Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

Not a fan of politicians seeking the money and support from corporations and unions? Well guess what, it's about to get worse:

While I can understand why they would make such a ruling based on the current bullshit laws that say corporations are people and thus are entitled to certain rights (like free speech in campaign advertising), ultimately this presents a major problem for democracy and the foundations of our political system.

Having corporations and unions with millions of dollars to donate to politicians means that when campaigns are getting going (which is pretty much all the time), those who are running for office will seek more support from corporations and unions instead of their constituents. In a sense, "government of the people, for the people," ceases to exist as we start to creep further into a dangerous union between government and business.

At least, more than what we have already.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

Bad bad bad,

If anyone wants to research, but when written they accidently put in that a corporation was a "person" as a typo.
So now a corporation has the same rights as one person, and why the supreme court seems to be working against the people, I just don't know.
sux bigtime

It was over some train companies deal,they went to the guy on his death bed, the guy who typed it,he said it was a typo, but it never got changed.

Look up
Thom Hartman to find the correct story.


oh, AND corporations back then where taxed 90%, wich was to force the corporations to opt to re-investing into the company that was less than paying the tax AND so they couldn't get to be "to big to fail" wich was one main reason they got away to start USA.
In england the business had morw power than the govmt,and they didn't want to repeat that.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

Welcome to your new Republican Congress, House, and Senate bought and paid for with Corporate funds.

Brought to you by your Republican appointed Judiciary. Thank you again G.W. Bush. And here we thought with Bush out of office he could do no more harm.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

Not because of Bush or republicans, sheesh.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

Eh... this is terrible for Democrats, terrific for Republicans.

Fox News. When people think "biased news source," Fox News is the first thing that comes to mind. Super-right-wing conservatives hogging up the airwaves.

Well, Fox News is part of Fox, which is part of News Corporation. Just to give you an idea of how huge this corporation is, they also own Myspace, IGN, GameSpy, Photobucket, Hulu, FX, Speed Channel, the National Geographic Channel, GQ Australia, The New York Post, Dow Jones & Company (including the Wall Street Journal), and book publisher HarperCollins-- just to name a few.

And the king of it all, Rupert Murdoch, is a Republican.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

This is terrible for anyone who wants fair elections. This will greatly benefit both the Democrats and Republicans as both essentially form a single power-block that shuffles power back and forth between the two every once in awhile.

Fox already contributed the best thing possible to the Republicans, that being publicity. More money from them wouldn't mean much.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

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.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

Our fine democracy in action. :)

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

I don't think it's media corporations (fox) that needs to take advantage, or try and sway anyone, as Fox is the ONLY news around that aint in love with Obama.They will take money for commercials though, without having a stake in the game.

But I am thinking, these corporations are not all owned by Americans, also the raw power over wheat,mining, things that you would have a reason to make profit, we don't need fox, we do need food.

I was also thinking, if they pick a bad candidate it may hurt that particular company for backing manX woman X.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

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.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

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.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

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... :rolleyes: 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...

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

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.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

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.

Re: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Funding Laws
 

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