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.
You are correct. I am extremely partisan when it comes to voting out the whole bunch of them. That I will admit to. Do you have a problem with that or do you enjoy the corruption in DC and the fact that Hope and Change really meant more of the same?
I am waiting....
blowoutcongress.com
I have aproblem with that. Just like anything else the news reports, the bad get all the press.
I hate generalities. They are ALL not bad. You vote in your district and I'll vote in mine.
That's right. All orgs and citizens should donate to a general pool of money that sponsors debates and print ads, no more private funding. It only attracts flies. Amazing I've just solved what 200 lawyers in congress argued for months about to enact mccain feingold.
And when I said the same thing yesterday, I was told it "sounded too communistic".
OMG....where do I start. This has nothing to do with the votes of private citizens or whether one "trusts" them or not. It is all about elected officials doing the PEOPLE's business with the people's interests in mind when in office and not that of their corporate owners.
That should be enough said.
IOW, it's not the voting public you distrust, it's the politicians being voted into office.
No they didn't, they reached way beyond the question that was before them. As I posted elsewhere. . .
The fact of the matter is that there were two cases of established law in Austin and McConnell. Under direct questioning by the Court, Appellants, Citizens United, indicated that they were not seeking to have the court overrule either Austin or McConnell. They were asking a much "narrower" question. And you don't even have to read very far into the decision (it starts on page 2) to find where Roberts plainly states that he didn't think it was possible to rule based solely on the narrow question before them, claiming that doing so would somehow have a "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights of corporations, who heretofore didn't enjoy any such rights (nevermind the "chilling effect" on individual citizens' rights should Big Business be allowed unfettered ability to buy elections). . .
1. Because the question whether §441b applies to Hillary cannot be resolved on other, narrower grounds without chilling political speech, this Court must consider the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin. Pp. 5–20.
(a) Citizen United’s narrower arguments—that Hillary is not an “electioneering communication†covered by §441b because it is not “publicly distributed†under 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2); that §441b may not be applied to Hillary under Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (WRTL), which found §441b unconstitutional as applied to speech that was not “express advocacy or its functional equivalent,†id., at 481 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.), determining that a communication “is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if [it] is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate,†id., at 469–470; that §441b should be invalidated as applied to movies shown through video-on-demand because this delivery system has a lower risk of distorting the political process than do television ads; and that there should be an exception to §441b’s ban for nonprofit corporate political speech funded overwhelming by individuals—are not sustainable under a fair reading of the statute. Pp. 5–12.
"Citizen United’s narrower arguments. . . are not sustainable under a fair reading of the statute."
In other words, had the court decided on only what they were being asked to decide on, Citizens United loses. Their argument is not sustainable under a fair reading of the statute. Well gosh and golly, what's an activist court to do in such a case? Here's what they do. . .
(b) Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment’s meaning and purpose. Citizens United did not waive this challenge to Austin when it stipulated to dismissing the facial challenge below, since (1) even if such a challenge could be waived, this Court may reconsider Austin and §441b’s facial validity here because the District Court “passed upon†the issue, Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 379; (2) throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that the FEC has violated its right to free speech; and (3) the parties cannot enter into a stipulation that prevents the Court from considering remedies necessary to resolve a claim that has been preserved. Because Citizen United’s narrower arguments are not sustainable, this Court must, in an exercise of its judicial responsibility, consider §441b’s facial validity.
In other words, it doesn't matter that the Appellant wasn't asking for a ruling on Austin, or even that it waived the "facial challenge" (whether a corporation was a person), because the Court can just do as they please and consider it anyway if they feel like making their own new law up even if it's not before them. What is the result of them doing that, you ask?
2. Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b’s restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Given this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA §203’s extension of §441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. Pp. 20–51.
VoilĂ ! As simple as that. A three word sentence. "Austin is overruled," and over 100 years of established law just became nothing more than toilet paper to wipe the ass of the American citizenry.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts promised that body that it was "[his] job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." He literally threw a wild pitch on this one -- and not only hit the batter with it, but it has ricocheted off of everyone in the stands, as well.
You stopped too soon in your quoting of the majority opinion:
Because Citizen United’s narrower arguments are not sustainable, this Court must, in an exercise of its judicial responsibility, consider §441b’s facial valid-ity. Any other course would prolong the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused by §441b’s corporate expenditure ban.
This conclusion is further supported by the following: (1) the uncertaintycaused by the Government’s litigating position; (2) substantial timewould be required to clarify §441b’s application on the points raisedby the Government’s position in order to avoid any chilling effect caused by an improper interpretation; and (3) because speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, anyspeech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating po-litical speech is chilled. The regulatory scheme at issue may not be aprior restraint in the strict sense. However, given its complexity and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavycosts of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmen-tal agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus func-tion as the equivalent of a prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amend-ment was drawn to prohibit. The ongoing chill on speech makes it necessary to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute that chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity hasbeen demonstrated.
Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shallmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,†§441b’s prohibitio non corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the factthat a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an es-sential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Gov-ernment to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.†WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor cer-tain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speak-ers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.
Almost 69 1/2 MILLION people voted for Barack Obama, nearly 10 million more than voted for John McCain.
Are you suggesting they ALL were duped and swindled by crooked media types, or just the 10 million difference?
Good Lord! That would be the most sucessful propaganda campaign in history!
Sorry, but the fact is that those millions voted for Obama because they felt he was the better candidate, not because they were all dumb enough to fall for the spin. What arrogance to assume that anyone who voted differently from you must have been swindled!
Oh I do indeed believe they were dumb enough to fall for the spin. The spin was Hope & Change and they swallowed that hook line and sinker. Who were the spin masters? The media.
I have aproblem with that. Just like anything else the news reports, the bad get all the press.
I hate generalities. They are ALL not bad. You vote in your district and I'll vote in mine.
The people at blowoutcongress.com know very well that not all are bad. The ones that are not bad can re-apply at the next election. The point of the movement is to send a message until politicians fear the voters and know that if they don't behave they will be asked to leave. Too many of the DC elite have been there much too long.
You stopped too soon in your quoting of the majority opinion:
Because Citizen United’s narrower arguments are not sustainable, this Court must, in an exercise of its judicial responsibility, consider §441b’s facial valid-ity. Any other course would prolong the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused by §441b’s corporate expenditure ban.
This conclusion is further supported by the following: (1) the uncertaintycaused by the Government’s litigating position; (2) substantial timewould be required to clarify §441b’s application on the points raisedby the Government’s position in order to avoid any chilling effect caused by an improper interpretation; and (3) because speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, anyspeech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating po-litical speech is chilled. The regulatory scheme at issue may not be aprior restraint in the strict sense. However, given its complexity and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavycosts of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmen-tal agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus func-tion as the equivalent of a prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amend-ment was drawn to prohibit. The ongoing chill on speech makes it necessary to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute that chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity hasbeen demonstrated.
Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shallmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibitio non corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the factthat a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an es-sential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Gov-ernment to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor cer-tain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speak-ers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.
That's a perfectly valid reasoning to me.
Of course it's valid to you. But again, you ignore the fact that the court overstepped in this decision. Period. Again, I'll let Justice Stevens explain it to you.
"The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for- profit corporations and unions to decide this case."
The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
As for the majority's contention that "Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case," I'll again direct your attention to the precedent cited in the dissent.
"Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,”FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210."
And now that we've successfully shown where the majority erred, I will return you to the part where the majority overstepped to create new law, without proper legal precedent to do so.
"The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell, it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.
The first reason is that the question was not properly brought before us. In declaring §203 of BCRA facially unconstitutional on the ground that corporations’ electoral expenditures may not be regulated any more stringently than those of individuals, the majority decides this case on a basis relinquished below, not included in the questions presented to us by the litigants, and argued here only in response to the Court’s invitation. This procedure is unusual and inadvisable for a court. Our colleagues’ suggestion that “we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell,” ante, at 1, would be more accurate if rephrased to state that “we have asked ourselves” to reconsider those cases."
Ok, so can they "ask themselves" questions that appellants haven't even brought before them? Once again we find that there is precedent against doing so in this case.
"“ ‘It is only in exceptional cases coming here from the federal courts that questions not pressed or passed upon below are reviewed,’ ” Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231, 234 (1976) (per curiam) (quoting Duignan v. United States, 274 U. S. 195, 200 (1927)), and it is “only in the most exceptional cases” that we will consider issues outside the questions presented, Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 481, n. 15 (1976)."
So, did the majority find that this was an "exceptional case" per Youakim or Stone?
" The appellant in this case did not so much as assert an exceptional circumstance, and one searches the majority opinion in vain for the mention of any. That is unsurprising, for none exists."
The court erred. And you have yet to show why Stevens is incorrect in his assessment of where, how and why the majority erred. You just keep coming back with platitudes as if we're all ignorant. It's really offensive.
Of course it's valid to you. But again, you ignore the fact that the court overstepped in this decision. Period. Again, I'll let Justice Stevens explain it to you.
No period. Stevens is on the losing side. Just because he says it, doesn't make it true. Likewise for you.
The court did away with the law that discriminates against corporations.
Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?
Quote:
“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”
I find it amusing that the Left was not at all troubled by the amount of money raised by obama last year, that he was the first president to eschew public funding because he believed his coffers would overflow with corporate money, in the form of corporate employees, bundlers, pacs and 527s.
Where was the outrage when he raised 3/4 of a BILLION dollars?
Enough of feigned outrage.
Why should the corporate media networks (who were tilted so far on obama's side) be allowed to influence elections up til the very day voters go to the polls?
Why should the corporate media networks (who were tilted so far on obama's side) be allowed to influence elections up til the very day voters go to the polls?
Like this ruling will bring something NEW to the table ?
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.
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.
OMG....where do I start. This has nothing to do with the votes of private citizens or whether one "trusts" them or not. It is all about elected officials doing the PEOPLE's business with the people's interests in mind when in office and not that of their corporate owners.
