Supreme Court declines to re-consider Citizens United ruling (Congress, enemy, lobbyists)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Court has issued a couple of good decisions today, but this isn't one of them. Ruling on a Montana law which would prevent corporations from donating to political campaigns, the Court had an opportunity to re-visit one of the most destructive rulings in many years, the Citizens United ruling. But, they refused to do so in a very tersely worded opinion.
Four justices are allowed to decide to accept cases without the others' approval. I would bet that the four liberal justices decided to take it.
Look - I have major concerns with what Citizens United allows, but I at least to some extent agree with the spirit of it. I have mixed feelings about it.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 06-25-2012 at 01:54 PM..
Only four justices can decide to take cases. I would bet that the four liberal justices decided to take it.
Look - I have major concerns with what Citizens United allows, but I at least to some extent agree with the spirit of it. I have mixed feelings about it.
Frankly, so do I. Corporations and privately owned companies, along with their owners and directors, have a legitimate interest in what government does, just like we do. It would be wrong to prevent them from trying to influence government because that's their right as citizens and entities in a democracy.
However, I see no reason why their contributions can't be limited. It seems to me that Congress could do that without running afoul of the Court's Citizen's United ruling.
The question is...will they? Probably not, at least not until the Democrats once again have complete control of the government. Since the ruling benefits the Republican's far more than it does the Dem's, I just can't see the GOP self-limiting their campaign money, can you?
Frankly, so do I. Corporations and privately owned companies, along with their owners and directors, have a legitimate interest in what government does, just like we do. It would be wrong to prevent them from trying to influence government because that's their right as citizens and entities in a democracy.
However, I see no reason why their contributions can't be limited. It seems to me that Congress could do that without running afoul of the Court's Citizen's United ruling.
The question is...will they? Probably not, at least not until the Democrats once again have complete control of the government. Since the ruling benefits the Republican's far more than it does the Dem's, I just can't see the GOP self-limiting their campaign money, can you?
The ruling does allow unlimited contributions. Remember that the ruling also applies to unions. I don't think Democrats would want that source of unlimited funding to go away.
The ruling does allow unlimited contributions. Remember that the ruling also applies to unions. I don't think Democrats would want that source of unlimited funding to go away.
Of course they wouldn't, just limit it for traditionally conservative donors is their position.
The libs and the Unions got hammered with the Knox decision last week as well.
Frankly, so do I. Corporations and privately owned companies, along with their owners and directors, have a legitimate interest in what government does, just like we do. It would be wrong to prevent them from trying to influence government because that's their right as citizens and entities in a democracy.
However, I see no reason why their contributions can't be limited. It seems to me that Congress could do that without running afoul of the Court's Citizen's United ruling.
The question is...will they? Probably not, at least not until the Democrats once again have complete control of the government. Since the ruling benefits the Republican's far more than it does the Dem's, I just can't see the GOP self-limiting their campaign money, can you?
There should be limitations to how much someone can donate to a candidate but there should also be a shorter election cycle. It's ridiculous how long these campaigns go on for and how much these campaigns cost. Super Pacs are also a joke.
Here is what I would like to see. Campaign contributions are acceptable in the primaries but up to a certain amount total. After the primary you do the same thing but double the limit. From there it's up to the candidates and their campaigns to spend wisely. You know....budget. That way we can see who is the most fiscally responsible candidate out there. Hell make that the case for all political offices.
There is way too much money spent during the election cycle and companies/lobbyists have way too much access to candidates.
It will take an amendment to the Constitution to change that. That was a bad decision but it was also based on previous decisions going back to the early decades of the Republic. It was predictable how they'd rule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.