Citizens United Ruling: Corporate Speech Supreme Court: Election/Campaign Spending

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations can now defend themselves against ruthless politicians who are bent on their destruction, which is only fare. Why would you restrict a corporation from defending itself in the public arena, in the political arena? Would you also say that a corporation cannot defend itself in a court of law? Would you have corporations stripped of every right that an individual has? Just how far would you go in making corporations defenseless against those who seek their destruction?

And what about Unions, should they be denied the right of free speech too? Should they not be able to present to the public their position on election issues? Just how much do you want to restrict public discourse during an election, just how much information do you want to hold back from the voter?

The best thing about this ruling is that it will lift that ridiculous ban on groups like the NRA from presenting issue ads within 60 days of an election. This in itself is cause for celebration. We will now be able to hear the other side of the gun issue right up until the election takes place, which is when we need to hear it, not 60 days prior when no one is listening.

Some say that this ruling will take the power away from the people, but I say that it will do just the opposite. During these last few elections my voice on gun control has not been heard because the organization that I belong to, the NRA, was muzzled by the federal government from presenting issue ads, but no more. I will now have my voice heard through the NRA. This is what we call freedom, the freedom to present to the intelligent electorate all of the facts so that they can make an informed decision when they vote. The key phrase here is "intelligent electorate", the liberals do not believe that we are intelligent.

There are of course some issues about this ruling that will have to be dealt with by congress though legislation such as the ability of foreign corporations to spend money in our elections, and other issues that will arise in the future, but that is normal, it is part of the process, the world will not come to an end. There is no reason for anyone to demonize the Supreme Court for this ruling, like President Obama did when he said that this ruling "strikes at our democracy", and that the ruling is "devastating to the public interest", and that his administration will need to "repair the damage" done by the Supreme Court.

Does Obama really think that the five Justices who were in favor of this ruling want to damage our country, damage our Republic? Is he insane? Some might argue that saying such a thing is like the pot calling the kettle black, meaning that some believe that it is Obama who is out to destroy this country, not the Supreme Court, and in fact I would ague that the Supreme Court is the one thing that will stand in his way.

I will now end by quoting myself from my home page (my channel):
"President Bush's greatest legacy will be his appointments of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court; they have, and will continue to fight for our freedom."
jbranstetter04

Here is the ruling in its entirety. You might want to read it instead of watching The Simpson's: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf


High court shows it might be willing to act boldly

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his conservative colleagues overturned two of the court's past decisions to upend federal legislation that says corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates and to declare unconstitutional a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed in 2002.

The dissent was written by Stevens, he wrote of his conservative colleagues' "agenda" and said they had transformed a simple case about whether a conservative group's movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton violated McCain-Feingold into a constitutional quandary. "Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law."

But Roberts bristled at Stevens's charge that the majority's opinion showed it was not "serious about judicial restraint."

"This approach is based on a false premise: that our practice of avoiding unnecessary (and unnecessarily broad) constitutional holdings somehow trumps our obligation faithfully to interpret the law," Roberts wrote. "It should go without saying, however, that we cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right."

Roberts seemed to be speaking to liberals when he wrote that stare decisis cannot be seen as an "inexorable command."

"If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants," he said, referring to previous court decisions.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Supreme
• Court
• Corporations
• Election
• Campaign
• Spending
• Eased
• Unions
• Obama
• reaction
• Roberts
• finance
• law
• ruling
• opinion
• candidates
• free
• speech
• Clinton
• movie
• McCain
• Feingold
• Floyd
• Abrams
• citizens
• United
• pacs

[jbranstetter04]

As Justice Kennedy declared: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

[jbranstetter04]

Shockingly, during oral arguments, the government expanded the scope of its power beyond the "broadcast" limits of the actual wording of the law, saying the Obama administration could ban Internet expression and even books.

[jbranstetter04]

Justice Kennedy said that, under BCRA, it would be a felony if "... the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U.S. Senator supports a handgun ban. ...

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," Justice Kennedy wrote.

[LATINOBLKLV4U]

Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations can now defend themselves against ruthless politicians??

How IGNORANT!, do you know Chavez, Big arabic Oil Cor. and others can now have something to say in american Politics?

[biped19]

For any boot-lickers out there listen carefully:

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE. PERIOD. PARAGRAPH. I dare you, I fucking dare you to argue otherwise. Understand that if you do you've already lost. Why? Because corporations are not people!!! Get it? Good, now get out of my country.

Thought criminal abams encapsulates the entire first amendment and "rights" in the term "ownership."

The game is finished folks this country has been destroyed by the banks & their political party/corporate hit-men.

[Ciaresayton]

foriegn interests, mainstream media, a 2 party system more CORRUPT than ANYTIME in American history has completely expatriated the American-born, tax-paying constituent into a tax paying non-entity when it comes to these elections. Why dont you rule on the Kenyan Muslim? Why dont you rule on the rigged elections of 00 and 04? There are lawyers at the free clinic who have more ethics, morality, willingness to protect the Constitution from treasoniist infiltrates than all you tools combined.

[Ciaresayton]

The only thing I have ever voted for was Ms Hooters, Palm Beach. And now that I have had 8 months to ponder the worst SC decision since Dred Scott, I am 100 percent positive I will never waste my time voting in the future. The corporation is not an INDIVIDUAL, you hooded treasonists. Taking notes on your decision, NOW? What a fucking joke. All of this moiney pumped into a media structure which spits out the bullshit in their alphabet soup broadcasts. Local television. Local radio. This orgy of

[SereneDementiaDan]

the problem with that guys argument about C-SPAN is that C-SPAN does not promote an opinion, they are a journalistic network designed to inform the public. they aren't contributing money to candidates. this ruling means that BP could buy their way out of taking responsiblility for the oil spill if the right candidate came along. they would spend money on campaigns, basicly bribing the politicians, and they would get there way, such as not having safety regulations because it would cost profits

[klard]

How can a Corporation be a person with Constitutional Rights? This is ridiculous.

[Bozo1360]

@Relugus you are correct. Our votes have become worthless.

My question is, why isn't the Tea Party protesting the Citizens United V. Federal Elections Commission decision? Because the Tea Party is a creation of the right wing corporatists.

Corporate influence is ruining the country and they are coming at us through both political parties.

[Bozo1360]

LMAO. Glenn Beck doesn't get to rewrite history. There is NO debate-fascism is right wing. And socialism is not a stepping stone to fascism. Fascism could accurately be called socialism for corporations. How old are you? Until the Tea Party movement it was widely understood that fascism was right wing. They don't like history so they tell their foolish followers a new and different version.

[arubberball]

@Bozo1360 Your comment, only shows your lack of authentic history. Progressives masquerading as, Democrats during the early part of 1900's up to the start of WW II embraced Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin political views. Democrats/ liberals/progressives had to back track, and try to paint Nazism as Right Wing.Socialism is a stepping stone to fascism, or communism, it matters not what you call it, the results are the same. search HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST