In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court rules corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. One lawmaker describes it as the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case justifying slavery. We speak with constitutional law professor, Jamin Raskin. [includes rush transcript]

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• dn2010
• 0122
• 573
• 1114

[highway234]

possibly the worst ruling in history, though dred scott's obviously tough competition.

basically democracy is over. money will now be the only factor in elections. it's very sad.

[goog2k]

Predatory corporations already own Washington. The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ad campaigns against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do anything they want to increase profits.

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.

[LiberaLib]

@JohananRaatz leave it to a freedom-hating "conservative" to celebrate america becoming a one-party state. next stop: theocracy.

[JohananRaatz]

@highway234 Bullshit: Citizen's United vs. FEC was a good thing! Thank you Roberts Court! Class-baiting Dems are now obsolete: watch?v=wlzmMIIHudw

[JohananRaatz]

Citizen's United vs. FEC was a good thing! Thank you Roberts Court!

Class-baiting Dems are now obsolete: watch?v=wlzmMIIHudw

[wbaltzley]

@wbaltzley I know of no clause in the Constitution that guarantees a person the right to hear another person speak. If this were true, then copyright laws would also be unconstitutional--since they restrict who can and cannot hear a person speak.

[wbaltzley]

@meadbert That is a very interesting argument, but it is "illogical" as a very old Mr. Spock might say. If this were true, then the entire prison system would be unconstitutional--we would be denying the people the right to assemble with murderers, thieves, etc.

[meadbert]

@wbaltzley

Certain rights (like freedome of speech and assembly) are not individual in that if one person's rights are taken away so are other peoples. If one person loses the freedom to assemble other cannot assemble with them.

If a foreigner is banned from publishing a controversial book, then I have lost the right to read that book so my free speech rights are denied.

One cannot take away a corporation's right to free speech without also taking away my right to hear their speech.

[wbaltzley]

@meadbert I disagree--freedom of assembly IS an individual right. Assemblies (including churches) are made up of individuals. These groups speak through individuals.

And on a side note, a dead individual is still an individual.

[meadbert]

@wbaltzley

Many of these rights are not so individual. If freedom of speech were only an individual right then it would only confer the right to speak to oneself. Instead it applies to groups allowing groups to share ideas. It is not limited to to citizens or even living people. Clearly the freedom of association is not an individual right.

Since most religions consist of some form of social gathering that is also not an individual right.

[wbaltzley]

@meadbert I respect your concerns about government repression and admire your devotion to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution stands as a bulwark to protect against the violation of INDIVIDUAL rights. Each individual within a school, church, business, or political party would continue to enjoy that protection--but Corporations, Trusts, Unions, etc would not be allowed influence elections and buy political favors.

[meadbert]

@wbaltzley

The trouble with declaring that corporations have no free speech, is that presumably schools, churches and political parties (all of which are incorporated) have no free speech. I cannot imagine letting congress ban the teaching of evolution by schools, outlawing the teaching of the Koran or forbidding the Communist party from promoting Marxism.

Freedom of speech implies one person talks to another so it is not an individual right, but a right of a group.