[Politics] Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws

[Phoenix_22]

Originally Posted by Commissar MercZ

This ruling was in response to a trial about the Hillary Clinton smear movie. Hillary's campaign wanted it removed because they said it violated campaign finance laws on account of it being funded by business groups and corporations.

The court ruled against this and said this argument was not valid, because a corporation should be allowed to spend their money freely like an individual, or at least in the argument of the judges who voted in ruled in favor of that opinion. So by not recognizing the Clinton campaign's arguments about this issue, they essentially said it was ok for corporations to have more political influence as an "individual" would.

From what I'm reading about the 5-4 decision, it highlights the idealogical and party loyalties of the judges. I really won't be surprised if Anton Scalia voted in favor of this, for instance.

Those who know the leanings of these judges will see how they voted quite clearly.

Originally Posted by Commissar MercZ

As I suspected, the 5-4 ruling was in this way,

5 ruling in favor of "Citizens United"

-Chief Justice Roberts
-Scalia
-Thomas
-Alito
-Kennedy

And against,

Ginsberg
Breyer
Stevens
Sotomayor

For more on the ruling look at "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission".

The decision is essentially down the ideological lines.

Indeed and indeed. However, I have to disagree with you in that it is entirely about party affiliation, it's more of a matter of following precedent. Ever since corporations were deemed "people" as Quetron mentioned, it has set a very dangerous foundation for all of the corporate-aided political problems we have today.

I have followed this case on and off again but didn't know a decision had been made. Quite frankly I am very angry that, at the least, Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito didn't vote against it. Scalia and Thomas are so ingrained in what the constitution says literally and what decisions have been made before that getting them to reverse a prior decision and definition is next to impossible. Even though Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito were appointed by Republicans, I would have hoped they realize that corporations are not people, and they would join the dissenters in reversing that previous decision.

Thank you, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, for screwing it all up.

[Admiral Donutz]

So much for an objective, neutral (supreme) court aye?

To me it doesn't sound that good that coperations can spent their money on promoting candidates as they see fit. Just stick to allowing donations to candidates but require those to be made public.

Oh and got to love those "anti"ads... Disguisting, and a risk of backfiring. Especially if you know some coperate giant is behind it...

So, any chanche the policians put out some new legislation to fix this in order to keep elections as democratic as possible, meaning that other parties besides Reps and Dems have an increasing chanche to gain a serious foothold?

Whiel at it, they may wish to chanche how supreme courts judges are appointed to reduce the chanches of them appearing to be biased in one direction or the other...

[Commissar MercZ]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_22

Indeed and indeed. However, I have to disagree with you in that it is entirely about party affiliation

I didn't mean it in that it would benefit one group entirely one way or another, but just a general situation that Judges may have some leanings towards one party or another. I would assume this is after all why many appointments to the Supreme Court are debated because they can have long-standing ramification to the opposing party.

Citizens United argued that this was a case of "free speech" and as you mentioned judges like Scalia do follow a concept of judicial restraint where they follow what they feel the constitution "says", and in this regard they felt it was an act of free speech, but ultimately in doing so recognizes the corporation as an individual.

And this in itself, it ties into the long battle over whether business should be entitled to the rights an individual has like you said.

[Quetron]

I say, IF they get a hand up making attack ads, I would make another law that says.

If any content is not factual, there will be a $20 million fine. (payable within 48 hours, no if's ands or buts)
haha make the fine goto the oponent,YA !!

At least some regular folk will get jobs with piles of money floating all over the place.

[gravy666]

Originally Posted by Admiral Donutz

So much for an objective, neutral (supreme) court aye?

Even though the court doesn't isn't supposed to have a bias... it still does.