! Thank you for being able to see what the hell was going on and that this was a bad, Constitution crippling decision. There is a God and rationality still exists in the world. I dunno what's up with your peers, but they have failed to see the danger this poses to all of us - left or right. I wish I could hug you...
Here's an idea!!!! Limit government. What if we had a government with limited powers. That no matter how corrupt a politician was he wouldnt be allowed to do anything outside the scope of those limitations. We could write all the limitations down so that everyone knew what they were. Other governments in history called the document a Constitution. We should get one of those!
@meadbert SCOTUS RULING READS: (Government) reasons that corporate political speech can be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow CONTRIBUTION LIMITS but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, 424 U.S., at 25, and the COURT DOES NOT DO SO HERE. ....Read it yourself. If there is no limit, then that means unlimited. This is not the place to try and rewrite history. Especially when its in writing.
@meadbert You say: "You will see see more adds for I-Phones..." ~~~~Thats precisely the point!! Apple can afford to put up as many commercials as they like. Not everyone can. In business thats fine, butt his is not how a representative republic works. Free speech should not go to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, much of freedom talk is mythology. In reality,most things go to the highest bidder.
Nobody was trying to ban free speech. But if a corporation is going to smear or support a candidate; the board does not need the support of its employees, contractors or whatever. It allows foreign corporations like China Bank or to influence our political system. Or allows the United Arab Emirates to support a candidate thru corporate funding in order to operate our ports (which almost happened a few years ago). Now it will be much simpler. If you like this new way, then good for you.
What is wrong with foreigners influencing our elections? Can Congress ban "The Communist Manifesto" because it was written by a foreigner and might influence Americans to vote communist? Can we ban "Mein Kampf" because it was written by a foreigner and might influence Americans to vote for Nazis? Can we ban "On the Origin of the Species" because it was written by a foreigner and might influence some Americans to vote against candidates who believe in creationism?
@meadbert You did not respond to my comment proving that this ruling allows unlimited spending by corporations; whereas you claim the opposite. I showed in writing where it says "NOT LIMITED". Will you admit your mistake? As for your last comment, The only groups that are trying to ban any free speech are certain corporate interests. They will be heard more than you because they have more money. Smaller corps or organizations or individuals will be drowned out. Cont...
First I'd like to say that I agree with this video. An Alternative is needed.
Secondly, for the record: the Court decision was the correct one. All books have publishers, (i.e. corporations), and if any book mentions a candidate it falls under the scope of regulations and can be banned. Scary stuff .. enforcing these laws would mean that the Supreme Court would be stating that the Constitution's allows for the banning of books. Banning books or speech is wrong .. no matter the source.
I agree with Larry Lessig, this decision continues trends we've seen for years and points to our need for systemic changes in the way political campaigns are financed and the limits we have on corporate influence in our nation.
pretty weak argument. I dont want my tax dollars to fund campaigns. public financing is just as big a mistake as the BCRA (McCain/Feingold) bill. who decides the credibility of a candidate under this poorly conceived plan?
The primary elections decide the candidates. So basically the voters. With the recent Supreme court ruling, Corporations can just throw money for candidate they choose. This is not about free speech. Republicans want a way to beat the people. If you look at Obama, he turned down tax money and got it all through donations. Conservatives could not beat this so they changed the law. Most Republicans claim to be christian, but healthcare for all, No way. Didnt Jesus heal the sick?
I've read the transcripts of the day that the solictor general was defending the BCRA in front of the Supreme Court, and l have to say that every judge questioned at length and in detail both the appellant and the S.G.
It's about freedom of speech. There's other ways to legislate this kind of influence, and there will be some plausible and implausible options thrown around in the coming months. The best one I've heard so far is to require a super-majority vote of shareholders/union members, etc in order for the corp/union/non-profit to be able to produce ads/documentaries/etc. That's a reasonable request that doesnt pander to name calling or saying its the end of the world for democracy.
This is a twisted use of freedom of speech. So Walmart has the ability to buy enough ad time for a candidate that they think will help them. That is just corruption. This is the same thing that bush did to avoid being arrested for letting torture happen on his watch. He changed the laws so that they could torture but call it something else. Individuals can not compete with mega companies. So called Conservatives like this because they don't care about the people, they care about money and power
I'm guessing that you think Glen Beck is logical. I know it angers Republicans, who by the way, are not conservative in any way. Republicans hate the truth. The Supreme Court has made a rulling that benefits the Republican party. This is a fact.
Look, Glen Beck is a blowhard pundit, even republicans know that (i think). Your fact is not a fact. This affects corporations, non-profits, and unions as well. There was an amicus brief filed by the ACLU in support of this ruling, by the way. Did you know that? Any republicans out there a fan of the ACLU? Have you actually read the ruling and the arguments for and against it? You sound like an angst ridden and ill-informed kid and with that I'm done.
Im sorry but I dont get it. Has anyone bought your vote? Mine neither. What money buys is airtime, slick commercials, and cable and network pundits. Last time I looked we still got to vote. The problem is we dont get to choose who is running. The political parties do that for us. Try picking a candidate the Political parties don't want to win at the primary level. That will mess with their heads.
@VoteAIM I don't know if you followed Ron Paul's campaign in 2000. Without media exposure and some fair treatment by the corp own pundits, no outsider has a chance at the primary level.
I don't have a really good answer on how to break through the media glass wall. I have started, the Non-partisan American Independent Movement. We have only two goals. If any candidate wants our support then they must agree not to vote for any bill that exempts Congress and they will go back and amend those that presently do. Not earth shattering but if successful just maybe we might get better laws..
Its getting ugly people. This is a gross manipulation of the needs and wants of our nations citizens. YOU.... CITIZENS...... US.....? UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL. Just another straw to an already straining donkey. WE, YOU, I, are the next generation. Remember folks, it's always all about the money, if it isn't... then you get fired and chastised, then ostracized. Just so mcdonalds can supersize, media can plagiarize, and congress can ignore cries, of help from YOU
This is truly an outrage manufactured by the same people who are destroying our DEMOCRACY and our world at the same time. If you think that this was any less that a LEGAL takeover of our freedoms yet again then you are an idiot. this will start an unprecedented amount of cashflow into pockets and the media to give us even more propaganda so the foot soldiers of big money can get whatever they want. politicians will cater to the companies and not to the individual or groups of citizens.
If we want to stop the special interests in Congress, one way is to repeal the 17th amendment - popular election of Senators. If Senators were chosen by state legislatures, they wouldn't need to campaign, and thus couldn't be bribed that way. Senators would vote the way the state governments want them to, if they want to keep their jobs. To influence the Senate, you would need to influence many, many state legislators.
that would be much worse. the whole reason we have the 17th amendment in the first place, is that big business (BB) was simply paying off state legislators to get their guys into the senate. Yes, BB has now found a way to use its money to influence the results of elections, but what you are suggesting would make it far, far easier for them to corrupt the process, as history clearly demnstrates.
I disagree that it would be easier. Now, BB can buy off one senator instead of several state legislators. It's not perfect, I know, but BB will always find a way to bribe politicians.
When senators were chosen by state legislatures, they would fight for decentralization of power because states wanted to keep power for themselves - they kept power out of the hands of the federal government. This created a balance of power between governments that kept them off our backs most of the time.
Congress already is subject to the whims of the special interests. Very few of them actually listen to their constituents and vote that way, even with the BCRA. This decision probably won't make things much worse, and now people will really see how much politicians are influenced by special interests, and with any luck, vote them out.
"Government we can trust" - when Hell freezes over!
The United States Government more and more is passing legislation to benefit the interests of corporations to the detriment of the American people. Things are just going to get worse from here.
- Each human ( U.S. citizen ) within the corporations already can individually vote once, and speak out or donate anytime to or for their chosen political candidate. - Corporations are entities, and Not U.S. citizens. - Corporate VOICES are ALREADY HEARD on an individual HUMAN basis within the corp... - The court has just given foreign corporate ENTITIES the speaking voice rights of a U.S. HUMANs citizenship. - And so, what is a corp. ? - an entity ?... or a human U.S. citizen ?
If that's the candidate that the public chooses to represent them and the incumbents are doing thier jobs according to said public, what's the problem with that?
Hey! Good ..afternoon. The R-OK guy was just saying you can't have your cake and eat it too...survival of the fittest makes no mention of political correctness. As for this guy, I've subscribed. The TBM as I mentioned before are more of a catalyst than a force in and of themselves. BO and the TBM have more in common than they know. The are both about "change"... He said no business as usual, TBM agrees. He said transparency - TBM agrees just not "tomorrow"...NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW.
You can't tell folks you can't have your cake and eat it too, when you're mouth is full of cake...
As I've said before, if that's the true mission of the TPM, then they need to start promoting it a bit louder and clean their house of those who are only looking to use them, 'cause right now, that's how it's looking and they seem to be buying into it, lock, stock and barrel.
I'm good with that. The lesson I got is don't point a single finger at anyone for as you do you will find 3 pointing back at yourself. We have seen the enemy and he is us. Pots calling kettles black...etc., etc. I didn't say it was easy, fair, or quick. It's a process faster than evolution but no much faster than erosion. Newton's 3rd law - a body in motion tends move in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. No shortage of those. And then there's inertia.
That's a good lesson that we all should abide by. Fortunately, I was lucky to learn this particular one early in life.
Nothing worth having in life comes without a little sacrifice, time and patience. That would be Newton's 1st Law of Motion, which actually reads: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. I get your point, though.
I agree with disturbed341, Corporations are not individuals they are a board room with a hand full of people who make decisions for everyone else.This ruling is a exploitation of the 1st amendment regarding freedom of speech. This opens the door for Corporations to hide behind any special interest group that has the same agenda as they do ,funneling money to them to do the dirty work so you won't know who's really behind it. Mitch McConnell is a putz.. nothing good will come from this ruling.
"Nothing good will come from this ruling"? That's an understatement. The balance in power in Washington was already tilted toward the corporations and this "ruling" is just the killing blow. Our campaign contributions mean nothing now, our votes mean nothing and our support of the candidate we chose means nothing.
Democracy is over and only a handful of people on youtube are ever aware of it.
Corporations are not Individuals neither are they a person. People who work for corporations can vote, and donate their own money, corporations should be banned from donating money because their interest will over power the interest of the people simply by spending more money. You conservaturds that thank the neo con party is for the people this is proof that they are not. And thank Mitch McConnell and his personal lawyer for influencing this decision and the 5 neo con supreme court justices.
@alex3914, what do you think they spend campaign donations on? TV advertising, this means it is as good as a direct donation. We see examples of corporate ad campaigns all the time, they rarely tell the truth. The Energy for Tomorrow
ad campaign tells all we need to do is lift restrictions on drilling. But what they don't tell us is all the unused leases they have but don't use. They have the leases to increase production but do not wish to increase production, restrictions have little impact.
The idiots in this country thanks that the right wing neo cons and the right wing independent party works for the people, this is proof that they want the corporations voices heard and not the peoples voice. the 5 supreme court justices are all neo con judges. I see by reading these threads that the neo cons are still trying to justify their party. Whats it going to take for the conservaturds to wake up that there party sucks and his in the pockets of the rich and not the people.
Teddy the patriot or Teddy the progressive. I fear that people often forget that he had a progressive side that was into limiting individual rights. As to Jefferson, I see him smiling that the ruling requires the sponsors to be identified and the people are free to accept or discard the message.
This decision reduces the influence of individuals in the electoral process. It is unquestioningly a bad decision.
I would hope that one of the things a president discusses with a potential supreme court justice candidate is campaign finance rules. Two of the justices responsible for this were appointed by Reagan, 1 by Bush senior and 2 by Bush junior. The dissenting justices were appointed by Ford, Clinton and Obama. Are you seeing the trend here?
You konw the people have the right to make the decision in the end. We have the vote.
This decision does not give corporations and Unions anything more than the right to make ads on tv freely.
Foreign corporations still can't make ads for campaigns.
And the Unions and the Corps still can't directly give money to a candidate.
I did all my research pretty much and I have found this to be a victory to free speech and the end to the monopoly of ideas on the mainstream media. More competition.
Unlike many of the people commenting, you get it. This is an expansion, actually a confirmation, of the First Amendment. The left has never thought that anything that expanded rights and empowered individuals was good. They only want the rules to favor them and harm others.
First of all his thing about the "left" is a lie, designed to provocate. I don't know who you are vilifying, but I suppose you need that. Most of us are grown up, educated and have made our way in life, thank you very much. Ok, second, corporations make trillions of profits a year, how can anyone else compete with that? I mean, is it ok for concentrated money to be able to dominate the conversation ? Do you really think people who want to get elected won't be influenced by that, once in office?
Under the majoritys 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. --Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Corporations are not protected by the first amendment - people are.
To understand what a bad idea this is - let's say you like a political candidate so much that you send him $50 to help him in his campaign. Thanks to this decision, a
a large corporation can now send his opponent $50,000.
A day.
Every day.
Right up until the election.
The voice of individuals has now become completely meaningless.
Don't neglect mentioning the Unions now have an unlimited right to free speech as well. And also not all corporations are bad. And I also want to kindly add that corporations are groups of people and they have a right to free speech as well.
And you need to realize that individuals were drowned out on the media before too. The mainstream media controlled the whole marketplace of ideas. Now the people can recieve information from all sources.
Read the decision, not your Union News Letter. This does not change direct contributions. This changes the freedom to express opinion and it requires that the source be identified. This is an affirmation of the freedom of speech.
The 1st amendment gives us the right to hear all ideas! For instance "The Hillary movie" couldn't air because of this stupid restriction of the 1st amendment by the McCain-feingold decision.
And the mainstream media could support or oppose any candidate they wanted. Complete monopoly of control by the mainstream media of cnn, fox, msnbc, nbc and others but it's now gone out the window!
Now combined with the internet and a semi-free marketplace on tv now.
This decision protects the 1st amendment thank god.
Now the full marketplace of ideas can compete. What I mean is this.
Before this decision the mainstream media could direct influence in any way they wanted without restriction but groups of people like corporations couldn't and unions can't. They had to use PACs.
The MSM no longer has a monopoly on the ideas we think about.
Now we can look at ALL points of view and decide for ourselves.
Like most laws, this law restricted basically honest folks/organizations.
Socialists undoubtedly had found ways to cheat anyway; sort of the way criminals can get guns, while honest folks are hamstrung and disadvantaged by gun laws.
Not just congress they all have to go! The president , congress, the house, the supreme court, all of them.
We need to GOOOH, check out GOOOH, they have to GOOOH, if you want change GOOOH, It's time for GOOOH, check it out GOOOH. the time is now or we'll going to lose even more. So GOOOH save America.
Fix the root of the problem and the rest will fall into place!
barrybrookens 2 months ago
awesome video .. love it!! great talent =)
aseohosting 4 months ago
Only idiots think this is a partisan issue. Your speech has been sequestered in favor of multinationals. Nor is this a corporate issue. Most corporations will not benefit. Only the most powerful. THe argument that "they have all the power anyway" is a fail. If they had it, they wouldn't have fought so hard to get this passed. Sorry, to the next generation...you have been enslaved.
qigong1001 1 year ago
Citizen's United vs. FEC was a good thing! Thank you Roberts Court!
Class-baiting Dems are now obsolete: watch?v=wlzmMIIHudw
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
You need to see the entire perspective. The lawyer who argued on behalf of Fascists United also argued on behalf of lifting soft money contribution limits to political parties. One can now see the motives of these individuals, hiding behind the veil of "corporations". It did not get thru this time; but eventually it will. Do you think you will benefit?
qigong1001 1 year ago
"Whats wrong with foreign influence?" The fact is Marx, Darwin, foreigners already influence politics. But if Karl Marx spent UNLIMITED amounts, in excess of what smaller groups could spend using the corporate loophole, then that limits YOUR free speech. Finally, citizens are people with inalienable rights. A corporation is not. This is about corporations buying elections, not the fallacy of enforcing free speech perpetrated by the five justices. Nice try, though.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001
Regarding "citizens are people with inalienable rights."
Neither Marx, nor Hitler nor Darwin were American citizens.
Furthermore, while each wrote their book, none was independently published.
Each was in fact published by foreign corporations, so according to your rules any of those works could be banned in America.
Giving an easily corrupted congress the right to ban political speech that criticizes them is the exact opposite of free speech.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert Would you like to explain which specific campaign, Marx, Darwin, Hitler were trying to influence the vote on? There is a difference between spending money on theories and direct campaigning for or against an individual. Is congress corrupt? Of course. So why would you want to encourage that with unlimited funding by corporations?
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001
Hitler was trying to influence German elections which he did.
Regarding Marx: Which elections was he not trying to influence? He was trying to convert the whole world to his political view and largely succeeded.
Threatening to criticize or vote against corrupt politicians that pursue policies counter to your interests is not corruption. It is THE appropriate ways to influence politics in a democracy.
Allowing a corrupt congress to censor dissent is corruption.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert Hitler influenced elections by chaos and force and stealing money from banks and others. Is that an appropriate foreigner to influence OUR politics? Would starting a corporation make that legitimate?
Re: Marx You can't answer the question. Name one campaign that he was trying to influence directly near a primary?
Re: Darwin? You didn't answer. You cant.
You are against a corrupt congress, but you feel its appropriate to provide unlimited funds on their behalf. Ha ha.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001
McCain/Feingold did not ban chaos, force or stealing money from banks.
McCain/Feingold banned the criticism of corrupt politicians during political campaigns.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert McCAIN WAS A WAR HERO. He gave up a good portion of his life and health for what he believed. Even though I disagree with him on certain issues; it is wrong for you to suggest he supported protecting corrupt politicians. He is responsible for one of the most important legislations in our nations history to preserve our free speech over corporations. It was squashed by corporate. leaning justices. Justices who care more about corporations than its citizens.
qigong1001 1 year ago
Bush = Obama = Clinton = democrats = republicans = CORRUPTION
marieatthelake 1 year ago
and they all can be thrown in jail if they break the laws, how do you arrest a building?
zooxanthus 1 year ago
@zooxanthus You arrest the people who committed the crime. SOMEONE committed the crime. The building did not commit the crime.
marieatthelake 1 year ago
all those things you mentioned are run by PEOPLE and they all have rights.
zooxanthus 1 year ago
Corporations are also run by people. Churches, not for profit hospitals, local governments, universities and families are all associations of people run by people and all have constitutional rights.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert and they all do have those rights, so whats the arguement?
zooxanthus 1 year ago
That corporations have constitutional rights since Churches, hospitals, local governments and universities are all corporations.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert Wrong. Corporations don't have NATURAL rights for the same reason governments don't have NATURAL rights. If any artificial entity has natural rights, and they cannot be punished like natural persons can (that is to say, they cannot be put in jail for crimes, or even be killed from without), that suggests REAL people DON'T have natural rights. The people in them may have rights, but cowering behind Limited Liability (A.K.A. unlimited irresponsibility) is monstrous.
Akin42 1 year ago
Corporations are not people but they still have rights. If the Bill of Rights only applied to individual people, the the Government would have the right to search corporations and seize the property without a warrant. They could wire tap every phone and read every email since all go through corporations. Churches (which are incorpoated) would not have the right to religion. Universities would not have free speech. The right to assemble means nothing if it only applies to an individual.
meadbert 1 year ago
If they did that no corporation would open shop here. thats a thin arguement. corporations are issued by the government. it used to be for public service like building a bridge, or fixing a road. and in the corporate charter it was stated how long they could operate and how much revenue they could bring in. Fast talking lawyers did away with this over time and this is one step farther. If the people who work in the building have rights, why would there building need them?
zooxanthus 1 year ago
If you are interested in this issue... search on YouTube for Corporations Aren't People. They are conducting a $200 first prize video contest. Please let you human voice be heard. on this issue of unlimited money in political speech during elections.
xbluebells 1 year ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 1 year ago
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Corporatocracy USA!!!
It's scary!
goog2k 1 year ago
If you are interested in this issue search on YouTube for Corporations Aren't People. They are running a viral video contest with a first prize of $200 Bucks. Let's not let America go to corporate wasteland on our watch! We can fight with our intelligence and our ingenuity to allow the voice of people to be heard. Nature allows for diversity not mono-cultures of huge corporations.
xbluebells 1 year ago
Corporations are made up of people though.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
Which people make up the corporation? The employees are not allowed to practice political speech at their workplace, nor controls where the corporation spends money, The Shareholders do not control what the corporations say. The people who buy the products or use the services have no say. It is CEO perhaps with the board of directors ONLY. Billions of dollars funneled by one or two people. Corporations are a legal entity formed in a very particular way.
xbluebells 1 year ago
Nice piece.
dombrassey 1 year ago
If Corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech. Congress could regulate every newspaper article, television show and even our posts on youtube. This is incompatible with a free society. The supreme court's ruling may not be popular, but they did what they are meant to do which is defend our freedoms from legislative abuse.
meadbert 1 year ago
That's a good point.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
@meadbert " If Corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech."
You're confused.
1.That's Free Press, not free speech. (the first two)
2.The people in corporations have free speech, just not the corporation itself (which shouldn't exist btw, it's WRONG for corporations to have limited liability and for REAL people to have unlimited liability.) This ruling has nothing to do with the people in corporations, just the imaginary person itself.
Akin42 1 year ago
@Akin42
Let me get this straight. General Electric (which owns MSNBC) has freedom of the press and can express whatever opinions it likes, while small companies with a handful of employees do not have freedom of speech? Is that what you call looking out for the little guy?
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
Are you daft or something? I don't believe non-media corporations should be able to own any media corporation. It creates a inherent conflict of interest that is dangerous to freedom of actual life humans.
Personally, I would prefer all players in the economy be human. The government should stop granting privilege to for-profit join-stock companies like limited liability, idea monopoly, and preferential tax treatment.
Akin42 1 year ago
@Akin42
Any conflict of interest that exists when for-profit corporations advertise or create media pales in comparison to the conflict of interest that exists when politicians campaign or create media. If Congress were to ban media based on conflict of interest they would have to start by banning themselves from campaigning.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
That's nonsensical. I'm not talking about "advertising" I'm talking about "subverting our democratic republic by external ownership of the press." Candidates have to clearly identify themselves in campaign ads. Candidates can't threaten the jobs of newspapers, but corporations that own newspapers can. Our free press isn't free if it's owned by corporations who have a deep interest in protecting the profits of the parent-company at the expense of unbiased media and taxpayer money.
Akin42 1 year ago
@Akin42
There are four options for "Ownership of the press."
#1: The press is banned thus no one owns it.
#2: The government owns it and all other are banned.
#3: Only individuals wealthy enough to afford an entier company can own it.
#4: Associations of individuals (AKA corporations) can own it allowing even lower middle class people to have some ownership.
Of the listed options #4 is by far the best.
meadbert 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is a great clip of campaign finance laws at work: /watch?v=XZXlPdF5xkE
travisalger 1 year ago
How about one person, one vote. Now that corporations are people that is not true.
Corporations are composed of many workers, who can vote differently from the corporation. They are being disenfranchised, and not given an extra vote, whereas the corporate CEO, and Board members are being given more than one vote. They can vote as individuals (like the Constitution intended), and can vote again as corporations.
When they bought the gang of 5 they should have purchased a better quality product.
TheGranule 1 year ago
It's actually one (adult) citizen, one vote.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
Corprations should have the same right as any other citizen and be restricted to the maximum donation as a citizen. Obama campaign has already proven of taking funds from foreign interests and so was McCain. Everyone need to be the same no special advantage because of funds available.
Hawkflieshigh 1 year ago
Citizens can give directly to candidates. Corporations cannot.
Citizens can spend as much as they want on independent advertising. So can corporations.
meadbert 1 year ago
The Roberts Court & the 'gang of 5' are the ones out-of-step. They overturned previous decisions of the Supreme Court: 1990 Austin v. Michigan chamber of Commerce, which restricted corporate spending, & 2003 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission which up held the 2002 Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold),
2007 decision on McCain-Feingold.
Previous Supreme Court decisions made it clear that corporations need to be limited in what activities they can indulge in during federal elections.
TheGranule 2 years ago 2
Maybe the previous decisions were the ones that were wrong.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago
What's wrong with being able to run ads? That's speech. Corporations could already run ads prior to sixty days before an election anyway.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Corporatocracy USA!!!
It's scary!
goog2k 2 years ago 2
Who's stopping the NY Times from running attack ads on TV, though? They can if they want. I didn't know that legislators had a right to not have attack ads run against them.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
So egghead, I guess you believe corporations should be able to use essentially unlimited stockholder's money to extort politicians to do whatever they want??
Duhh???
goog2k 1 year ago
Well, according to that logic, all campaign financing is extortion.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
BTW egghead, FOX is the only "news" organization I'm aware of that organizes political campaigns and spews propaganda 24/7.
goog2k 1 year ago
Can you give an example?
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
Egghead, Health Insurers still have a monopoly exemption; Bank & credit card outrages; Wall Street non-regulation of credit default swaps & derivatives; Oil company employees from Bush admin?
See:
Bush Environment Officials now work for Oil Companies.
/watch?v=o5w5R2GSGYY
Meg Whitman running for Governor will probably spend over $130 million of her own $. She's already spent $30 million.
Let's get Corp. candidates!
Bribing/extorting corporations don't publicize.
You really are very foolish.
goog2k 1 year ago
KRK Palin hates you and everything you stand for!
TheGranule 2 years ago
Mr. Lessig if you really "skimmed" through the weighty document like you claim, you'll see that what you're talking about is retarded. I swear sometimes I think people just believe what Keith Olbermann says on television.
KRKahn87 2 years ago
Money is a surrogate for political speech because the medium for that speech is primarily costly television advertising. Candidates quickly learn that in an individualistic society like ours, the only way to speak to a sufficient number of voters is to spend millions of dollars on broadcast advertising.
Congress and the FCC have failed -- horribly failed -- to ensure that the publicly owned electromagnetic broadcast spectrum is used for the public interest. Instead, this public resource ...
substanti8 2 years ago
... is leased for a song to giant media corporations -- who use it for private profit.
It is downright bizarre that broadcaster middlemen hold our democracy hostage for the benefit of their stockholders. When the price of a soapbox requires a bank loan, only the rich get to speak.
The plague on democracy will not abate as long as we argue about regulating the SUPPLY of campaign money, rather than the DEMAND for it. The demand would be severely reduced if the FCC were to require ...
substanti8 2 years ago
... all broadcasters to provide FREE political advertising to candidates who meet qualifications set by the FCC.
The root of this problem is the failure to regulate the communications industry for the public interest.
Attempts have been made in Congress to pass legislation that would mandate free political advertising, or at least take steps toward that goal. For example, in 2003, there was Senate Bill 1497 -- the "Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act":
campaignlegalcenter. org/FCC-198.html
substanti8 2 years ago
Comment removed
substanti8 2 years ago
@americanjedi77
Public funding is a supply-side solution to the problem of money in politics. Like most supply-side solutions, it would ultimately fail -- because it would be continually dogged by the issue of free speech.
substanti8 2 years ago
How does a foreign corporation influence our government? Can they? Yes. Thru PAC'S. As long as they dont directly finance the PAC. They use the subsidiary loophole...very simple. There is a reason why the OII if trying so hard to open all loopholes as wide as possible to allow foreign banks and oil companies to meddle in our country at will.
qigong1001 2 years ago
Do you want elections to be 100% publicly funded (or funded by the candidates themselves)?
Edgehead10075 2 years ago
Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation is a person back in the 1860s. That's settled law. Even if a corporation wasn't a person, it's made up of persons. The first amendment applies, and that's why the court ruled the way that it did. Seriously, how is it harmful for a corporation to mention a candidate in an ad sixty days before an election? Speech hurts nobody; it's "American."
Edgehead10075 2 years ago
@americanjedi77 .. nail on the head my friend .. nail on the head. The answer that all of you who are filled with fear are looking for is excatly that. Amend your Constitution. If you want Congress to start regulating speech, or campaign contributions, the only way to preserve the integrity of the Constitution is to AMEND IT. and guess what, all of a sudden we would be on the same side of this argument. But for now .. The Supreme Court ruled correctly in this case.
travisalger 2 years ago
@travisalger
You should read the dissent by Justice Stevens to see how simplistic your view of the First Amendment is.
substanti8 2 years ago
How so? The SCOTUS has one job; to determine the constitutionality of the issue before them. The question was "Does the Constitution give Congress (or by extension the FEC) the power to ban a movie or, for that matter, any other form of political speech?"
The answer: NO, it does not.
.. no amount of fear filled rhetoric or screams about the sky falling changes the fact that our Constitution does not authorize such bans.
travisalger 2 years ago
@travisalger
Like I already stated, you should read the dissent by Justice Stevens. He answers your questions. In particular, see Section 4:
law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
Despite what you appear to think, the right to free speech is not absolute. (Not yelling "Fire!" in a theater is a classic example.) Stevens describes, in detail, the public interest in anticorruption, antidistortion, and shareholder protection.
substanti8 2 years ago
@substanti8
I am trying to see where he argues the Constitutionality of the matter. I just don't see it. It is a lot of "we can't overturn precedent" talk.
travisalger 2 years ago
@substanti8 .. cont.
Thankfully such gross logic was finally overturned FIFTY years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio, were some common sense prevailed that restricted the encroachment on free speech to situations were the a persons speech only purpose could be to incite imminent lawless action .. such as falsely yelling Fire!
travisalger 2 years ago
@substanti8
I like the not yelling Fire! analogy though. Good point Very tricky to distinguish. The court used that argument back in 1919 (Schenck v. United States) in order to uphold a ban on the distribution of material opposed to the draft during World War I. The court at that time unanimously argued that speech that serves no purpose and is dangerous such as falsely yelling Fire! or opposing the governments war efforts (as if they were the same) can and should be banned.
travisalger 2 years ago
@travisalger
"I am trying to see where [Stevens] argues the Constitutionality of the matter."
Check out Section 3, Part 1 -- Original Understandings
For example: "[T]here is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone [in 1791] believed [the First Amendment] would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the CORPORATE form." (emphasis added)
substanti8 2 years ago 2
(continued)
"To the extent that the Framers views are discernible and relevant to the disposition of this case, they would appear to cut strongly against the majoritys position.
This is not only because the Framers and their contemporaries conceived of speech more narrowly than we now think of it ... but also because they held very different views about the nature of the First Amendment right and the role of corporations in society."
BTW ... thanks for the Schenck recommendation.
substanti8 2 years ago
(continued)
"The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the PUBLIC WELFARE. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind."
substanti8 2 years ago
While Stevens has some good points here, he does not succesfully illustrate where the Constitutional authority for governing how, when and in what way a corporation or union can spend their money, or show their video, or publish their book. Just because the framers couldn't envision our modern world does not give government unlimited authority over it. If government needs new authority you have to amend the Constitution to grant it.
travisalger 2 years ago
"Stevens ... does not successfully illustrate ... the Constitutional authority for governing [corporate speech]."
Yes, he does. I don't have time to cut and paste more excerpts right now, but you'll find more answers if you consider his numerous references to the Austin and Bellotti cases.
As Stevens noted, the opinions by Kennedy and Scalia are regurgitated from their dissents in the Austin case, and they're way out of bounds, relative to over 50 years of case law.
substanti8 2 years ago
"Just because the framers couldn't envision our modern world ..."
Huh? The corporate form is NOT a modern concept.
I agree that a Constitutional Amendment would clear up everything, if we just declared that corporations do NOT have the same rights as individuals -- because they are NOT created by God with inalienable rights; they are essentially a creation of the government itself. (Ironic, huh?)
substanti8 2 years ago
OK ... I did some more research for you. Here's a link to the Bellotti case:
caselaw. lp.findlaw. com/scripts/getcase. pl? court=US&vol=435&invol=765
As Stevens pointed out, Kennedy was wrong to use Bellotti to support his case, because Footnote 26 reveals that the opinion was limited in scope to referendums, not candidate elections.
Also ... a nice quote from the dissent of Justice White:
"The State need not permit its own creation to consume it."
substanti8 2 years ago
former FEC chairman on McCain Feingold's SUccess:
watch?v=54tdYbCWpjk&feature=related
travisalger 2 years ago
@americanjedi77 Unfortunately there is not enough space to explain how full of holes your logic is. Banning books or any form of speech is WRONG! Furthermore, & most imprtantly, the Constitution gives no authority to Congress to do that. Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress a very narrow list of enumerated powers .. they have none beyond that (see 9th & 10th Amendment for further proof). The Supreme Court is tasked with determing Constitutionality. Is this that hard?
travisalger 2 years ago
@americanjedi77 .. that is ridiculous .. If Americans listen to every BS ad that comes up on there telivision and never bother to pick up a book .. they sadly will get what they deserve. Limited government solves most of the fears people have, but apparently no one wants that!!
It is your job as a citizen to sort out the BS from the truth. Not some remote far off bureaucrat (FEC) usually in the pocket of those already in power.
travisalger 2 years ago
I agree. It is a citizen's responsibility to educate himself on the candidates and the issues. The people deserve what they get.
Edgehead10075 2 years ago
Whenever the Supreme Court makes a liberal ruling, liberals say, "Nananananana. If you disagree, you hate the Constitution" (like on abortion). Well, you can't have it both ways. If you disagree with this ruling and with the DC handgun ban ruling, you also hate the Constitution.
Edgehead10075 2 years ago
The DC gun ban is weird but I'd say until they actually reduce the # of gun crimes there it's not a bad call. DC is the #1 gun crime capitol of the US - you think more guns will stop that? This ruling is shit - plain and simple. Anyone arguing that this decision aids free speech needs to read both SC opinions & show the reasonable/provable arguments on both sides. You'll find the majority severally lacking!! Corps are not supposed to have personhood and the Founder's would agree!
rentedhalo 2 years ago
@Edgehead10075 - Exactly, only this is definitely a liberal conservative ruling. Both sides do it, trampling one, if that is what it can be legitimately considered to begin with, to elevate another. The sad part is this will work to trample majority rule, the most fundamental concept, from the onset, to American Democracy. Separation of Powers, etc. everything being usurped and the majority rule of the "people" being relegated to some minority status featuring meaningless voting rights.
Parent33w 1 year ago
You're for liberty? Then why are you against a corporation's LIBERTY to run an ad that mentions a political candidate sixty days prior to an election?
Edgehead10075 2 years ago
Corporations can and are owned by foreign entities and this gives them the ability to influence our elections. At a time when China is actively engaged in corporate and industrial espionage againsts Google an Gupman you want to open up our politics to foreign interests? Nother bad move man... :/
rentedhalo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The current conservatives on the Supreme Court have just passed down one the most activist rulings in our country's history. The Corporate overlords don't even have the good decency to let us pretend that we have a democracy any longer. This ruling is beyond belief! The people MUST find ways of fighting back.
TheDarwinman 2 years ago
How is defending the constitution, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, "activist"? BTW, as a liberal, you should support this "activism." Free speech is free speech, and corporations are PERSONS. They have as much a right as we do to speak.
Edgehead10075 2 years ago
liberal does not = activist. corporation do not = persons! you want your $65 billion neighbor able to donate whatever to the opposition? What good is it for you to donate to your candidate? Plus corps are legally bound to seek profit - regardless of whether it violates state/fed law. These are the most unscrupulous and foul PERSONS to ever grace the planet and you want them running your politics? Bad call Edgehead. They shouldn't have our right to free speech.
rentedhalo 2 years ago
Judaical Activism at it's best, now they will own us all, either we work for pennies on the dollar, or they will crash the markets, close the banks, and fire us all for foreign workers! Can you say third world country! We should end the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court!
proverb311031 2 years ago
@proverb311031 @americanjedi77 .. that is ridiculous .. If Americans listen to every BS ad that comes up on there telivision and never bother to pick up a book .. they sadly will get what they deserve. Limited government solves most of the fears people have, but apparently no one wants that!!
It is your job as a citizen to sort out the BS from the truth. Not some remote far off bureaucrat (FEC) usually in the pocket of those already in power.
travisalger 2 years ago
Its time for everyone to call their congressman. Thats your last chance. I am a financial conservative, yet I have to think about my kids future. There is no guarantee they will make it in the corporate world as it will be very restricted. Giving corps this unlimited power will destroy their chances. Think about it.
qigong1001 2 years ago 2
THANK YOU CONSERVATIVE WITH A FRICKIN BRAIN!! You're the first Conservative that I've heard that thinks this is a bad decision! Thank you for being able to see what the hell was going on and that this was a bad, Constitution crippling decision. There is a God and rationality still exists in the world. I dunno what's up with your peers, but they have failed to see the danger this poses to all of us - left or right. I wish I could hug you...
rentedhalo 2 years ago 2
Here's an idea!!!! Limit government. What if we had a government with limited powers. That no matter how corrupt a politician was he wouldnt be allowed to do anything outside the scope of those limitations. We could write all the limitations down so that everyone knew what they were. Other governments in history called the document a Constitution. We should get one of those!
travisalger 2 years ago
Corporations always have had free speech. This ruling, however, allows them to use unlimited funding to squash others ability to do the same.
qigong1001 2 years ago 4
@qigong1001
Corporations do not have unlimited funding and their spending on elections does not squash the others ability to do the same.
Even during hot campaigns there are more adds for products than elections.
You will see see more adds for I-Phones and Kindles than for Congressman.
What does squash the ability to run campaign adds is a giving congress the power to regulate who is allowed to criticize them when!
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert SCOTUS RULING READS: (Government) reasons that corporate political speech can be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow CONTRIBUTION LIMITS but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, 424 U.S., at 25, and the COURT DOES NOT DO SO HERE. ....Read it yourself. If there is no limit, then that means unlimited. This is not the place to try and rewrite history. Especially when its in writing.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@meadbert You say: "You will see see more adds for I-Phones..." ~~~~Thats precisely the point!! Apple can afford to put up as many commercials as they like. Not everyone can. In business thats fine, butt his is not how a representative republic works. Free speech should not go to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, much of freedom talk is mythology. In reality,most things go to the highest bidder.
qigong1001 1 year ago
Nobody was trying to ban free speech. But if a corporation is going to smear or support a candidate; the board does not need the support of its employees, contractors or whatever. It allows foreign corporations like China Bank or to influence our political system. Or allows the United Arab Emirates to support a candidate thru corporate funding in order to operate our ports (which almost happened a few years ago). Now it will be much simpler. If you like this new way, then good for you.
qigong1001 2 years ago
@qigong1001
What is wrong with foreigners influencing our elections? Can Congress ban "The Communist Manifesto" because it was written by a foreigner and might influence Americans to vote communist? Can we ban "Mein Kampf" because it was written by a foreigner and might influence Americans to vote for Nazis? Can we ban "On the Origin of the Species" because it was written by a foreigner and might influence some Americans to vote against candidates who believe in creationism?
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert You did not respond to my comment proving that this ruling allows unlimited spending by corporations; whereas you claim the opposite. I showed in writing where it says "NOT LIMITED". Will you admit your mistake? As for your last comment, The only groups that are trying to ban any free speech are certain corporate interests. They will be heard more than you because they have more money. Smaller corps or organizations or individuals will be drowned out. Cont...
qigong1001 1 year ago
First I'd like to say that I agree with this video. An Alternative is needed.
Secondly, for the record: the Court decision was the correct one. All books have publishers, (i.e. corporations), and if any book mentions a candidate it falls under the scope of regulations and can be banned. Scary stuff .. enforcing these laws would mean that the Supreme Court would be stating that the Constitution's allows for the banning of books. Banning books or speech is wrong .. no matter the source.
travisalger 2 years ago
welll, this better get done quick or we are all lost.
Elenkhos 2 years ago
Agreed ,my understanding is that the court sidestepped the issue of foreign money flooding our elections.
accountdeficit 2 years ago
I agree with Larry Lessig, this decision continues trends we've seen for years and points to our need for systemic changes in the way political campaigns are financed and the limits we have on corporate influence in our nation.
wfryer 2 years ago
pretty weak argument. I dont want my tax dollars to fund campaigns. public financing is just as big a mistake as the BCRA (McCain/Feingold) bill. who decides the credibility of a candidate under this poorly conceived plan?
SamCfromKC 2 years ago
The primary elections decide the candidates. So basically the voters. With the recent Supreme court ruling, Corporations can just throw money for candidate they choose. This is not about free speech. Republicans want a way to beat the people. If you look at Obama, he turned down tax money and got it all through donations. Conservatives could not beat this so they changed the law. Most Republicans claim to be christian, but healthcare for all, No way. Didnt Jesus heal the sick?
greatmoves123 2 years ago
I've read the transcripts of the day that the solictor general was defending the BCRA in front of the Supreme Court, and l have to say that every judge questioned at length and in detail both the appellant and the S.G.
SamCfromKC 2 years ago
It's about freedom of speech. There's other ways to legislate this kind of influence, and there will be some plausible and implausible options thrown around in the coming months. The best one I've heard so far is to require a super-majority vote of shareholders/union members, etc in order for the corp/union/non-profit to be able to produce ads/documentaries/etc. That's a reasonable request that doesnt pander to name calling or saying its the end of the world for democracy.
SamCfromKC 2 years ago 2
This is a twisted use of freedom of speech. So Walmart has the ability to buy enough ad time for a candidate that they think will help them. That is just corruption. This is the same thing that bush did to avoid being arrested for letting torture happen on his watch. He changed the laws so that they could torture but call it something else. Individuals can not compete with mega companies. So called Conservatives like this because they don't care about the people, they care about money and power
greatmoves123 2 years ago
Your lack of real-world experience and logic is exasperating. I'm done with this thread.
SamCfromKC 2 years ago
I'm guessing that you think Glen Beck is logical. I know it angers Republicans, who by the way, are not conservative in any way. Republicans hate the truth. The Supreme Court has made a rulling that benefits the Republican party. This is a fact.
greatmoves123 2 years ago
Look, Glen Beck is a blowhard pundit, even republicans know that (i think). Your fact is not a fact. This affects corporations, non-profits, and unions as well. There was an amicus brief filed by the ACLU in support of this ruling, by the way. Did you know that? Any republicans out there a fan of the ACLU? Have you actually read the ruling and the arguments for and against it? You sound like an angst ridden and ill-informed kid and with that I'm done.
SamCfromKC 2 years ago
Im sorry but I dont get it. Has anyone bought your vote? Mine neither. What money buys is airtime, slick commercials, and cable and network pundits. Last time I looked we still got to vote. The problem is we dont get to choose who is running. The political parties do that for us. Try picking a candidate the Political parties don't want to win at the primary level. That will mess with their heads.
VoteAIM 2 years ago
@VoteAIM I don't know if you followed Ron Paul's campaign in 2000. Without media exposure and some fair treatment by the corp own pundits, no outsider has a chance at the primary level.
Boomer1949 2 years ago
I don't have a really good answer on how to break through the media glass wall. I have started, the Non-partisan American Independent Movement. We have only two goals. If any candidate wants our support then they must agree not to vote for any bill that exempts Congress and they will go back and amend those that presently do. Not earth shattering but if successful just maybe we might get better laws..
VoteAIM 2 years ago
Keeping it simple, to me is the best method. Where do I sign up.
Boomer1949 2 years ago
time to break shit.
madmiguelh2o 2 years ago
Its getting ugly people. This is a gross manipulation of the needs and wants of our nations citizens. YOU.... CITIZENS...... US.....? UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL. Just another straw to an already straining donkey. WE, YOU, I, are the next generation. Remember folks, it's always all about the money, if it isn't... then you get fired and chastised, then ostracized. Just so mcdonalds can supersize, media can plagiarize, and congress can ignore cries, of help from YOU
Unite4you 2 years ago 5
This is truly an outrage manufactured by the same people who are destroying our DEMOCRACY and our world at the same time. If you think that this was any less that a LEGAL takeover of our freedoms yet again then you are an idiot. this will start an unprecedented amount of cashflow into pockets and the media to give us even more propaganda so the foot soldiers of big money can get whatever they want. politicians will cater to the companies and not to the individual or groups of citizens.
Unite4you 2 years ago 3
Money = Power = Rule. It's a fact of life and it ain't goin' to change. Americans are too stupid or lazy to care. It's easier to complain.
billeybop 2 years ago
I don't like hearing what you say, but I have a fear that you just might be absolutely correct.
Tachyphilaxis 2 years ago
If we want to stop the special interests in Congress, one way is to repeal the 17th amendment - popular election of Senators. If Senators were chosen by state legislatures, they wouldn't need to campaign, and thus couldn't be bribed that way. Senators would vote the way the state governments want them to, if they want to keep their jobs. To influence the Senate, you would need to influence many, many state legislators.
xp19375 2 years ago
that would be much worse. the whole reason we have the 17th amendment in the first place, is that big business (BB) was simply paying off state legislators to get their guys into the senate. Yes, BB has now found a way to use its money to influence the results of elections, but what you are suggesting would make it far, far easier for them to corrupt the process, as history clearly demnstrates.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
I disagree that it would be easier. Now, BB can buy off one senator instead of several state legislators. It's not perfect, I know, but BB will always find a way to bribe politicians.
When senators were chosen by state legislatures, they would fight for decentralization of power because states wanted to keep power for themselves - they kept power out of the hands of the federal government. This created a balance of power between governments that kept them off our backs most of the time.
xp19375 2 years ago
@xp19375
well, that how it got to how it is now - the progressives back then fought hard to get this change, for all the reasons i stated.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
Congress already is subject to the whims of the special interests. Very few of them actually listen to their constituents and vote that way, even with the BCRA. This decision probably won't make things much worse, and now people will really see how much politicians are influenced by special interests, and with any luck, vote them out.
"Government we can trust" - when Hell freezes over!
xp19375 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The United States Government more and more is passing legislation to benefit the interests of corporations to the detriment of the American people. Things are just going to get worse from here.
stopcorporatism 2 years ago
Anything I can do on any scale to help bring this action about, I'm down with the cause!
wildpeachatl737 2 years ago
pioneerpaddler 2 years ago 2
The past 40 years of this country have been an experience in a downward spiral towards Fascism.
I feel sorry for the blind fools who still think the parties have different interests.
Republicans and Democrats are the right and left fronts of corporatism.
A86 2 years ago
Comment removed
riksw2 2 years ago
you are either naive or an agent of the elite my friend:) Give me a break!
marcusjansen239369 2 years ago
i don't know how any liberal OR conservative can support the SCOTUS decision on this issue.
MrDetwaa 2 years ago 7
With this decision America is no longer a democracy, and I'm not saying that for dramatic effect.
TheMikeBuck 2 years ago 8
Public funded elections would only help to keep incumbents in office.
ric0rich 2 years ago
If that's the candidate that the public chooses to represent them and the incumbents are doing thier jobs according to said public, what's the problem with that?
wildpeachatl737 2 years ago
Hey! Good ..afternoon. The R-OK guy was just saying you can't have your cake and eat it too...survival of the fittest makes no mention of political correctness. As for this guy, I've subscribed. The TBM as I mentioned before are more of a catalyst than a force in and of themselves. BO and the TBM have more in common than they know. The are both about "change"... He said no business as usual, TBM agrees. He said transparency - TBM agrees just not "tomorrow"...NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW.
Snowflake70 2 years ago
You can't tell folks you can't have your cake and eat it too, when you're mouth is full of cake...
As I've said before, if that's the true mission of the TPM, then they need to start promoting it a bit louder and clean their house of those who are only looking to use them, 'cause right now, that's how it's looking and they seem to be buying into it, lock, stock and barrel.
wildpeachatl737 2 years ago
I'm good with that. The lesson I got is don't point a single finger at anyone for as you do you will find 3 pointing back at yourself. We have seen the enemy and he is us. Pots calling kettles black...etc., etc. I didn't say it was easy, fair, or quick. It's a process faster than evolution but no much faster than erosion. Newton's 3rd law - a body in motion tends move in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. No shortage of those. And then there's inertia.
Snowflake70 2 years ago
That's a good lesson that we all should abide by. Fortunately, I was lucky to learn this particular one early in life.
Nothing worth having in life comes without a little sacrifice, time and patience. That would be Newton's 1st Law of Motion, which actually reads: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. I get your point, though.
wildpeachatl737 2 years ago
Who are you? are you an attorney? if so for who? why should i trust you?
alatin04u 2 years ago
Individuals have a right to free speech,not a corporate entity.
FuckObamasMama 2 years ago 2
I agree with disturbed341, Corporations are not individuals they are a board room with a hand full of people who make decisions for everyone else.This ruling is a exploitation of the 1st amendment regarding freedom of speech. This opens the door for Corporations to hide behind any special interest group that has the same agenda as they do ,funneling money to them to do the dirty work so you won't know who's really behind it. Mitch McConnell is a putz.. nothing good will come from this ruling.
twt0914 2 years ago
"Nothing good will come from this ruling"? That's an understatement. The balance in power in Washington was already tilted toward the corporations and this "ruling" is just the killing blow. Our campaign contributions mean nothing now, our votes mean nothing and our support of the candidate we chose means nothing.
Democracy is over and only a handful of people on youtube are ever aware of it.
TheMikeBuck 2 years ago 4
Corporations are not Individuals neither are they a person. People who work for corporations can vote, and donate their own money, corporations should be banned from donating money because their interest will over power the interest of the people simply by spending more money. You conservaturds that thank the neo con party is for the people this is proof that they are not. And thank Mitch McConnell and his personal lawyer for influencing this decision and the 5 neo con supreme court justices.
disturbed341 2 years ago 2
You know what's funny. This decision doesn't affect how much anyone can donate to a candidate's campaign.
haha
It only allows a corporation to make an ad of its own on tv in any way they want. It's free speech
Corporations are still limited to donating under 2500 or so directly to campaigns lol. And foreign corporations can't donate I hear that too.
And they still have to state who funded the ad on the commerical.
MSM doesn't control all the ideas now.
They used to. Things got a bit better
alex3914 2 years ago
@alex3914, what do you think they spend campaign donations on? TV advertising, this means it is as good as a direct donation. We see examples of corporate ad campaigns all the time, they rarely tell the truth. The Energy for Tomorrow
ad campaign tells all we need to do is lift restrictions on drilling. But what they don't tell us is all the unused leases they have but don't use. They have the leases to increase production but do not wish to increase production, restrictions have little impact.
zaurakdigis 2 years ago
The idiots in this country thanks that the right wing neo cons and the right wing independent party works for the people, this is proof that they want the corporations voices heard and not the peoples voice. the 5 supreme court justices are all neo con judges. I see by reading these threads that the neo cons are still trying to justify their party. Whats it going to take for the conservaturds to wake up that there party sucks and his in the pockets of the rich and not the people.
disturbed341 2 years ago 2
Founder Thomas Jefferson & Republican Teddy Roosevelt are spinning in their graves - this is what they most feared.
DillonX 2 years ago 2
Teddy the patriot or Teddy the progressive. I fear that people often forget that he had a progressive side that was into limiting individual rights. As to Jefferson, I see him smiling that the ruling requires the sponsors to be identified and the people are free to accept or discard the message.
R2old 2 years ago
This is the most disgusting decisions by the USSC in decades.
It has caused me to join the tea party movement - we need a gov't by the people and not by corporations.
DillonX 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When votes of only five (5) non-elected single
individuals can sell out Americas voting rights to
foreign owned corporations who will most certainly
sway uninformed future voters with big money . . . .
. . . . it may be time for America to re-think about
which decisions should be made by public ballot.
as for corporate speech rights... ask an
average corporate worker who labors at or just over
minimum wage if their voice is heard as their
CEO takes home multi millions $ each year.
pioneerpaddler 2 years ago
This decision reduces the influence of individuals in the electoral process. It is unquestioningly a bad decision.
I would hope that one of the things a president discusses with a potential supreme court justice candidate is campaign finance rules. Two of the justices responsible for this were appointed by Reagan, 1 by Bush senior and 2 by Bush junior. The dissenting justices were appointed by Ford, Clinton and Obama. Are you seeing the trend here?
schmuely8 2 years ago
You konw the people have the right to make the decision in the end. We have the vote.
This decision does not give corporations and Unions anything more than the right to make ads on tv freely.
Foreign corporations still can't make ads for campaigns.
And the Unions and the Corps still can't directly give money to a candidate.
I did all my research pretty much and I have found this to be a victory to free speech and the end to the monopoly of ideas on the mainstream media. More competition.
alex3914 2 years ago
Unlike many of the people commenting, you get it. This is an expansion, actually a confirmation, of the First Amendment. The left has never thought that anything that expanded rights and empowered individuals was good. They only want the rules to favor them and harm others.
R2old 2 years ago
First of all his thing about the "left" is a lie, designed to provocate. I don't know who you are vilifying, but I suppose you need that. Most of us are grown up, educated and have made our way in life, thank you very much. Ok, second, corporations make trillions of profits a year, how can anyone else compete with that? I mean, is it ok for concentrated money to be able to dominate the conversation ? Do you really think people who want to get elected won't be influenced by that, once in office?
Acelib 2 years ago
How wondrous, you throw religious jabs and then you have been reduced to screaming that liberals are somehow superior. Two words, Nancy Pelosi.
The bottom line is Liberals only believe in rights for people who agree with them. End of Argument.
R2old 2 years ago
Under the majoritys 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. --Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Akin42 2 years ago
Akin42-Yeh
That justice is against the decision.
Don't people realize tht coporations are groups of individuals or even one guy?
Someone controls that corporation.
So though a corporation you should be able to use your free speech to finance a campaign ad in the marketplace of ideas.
And yes the guy behind the corporation should have the right to vote.
This is a winning decision for free humanity nd the 1st amendment.
Now I can get a business, pay 200 bucks to set a corp up....yay.
alex3914 2 years ago
Corporations are not protected by the first amendment - people are.
To understand what a bad idea this is - let's say you like a political candidate so much that you send him $50 to help him in his campaign. Thanks to this decision, a
a large corporation can now send his opponent $50,000.
A day.
Every day.
Right up until the election.
The voice of individuals has now become completely meaningless.
schmuely8 2 years ago
Don't neglect mentioning the Unions now have an unlimited right to free speech as well. And also not all corporations are bad. And I also want to kindly add that corporations are groups of people and they have a right to free speech as well.
And you need to realize that individuals were drowned out on the media before too. The mainstream media controlled the whole marketplace of ideas. Now the people can recieve information from all sources.
alex3914 2 years ago
Read the decision, not your Union News Letter. This does not change direct contributions. This changes the freedom to express opinion and it requires that the source be identified. This is an affirmation of the freedom of speech.
R2old 2 years ago
The 1st amendment gives us the right to hear all ideas! For instance "The Hillary movie" couldn't air because of this stupid restriction of the 1st amendment by the McCain-feingold decision.
And the mainstream media could support or oppose any candidate they wanted. Complete monopoly of control by the mainstream media of cnn, fox, msnbc, nbc and others but it's now gone out the window!
Now combined with the internet and a semi-free marketplace on tv now.
Thank you founding fathers.
alex3914 2 years ago
This decision protects the 1st amendment thank god.
Now the full marketplace of ideas can compete. What I mean is this.
Before this decision the mainstream media could direct influence in any way they wanted without restriction but groups of people like corporations couldn't and unions can't. They had to use PACs.
The MSM no longer has a monopoly on the ideas we think about.
Now we can look at ALL points of view and decide for ourselves.
We aren't babies. We don't need a media filter.
alex3914 2 years ago
If you are against this then sign the petition at savedemocracy (dot) net. As Americans we need to UNITE.
Smartassawhip 2 years ago
Like most laws, this law restricted basically honest folks/organizations.
Socialists undoubtedly had found ways to cheat anyway; sort of the way criminals can get guns, while honest folks are hamstrung and disadvantaged by gun laws.
dkkght46 2 years ago
Not just congress they all have to go! The president , congress, the house, the supreme court, all of them.
We need to GOOOH, check out GOOOH, they have to GOOOH, if you want change GOOOH, It's time for GOOOH, check it out GOOOH. the time is now or we'll going to lose even more. So GOOOH save America.
akracer1 2 years ago
The Supreme Court have lifetime appointments. They can't be thrown out.