Fans of the First Amendment can rejoice. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down large portions of the abomination known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues.
From The New York Times:
WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.
“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

The case arose over the documentary, Hillary: The Movie, produced by David Bossie and directed by Alan Peterson, which a lower court had ruled violated provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold against corporate political involvement. From the Citizens United website:
BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court rules in part in our favor 5-4!
Ruling: Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. Austin v. Mich is overruled, as is part of McConnell v. FEC. Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer dissent. The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy is 57 pages, and Justice Stevens’ partial dissent is 90 pages long.
Here is the decision:
09 –
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 [Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority]. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
UPDATE:
Naturally, President Obama immediately issued a statement opposing the decision. As the Washington Post reports::
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. … We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.
So there it is: the President and members of the Mandarin Class are preparing a “forceful response” to the First Amendment.
Had enough yet?






991 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, BigJournalism. BigJournalism said: Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment http://bit.ly/5Z2W5R [...]
A corporation is not a person!
………"the abomination known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues."
Money is the lifeblood of politics. Cut off the money, and they whither on the vine, and die…………
To quote one of the wisest men I know (my father) "A corporation is not a thing unto itself. It's an idea that binds together a group of people." So a group of people decide to support a candidate. Are we supposed to stop them?
money IS free speech…
Always has been. 'Put your money where your mouth is' is a time honored refrain. And how else can the public reign in governmental excesses without the money to influence elections? Corporations ARE people, employ people, and produce our goods. Congressional oversight and the IRS are suitable checks and balances on them.
Let them- let all Americans- speak at the ballot box.
Not just ACORN…
Bravo, McCain-Feingold was idiotic. Even more idiotic than Johnny McCain and Rusty Feingold themselves.
In fact, legally, it is.
Wonderful news. The government has no business restricting political speech. Period. For any reason. For any group. None whatsoever. Thank God the court over-ruled this monstrosity of a bill.
Legally, a corporation is a "person" and is a "citizen" or the state it is incorporated and the state of its primary/principal place of business.
Or, some like to think of it as being many people. while this isn't the legal viewpoint that's been held for centuries.
I absolutely, completely, totally agree with you.
I'm a staunch conservative, and am sickened by this decision.
Yes, a corporation is a "legal person," but that's just a fiction to allow the gov't to collect taxes from it.
But corporations should have no ability to sway elections.
Neither is a union (Ex. SEIU, NEA, Teamsters)
A corporation is not a person, it is people. A group of people and as such as the same rights as a single person or groups based on race, religion, etc.
WIth the first sentence, McCain-Feingold ran afowl of the constitution. The sad part is 1) it took this long to rectify and 2) it was a close decision. 3) it was not completely struck down
You are right. Technically.
It is an association of persons!
I disagree. A corporation is an entity that is run by a board but is owned by stockholders. If the corporation had to get the approval of the stockholders (simple majority) to run a political ad it would be one thing. But I believe that it is inappropriate of the board or CEO to take part of the profits of the stockholders and without their consent run a political ad.
neither is a union or 503c
Wouldn't it be prudent to at least make sure that there was no foreign ownership of any corp contributing to an American political campaign? Could I, as a foreigner , setup a corp in the states and then pump foreign bucks into whatever agenda I want to? Do you think that is wise?
It's about friggin time!
Your wrong. The courts have granted "person" status to corporations years ago. This ruling has further eroded the Constitution by giving the one with the most money the best chance of winning. Another nail in the coffin of a wants great nation.
Corporations used to be chartered for a period of time by the States and would or wouldn't be renewed if they violated their charters which were usually written in favor of the community in which they operated.
Unions are not persons either but it was okay for them to donate millions to their favored politian or political cause but corporations were limited. Whats okay for one should be okay for the other. Thats called equal rights…
Good or bad (and it was bad), it was not equally applied. How did this movie supposedly run afoul of that law and Farenheit 9/11get a pass?
Full disclosure is the best way to combat bought and paid for politicians. Donating to campaigns is a kin to freedom of speech. Although, it must be said Corporations myopically look out for their interests while ignoring the greater ramifications to their deeds and those who they support. They fail to realize if the economy collapses they won’t have a venue to participate in. They love to limit competition through government intervention. They even lust after having HC being taken over by the government. Union leadership seems to enjoy biting their nose off despite their face. We’ve lost count how many jobs they have chased overseas. Unions and corporation influence has only grown under these rules. K Street like all of D.C. is booming. Full disclosure and more importantly an informed electorate is the key to end unbalanced influence of special interest groups. All the money in the world can’t brainwash you into voting for a crooked politicians. Only ignorance can. Massachusetts has shown us that a majority of us have become savants.
That's an interesting way to think about it, American Ivy. But it makes me think of a country and its government. We are the citizens. We are represented by our representatives in government. But, we don't really make any decisions, except who will represent us for a span of time. There aren't usually opportunities to make our voices heard in meaningful ways – to let our reps know when we're happy or not, like the special election in Massachusetts.
Just think, we could stay in Iraq even though most people (if you think the pulse of the people may be felt by studying the polls) disagreed with that decision.
Congress can try to ram through 'health care reform' even though, according to polls, most people don't want it either….
So, when people blame us for invading countries; when health care reform passes down more debt and taxes to the people of our nation, can it honestly be said that we as a bound "group of people" have decided anything?
I I happen to think that it makes certain that smart, talented folks who want to serve their country (rather than spending their time being re-elected and giving favors to the cronies that help fill their campaign coffers)…will never be more than the exception to the political rule.
Let those with the most money speak the loudest!!
The scary part is that four justices think that this does NOT violate the First Amendment.
Who were the 4 disenters?
Sure can't.
…And now Cindy is sipping the lib Flavor-aid.
http://patriotpoliticos.wordpress.com/?p=704&...
Amen to this. This particular part of the bill is what soured me to McCain (as well as a lot of people and Bush for signing it). Restricting speech close to an election or primary except for individuals who should somehow have the funds to purchase airtime by themselves was a blatant grab-for-power by incumbents. You people are on OUR payroll and you answer to US.
this sounds like it's going to get messy, please someone dumb it down for me or at the very least give a more accurate description of things to come.
Well I wonder what Government Motors will do. The Fiats didn't sell before and probably will not now soo Government money spent to lobby Government. Wow will ACORN and Obama like that.
Then following the logic since it is a fiction we ought to do away with corporate taxes, after all the ability to tax is the ability to destroy. If corporate persons have no legitimate voice in our elections then they have no resort but to engage in intensive lobbying and corruption. I would far rather have the corporate money out in the open.
A corporation is a legal entity and has the Constitutional right to issue position papers, political ads, editorials which when published or dissemenated act act "speech" on behalf of the corporation. Good liberals like you JBear wamt to deny a corporation its right to participate in the political process. You of course, don't mind unions, execrcising its right. How sad.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would have been less surprised by events this week if women were barred from voting and slavery was made legal again.
Thats right, and neither is a website!
Corrupt Democracy?
Oh yes, I have no doubt the Left is worried about that LMAO
I heard Sen Schumer screaming that this is one of the worst decision the Supreme Court has made. So I figure it must be one of the best decisions every for our country.
You can disagree, but you're wrong. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but that's just the reality of the law. You can disagree that the sky is blue also, that doesn't mean anything.
Time to say that John McCain rivals Patty Murray in the room temp IQ department….the man is intellectually challenged…
You mean like Clinton did with Lippo Group and the Chinese? And what did Congress do about that? Reforming election law is one thing. McCain-Feingold was NOT the answer.
In the last two days, freedom appears to be awakening from Coma.
Let's not stop now. Let's rid this country of left wing anti-Americans like Chuck U Schumer who is squealing like a stuck pig over this reaffirmation of our Constitutional rights.
In answer to "Rats" question,
The four disenters were
Larry, Curly, Mo and Tweedle Dumber
Personally, I believe it levels the playing field. If the Unions, lobbyist, and Mr. Soros can throw money at their candidates to get them elected, why can't the Corporations do the same??? Fair is fair. Bravo to the Supreme Court for seeing this for what it is and taking the power away from the left-wing progressives who no longer can control who donates what to whom. The Constitution wins again……McCain is a closet progressive. He is really a Republicrat…..
Why is that relevant?
Thank God for the 5 conservative judges who for the most part let the Constitution rule. Who knows where we will be if Obama get his choices on the Court. I can just see Eric Holder ascending to the bench. What a great day that would be for the Terrorists who want to destroy the United States of America.
I have a feeling one of them was Sotomayer
Who is the group of people? The stockholders? The employees? The management? Does everyone have to agree? I think this is a move in the wrong direction. This effectively lets a corporation buy legislation (or makes it easier than it already is) that screws over it's customers or it's competition. Why does anyone think this is a good idea?
Money is not the life blood of politics, power is.
When power is appropriated unjustly by the government, people (and collections of people; i.e. corporations, uinions, and so on) will act to influence government policy for outcomes favorable to them. That is the problem.
You want money out of politics? Remove their power, put them back in the box the Constitution put them in, and you will see money and all the disguting abusives leave.
Now that McCain's legislation has been declared unconstitutional he should resign. Indeed, any legislator who drafts, introduces, or votes for a bill that is adopted and later found unconstitutional should be removed from office. This is especially true of any legislation that in anyway interferes with rights protected under the Bill of Rights. It should be a crime to violate the rights of the people, forever prohibiting these criminals from any public office, government job, lobbying position or practice of law. A constitutional amendment is in order, which would soon prove to be a dose of reality to our scurrilous Congress critters.
Strike two for McRino—
Strike three–vote this career politician OUT!
A corporation is right now considered by law to be a person — based on a very iffy interpretation of a case from the 19th century. Unfortunately, these “people” are interested in one thing and one thing only: profit. The officers of the corporation are actually legally bound to maximize profits for shareholders. A person who is only interested in his own gain is generally called a sociopath and are regarded as dangerous. The people I know all feel such emotions as love, hate, happiness, sadness, pleasure, and pain. A corporation does not, it is a legal robot that is programmed for profit. It is not a person by any traditional or conservative definition of person.
Thus, those who believe a corporation is a person are not conservatives. No, they are radicals and dangerous.
I have two questions to those who think that accepting a corporation as a person is a good thing for any democracy or republic. They are:
1. Do you believe that a corporation should be able to vote?
2. Do you belive that a corporation should be allowed to hold high office in our republic?
The fact that the liberal judges dissented while conservative judges ruled in favor speaks volumes as to where McCain stands as a politician. It is time for McCain to be retired where he can join whichever party he wants, which is not clear based on his votes in Congress, and then we can replace him with a true Conservative.
All the McCain-Feingold Act did was ensure that Soros had the biggest voice in Congress through his PACs and funding of liberal groups like ACORN. At the very least, we should establish our own advocacy groups and let business voices be heard as well so that EVERYONE has a seat at the political table, not just the liberal approved ones.
Is Free Speech Money? Does speech hold a monetary value? NO…..The restrictions on political contributions could be limited to the constituents to which he/she serves. And there could be restrictions on how they may use those funds. Then this may be audited prior to seating the candidate. Why not require that after the campaign is finished the leftover money be used to pay the candidates salary so that they are not allowed to have a head start on future opposition?
Yes it is. It is not a natural individual but it is a person for purposes of the law. If it's not a person why does it pay taxes?
So is a corporation; both have power structures where some individuals exert mor influence than others.
Foreign corporations must also be licensed and operating as an American corporation and pay US taxes. Doesn't that give them a right of free speech? After all, we are trying terrorists aka enemy combatants captured on the field of battleras common criminals and giving them ( illegally, of course) US Constitutional rights and domestic trials.
Why? If you don't like it, you can disassociate yourself from the corporation by selling your stock. Do you think that unions should have the same requirement? If not, then you are a hypocrite.
So do you apply this same principle to unions (of which one I belong and object vehemently that they spend my dues on politics) which do exactly the same thing?
Companies pay taxes and should be allowed to support candidates whos serve their best interests.
They have that right ANYWAY!!!!
Unions do far worse than this daily. Stockholders are not FORCED to buy the stock they own but union members are forced to join unions. Wake up Pat.
Another fool from the peanut gallery heard from.
The Constitution Strikes Back! You lose McBeeoych!!!
This evens back the playing field and takes the advantage away from the incumbents.
Although I voted for John McCain for president I've long thought that McCain/Feingold was an obscene restriction upon our First Amendment rights, particularly because I Catholic was made aware that some of the restrictions imposed by the law were imposed upon /against Right-to-Life advocacy.
BTW, John McCain was the son of the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Naval forces in the Pacific when he was shot down over North Viet-Nam & imprisoned. By virtue of growing up in the household in which he did he was perforce well informed on national security issues long before he reached his majority.
Taxation without representation? If you want to tax them… You must also permit them to speak.
I think that would put him in the Kerry category….
Finally, this will release the choke hold that the progressives have had on this country for the last few years. McCain should have been tossed out after this monstrosity of a bill. He's a RINO, along with his Gay marriage supporting wife. Thank you Lord for allowing the BIG house, known as government, to finally to begin the process of being cleaned out. Bye bye Chuck you Schumer and all the other criminals! 2010 will be fun
While a corporation and human/individual are treated similarly, it is instructive to see that a corporation enjoys so many more tax advantages/havens/loopholes, etc, than the citizen. Where is the outrage with regard to this inequity? This was a poorly written law and needed to be stricken. There are many more ways to resolve inequity between taxable entities and to limit influence as it pertains to elections, etc. The will and resolve to more reasonalbly/partially level the playing field between corporate America and it's citizens is lacking, for now. Perhaps the election in Mass. will begin the process of purging those who enlarge their purses at the expense of the common man. We have precious little time to see if action can preclude the reckoning our financial system is approaching.
This is awesome news!
Isn't that what unions do now?
Neither is a Union.
It is also inappropriate for a union to take union dues from its members and without their consent run a political ad, particular when many of their members may be opposed to whatever it is that the union is backing.
As an Arizonan I am embarrassed by any bill that begins with "McCain" McCain-Feingold and McCain Kennedy. McCain is running for Senator once again this fall. And sadly, from the looks of the other Candidates I will most likely have to vote for McCain in order to keep out the only slightly worse Democratic contenders. Sigh.
Thank God that he keeps getting his bills rejected, or as in this case, overturned.
All right, if a corporation is a person with the same rights to political speech as a person, then make their contributions subject to the same contribution limits of an individual– to wit:
$2,300 per Election to a Federal candidate — Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
$28,500 per calendar year to a national party committee — applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees
$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee
Aggregate Total — $108,200 per two-year election cycle as follows:
$42,700 per two-year cycle to candidates
$65,500 per two-year cycle to all national party committees and PACs, of which no more than $40,000 can go to PACs.
Thanks to the five justices who can read and understand the First Amendment!
Corporations have the right to political speech just as do individuals, for they are made up of individuals – for those who say that more money equals more political power, that may be true when you have an uninformed electorate incapable of critical analysis – but in the end good ideas will always win against stupid ideas, witness Massachusetts! Maybe this will help balance the liberal left media, who have for so long slanted and lied about business and corporations.
President GW Bush was RIGHT! His hope was for SCOTUS to REVERSE this! Here's to your being so nice-nice to the enemy, John McCain!
The libs will agree and think this is great until George Soros goes bankrupt and stop shelling out. THEN, it will become unconstitutional and a crime to contribute. "For thee…but not for me….", the Liberal morality.
Harsh words about a great American hero who bravely spent 8-years in a Vietnamese prison camp and received our nation's highest honor, the Medal of Honor. So I guess his claim to fame is being more a patriot and more of an American they someone like you who can prance around with an upside down American flag as an Avatar in the most disrespectful way. Have an ounce of class.
If unions had to get the approval of its member (simple majority) to run a political ad it would be one thing. But….
Does that fit in your mind set Pat? I think the majority opinion addressed just that issue. The side of the aisle now has competition. Weren't we just recently informed that competition was a good thing for America? Yep, I think so!
Neither is a union 'a person' and they donate huge sums of stolen dues money to candidates campaigning for office at all levels. Corporations are likely to be all over the board on candidate preference, but they are not likely to support a socialist or communist candidate, and that's saying something these days.
Good! McCain-Feingold was anti-free speech. When the government can step in and tell anyone that they cannot speak freely – on a political issue no less! – that is a clear and gross violation of the 1st Amendment. I can't believe anyone is brain-dead enough to even argue this point.
So you prefer the approach of a Jeffery Imelt, who uses his corporate influence to buy into the Democratic administration and influence legislation (EG: Cap & Trade) because the results will likely favor his business over the competition?
A corporation is a legal person, in fact, but more importantly It is an association of persons–also protected under the 1st
JJ: "Just think, we could stay in Iraq even though most people (if you think the pulse of the people may be felt by studying the polls) disagreed with that decision."
Actually, most people clearly agreed with the decistion, so this is a very bad example.
What happened is that people agreed with it, then over time, changed their minds… in no small part due to how coprorations portrayed it (news corporations), as well as minority political figures that worked hard to get people to change their minds so that they could regain political power (and once in power, have been content for years to continue and even expand our wars abroad).
SMS
Free speech should be the right of everyone whether you agree with them or not. End of story.
I wonder what this ruling does for "Hate Speech" Crimes?????
Kennedy was on the right side for once. Entities, including corporations, are people with common goals promoting what's good for themselves directly or indirectly through the entity. A union (generally leftist) should have no advantage over any other entity. McCain, as usual, was an idiot for supporting this in the first place because it hurt free-enterprise Americans including Republicans. McCain did it to serve himself after getting caught up in a sting that nailed all Democrats. Liberal, socialist and communist Democrat refuse to recognize that freedom includes economic freedom.
Sure, but if the stockholders don't like the decision of the Board they can always sell their stock or replace that offenfing member when it elects it Executive Board.
1. No they shouldn't be able to vote.
2. No they shouldn't hold office.
They shouldn't pay taxes either. In fact they do not. Any taxes levied on a corp is payed by the consumers using their products.
It's simple. If I owned a business and was taxed, I'd pass the tax on to the consumer. No way I'd take a cut in my profits.
Funny thing about law.
Actually I was a jet pilot. McShame was quite a good jet pilot. I know men that flew with him. The problem was the surface to air missile operator was much better at his job.
Your father is an idiot.
You may not think it is a “good idea” to limit the political speech of a corporation…but regardless, the US Constitution says Congress cannot pass a law that infringes upon political speech. That is the issue….Political speech is the most protected classification of speech we as Americans possess…What is important to note is that the US Congress does not have the absolute power to pass whatever law it thinks is "good for the people"….its power to pass legislation is limited…this is the point missing in the health care debate….Does Congress even have the authority to pass such a bill….Just because a few, or even a majority, may think a piece of legislation is "good for the people" this does not mean Congress has been given the authority under the Constitution to pass the legislation.
Absolutely..they're the ones most at risk. Members of Executive Boards are put there by a vote of the stockholders, Those who purchase a part of the corporation in the hope their investment will pay dividens…just like I hope my bank will pay me a good rate of interest. If it doesn't I can always close my account and take my money elsewhere.
I love how people always refer to Conservatives and right wing as "NAZI"…"National Socialist German Workers' Party". It seems to me that the left tends to push socialist agendas. Explain that one to me. Just because the german "right" of the time was "NAZI" does not mean that side of politics is always that way. Also the politics of the"right" in one area is not always so in another. Modern democrat compared to 1800's democrat.
McCain-Feingold campaign finance law did plenty to keep George Soros and ACORN from altering the landscape of Congress.
That's why the dizzying myriad of "organizations" do the dirty work for them.
Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing.
If you study the source records you will see the FF wanted only Corporation to pay taxes to the federal government. People making a living through the free market place were not to be taxed on their income or profits.
As to this ruling…free speech is free speech they got it right.
You may not think it is a “good idea” to limit the political speech of a corporation…but regardless, the US Constitution says Congress cannot pass a law that infringes upon political speech. That is the issue….Political speech is the most protected classification of speech we as Americans possess…What is important to note is that the US Congress does not have the absolute power to pass whatever law it thinks is "good for the people"….its power to pass legislation is limited…this is the point missing in the health care debate….Does Congress even have the authority to pass such a bill….Just because a few, or even a majority, may think a piece of legislation is "good for the people" this does not mean Congress has been given the authority under the Constitution to pass the legislation.
Correct, it's hundreds or thousands of persons.
Two people are not a person either. But both of those two people in a group, still have freedom of speech. And if two people or two million people want to pool their money to buy a political ad then they are free and legal and moral to do so.
Because Farenheit 9/22 was truthful…Hillery was a lie
I see some great questions being ignored here. While we debate the value of the law, the question of a corporation having the same rights I as a living breathing human being have should cause us all to stop and reflect.
It's not been that long ago that our government paid out BILLIONS of our tax dollars to corporations to "keep them from failing", when in fact their short sited greed caused their very failures.
Why should a self destructive coporation be the vessel by which the next President be elected??? They have billions to spend, just not the wisdon to spend it wisely.
Unfair question. Can you name an piece of legislation that was worth a damn, unless you are a lobbyist pushing it.? McCain has been a solid supporter of our military and if that's all he does, I'm satisfied. Kerry can't even claim that. He's a friend to the union bosses, though.
"The officers of the corporation are actually legally bound to maximize profits for shareholders."
This isn't true at all. Corporations also aren't bound to conduct the business they originally claim to be conducting in the articles of incorporation, at least corporations set up for profit aren't. The officers are bound to make decisions in the best interest of the shareholders, the employees and the corporation itself. There are also non-profit corporations and entities called closely held corporations where the stock isn't traded publicly.
Corporations are complex legal entities, as are unions, political parties, and governments themselves. To say that they are a "robot programmed for profit" is what happens when people believe everything they hear or read instead of looking into it for themselves.
In today's modern complex legal society a corporation is no more than a tool to avoid legal liability and raise business capital. The corporation was invented to be a psuedo person, not as the result of an "iffy" 19th century case. Ever heard of the Dutch East India Company? That was a corporation chartered by the Dutch government in 1602.
As far as this ruling goes, it's about damn time. If the government can suppress the political speech of a corporation, what's to stop them from suppressing the political speech of a union or eventually the average citizen? You would hope it's the first amendment, but as history has shown, once the Supreme Court starts eroding an aspect of the Constitution they usually don't stop until it's determined to be near meaningless (10th amendment…the commerce clause…etc).
Thank God, we have 5 justices who respect the constitution. This just shows that liberals don't believe in free speech.l
Amen, brother.
Money is like water, it always seeks the lowest level, in this case the offices of politicians. Legislation will never reduce the flow of money as long as cracks exist where it can seep-in and continue its downhill course.
Neither is a union!
JBear – January 21st, 2010 at 6:32 pm
A corporation is not a person!
Sorry but, yes it is. By law, the definition of a “US Person” includes US corporations. At least for purposes of Intel Oversight.
Then you vote 'em out. Geeeez..
Amen.
Not all corporations are public corporations. So if a private corporation should live by the same standards as your public stockholders. My corporation is family owned, so should my family not have free speech??
McCain Feingold empowered George Soros, Acorn, Unions and other leftist thugs! Obama is a product of McCain Feingold and could never have been elected without it!
A corporation does not "speak." A corporation has no right to free speech.
Once we understand that a corporation is not actually and individual and that the Supreme Court's interpretation of a corporation as an individual with constitutional rights is finally corrected, then we'll have fewer problems in this country.
Pat, you sound so dumb, to be blunt. Of course a board has the right to make decisions without a majority vote. They are reps of the company, moron, and as reps, it is their job and duty to make all sorts of decisions on behalf of their stockholders. If you think otherwise then you are an unteachable dunce.
Did any of you read the actual McCain/Feingold law proposal? If not, you have no business posting on any website! In the proposal, the fiance law would have PREVENTED, corporations to impose their political idealogy using funds to push there political ideas. This "law" would have kept the corporations from influence via money.
Instead of reading two sentences and getting what you wanted from the article, I highly recommend you read the proposal in its entirety before making an ass outta yourself.
Most of the left wing commments were just dumb! And have now contributed to my death!
Thanks a bunch ya jack -offs!
It would follow, then, that it would also be inappropriate for a union to take member's dues without their consent to back a political candidate.
Like it or not, Farenheit 911 was that idiot Moore's free speech. For centuries, Americans have died to preserve that right.
It is “run afoul” not “run afowl”. That would mean “run a bird.” Morons.
All the conservatives were on the correct side and the disenters were the moron liberals on the court, as usual.
Raquel Ford – January 21st, 2010 at 7:07 pm
President GW Bush was RIGHT! His hope was for SCOTUS to REVERSE this! Here’s to your being so nice-nice to the enemy, John McCain!
He may have been right, but he was WRONG to have signed the bill in the first place. His oath is to uphold and defend the constitution. Signing a bill that he knew was unconstitutional to me, violates that oath. Don’t depend on someone else to carry the water you should be carrying.
all liberals
A corporation is a simple legal definition for grouping shareholders of a company together. And since they are all taxed as part of the company the same way they are taxed as individuals, they are also entitled to the same freedom of speech they practice as individuals.
The fact that they are speaking as a group makes absolutely no difference. Would you also limit the speech of unions or other advocacy organizations?
O.T. but nice Telecaster. I'm a Strat man, myself.
No, YOU speak the loudest when you stay informed, educated and VOTE!
Fantastic – anything to counter the slippery George Soros approach that donates money to organizations that donates money to organizations that donates money to organizations to fund left wing political groups like MoveOn and Media Matters that fund groups like ACORN and the far left of the Dem party.
Soros was circumventing the law by cleverly donating to small organizations and ensuring that the money slowly filtered down to the actual targets.
Now at least this nonsense can be countered.
Who loses in this????? The constiuents who don't have the financial pull to have a say in who represents them. Bad bill? yes it was. Bad decision as well. Money is not free speech. Don't ever forget that supreme court justices are capable of being wrong.
No, but they are "associations of citizens", which Justice Kennedy stated.
The people's will died 50 years ago. This is government of the Corporation, by the Corporation. and for the Corporation. Oh and when you vote for those handpicked and funded corporate candidates no matter what party, you are exercising the will of the Corporation and not your own. The judges voting today are all selected by corporations and rubber stamped by a Congress funded by corporations. The only free speech in this country is whatever corporations and their high priced lawyers say it is. Try whistleblowing and see where that gets you against an army of lawyers and lawsuits.
Do you believe that Unions should be allowed to vote????? How about Felons? And, what about illegals and the dead?
David… Let me recommend that you get a job and work for a living. That will improve your knowledge.
He pushed a bill in the early 2000's that was intended to harness the rampant lending that led us to our current financial crisis. Unfortunately that was shot down. He has made more effort in congress than our President ever did. Still not sure why the populous thought it was a good idea to give that job to someone with no experience running anything. The only thing Obamanation has been successful at running is his mouth.
I have a feeling SCOTUS will have to kick those teeth in another case. Hopefully it won't take another 8 years.
Consider wat they are, progressives who believe in consulting foreign legal precedence to review our laws. Now matter how educated, they have no logic, and are idiots.
For those out there saying a corporation is not a person – How is a corporation any different from a PAC? How about special interest groups?
Is anyone still naive enough to think that politicians are not all bought and paid for? Everyone of them is owned by corporations, PACs, SIGs, and their party. It has been that way for a long time now (if not always) and the only way to change it is for the people to rise up and vote out every incumbant – regardless of party. I know that is a pipe dream, but we all must have dreams.
YES!!! The American Revolution has begun!…about time…sorry McCain….not!…ha ha…
Which is a demonstration that the law is not based on common (or any kind of) sense.
I'm a fairly conservative minded guy, but somehow this actually seems like a good idea. I don't like George Soros being able to buy a politician as much as McDonald's can buy one. McCain-Feingold was an abomination in the eyes of the constitution, but something has to be done to make sure rich individuals don't have a louder voice than poor individuals just by the fact that they've worked harder and longer than the poor. I have no disdain for the wealthy, but in America we're all supposed to have an equal voice, right?
Seriously!? The richest people in the country are the ones most at risk? Are you sure you thought that through before you said it? The people with houses, resources, stocks, insurance, etc. are at greater risk than say a single parent living paycheck to paycheck? Sure they have more money to lose but, if you ask me the person closest to living on the streets or being bankrupted by some illness is at far more risk than the rich guy.
Can we penalize law makers for writing something that is eventually overturned by the SCOTUS? What a waste of energy this has been.
Remove them from committees or change thier ranking or dock their pay/retirement? Anything to give them pause to consider the constitutionality of the laws they write. I know, how about a one way ticket into the "public option"
As far as I am concerned anyone who voted for this law violated his oath to uphold the constitution.
Dreaming, I know.
It is a fiction so people can act irresponsibly in groups – they are a bane to society.
"person" is a legal fiction.
.
I tend to agree!
In a way, I see NO DIFFERENCE between a Corporate donation
compared to George Soros's $500 Million backing for Obama.
It was kept secret because Obama was able to hide disclosure
since they did NOT take federal Funding.
NONE.
.
A great decision and surprise surprise, the liberals on the court were on on the wrong side of this issue and the conservatives were all on the correct side. The deciding vote was Kennedy who is the wishy washy guy, known as the swing vote, since he goes both ways, so to speak.
While I agree that a corporation isn't a person, while a case might be made for regulating speech that's untrue or obscene or dangerous, I don't think it's legitimate to simply regulate a class of speech because of a general fear that it might persuade people to think or vote in a way we don't approve of. That's a very dangerous path to go dow
Obama's strategy with Government Motors was to shut down those large dealerships, even those at the top of the profitability list, that contributed to the Republican campaign, and that would effectively eliminate many of the large donors to the RNC. Investigative reports show that over 70% of those that contributed to the RNC were unduly targeted. Now we need to get those businesses back up and running.
Maybe you should stay an outsider. Do you have anything worthwhile to say? An opinion with facts or an original thought?
"Speaking of NcCain-Feingold, can anybody name ONE piece of legislation that Mr. McCain has EVER been involved in, that was worth a damn? Other than being a career politico, and a bad jet pilot, what exactly is his claim to fame?"
LOL! Well said.
Also, "born well."
Well, it was democrats that wanted both no female votes and slavery to continue. Go figure.
McCain is a great patriot, but these two douchebags proffered this bill KNOWING it was flawed and fully expecting the SCOTUS to do the heavy lifting regarding getting rid of the more dubious parts of the law. They should BOTH be run out of Washington on a rail!
Think about speaking in a nicer tone. McCain has done a great deal for the country. Plus, think about changing your icon, Cowboy, or properly display that flag.
Neither is a Union!!!
A question for those who support limiting speech for the business community (which is, in the end, what this bill was all about):
Do you believe it is fair or just for the people who run a business to be taxed and regulated–and sometimes fined or imprisoned–by the government? If your answer is yes, and you still believe they do not deserve the right to political speech, kindly stop pretending you believe in anything resembling freedom. You believe first and foremost that our rights are given to us by the government, and that makes you a tyrant's best friend.
[...] – R.I.P. Go to Top This was long overdue: Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment. Obama preparing ‘… Wow, a supreme court that can read and understand the constitution. [...]
One point: I was talking about the decision to stay or withdraw from Iraq; and as you say, the majority of our polled citizens (over time) did not agree with our leadership that we should stay in and, in fact, surge. I was not talking about the decision to invade. Most of Congress and most of America agreed with that decision, as you say. And I'm not talking about whether the surge was successful, ultimately. It was. I am not talking about whether propaganda persuaded people to feel one way or another about Iraq. I'm talking about who really makes decisions in group bound together by an idea. In the case of the corporation, that idea is the charter, I assume. In our country, the idea(s) spring from the constitution. That doesn't mean that people who work for a corp., or people who are citizens of a country play any significant role in decision-making. So, to my point, I disagree with you that my example is not illustrative of my point.
Nor is a union
As a constituent of McCain's partner in this fiasco, all I have to say is that McCain got rolled by Feingold on this. I own a basset hound that can out think Feingold. Thank God this abomination is history. Ever notice how democrats just hate that think called freedom of speech.
Sorry, Mr Clinton, You can't always sucessfully defend your wife. At least that one didn't work. Just saying it is "a Lie" with no evidence is inadmissable in an intelligent conversation.
If a corporation is precluded from political speech, then don't tax them.
Don't regulate them.
Don't interfere with their operation at all, because they are unrepresented in the political process.
Of course, this will not happen. They should be regulated by the government. They should be taxed. And, they also should be allowed to participate in that government.
Good ruling.
A corporation is a legal entity created in an individual state, and as such is controlled by the laws of that state.
The Federal Government has no authority to define the actions of a state mandated or recognized entity. Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution for the United States declares that all power not granted to the Federal Government are necessarily reserved to the States or the People.
Therefore. It has always be a usurpation of the rights of the States for any law passed by the Federal government that would seek to control or define the conduct of any state defined entity, program, entitlement, etc.
"Harsh words about a great American hero who bravely spent 8-years in a Vietnamese prison camp …."
Oh, he had a choice? What about those brave prisoners in Abu Greib, then?
Actually, he did have a choice – he admitted he ignored the missile warning – a sign he thinks he is above reality – and made himself a liability in addition to crashing the last of many expensive planes.
This guy would have been a cook if not for his father.
Corporation: An artificial being, invisible, intangable, and exists only in the contemplation of the law.
The jobless rate is proof that Corporations need to have a political voice.
To those of you who object that corporations (groups of people) should not be afforded first amendment rights, how have you felt about the unions (also groups of people) having the right to support candidates, contribute to campaigns, coerce their members into "volunteering," etc?
The only difference is that unions have largely been in lock-step for Democrats. Also, while you needn't patronize a particular corporation (and thereby its politics), union membership is mandatory for employees in many places and industries, employees whose union dues then may be used for policies they do not support.
This is a big step in the right direction: let anyone donate to whoever they like, but just make sure that the information is freely available, so everyone can keep an eye on all parties.
No, he crashed many planes.
wow… you are really looking for low blows huh? what is your claim to fame besides being inmature? I may not like the guys thinking all the time, but I will not degrade a war veteran who put himself in harms way for me to be able to enjoy liberty. I serve in the US Marine Corps and though I may not agree with a lot of stuff that comes from Washington does not mean I am going to speak ill of them. I truly believe that both democrats and republicans want the best for our country at heart, they go about it in different ways that we do not agree on but if you want to point a finger at anyone, point a finger at ourselves for putting them in office.
It's not that they don't know, it's that they don't care.
Experience isn't always a bad thing – prisons are filled with those with "experience."
The fact of the matter is the corporation is a tool used by actual people to make political speech. That is the whole point of the opinion. Because the makers of the Hillary movie had organized themselves into a corporation they were banned from airing their movie.
People make up a corporation, just like people make up unions and special interest groups like the AARP and PETA. Organizing your group into a corporation shouldn't be the litmus test as to whether or not you have the right to free political speech.
JBear – is a union a person? Unions use member dues (often contrary to the will of its members) to influence elections. Why can't a corporation? Corporations are recognized as people in a legal sense because ownership of property AND liability can be conferred upon them. If you want to be consistent, you must admit they are entitlted to participate in the expression of free speech liberties.
I really dont want an answer from you – I just wanted to point out your point is incorrect from a legal perspective and this is a legal matter.
Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer. You know, the usual suspects.
I hope Mr. Obama DOES plan a 'forceful response'…whatever he says usually falls short of what's intended and makes him look even more crazy-eyed then he already looks. Hopefully, this trend away from anything the gov't controls is something we'll see for a long time. Corporations, lobbies, PAC's and the politicians themselves will now have to report how much and to whom they give/receieve campaign funds. He promised us transparency, right?
What's going to happen when they control the Internet? And it IS COMING!
If nationalizing is good, lets try this idea out. Setup a tax supported campaign fund that funds all national elections. Candidates are PEGGED at the amount designated to spend out of the fund. Any outside funds will not be allowed and viewed as illegal. Make all expenditures transparent per candidate on a website run by the fund.
All candidates will have equal funding to run
All funding comes from a public single payer source
Outside funding would be strictly forbidden with jail terms to enforce
Totally violates the first amendment but hey if it's good for the goose then it is good for the gander.
Damn the Supreme Court, don't they know this president can overrule their precedent?
(just opining Barry's thoughts)
The decision is not about the definition of a "person." It affirms the right that, as citizens of the US, we have the right to make decisions on our own. Whether or not people take the endorsement of a particular union or corporation and channel that endorsement into their vote is their own right. This decision upholds a citizen's right to choose and their right to make informed decisions based on that right. Government should not be in the business of stifling the free speech of any entity, including unions and corporations.
Face it, all these laws are nonsense and easily gotten around. Only way to limit spending is TIME.
Primaries all same day- first week in September. Conventions both same day- first week in October.
Runoffs mid-September. 48 Hour no advertising period before November elections.
How about incessant political campaigning and endorsements by the NY Times, a corporation which is 7% owned by Mexican magnate Carlos Slim, who also owns nearly 25% of the NY Times debt.
Actually your suggestion is total BS, the U.S. Constitution does not make any exceptions of any kind for the federal government to curb any speech for any reason. Period.
CEO's and corporations have as much right to support and vote based on what is in their best interest as do individuals.
Democrats vote based on the handouts they can get by taking what they have not earned. Business entities do not base their support on what they can steal from your pocket as do the democrats.
One has to ask the question, who is more immoral and if you have a moral barometer where did you get it from?
Bush's biggest mistake was losing his veto pen.
Now repeal Sarbanes Oxley – It costs corporations millions a year to comply
The whole point of incorporation was to make a business liable under the law. A corporation can be taxed like a person. It can be sued like a person. Now the Supreme Court says a corporation is protected under the constitution like a person.
Well, well. Better LATE than never., and I'm grateful for that. Thank you, Supreme Court !
No disrespect intended or directed at the Senator's Navy service, but he was a terrible candidate for our side,believing he was ENTITLED to that position.
He did make an interesting choice with Sarah Palin, though. I know many people who found themselves voting for Senator McCain because of HER.
This is great news!!! In spite of the narrow victory, it IS a victory for free speech. I've always been ashamed of
Sen. McCain's participation in this attempt to stifle free speech, in spite of his good intentions ( to give him the
benefit of the doubt). I have always wished that he was not so eager to "work across the aisle", because it seems
as though that desire overcomes conservative thought that he is supposed to espouse.
The best thing about John McCain is that by running and losing, and allowing Obama to become president, this may have set the stage for the people's rebellion that we are seeing right now.
Doubt that it would have happened with a Republican lite, voted in.
Let me see. Between Scott Brown winning in far left Massachusetts, and now the USSC wiping out his favorite tool for shutting down the opposition, Id bet the commie american hating pig GEORGE SOROS is likely taking tons of alka seltzer or Tums in the last 72 hours. And Kieth the Uberdork looks more stupid by the second, which I thought was impossible even for the Uberdork. Uberdork, I have a suggestion for you. When you name the worse person in the world tonight, maybe you should name the idiot at ESPN who ever had the lack of intelligence to put your fugly mug on TV in the first place.
And would you argue that a union is?
Obama is preparing a "forceful response" ? ? ? What's he going to do…..file an appeal with the 9th Circuit ? ? Maybe he'll demand the Court amend their decision to allow contributions only from White House approved sources.
If the stockholder does not agree with board's decisions then voice at meetings or sell stock.
There's more, too: Unions are corporations, as well.
So why should the SEIU, AFL-CIO, NEA, et al be free to spread lies, while other corporations are prevented from speaking truth to the lie?
Now corporations are free to browbeat politicians that vote against their agenda. Corporations wield the power in our 'democracy'. This is why the individual is under represented. Do they need more power?
Well said. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it's Constitutional. If free health care and lollipops for everyone is so good, then those who support it should be willing to go through the steps of amending the Constitution so that it passes muster. Same with "cash for clunkers'", corporate bailouts, and limits on political speech.
Sure, amending the Constitution is difficult, and it's meant to be so, so that every whim of the electorate doesn't get codified into legal policy. The trouble is, politicians (on both sides of the aisle, but more aggressively by the Democrats) have found it a lot easier to simply have courts do it for them, or to ignore the Constitution altogether in the hopes that the courts won't later overturn them.
It is tough to be a Democrate and always on the wrong side. But fortunately the Republicans are on the right side again — free speach and ending slavery
First Scott Brown…and now this. Not going to lie – it's been a damn good week.
…and you have how much experience flying a jet in combat??? It sounds like you are just another person in this country that excercises a right that you spent zero time earning (the right to free speech). I might not agree with everything a politician does but you have ZERO right to comment on his service to our country.
Yes We Con, YES WE CON! http://www.FATBOY.cc
Only the "good guys" and "legitimate candidates" with the right lobbyists and K Street string-pullers get the campaign money?
The US spends more on potato chips then it does on political spending!! I hate the commercials, but I'll defend your right to air them….
"Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer dissent. "
Anyone surprised the Court's four Marxists dissented?
I'm a Republican, and McCain sickens me. When Obama says a bipartisan response, you can bet he's thinking primarily of Mr. Reach Across the Aisle. NOTE TO MCCAIN: Let the DEMOCRATS reach across the aisle for once!!
IN MEMORY OF MARY JO – http://www.inlibertyandfreedom.com/mjk.htm – NEVER FORGET.
Pat, you're implying that every decision rendered by a corporate board is against the stockholders will. Otherwise explain your statement. Stockholders have the absolute right to deny activity through proxy. By your logic, legislators are acting against the will of the public and we have to relief. While I agree that they do that, our relief is in the ballot box…the same as stockholders.
[...] » Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment. Obama preparing ‘Fo…. Easy AdSenser by Unreal [...]
OMG! Does this mean that corporations can now speak on behalf of their shareholders just as unions have been speaking on behalf of their members?
Money going to non-democratic candidates? Whats next? Reinstting Civics classes in school? Teaching the Constitution? Where will it ever end?
Put these elected leeches and parasites on Social Security and healthcare like the rest of us and make them understand theyir job is to represent the people. If they can't deal with that then they can always get a real job (good luck with their skill set).
Although I see issues with Corporate money in politics… I am more concerned with Union money in politics. As long as Corporations are not allowed to force their employees to contribute to a PAC (like the Union does) then I am not concerned one bit. Keep in mind… the power to elect belongs to the people in the booth AND the corporation's life blood belongs to the pocketbooks of the people. The first amendment trumps the people's desire to not educate themselves about the companies they do business with. My money is not in a bailout bank, my cars aren't from a bailout auto company, I dont have an FHA mortgage, and I don't do business with companies with large Unions.
No, those that are easily led astray through advertising vote the dumbest!
Right! Most often it's people.
Now….if both political parties had any real class they would both agree publicly on the dollar amount from any one company. In that way if either accepts a larger amount they can use that politically against the other.
Free speech isn't money, but money is often free speech.
As for your other ideas, I agree that maybe limiting candidates' reuse of leftover funds bears considering, to limit the terrible advantage incumbents have over any challenger.
However, I can't see limiting donations to only your own representative (senator, etc.) Are peoplaffected by only the decisions their own congressman makes, or has Nancy Pelosi screwed up everyone's lives, far beyond the limits of San Fransisco?
McCain is today's Wrong Way Corrigan, three times renewed: he gave us Obozo who is a now-discredited Democrat Socialist; he gave us Palin who won't be bad for conservatives and for America; and he gave us this abomination of law which has now been thrown in the trash heap and reaffirmed the U.S. Constitution.
Cool, the corporation is like a person, a person who throws millions of dollars at politicians, turns them into puppets and then gets quid pro quo bribes and bailouts in return. Just like me! I have the same equal power! What a huge win for the Republic. Hooray for champions of the Constitution like Frank Ross.
Same stupid story for the left: “IT’S ONLY FREE SPEECH IF WE LIKE IT!!”
The people get screw again. At least the big corporations now can stick to us even more. I am 70 years old and I will not be around for the USA to down the rat hole. This country makes me sick. The republicans keep screaming about the goverment being in charge of health care well look what happened to health care when we they were left along. Look what happened to banking folks when they were left along. The corpor ations new can stick it to us even more. America is a great country as long as your healthy. 1% own 95% of everything. I can not take it any longer. The only justice I will get when kick the bucket.
5-4 decision. Yet another reason to get rid of Obama and his rubber-stamp Senate before they get another shot at SCOTUS.
Sorry Joe.
I don't prance.
As to the upside down flag, you don't have a clue, eh?
Try reading it again, but this time read the whole thing and try thinking a little more about what I'm saying between the lines.
I know they are considered legal entities. But that doesn't make them a real person. Just like bringing a child into the world doesn't make you a "real" parent. There more to it than that.
Corps were given legal rights so that they could protect themselves, have ownership, etc. This does not make them a real person. Real people have different needs and concerns. Corporations are concerned with making money and sometimes their efforts to make money are in direct conflict with what good for the people. This is a problem.
If you're to blind to see the issue, then that's really sad. But you can take comfort in the fact that you aren't alone. For some reason a lot of people have difficultly seeing the conflict. Maybe that because they focus so much on literal definitions that they fail to grasp the complexity and nuances of the issue. If corporations were in fact real people, and not just in a legal sense, then why not let them vote in the election???? That wouldn't make sense would it? Well the reason it doesn't make sense is the same reason why they shouldn't be using their cash to influence the system.
Thats funny……
Obama's campaign spent a record billion dollars last election. And now in typical Obama fashion he sets up his false populism decrying big oil and special interests bla bla bla bla. This from the man who promised to use only public financing during his presidential run (the first of so many broken promises). In practical terms Mcain-Feingold, not only was unconstitutional, it never fulfilled its stated goal to limit money for campaigns.
Agreed. And the opposing views are "Anti-American".
Do you mean like the unions do? Union councils decide which candidates and propositions to back and the members have no say. What's the difference?
why? A board doesn't have to get permission to do day to day business. If you are invested in a company that has a political interest you dont agree with…. sell your stock. The free market will dictate the political interests of a company… that is what the progressive fears. The free market always finds its way to liberty.
Translation of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make NO law in regards to the setting-up of religion (corporation) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; etc.
In other words, the Feds are to have a HANDS-OFF attitude and are prohibited from passsing any laws respecting corporations and/or their activities.
Furthermore, any powers NOT given to the Feds by the individual sovereign States remain with the individual States and with the people….
My flag is properly displayed.
Look up the US Code………….
Traded the '84 Jap Strat metallic blue for a Black Fender MusicMaster bass with aftermarket humbucker added to the neck position and a badass bridge. Now watch the censors misunderstand that is the real name of the bridge.
Strat's G string never stayed in tune and I didn't like the hum from the standard single pole p/u 's. If I get another strat I'l get the alnico reverse polarity pup's and no tremolo bridge. Ya gotta love Fender anyway you look at them though. Telecaster is the sweetest guitar I have ever owned, including the 1970 Martin I sold last summer.
This is a double defeat for liberals. They will have a much more difficult time bringing back the so called "Fairness Doctrine".
so it is a good thing that corps with unlimited $ can spend unlimited resources to support a candidate that will focus on legislation that will be to the benefit of said corps that get them elected—even to the detriment of individual citizens? does that really sound good to you? forget political affiliation for a moment, think about it and answer honestly…
A Corporation is exclusive from government with multiple differences and must not be allowed to guide a Nation.
John F. Kerry will be doing a http://www.LIVESHOT.cc on CNN @ 5:05pm
[...] legislation known as the McCain-Feingold Act that restricted freedom of political speech has been struck down as [...]
Funny how Obama didn't object to unlimited union donations
Getting money out of politics would be a good thing, if it could be done constitutionally. However, preventing corporations from donating while permitting unions to steal dues from members for political contributions is NOT a good thing. Now we have a level playing field, and I would hope that congress can find a way eliminate money as the prerequisite for winning an election, without giving special privileges to one group over another.
does that mean they can get off Jeffrey Feiger's butt?
This was McCain's feeble minded attempt to win over the libs. The operative word is 'feeble'.
So many of the people that post here must be special needs. you people really don't understand anything. Can any of you name the 50 states? Do you think or just react? God help us all.
How does "a single parent living paycheck to paycheck" have anything to lose? They are the ones that vote for welfare, unemployment insurance, 'free' health insurance, etc. In other words, they are the frightened lambs used by the populists to grow a monopolistic and dangerous Washington DC government. We must stop catering to the losers and failures in misguided attacks consisting of envy and class warfare.
Right on………………
Like lobbying doesn't happen already. Come on. There should not be any laws restricting free speech. Period. What about "free" don't you understand? Just curious…
Yeah lets get rid of chucky…………….
so it is a good thing that corps with unlimited $ can spend unlimited resources to support a candidate that will focus on legislation that will be to the benefit of said corps that get them elected—even to the detriment of individual citizens? does that really sound good to you? forget political affiliation for a moment, think about it and answer honestly…
It's only corruption when the other party benefits from it, Right?
It does not really sound good to me. However, allowing unions unlimited contributions does not sound good either. It is time to find a way to take money out of politics constitutionally without giving special privileges to one group over another.
How about the $100 million the unions pumped into the last election.
Then let the stockholders vote out the board at the next election – If you do not like what is happening to your profits, sell your shares or vote them – why do people feel that we have to reduce our freedoms in order to save us from ourselves.
Hooray! The Progressives will never think to use this decision to their own advantage! Hooray!
The unions pour huge amounts into ads and campaigns to support liberals and their liberal causes. Private companies have had their hands tied. This is a great victory.
Sorry to be a party pooper but there is one thing everyone is missing here which never gets talked about……
The bill of rights is for each person INDIVIDUALLY. Meaning our rights as individual beings. Coorporations are not individuals, they are collections of 10's to thousands of people. If there is a seperation of church and state for this reason then why shouldn't there be a seperation of coorporation and state? Also when coorporations are taking part in political campaigns, the voice of each individual American is absolutely meaningless because we then have no power to elect who we choose to elect, the coorporations will elect much like a facist society. Sorry to sound like a lib but I don't trust coorporations and politics.
Go ahead I am ready for the angry responses………
Most of the expensive planes he crashed were not in combat.
Funny, I don't remember it saying in the Declaration of Independence anything about corporations and unions being endowed by their Creator with natural rights.
This is a terrible decision that will turn over political power in this country to the tools of special interests. There will be no more centrist Scott Browns elected who listen to the people, only paid lackeys on both the Left and Right.
My fellow conservatives who are mistakenly embracing this as some sort of freedom of speech issue will come to deeply regret it. The new American politics will resemble nothing so much as the pre-war German Empire, in which power lay with the corporate trusts and the trade unions.
You think we have too many corporate bailouts and union kickbacks now, wait until you see what goes on in your brave new world.
The Lib’s just went crap in their pants. All the capitalistic bad mouthing they’ve done this past year is going to smack them in the mouth …. Love it … VOTE CONSERVATIVE
For ALL of you CLOWNS carping about my upside down flag, read the U. S. Code. Here is an excerpt:
§176. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
For those of you who can read, perhaps it will help put the controversey to bed.
so the Constitution says that people with no money have more right to speak than people with a lot of money?
[...'84 Jap Strat metallic blue...] LOL! That's exactly what my second Strat is. Cool!
My only question is, what took them so long?
Great decision, although I would have preferred McCain/Feingold to have been struck down entirely. Government is not constitutionally authorized to direct or inhibit the flow of cash designated for dissemination of political opinion. We talk about "big money" in politics, but how can any individual challenge the economic advantage of the government, the media, and the incumbents when their are arbitrary restrictions put on us? Freedom is what America is all about, not obedience to a set of rules conceived by self interested politicians. Now we have to get rid of the Kelo decision, and make imminent domain more difficult, reaffirm yet again the right to own and bear arms, keep the government's hands off the internet, abolish the income tax (remember compliance is supposed to be voluntary and being forced to sign a tax form is a violation of the fifth amendment's restrictions on testifying against yourself. Let's go with a flat rate tax, no deductions, actual fairness). We desperately need to pare back the power of this out of control government and return to the one thing that made America the greatest nation — freedom. To the politico's in D.C. — please shut your mouths and listen to the people whom you're supposed to be representing. And respect the constitution. Why did most politically astute citizens know that McCain/Feingold was bad legislation years ago? Because we used common sense and not the sophistry of lawyers trying to turn things upside down and inside out to contrive some kind of control to grab power that didn't belong to them.
You pee-ons who don't have big bucks shut up! And by pee-ons I mean those of you who didn't marry a Budweiser Distribution Heiress after leaving my badly injured previous wife. I'M THE REAL MAVERICK OF THE SENATE!
OK, it's half done. Now if they would get rid of the 90-day pre-election bullsh** (censoring the media) we'll be OK again.
So if you agree with this ruling, and believe that a corporation is a person, then it follows that you are in favor of granting voting rights in our republic's elections to corporations, and to allow them to hold high office?
Actually, JBear, under the law it is. It can sue and be sued in its own name, own assets etc. etc.
Sad. This is sad, but true. We need to deal with the reality of our (lack of) democracy. The Constitution is surely amendable. But now it's too late. The system is gamed.
I am not an Ivy Leaguer elitist, so I do not know the long term impact of this decision. But if Rush likes it and the Progressives hate it, then that all I need to know.
Wow…the Constitution? 1st time I've heard it mentioned from DC sice BHO showed up
It's not Anti-American. It's common sense. Saying a corporation should be protected under the free-speech law is like saying a chimpanzee should have the right to bear arms and vote because it's "considered" intelligent. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just plain ridiculous.
Why does everything have to be reduced to liberal vs conservative; republican vs democrat? This is not an "either or" world or some adult version of a fraternity. People can and should form their own opinions.
Libs think Unions run by Union Bosses are people but Corporations run by Corporate Bosses are not people. Why the double standards libs? You think Unions don't have any $ and can't compete?
Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates.
Very well put Devobrun… I couldn't have said it any better!!!!
I can assure you one is a WISE Latina!
Stop projecting, outsider. Shouldn't betray your own shortcomings that openly
That's silly. A corporation cannot sway elections, as a corporation cannot vote. It is the voters that determine election results.
Vote conservative? Because this will help protect your representation in Washington? Have you forgotten the K-Street scandals of the last Republican administration?
Nicely said…exactly my thoughts. Let's limit the input, money and voice of unions then.
A corporation is simply a group of individuals who form an agreement to act in certain ways as a single person.
The federal government is NOT given the power by the people over this area (check the constitution).
Period. End of story. Game Over. Checkmate. Done. Dusted. Signed. Sealed. Delivered. Finished. Finito.
The mistake lies in allowing our corporations to be treated as citizens. Big gigantic cock-up, monumental boo boo. Politicians are already whores for dollars, with this ruling there will be even less of a connection between the services they’re supposed to provide to their constituents and their voting. As it is now they vote along with their major financial backers wishes, how much more will it pervert the system to remove the speed bumps that were formerly minor obstacles. We are definitely on the road to becoming a fascist state. Privatize the profits while the public bares the risk, you know just like the banks. They get to keep all the money, but when the screw up and become insolvent due to flagrantly stupid risk taking then John Q. Public steps in to bail ‘em out. I think the best and most prudent option is to restrict all donations to congressmen to those who can vote for them. Then poof, all those sleazy highly paid lobbyist evaporate and have to find meaningful employment. And the political action committees, poof, gone. Washington and our country would both be better off without the likes of special interests groups and lobbying arms perverting and maligning our political process. My opinion of course.
What about your employer giving millions of dollars to a candidate? Is that ok? Obviously not everyone there will vote for that candidate, so you still think that's ok?
No angry reply here. Taking money out of the election process would be a wonderful thing. I would rather have seen new restrictions on union donations to level the playing field. Now congress needs to sit down and find a way to either restrict donations constitutionally or change the constitution. I don't have an answer, but something needs to be done. Do you believe that multi-billionaires should be able to buy an election with his own money? Lots to think about.
So unions are not a political interest and yet weld the most power in any election and are given free rein in all elections
Exactly!
steady down….we're just exchanging ideas…to me it simply is not a good idea for those with the most $ to have such loud voices….lobbying is an evil as well….this unlimited ability of corps will drown out any/all opposing ideas, don't you think there is some serious jeopardy to that?
Beyond belief. This is the same "POTUS" that has NOT YET disclosed the sources for more than $600 million dollars in "internet contributions". Since this so called "campaign finance reform" there has been an explosion of fraud and corruption, and it is my view, that BHO would have NEVER been elected without it. The HYPOCRISY AND CORRUPTION CONTINUES, EXAMPLE: BHO COVER-UP in Hawaii DOH.
BREITBART…PLEASE CONSIDER AN EXCLUSIVE ABOUT THE CORRUPT DOH. THANK YOU.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/10/red-flags-...
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/12/his-name-i...
This law was instituted in 1906. They're all dead already.
We're in a brave new corporatocracy. Enjoy!
Its about time! The "Dimwits" are probably livid! Never did think it was fair for the "Big Unions" to pour millions into the dims coffers but "Big oil", "Big bad Corporations", etc.. could not. NOW the playng field is a little better! And guess who the "Dimwits" have been bad mouthing and demonizing since Barrack Hussein Obama took office?….hmmmmm
Mc Cain is a HERO, and his father is a PATRIOT, and you are an IDIOT!!! EHHE
He (Obama) forgot to mention UNIONS….
Throw the Bums Out
http://www.cafepress.com/politicalstckrs
21stcenturyteaparty.wordpress.com/
You're right in that they are fallible. This happens to be an instance where they are 100% correct. Do you listen to everything Walmart tells you? Only an idiot would. The election on Tuesday showed that the public is clearly not as dumb as the elitists in DC assume [and you know what happens when you assume]. Whether or not you think corp's having free speech is a good idea or not is completely and utterly moot concerning the Constitutional limits on Congressional power. They cannot make any law (such as McCain-Feingold, or ANY other) abridging free speech. Bottom line. End of discussion. The first amendment is clear on this. The Federalist Papers are clear on this.
As for Supreme Court Justices, Roe v. Wade is an actual case of them over-reaching their bounds
Absolutely hilarious that the Right, having cried and moaned about judicial activism like little girls all during the Sotomayor confirmation are now willing to stand up and say that it was the Conservative and non-activist position to overrule a 100-year standing tradition for an argument that makes zero sense whatsoever: that corporations must be afforded the same rights as living citizens.
I don't think I've ever seen an event that has proven to me more that Republicans are absolutely empty of any principles or values of any kind save two:
1) Help the rich grow richer at all costs, even by corruption.
2) Oppose anything the Democrats support no matter how reasonable.
Just remember wing-nuts: these are not Ayn Rand's HEROES were talking about here, these are her VILLAINS. They're the one's that went to Washington to make money, because they couldn't do it on their own. These are not John Galt's. These are Wesley Mouch's.
You wanted it, you fought for it for years, you couldn't change the law, so you did EXACTLY what you spent time accusing liberals of doing: an end run around the law with an activist court.
A FORCEFUL RESPONSE!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAAHA!!
It reminds me of Demi Moore in A Few Good Men.
Demi: "We object."
Judge: "Overruled."
Demi: "But we STRONGLY object."
ROFL
I'll never forget when GWB signed McCain/Fiengold: he said: " I don't agree with this but I'll sign it anyway". What a complete idiot. I liked Bush until he signed this law that stripped us of 1st Amendment rights. Those that disagree may want to explore the issue deeper and see how wrong McCain/Fiengold was. The Supreme Court hit a home run for freedom today. I'll bet the liberals and Obama (along with his Communist czars) are very unhappy about this restored freedom.
Why would you "HAVE" to? Vote the donkey IN. At least you know it is a DONKEY. Can you say the same about the McRino?
Great decision! Can't wait to get my Obama Happy Meal and vote in the big election for Palin/Robertson 2012 Brought To You By Carl's Jr!
Let's be very clear on one thing: John McCain is a true American hero for what he did in Vietnam.
He DID have a choice to leave early — when they discovered he was the son of a very high ranking Admiral, the North Vietnamese offered to let him go ahead of all the other POWs in order to demoralize them. John McCain said he would leave only after all the others captured before him were released first (as is US military tradition). The North Vietnamese refused and threatened him that things would go very badly for him if he refused to go. He very heroically refused to leave and things did go very badly for him.
You may not respect him politically, but as a sailor and a pilot, he is an absolute American hero. His sacrifices and presence helped saved other POWs lives at the Hanoi Hilton. God Bless you John Mccain.
Oh, and one more thing — we see how Sotomayor voted, right along with the fascist four, the very ones who believe that they should reach beyond the US Constitution to find precedence in foreign courts. Besides the fact that precedence itself is a spurious substitute for following the constitution — these justices are just looking for ways to do as they please, presumably siting some case in Belgium, Denmark, France, or wherever, theoretically, places where no US Constitution and no bill of rights puts restrictions on the government. In case you haven't noticed, these totalitarians want it all.
Who is John Galt?
A corporation is not a person but, amazingly, is still a taxpayer. I believe a corporation has never paid tax but merely collected it from a person or persons. But legally it still gets taxed like a person.
agreed that union contributions being unlimited is not good either…perhaps that should be adressed as well..this doesnt do that…rather, this merely further drowns out the "citizen"
..the level of celebration to the overturning of this law seems silly as it is a step in the wrong direction.
It's a great day for all Americans when free speech is defended. Corporations are made up of people. I've never seen anything other than a person write an opinion. Well maybe some well trained apes can tell you they want a banana with sign language. But to limit the right of anyone to speak is against the principles of this nation. The people still decide what they are going to believe. All this time organizations like Acorn and others funded by people like George Soros have influenced elections in this country in massive ways. Why exclude one group and not another? Simple. The people who controlled the Supreme Court said you could. But now that's changed and it's exactly the right thing to do. I only wish they had gone further. I was shocked the McCain Feingold wasn't overturned right out of the box. Almost everyone was. Now that wrong has been righted.
Take a look at the other candidates… you have several that are committed to the Constitution. Check out Jim Deakin. McCain wont get pass the primary.
I want free stuff from the campaign trail. I wonder if Rolex wants to sway any votes.
Q: Who ends up with guns when the government outlaws guns?
A: Only those that ignore laws.
Q: How was McCain/Feingold any different?
A: Its not.
Q: BHO+POTUS+NBC=UNKNOWN?
A: $600 million dollars of internet donations without any known source or report of where the money came from.
Wow! You really have a firm grasp of the obvious. What's your point?
The problem is that a corporation is run by only a few who make the decision which candidate to support not by the entire corporation. A corporation can have more money available to a few people than any one person could have. That being said, it is the right decision to overturn considering they were banning free speech by not allowing the movie to be advertised. Corporations should be allowed to advertise whom they believe should be elected, but NO ONE should be allowed to give money to candidates to run their campaign (unless that contribution is made anonymously which is next to impossible).
Hear, hear. Had they done that, along with eliminating mark to market provisions and the capital gains tax and done an internal audit of banks (treating Fannie and Freddie as such) individually, this whole TARP mess could have been avoided.
so it is a good thing that corps with unlimited $ can spend unlimited resources to support a candidate that will focus on legislation that will be to the benefit of said corps that get them elected—even to the detriment of individual citizens? does that really sound good to you? forget political affiliation for a moment, think about it and answer honestly…
I think you forgot the r in your name, Grover.
Really…. So a coorporation with 2,000,000 people in china can marry a US citizen and everyone has dual citizenship? Didin't think so.
McCain-Feingold isn't about reducing corporate influence it is an intrusion on free speech and is intended to keep the Republicrat hegemony in power.
Pat, I'm sorry, but stockholders do have a say. They can vote out the decision makers who make the decisions to contribute. I know, that's hard to do but union members who disapprove of their union's donations are in the same situation.
Volunteering to give almost 6 years for his fellow servicemen as a tortured POW in the horrendous Hanoi Hilton is his humble claim to fame.
Please show some respect and class by respecting others that have served and sacrificed — even if you don't agree with them politically. For example, I may not like Jim Webb, but I respect his Marine service very much. The least we can do is recognize and be appreciative of those who risked their lives for us.
Thank you.
You're right. McCain is a disappointment.
I really appreciate his service to our country and that he's chosen to be a Repub but…he just has a weird side to him that's off-putting. He's angry under the service. He seems to come down on the wrong side of issues, his daughter claims to be the new wave of Republicanism but she's way off on most of the issues and now his wife has gone over to the dark side.
That's why he'll never win the presidency. I voted for him because I would never vote for a radical liberal (BHO).
Corporations know best anyway. Why shouldn't they control politicians? Special interest groups have some of the brightest people advocating for them, so when they extract a bailout from you through the politicians they control, try and show a little respect. You need to know your place.
To George Dolan – If MONEY Ruled that Senate Seat would still be in Kennedy hands today! Thanks god it doesn't rule and we have now broken the democrats filibuster proof majority!
Yep, just like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac spending $$millions lobbying.
The law was unconstitutional from the get go. All who voted for it should be removed from office for failing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are all traitors to this country.
Money does not sway elections. A lack of critical thinking does. There is both big liberal and big conservative money out there.
True freedom is the freedom to decide as individuals whether we buy into a canditate.
Score one for our constitution.
Indeed people do join organizations to amplify their communications to the politicians. They do not however join corporations to do this; corporations are neither persons nor citizens but legal constructs. And the "view" they put forth are solely those of the small cadre of massively self-interested senior managers and board members. The First Amendment is a supremely powerful achievement – to bastardize is in this way is a travesty that does nothing more than guarantee that only those who can afford to be heard will be. It will be too late for far too many Americans when they finally realize that corporations do NOT support free speech, they suppor their own right to purchase (with tax deductible funds) political leverage, political access, and at one remove, political power.
Andy in Victoria
Federal standing specifically related to political question doctrine issues, thus far, have not yielded to various legal theories, further substantiating serious need for the correct legal path involving BHO+POTUS+NBC=UNKNOWN. The DC District Court under the DC quo warranto statute is the correct and most expedition legal path. Nowhere in U.S. history is Natural Born Citizen defined that allows a person with any form of divided loyalty to be POTUS. US History, as well as US Code is unambiguous involving Natural Born Citizen, to insinuate other, is to perpetuate dangerous propaganda founded in an insidious desire to out maneuver and manipulate tax paying legal US citizens. Those in the White House, Senate, Congress, lower Courts, Press, and the MSM have perpetuated FRAUD.
References:
-1758 Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” –The Framers relied on many of the principles to write the Constitution
-1787-1788-The Federalist Papers, including Justice John Jay’s letter to George Washington
-Article II, Section I, United States Constitution
-The Naturalization Act of 1790-repeal of “Natural Born” from the 1790 Act in 1795
-The Framers of the 14th Amendment-(citizenship granted, not Natural Born Citizenship); Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Lyman Trumball define Natural Born Citizen
-Congressional Hearing on Dual Citizenship, 2005, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” discussion.
FACT: SARAH PALIN, AS THE GOP VP CANDIDATE IN THE 2009 ELECTION WITH 50M+ VOTES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH US CODE, HAS UNIQUE LEGAL STANDING BEFORE US FEDERAL COURTS TO CAUSE LEGAL DISCOVERY FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF BHO+POTUS+NATURAL BORN CITIZEN=UNKNOWN. NET: SARAH CAN TAKE ACTION THAT CAN CAUSE THE NATURAL BORN ISSUE TO COME FULL CIRCLE. Any USURPER POTUS IS BY ITS VERY NATURE FASCIST AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE US CONSTITUTION. The Supreme Court is not able to do anything until there is a ruling in the lower federal courts.
Where is Sarah Palin? Oh that's right, my bad, she has moved on, she got a better gig than just being the Gov of Alaska; working for those Saudi owners at FOX.
Amen. One of the indicators I use to help me make up my mind on an issue (in those rare times when I am not sure) is to look at the other side. If Schumer and BHO don't like it, it's a GREAT decision!
Sorry JBear, according to law and decades of precedent, a corporation is considered a legal (or juristic) person and is entitled to all legal powers and rights as provided in the Constitution.
And where do you think the thuggish union bosses get their funding to promote their agenda? The unions are so bloated with union member dues so they can vote in left-wing socialists — always the Democratic party–keeping them in power even though many of our teachers do not agree with union policies, they have no say in who the unions support. I'd take CEOs over union thugs –SEIU, teachers unions etc any day.
The Supreme Court may have just saved the free enterprise system.
The Marxists in Washington have taken over more companies this year than at anytime in our history.
This ruling gives the businesses in our country a chance to help remove the Progressive Socialists from office and restore the country to the greatness it once had.
How the hell do you think Obummer got all his donations from the Middle East. ????
"We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."
What the heck is the Big "O" talking about? Does he plan a huge protest march led by ACORN community activists onto the steps of the supreme court? Is he saying that he will now speak truth to power? Sounds to me like poor wittle Barry got his feewings hurt by the Supreme court…..waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
A Corporation is a legal entity and is taxed. An Individual is a legal entity and is taxed. Both have Freedom of Speech.
This all started years ago when Senator McCain was caught taking money from a Corporation.
So to save face and his career, he immediately "preached" against such a practice. Thus McCain/Fiengold Bill became.
Comrad…here on Obama's Animal Farm, everyone is equal….Only some(dems) are more equal then others…
You're clueless. Ultra right wingers would believe the best solution is the free market, i.e. no money should go to failing companies. Let em fail! A lot of wall street and multinational corps are in bed with the demoncrats.
Sell your stock if you don't like it. Stop watching movies with actors you don't support. Don't eat ice cream if the proceeds go to fund organizations you don't like. You made exactly the opposite point you intended to make. Board members are beholden to their shareholders; and the shareholders have the option to make the corporation worthless by selling their shares.
[...] via » Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment. Obama preparing ‘F…. [...]
Does this mean that the attempted reserection of the Fairness Doctrine by Obama and his Lieutenants Pelosi and Reid won't pass the smell test.
pat, would you say it's wrong for congress to make laws that you and i don't necessarily agree with as individuals, or is congress representing the masses like the board of directors represents the shareholders? to me it's the exact same thing.
"…he just has a weird side to him that's off-putting"
Do you reckon that just might come from being kept in a cage for five years?
That being noted, I did vote for him. Why?
What was the alternative?
Only dimwitted voters vote based on campaign ads. This can only benefit those coporations that support Democrats.
I have lived here for twenty years and have seen McCain squeak by (remember the KEATING 5?) numerous times. I will not vote for McCain in the primary elections. I do predict that I will have to in the general. While AZ is considered a Red State, remember, we also voted Janet Reno in az Gov. not once but TWICE! You cannot underestimate the strong political backing that McCain has undeservedly enjoyed for years. WWAAAYYY too many people in AZ forget that a good fighter pilot/hero does not automatically equate to a good general. I am not a fatalist. I am a realist.
He did not volunteer.
He was a prisoner.
What part of that don't you savvy?
Still buying the entitlement bit, eh?
Freedom of speech requires "no" Congressional or IRS oversight. I'm an atheist but it's time to overthrow the IRS rules on what political language religious groups may employ. The IRS is America's # 1 terrorist group — why on earth are they allowed to censor "anybody" — religious or not?!
You mean like the heathcare bill and the nationalzation of the auto industry etc.
A Corporation is taxed like a person or even more so- not giving corporations freedom of speech and opinions is taxation without representation…. didn't we fight against that???
well put. agree 100%
I would only hope that what applies to Democrats also applies to Republicans…just because a Republican won in Massachusetts, please don't apply this win with other states, because the equation goes like this what happens on side will happen on the other…theorem, for those who took math in class…
Now Obama will have to think twice about going after the big companies. They can now "bite" back.
OOORAH!
J Bear, You are very unknowledgeabe about what corporations are. You might be surprised that a corporation is begun and run by….PEOPLE! If not for people, corporations would not be able to stay in business even for one day! Be careful that you don't carry false assumptions very common to the liberal "mind", which is that "businesses are inanimate, evil entities that are inherently evil."
The majority of jobs that keep people fed, clothed, entertained, and sheltered are provided by…. corporations! Spread this news to your friends.
Burning the flag (unless for disposal) is disrespectful. Standing on it is disrespectful. Leaving it out at night un-illuminated is disrespectful.
Displaying it inverted is a sign of distress.
Have an ounce of KNOWLEDGE.
Finally, George Soros and the Union Monopoly on big money political ads can be partially offset.
Of course it is still up to the PEOPLE to think for themselves and vote. Can we do that?
Well maybe lots of BIG MONEY does sway elections! Think about what is about to happen to Dems and RINOs this coming Noveber for all the Money they have spent and the $2,000,000,000,000 more they want to spend (see story on Dems wanting to raise US Grandchildren's Debt limit story).
I do not object to limits on corporate spending for political advertising.
The legal fiction that is a corporation is not people, as others have written. It is a legal structure set up for the purpose of acting as an agent for owners (shareholders)and to protect their personal assets in the event of failure.
A corporation only exists on paper!! As such, it is simply a clearing house for money.
If you think a company involvement in politics is done of the basis of the employees beliefs, guess way again. The corporate investment is politics is simply a way of protecting or enhancing corporate earnings. If you don’t believe this, consider how often a company ends up on the other side of an issue from its own blue collar workers (especially if they are union labor).
Unfortunately, the average citizen does not understand this legal fiction, which is why a politician can always make points by taxing corporations, instead of individuals. Most folks don’t realize they will end up paying the tax through increased product prices, smaller pay increases, etc.
Letting the corporations spend all they want to on political ads is insane. This decision just allows them to circumvent laws on campaign donations. What do candidates do with a lot of their donations? Why, they buy advertising.
If a corporation can now spend all they want on political advertising it is really just another way of backing their candidate to the hilt without consideration to donation limits.
What amazes me is that Obama is upset by the decision , and that Satamayor dissented.
J Bear, You are very unknowledgeabe about what corporations are. You might be surprised that a corporation is begun and run by….PEOPLE! If not for people, corporations would not be able to stay in business even for one day! Be careful that you don't carry false assumptions very common to the liberal "mind", which is that "businesses are inanimate, evil entities that are inherently evil."
I don't follow your logic. A corporation is created in large part to shield the owners from liability and to spread financial risk across a number of people. A corporation is taxed, but not in the same way an individual is taxed — the effective corporate tax rate is much lower than that of an equivalent wealthy person. Freedom of speech is fine. Bribing office holders and spreading propaganda is not, which will be the end result of this.
A large part of conservatism is not allowing one faction or interest to gain too much power in the political process. As Lord Acton said "absolute power corrupts absolutely." This ruling will allow a narrow segment inordinate power in our politics. It is not conservative but the opposite.
In the traditional, conservative, definition of speech a mouth is needed to say something or perhaps a pen to write something. Where is the corporation's mouth and where is its pen? You are a radical.
Did Greek democracy or the Roman republic allow non-breathing legal entities the rights of citizens? Tell me.
[...] 3 ultraliberals on the SCOTUS, Sotomayer voted against the first amendment. They lost anyway. http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/…1st-amendment/ Reply With Quote + Reply to Thread « Previous Thread | [...]
Actually, Obama wants Cass Sunstein on the Supreme Court. That's right – the global socialist who recommends that governments should restrict expression of ideas they don't like by TAXING unwelcome speech "financially or otherwise." I can't imagine how you levy a nonfinancial tax on free speech.
Still ticked that four socialist voted to take your rights away.
Obama is going to act like he doesn't approve, but reality is, (unlike his campaign promise of no interest groups at the whitehouse) he has let in lots of special interests in his white house. That's truth….and he lied, just like he will lie to you if he says anything against this decision.
Sure wished people would have read his book. Maybe you would then understand what he IS trying to do.
Why should they not be allowed to vote if according to your logic they are persons with the right of free speech? and why shouldn't they hold office?
Can a corporation bear arms?
Yes.
The whole point of a free market is for people and business to largely run things. This is another move away from an all-powerful government and putting the power back in the hands of the people. Now the MSM can be counteredk and we might just be able to get the truth out again.
This is a great win for freedom that will have a great effect on the mid-term elections.
It is VERY good… but this "Feds prepare to give 200,000 Haitian illegal immigrants 'protected status'…" is VERY bad… relations? none, but discussion very abvious that court had a good decision, and we have to worry about OTHER important things rather than good things that are happening… Now companies have the RIGHT to get even with Husein Obama.
Reasonable question, but I believe that foreign-owned corporation have to register in order to contribute, and their contributions can be tracked. Of course, if its a 51% US owned, then the foreign influence could still be present, but not tracked. On the other hand, the current system, under MF, saw tremendous amounts of money being funnelled through various agents into the campaigns of Bill, Hillary, and Obama. Even if MF was intended to limit foreign influence, it obviously failed miserably. In fact, it may have even stifled American speech more then foreign influence. While your question is reasonable, the overall effects of MF are reason for it to die ASAP
America wins another one
it has been a great week for America and a bad week for obozo
If every politician who voted for something that is unconstitutional than Presbo would have to be removed, as well as all of the Dem's that have bought votes in backroom deals for the health care. As well as anyone who supported Government takeover of the auto industry. The constitution does not provide for government to bail out (purchase) any private sector company.
I believe in the conservative principle that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Our founders saw that one of the main threats to our republic was the accumulation of too much power by a faction or interest or person. This ruling will allow for just such an accumulation of power and will thus distort our democracy.
No I don't believe Unions be allowed to vote, but then again I am arguing the conservative position that corporations are not people. You should be asking yourself that question.
Although a corporation is not a person the fundamental approach of the supreme court is that corporations are people.
While Senator McCain is no doubt an honorable man, he doesn’t have the right stuff to represent what is good for the country. I hope that he is voted out to a retirement that he enjoys. It is time that we start electing politicians that believe the constitution should be upheld as is stated in their oath of office.
The ones with the most money have ALWAYS had the best chance of winning. Ready your history. I'll tell you what's eroding the constitution… Congress! If you truly believe in our once great nation, the only way to get back to it is to make government smaller and less intrusive. I'll have to check it out, but I wouldn't be surprised if 'person' status was linked to corporate taxation …(you've given me something to think about – thanks.)
Corporations don't buy TV ads bashing candidates. They simply find a way for their money to "find" it's way into a politicians pocket. Of course McCain-Fiengold didn't limit this, because it was illeagal already, just not enforced for obvious reasons. This law was written almost exclusively to limit the free speech of organizations like the Tea Party movement, Minutemen, People for the American way, and other citizen advocacy groups. Those that play fair and legally, those that have a message driven by their beliefs and not pure greed. It's like the stupid notion that gun control will limit gun violence. The criminals will get their guns. The honest citizen will lose his. And the wolves will roam freely. Just look at what President Odum@ss did with health care. The Drug companies got thier pound of flesh, and so did the insurance companies, as well as the Unions, and a few slimy Senators. McCain-Fiengold didn't limit that corruption did it? The People limit campaign corruption. Like those folks did in Mass. 2 nights ago.
Up next, (hopefully) the constitutionality of employee unions in government where the union demonstrates loyalty to one political party's philosophy while voters have elected political leaders for its opposing philosophy causing the wishes of the majority to be neutralized and/or compromised.
Corporations, unions, etc. are groups of people. Why should the constitution treat individual people differently than groups of people. Besides, the constitution was focused on protecting the people by limiting the ability of government to impose its will on the people, collective or individual.
The notion that more money will help the special interests is by no means assured. Currently, the special interests spend money through backdoor means and lobbying that we the people are usually unaware of. This supreme court ruling will likely bring those special interests into the open and may enhance democracy by creating public debate.
More political speech is only a problem if you believe the voters are stupid and unable to discern the truth about competing claims.
According to Mussolini, Fascism is the merging of state- and corporate power.
He would be well pleased
Neither do they don't understand Constitutional law….and these people vote! No wonder we're in such a sad state.
The person that speaks the loudest is the one not afraid to use their guns. Money talks, but guns kill. People who have nothing to lose are much more likely to use their guns. All it takes is someone to organize them. Our country is becoming a breeding ground for just such an event. The rich would be wise to take their investments from wall street and start investing in guns.
Very good question from sailorboy. IS a paid political ad a contribution? Maybe it doesn't even mention a candidates name…but addresses an issue? I think any foreign owned corporation should be forced to disclose ownership structure in a political ad…is this the case?
This decision also does not bode well for getting the Fairness Doctrine reinstituted. This decision will jump up and bite Obama and the liberals in the butt if they try to shut down Limbaugh, Hannity, FoxNews, Breitbart or anyone else who talks about the ills of Marxism and socialism.
Who is anybody to tell me how much I can give to anyone I want?
Why do you guys think THE GOVT is the only entity to be allowed to redistribute money???
GET OFF MY BACK!!!!
Mc-Cain -Feingold WAS NOT WORKING!
This is a real blow to the Libs, they need to sensor,talk radio and Fox news, say what you want but the reality is RATINGS- Fox and Rush have them and now we the American people will continue to listen to who we want when we want and not what we are told to by BIG O-govt.
The thing is, life is not fair. It just isn't. Never has been. The only thing that seems fair to me is for everyone to have access to the same rights. That's what this crazy country is supposed to be about.
YES.
You don't like it., work elsewhere (before the Obama admin decides where you will work or kills MORE jobs!)
Thank you!
My thoughts exactly. Sometimes, there are some real stupid "new faces" who show up here. I wonder how they can turn a computer on, let alone find a polling place………….
I agree, Who is John Gault?
Gover,
1) As a voter, sometimes Republican voter, I value freedom. I believe every law, good or bad, reduces my freedom.
2) Characterizing people you disagree with as little girls moaning and crying or wing-nuts berates your argument.
3) Perhaps you can help me by showing where (documented) this 100-year tradition began. Thanks
So, correct me if I’m wrong, but under this law it would be ENTIRELY LEGAL for Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist to buy a US corporation then use it as a LEGAL FRONT to buy as much ad time as they wanted to influence our elections?
I agree who is John Gault?
Does that hold for unions also?
So corporations are the subject of concern here, but unions aren't?! What about Obama dolling out union paybacks for votes using your tax payer money! How about that corruption?!!!
Don't know how the White House will be able to forcefully respond when Big Labor, i.e. the AFL-CIO supports this decision.
And "Hillary:The Movie" was someone ELSE's free speech. Why the double-standard?
The only limits on campaign donations should be location. For a senate race donations should be restricted to the state in which the candidates are running. If the race is for a senator from Idaho then only donations from Idaho are permitted. The same for house race. The only money allowed is money from the particular house district. A senator from Idaho represents the citizens of Idaho not from any other state. Money from other states only makes the potential senator beholden to others rather than the citizens of his state. The same for a house member. Money from outside the congressional district only buys influence. As to the amount of money given no restriction.
You mean, the same way we should check the "foreign" membership of Big Labor, a good percentage of which, as SEIU Capo di Capi Andy Stern has admitted, includes legions of illegal aliens? Statists have mastered the art of hypocrisy. $100 million+ in union contributions to Dear Leader and Democrat candidates in the 2008 election cycle, but Hillary sues to stop one corporate entity from running a negative ad about her. Now Chucky Schumer wants hearings on what he calls the SCOTUS' "un-American" decision, and Dear Leader himself is threatening a bi-partisan "forceful response".Good luck with that, buddy. That's why we have our system of checks & balances – to quash such tyranny emanating from the Oval Office and Capitol Hill.
Sounds to me like you are the one keeping this going. Continual bashing of someone shows an incapacity to move on. You don't like him. We don't care. You have the right to free speech, but not a right to be heard. Go away, and take your negative attitude with you.
The fact is that law does not care about facts, only law. It is simply a question if the amendment was violated. Whether it was [as it appears to be to my non jurist eyes]or not I think the much deeper significance of this whole thing is that democrats and all people need to realize that they are not above rather subject to, the law.
Right on.
Nice to have you on Breitbart, Janet Napolitano!
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 [Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority]. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
Gotta love the application of common sense!
Now that that's done, lets get Wash. DC, Philadelphia, California, Illinois, and all the other gun banners to recognize the 2nd Amendment.
Is Palin going to reconsider going on the campaign road again with the RINO McCain? Or is she just doing it because she has a 'debt to pay' to Mr. McCain?……and if she will comprimise for McCain because of a debt, what will she do in the future for the same????
Palin…..walk away from McCain and support a real Conservative in Arizona.
Why, in your opinion, are the people on the the board and the CEO not people. I am a stock holder and if the company does something I disagree with I sell the stock. I do not owe Starbucks because I don't like their politics. We need our freedoms back. Acron is certainly approved for speaking why is it okay to ban people who are sucessful.
Jan
Mr. BrokeHisPromisesAboutCampaignFinancingAndOutspentHisOpponentFourToOneToWin should stop digging himself into a deeper hole.
Dang! I'm logging on to Nat'l Rifle Assoc. website right now to make a several-hundred dollar donation! Then I'm gonna find a nice anti-warmest group to donate to. Any suggestions?
Yeah…that's a good way to think about it. Keep moving right on down the line (of Amendments), and undo any OTHER undo restrictions, prohibitions, etc.
It seems like it's the libs who are gnashing their teeth against our freedoms. If they are so worried about this, then someone explain to me why the Martha (or is it Marcia?) Coakley was at a fund raiser in DC recently heavily attended by "Big Health' insurance reps? They don't seem to mind taking their money if it appears to be in their favor. We the People have won out again. There should have never been the need to fight the battle. Bring on the next one. We're ready.
Are you serious?
Do you NOT KNOW how much money the Chinese government has been pumping into the Clinton campaign since the 90's?
Do you NOT KNOW that many American companies have foreign stockholders, who are essentially (through board reps who are elected by stakeholders) contributinbg to campaigns?
I believe a lot of people are having a hard time with Cowboy Logic because he is dismissing McCain's service. Just because he was a POW does not mean he did not choose that. The fact that he chose to serve means you choose all the possibilities that come with it. (Injuries, POW, death…) So it is very disrespectful to downplay his or anyones sevice. Did he choose to be a POW? Yes!!! When he joined the military. And I thank him for it. Does it mean he deserves to be president. No, but that is a seperate discussion.
[...] » Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment. Obama preparing ‘F…. This entry was posted on Thursday, January 21st, 2010 at 1:09 pm and is filed under Dems [...]
Why not……Unions are corps and they sure as heck do!
Not until they restore all the power and wealth that's up for sale each election. Elections are nothing more than advance auction sales of rights and power.
There is a legitimate gripe that so much can be bought via electioneering / lobbyists, etc. But the problem is not speech, it's that all that is consolidated and up for grabs. Return it to whom it belongs: the individual; and protect them from theft by the government and whoever runs it, oligarchs, corporatists, welfarists, warmongers, whoever. Power to the people, not to government, not to the Ds or the Rs.
Political ads must disclose who paid for them, yes.
try any of these :http://www.votesmart.org/sponsorship.php?can_id=5...
well, look at who appointed them.
Indeed corporations are run by people- also known as voters. Barry talks about going after big oil, big banks, big insurance as if he is not going after millions of Americans when he does so. If unions can exercise political speech so can private companies. Good call from the Supremes– too bad it took so long
(Part 1) I'm afraid I part ways with my conservative brethren on this one. The old precendent that gives the "corporation" the legal status of an "individual" is being abused in this instance. The simple fact that corporations have the resources to contribute much larger sums of money than common voters gives the corp. a "louder" voice and much greater influence on the creation of policy than an "individual" voter. The effect of this is that boatloads of cash are used to buy influence on legislation that benefits the interests of the corp. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing per se, however the opportunity for corruption is amplified and encouraged by this ruling. Let's face it, and be honest. Money runs the system to a much larger extent than our founders intended–and much of it, while technically legal, is corrupt in it's influence. A more "republican" (small "r," in the traditional sense) solution, would be to set a limit on what any individual can donate to any candidate.(Cont.)
(Part2) That way, lobbying efforts would be based on the merit of the idea being lobbied, and the will of the taxPAYER, than on the amount of money exchanged for votes. And let's be clear about this fact, the major flaw in our otherwise excellent republican democracy, is that an otherwise admirable "principle" of free speech has been manipulated to allow any "individual" (read as corporation or union by current law) to purchase policy. And the winner is the one with the most cash. This is how the corrupt labor unions have been able to get their expensive and destructive policies passed–they use members money, often without their consent–to buy policy. I know the courts have good intentions, but the door has been left open here, to disrupt the checks and balances that the founders intended, and to reduce the influence of the taxPAYER on policy.
So, it is okay for unions, with money forcefully extracted from its members pay, to support whatever candidate the union leaders support but the corporation (shareholders, board, employees) not to be able to support a candidate?Isn't the First Amendment designed to protect free speech and allow all voices to be heard? What union asks its rank and file members opinions? From what I see it is even more dispicable behavior for unions to pay for political speech. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Can you on the flip-side name ONE piece of legislation that Mr. Feingold has EVER been involved in? He's been in the Senate as long as Favre has been playing football….so tell me, what Russ' his claim to fame?
If the Obama broken machine is against it I am certainly for it. Corporations are merely a collection of people with common interests, business or otherwise. Being anti-corporation is no different than being anti-capitalism or anti-business. This is a very good and timely decision. It's getting very, very hard to be a Democrat, which is nice….
Obama is not only a rabid liar he is a domestic threat. He along with the democratic congress is responsible for the destruction of the economy. The Supreme court ruling will help balance the democrates and their thugs from stealing future elections. Obama is trying to kill free enterprise. He is doing everything he can to kill the economy. The national chamber of commerce details how the us government is killing the recovery.
Just saw MSNBC's coverage of this story. Because of the reversal, the unions now are free to donate as much money as they want. MSNBC, the unions (backers of progressive, liberal, democrats) were always allowed to donate what they wanted, McCain-Feingold was intended to stifle corporate America's (backers of the more conservative candidates) influence on elections. This is part of the reason Johnny McCain is in so much trouble in Arizona polls right now. Hopefully Wisconsin does the right thing as well when Rusty comes up for re-election and vote him into a new job, lobbyist.
McCain Feingold was a joke anyway!
Obama found a way to get around it when he ran for office.
Do you REALLY believe the millions that poured into his coffers the last week before elections came from “individual citizens” of this country?
He was beholden to special interest groups, lobbyists and unions from day ONE.
Look at the special exemption he made for the SIEU on healthcare reform! I think THAT was the final nail in the coffin which helped Brown to win the seat in Mass.
Remember our idiot president Bush signed this although he was against it before he signed it. He counted on the Supreme Court to reject it. They didn't initially. Alito's replacing O'Connor after the initial disastrous nomination of that other woman whose name escapes me made this possible. The two women (these specific women, I mean) would likely have upheld this thing.
An example of the bought and paid for political power of the unions is the Eighty Billion Dollar healthcare Tax Break they extorted out of the spineless dummycrats healthcare/tax bill. Guess what… we NOTICED!
Only a right-wing rag like Breitbart would equate increasing corporate personhood with First Amendment rights. The Bill of Rights is for human beings, not for corporations. It's a sad day for America, not that we haven't been having our share lately.
Funny that McPain signed on to a law that tells the ordinary citizens to shut up, but allows the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, NBC, MSLSD et. al. to spew their slanted bile up to the last minute of an election day. John McCain needs to go home NOW. He's done.
So. President Obeyme is preparing a "forceful response" to the First Amendment? When does he begin preparing forceful responses to the rest of the Constitution? Oh, wait. I forgot. He started that process while being taught by his great communist mentor, William Ayers. Silly me. As Emily Latella used to say, "Never mind!".
Isn't that what the teacher's unions do? Push for "smaller class sizes, more money" etc. that directly benefits them? More teachers, more union members. Isn't that what AARP is doing while it promotes Obama's health care "reform?" After all, they sell Medicare supplemental insurance that will go through the roof if it passes. Isn't it what the AFL-CIO, etc. do when they push for legislation to make union membership easier to push or even mandatory?
You just hate the idea that the "wrong" rich people might get what they want.
By the way….George Soros funds Democrat 527s and other PACS to the tune of tens of millions. Since he's just ONE person and not a "Big Corporation," is that OK? George Soros, "individual citizen," can blow a hundred million, but Haliburton shouldn't be allowed to spend any?
Corporations can only sway an election if the candidate is of such a soiled moral character that he can be swayed by bribery – or his/her own incompetency. In addition, a corporation cannot exist apart from "persons" – or without the governing influence of "persons." This is not fiction – it is fact.
I would also suggest that your "conservatism" is really not all that staunch.
I totally agree. It's a sad day for the Constitution. These fools have forgotten that Thomas Jefferson, who WROTE the Constitution, repeatedly spoke out against corporate personhood.
Good point, but that is a matter for corporate governance and state law to address. It is not relevant for conducting U.S. Constitutional analysis.
that's disrespectful to Navy cooks (MS).
Bush made a huge mistake when he signed this unconstitutional piece of crap counting on the court to stop to strike it down. Since he signed it, the justice department ended up defending something that the President himself thought was a violation of our rights. Trying to keep solidarity with the McCain end of the party wasn't worth it in my opinion. I haven't read the decision, but wouldn't be surprised if the restrictions on MY FREEDOM to contribute is still restricted while coorporations have had their rights upheld. Lewis Carroll would be right at home in constituional law for the last 50 years. up is down, left is right, last is first,
The people within the corporation have a right to voice their opinions… newspapers, many internet sites, tv stations are all owned by corporations, why can GE/NBC spend millions on promoting liberals, but some other company can't spend millions promoting conservatives?
As soon as you introduce legislation limiting political speech, it is immediately biased and will be used to silence voices in opposition to the lawmakers.
should have said "GE/NBC News"
30 days or one minute before an election there should no restrictions on American citizens speaking their minds over TV, radio, or any soap box. They should be able to form their own well- financed corporations and pay for their time over the media. It is a foolish dangerous thing to restrict freedom of speach because big business may have a point of view. Also, there are no restrictions on big labor unions freedom of speech 30 days before an election.
No "staunch conservative" would be "sickened by this decision" because "corporations should have no ability to sway elections." Conservatives believe in the Constitution. If you really think corporations shouldn't be able to use money to "sway elections," then you would support AMENDING the Constitution, not having the courts make law in your favor or having Congress pass unconstitutional laws in your favor.
A real conservative supports the Constitution and its proper application, and not only when it's convenient. People who hate court decisions that properly apply the Constitution because it is against their personal opinions or desires are called liberals.
Learn your role, then shut your hole.
NO SURPRISE THAT THAT WISE LATINA BIGOT SOTOMAYOR WAS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF JUSTICE, ONCE AGAIN.
Addendum to Parts 1 and 2
You see, everyone is happy with this decision when a company or group you like (like the NRA, or a company you own stock in…) buys policy that's beneficial. But boy are you pissed off when the labor unions and ACORN use money to buy policy. It's the same interpretation that allows both. I would rather decrease the possibilty of corrupt purchase of legislation and let the strength of ideas decide policy. For example: Gun rights are good, and profitable corporations are also good for the people–so these policies, on an even playing field will prevail. The aims of ACORN and the corrupt unions are bad and therefore with equal money to spend would also be judged by merits. The will of the producing taxPAYER will then win out, and I trust the free-thinking, hard working, taxPAYING producers to make the correct decisions regarding legislation. Much more than I trust Andy Stern or the head of ACORN!
It's the misinformed ignorant types who would jump on you without knowing what they are speaking about, that voted for an empty suit who is now running the country into the ground. I see the fact that socialists are raping our country as a very good reason to place the flag upside down. They are also ignorant of the fact that we are in the first stages of civil war if not outright revolution. Let's just hope this one goes without having to fire a shot.
It's clearly corrupt when both parties supported bailout.
Corporations are just a collection of stockholders. Stockholders are people (yes they could be investment companies which in themselves could be corporations or LLC or whatever but they are just groups of people as well).
A corporation voicing a political opinion is no different then a group of people doing the same.
Any group of people has just as much of a right to free speech as an individual or are you saying that because a person is part of a group then they have no right to free speech or because they belong to a specific type of group they have no free speech rights? Who decides which groups have free speech rights and which groups do not? The politicians? This is what McCain-Feingold did. It placed the power to regulate free speech in the hands of those who are the very target of free speech and allowed thenm to silence those who would oppose their views.
This was long overdue.
if you did serve, you protected his right to say anything he wants. I was a Disbursing Clerk in the Navy. That's all I did. I didn't fly or bomb, but I pay taxes. Facts are facts about McCain. He destroyed several aircraft due to his unprofessionalism. I believe he once ignored an elevation requirement while flying around ROTA, Spain and clipped high tension wires. Resulting in a severly damaged aircraft and power lines.
It sounds great until the CEO of Wal-Mart starts buying candidates. Unless you can raise enough money to get your ideas/views out there, no one will ever hear you. Wal-Mart buys prime time TV ads, not 3am public service slots. Major corporations own polititcs and lobby for legislation that is favorable to them, which may or may not have your best interest at heart. The best part is, you give up your freedom under the guise of protecting freedom. Doesn't anyone study history anymore? Isn't this why we had a revolutionary war?
I have not read all of the posts but if someone has discussed my following concern, then I apologize. In the last election Mr. Obama had so much money to spend that he evern paid off part of Hillary's campaign expenses. And he also had a million dollar party after his glorious victory. I guess getting ten million dollars (five bucks at a time ) from every convict and low life on this planet is OK, but getting that amount of money from a corporation is not?
Everyone has a right to be heard. it is part of the first amendment. If YOU don't like it piss off.
Corporations are buying candidates and elections. Corporations funnel money to those who stick to their agendas. This is what happen during Bush years, when corporations run amok, causing the great recession of 2008. If they want to be considered as "legal persons" they should abide by the same laws we (average joe). As the corporations then we are entitled to bailouts and "corporate socialism".
When we talk corporation we talk about oil, energy, food, health insurance, pharma, military industrial. Those corporations should be prohibited to contribute to any political party or PAC, because this will amount to legalize bribery.
Any person aspiring ot a political office should be elected BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.
Another victory!!!
How does Obama who didn't abide by his promise to take public money because the system is broken and then outraise his opponent by 600 million dollars say this now opens the door for special interests???? He was going to give the unions a pass on benefit taxes. The SEIU boss has been to the white house more than any other private citizen. Forceful response? Give it a rest you lost your majority because people are sick of you and your views already.
For all the folks upset about corporations, here's what we need to do. First, we need to stop all subsidies to corporations; they're nothing but welfare for businesses. Second, we need radically weaken the authority of politicians and the federal government as a whole.
When a government amasses so much power that it has its nose in every corner of our society, that is the only time that lobbyists and political contributions and well-funded political speech become problematic. If you want lobbyists/corporations/unions to have less influence on our government, you must first make our government have less of an influence on all of our lives.
[...] corpse of McShame. Thank you American JesusTm, I never stopped believing in your diving wisdom. Supreme court opens hunting season on McCain [...]
Pat, is that any different than when my union, uses my dues, against my wishes, to run ads and support candidates and issues that I do not support or believe in? And yet, under the old way, they did it all the time. And by the way, they still do and will in the future.
great point.
Do you really believe that Wal-Mart polls it's employees then takes a politcal stance based on those views….? Corporations support whatever makes them the most money, end of story. Your great victory just cost you your voice in politics. Maybe you should stop in and your local Wal-Mart and see if they have a format for you to express your political views at so that they can take them to the right candidate? Good luck with that
Corporations are owned by shareholders. Last time I checked shareholders are people
A corporation is a group of people!
If unions can throw money around to influence elections, so should there be an opportunity for others to do the same. Either we ALL have 1st Amendment protection or NONE of us do.
A corporation is treated as a person in this country. That is why corporations are allowed to be taxed, because they are treated as individuals to give the government an opportunity to tax them. Whether you agree with if it is right or not for them to be treated this way, they are. And therefore, they should wholly be individuals and be allowed to give to campaigns. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't have the obligation to be treated as individuals by the IRS.
Right on. Deal with it.
You can money is free speech, but a line should be drawn, otherwise we may as well legalize bribing.
Term Limits (1 term maybe 6 yrs) will take care of 73% of our political problems.
"The notion that more money will help the special interests is by no means assured."
It's pretty assured when both D and R supported the bailout.
Not true.
You may have the right to say it, but no one has to listen.
Let us hope that the Supreme Court shows the same wisdom when any form of the so-called Fairness Doctrine rears its ugly head, in an attempt to silence conservative talk radio and etc.
It is time and past time for the congress to completely eliminate this law. It is an abomination.
This is a good thing. The Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from regulating free speech. It goes further than McCain/Feingold. The Fairness Doctrine was next in line to come into being [again]. Do you really want the Federal Government telling anyone how much of their work [which is what money represents] goes toward their ideas?
Fight for free speech rights of the person or thing you hate most. If you don't, the Federal Government and whoever is in power at that time will try and muzzle your speech. Free speech is messy. It shouldn't be regulated by the bureaucracy that is beholden to it.
2 wrongs do not a right make.
I would get rid of corporate tax, and at the same time, disallow them to give to campaigns.
Then the gov't shouldn't tax it. Finction or not.
Is anyone concerned about the threat to any semblance of democracy that this ruling imposes? Corporations have essentially unlimited resources to bombard the airwaves and influence the direction of all policy established in this country. They also have a built-in interest that conflicts with that of the general populace; they are, by nature, for-profit entites, so any politician who proposes a policy that conflicts with the function of profit generation will be subject to deafening criticism by whatever financial interest the policy would threaten. Lets' see any real progress toward preservation of the earth's climate now!!
Thinking man? H-mmm!
While I see McCain's service to the country a little differently as i believe he did the honorable thing and serve when others were using their service for personal and political gain,shirking their duty and defaming our troops, I do have to ask the same question about him, politically. I too voted for McCain as the lesser of 2 political evils. John McCain is a RINO progressive and has not really sponsored any significant legislation other than this crappy one and the attempt to rein in the Mortgage cows Fannie and Freddie in 2000. But his tent folded after Barney Fwank called his legislation unfair to the poor and racist. Typical politico. Wants to get along with anyone he thinks can buy another term. I am really surprised and disappointed Sarah Palin would campaign with him again after the crap McCain pulled during the last election.
Money may be the lifeblood of politics, but power is the food and drink. If you want to take the corruption out of politics you have to remove the power that politicians now possess.
Okay, what about me? I own a Sub Title S Corproation, and I own all the stock, and my wife is the Sec., but you think that my Corp. cannot give to the politician to which would benefit me and my Corp? Now, just what is fair about that?
TERM LIMITS- Will fix 73% of our political problems.
81% of there time and votes is spent on getting reelected.
Lets take the relection problem away from them.
TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with you wholeheartedly. He is a political animal at heart, first and foremost. He always has his nose in the air, and his finger in the wind, checking the pulse, and direction. That is the only problem I have with him. It has nothing to do with his service.
Corporations have been able to do exactly what Unions are doing now. It all sucks. Better to limit the influence of Unions and Corporations then increase it and that's exactly what this decision does. So if you think Unions have too much influence they just got more.
Exactly, if anything corporations need more control over politicians. Election reform presumes there is corruption in DC, that politicians are installed into office by powerful corporate special interests, and that this leads to bailouts or unpopular foreign policies. Only kooky conspiracy theorists think there is corruption in DC.
Given the comments “A corporation is not a person!” Well then: “A Union is not a person” and as such it can’t collect money from its members and donate it nor can it organize its members to campaign? No more moveon.org. No more Soros bank-rolling things. It isn’t a question of person or not. It is a question of whether PEOPLE can get together and influence politics or whether each person has to do it individually.
It is clear that people can get together in groups to influence politics whether it is an informal group or not. However, as long as one group is claiming that they can control which other groups can organize to protect themselves from power and money hungry politicians and parasites who want to suck off the rest of us, we need to stand up and say, we can organize to speak and we’re calling you on it.
Everything else is an infringement on free speech.
Great ! Whatever corporation spends the most cash to brainwash the public
WINS ! Hail First Amendment !
In my 60 years, I have never seen a time when more backwards ideas were presented as wisdom. Good God, why don’t we just outsource our entire political system directly to multi-national corporations and be honest about it? When corporations and government blur the lines between them. . . . that’s the definition of fascism !
This levels the playing field with persons such as George Soros. He has been intent on destroying nations his entire life, and McCain Feingold did not stop his political posture. What has Chuck Shumer so upset is that this ruling provides and answer to anti-American political speech. I am curious why he thinks the Senate has any recourse to the Supreme Court. Was not our system set up to provide for independence of the executive, legislative and judiciary? Indeed I thought the reason for this was a check on the dictatorial power of any one of these branches. But ofcourse, the Honorable Charles Shumer is above checks and balances. He is royalty, untouchable by reason.
Unions and Corps WERE BOTH restricted by this law, the same as the corporations!! Did no one actually read what this decision means?? Only NOW is it that both Unions and Corporations can use their general treasuries to finance their political ads.
Jeez… this was a victory for corporations, of course, but also the "evil" Unions, if you'd been paying attention at all.
Exactly, major corporations can't influence opinion or wield power in elections. It's a myth.
Neither are Unions!
Technically speaking, Thomas Jefferson DID write the Constitution. The American Constitution was based largely on the Virginia Constitution, which TJ authored. Having said that, this has nothing to do with what TJ wanted or didn't want. The problem lies in the belief that a corporation is a person, which it is not. If taken for its interpretation, the SC just enforced the Constitution.
Having said that, Democrats are the ones who, in the last few elections, have refused to take matching funds. At least now, the playing field will be even. Corporations don't send forms to each of their employees to persuade them to donate or vote a certain way like Unions do…
What are you smokin'?
- Corporations ARE NOT "RELIGIONS" !! And they NEVER WERE !!
another defeat for that turncoat John McCain..Two resounding victories in one week…Freedom is on the march..
As a lifelong Republican and resident of a very Republican state (KS), I refused to vote for McCain because of this attack on the first amendment. By the way, I am a public school teacher, not a rich fat cat like John Kerry and many other democrat fat cats on the Hill.
Unions and Corps WERE BOTH RESTRICTED by this law! Did no one actually read what this decision means?? It is only NOW that both Unions and Corporations can use their general treasuries to finance their political ads. Up until now only corporate and labor PACs could collect donations from individuals to spend on elections.
Jeez… this was a victory for corporations, of course, but also the "evil" Unions, if you'd been paying attention at all.
This is great news — big corporations will be backing a Republican president in 2012 and I hope I see evidence on every billboard in America!
Stockholders elect the broad through a democratic process, just like we elect our representatives. Free speech is free speech, period!
Exactly correct. This was the best comment so far. Generally, it is those who lean left that decided, as the left still dominates the old media. Boy, how the hate it when uncontrolled media does not get filtered by them!!
Unions and Corps WERE BOTH RESTRICTED by this law! Did no one actually read what this decision means?? It is only NOW, since the Court has ruled, that both Unions and Corporations can use their general treasuries to finance their political ads. Up until now only the corporate and labor PACs could collect donations from individuals to spend on elections.
Jeez… this was a victory for corporations, of course, but also the "evil" Unions, if you'd been paying attention at all.
also known as a bribe….
I think he's thinking of Civ IV.
Unions and Corps WERE BOTH RESTRICTED by this law! Did no one actually read what this decision means?? It is only NOW, since the Court has ruled, that both Unions and Corporations can use their general treasuries to finance their political ads. Up until now only the corporate and labor PACs could collect donations from individuals to spend on elections.
Jeez… this was a victory for corporations, of course, but also for the "evil" Unions, if you'd been paying attention at all.
Politicians in Washington have always had the power to tax and regulate corporations, and in the last forty or so years, have done so with great gusto. Recently, in the case of BHO and GM, politicians have taken unto themselves the power to take control of them if it is deemed to be in the public interest. Congress has made a calculated decision to make doing business very difficult for corporations. So why shouldn’t corporations have the right to defend themselves from governmental intrusion and depredation? Why would anyone insist that government be armed with a baseball bat, while corporations have their hands tied behind their backs? This ruling simply unties the hands of those whose lives and livlihoods are at the mercy of greedy politicians.
I'm concerned that people don't understand that the only way corporations can have any political influence is if we allow the government to invade every aspect of our lives. Take power from the government and you take power from corporations and lobbyists and unions. What's the point in buying off a politician if the politician can't write stupid laws that benefit you? The incentive is gone.
By the way, most people who vote for and support a particular candidate do so with a mind toward voting for the person most likely to benefit them. That is no different at all from what corporations and lobbyists and unions do. The only difference is that these are groups of individuals.
What about the New York Times and the Washington Post? Aren't they corporations? Aren't they allowed to use their money to endorse and trash candidates? What about General Electric broadcasting Keith Olbermann?
Banks are corporations who will soon make their feelings known. Bad timing as usual by BO and the boys. I think McCain wishes he had matched BO's lie about not taking public campaign funds.
Hey Dumb A55,
The way I read it, the flag should only be displayed union side down in instances of extreme danger to life or property. I doubt if either case applies at the moment, and therefore you are being disrespectful to the flag since you are showing the union side down solely for the purpose of making a stupid political statement.
KCC
People CAN form a polotical action committe, in my state if more than one person does political advertising they MUST form a PAC.
Corporations are owned (if public) by stockholders with all kinds of polotical views so without some kind a voting process CEOs and othersw should not be allowed to spend the funs owned by stockholders. The same argument has been applied by Conservatives to union fund being spend to elect folks.
Anything that give everyone the same voice and does not allow MONEY to BUY polititions is favered by me. Wall Street already has TOO MUCH power now this ruling will only dilute voters voices even more. I am not a sheep that blindly follows radio or TV talk show hosts and resent Corporations buying up government officials.
WTH is Obama Posing for he accepted $500,000,000 to buy his job. He is a POSER!! He loves the Lobbyist he just doesn't like the GOP lobbyist. Let's get real the Victims of this entire thing the AMERICAN People. We are paying for these jackasses to pretend that they are doing something.
The get off on playing games with the People toying with Hearts and Minds all the while Fleecing our bank accounts and throwing scraps down.
Reminds me of Certain FRENCH King that ended up having the ability to seeing his own body.
A corporation is just a group of people. Unions are a group a people. Churches are a group of people. Enviromentalist form groups of people. All are composed of individuals whose rights should not be limited by belonging to group, regardless of the gorup they choose.
Pat, but its okay for Unions to do that… right?
Any forensic economists want to guesstimate the dollar value of MSM propaganda? They're corporations, aren't they? So they get to speak, while every other corporation is shut up by the government because spending corporate money to get a counter-MSM message out is corrupt? I understand exactly what the lefty liberals really mean and I know that they don't care about logic and that for THEM the open market place of ideas is a one way street.
Only fair if you consider the fact that Unions were not held to the same rules under the law. Allowing Corp. to spend as Unions have been will level the playing field.
I am still surprised that NOBODY in any Uniformed or badge carrying capacity, paid for taking the oath of office, NOBODY arrested or killed mccain and feingold YEARS AGO. Nor ALL people involved with voting for or signing into law, such a scum traitor piece of legislation! Its passage is WHY WE ARE IN THIS CURRENT MESS. HANG TRAITORS NOW!!!
Acorn has freedom of speech, and so do the unions. Why not corportations? Makes total sense. Are the dems sad because they may not get a big enough share of the corporate pie? Probably. I really don’t care. I am sick of the elitist left having a stranglehold on what is appropriate in the media and what isn’t. McCain sold out on this one, so it’s okay that the SCOTUS took he and Feingold to the wood shed. It was a stupid idea anyway that tied McCain’s hands in his own election.
America, R.I.P.
This is wrong. A corporation is not a person. A special interest group is not a person. If a person wants to donate as much as they want, more power to them. But donations from any group should be banned. If people try donating on behalf of a group they should be arrested. If people try donating on behalf of a foreign country or a foreigner, they should be arrested.
We need to take the influence of tiny minorities with lots of cash out of the picture. This is a democracy, not a nation ran by those who can outspend everyone else. At least, it should be.
Well, look at the names of the "justices." That would be all the leftist justices whose mantra is "social justice!" (fuggheddaboutt the Constitution).
"The public mind, [oppressed by despotism,] is manifestly advancing on the abusive prerogatives of their governors and bearing them down. No force in the government can withstand this in the long run." –Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1788.
Corporations are "persons" under the law … you must be an art major.
Government taxes and regulates corporations by force. People "assemble" when they buy stock in or become employed by corporations. Corporations are basically groups of people and people cannot be restricted. It's always better to have more freedom rather than less, and to have the freedom to speak out against the government.
Ask the employees of banks and health care companies whether they should be allowed to speak out against excessive regulation. Of course they should have that freedom. McCain/Feingold is fundamentally unconstitutional.
The only people who support such laws are incumbent politicians.
Today following Mass.revolt coupled with the Supreme Court ruling once again demonstrates our founders and their checks and balances has righted a real wrongon freedom of speech. Now we will follow Jeffersons admonitions on government tyranny we will rid this administration of the radical progressives cum socialists.
Thank Goodness. First VA and NJ, then Mass. Now the Supreme Court knocking down a stupid law promoted by stupid people (including W who did not veto this silliness). The rational majority has to stay focussed and stay after these knuckleheads in D.C.
Man? H-mmm!
Obama talking about the coruption of Government is funny!!! So far, he has bought off how many politicians to try and pass his socialist agenda???? Obama and the Democrat Party have taken corruption to NEW LEVELS!
Some people don't know the difference between special interest groups and advocacy groups— special interest groups are those you don't agree with; advocacy groups are those you do.
it's not a double-standard, genius. farenheit was a film/doc that was just released to the masses, nothing more. the hillary film, from what i've read, explicitly called for the defeat of a public figure during an election and the film was created by a group, not a person. that was the big deal – during an election and calling for defeat of a a public figure. it would've been just as wrong had a film doing the same for bush in 2004 came out. you would've cared then, right?
(also, go away with the fake patriotic screen names.)
yes, because it's quite obvious murdoch and all the other media owners are big-time lefties! the country is more center left than right, so, hush and go back to your fantasy world where morons like breitbart, hannity, and beck make sense.
how the fuck does that statement even make sense?!
Greek democracy ate itself from within, as happens with all true democracies. The Roman republic collapsed under its own weight when it became too large, as happens with all empires. I would prefer that we follow neither of those examples.
Our problem lies solely in the way we have allowed the government to grow so large, so intrusive, that it has become beneficial for lobbyists and well-funded political speech to be used by corporations and other similar organizations (like unions) which represent a group of individuals. It would be pointless to hire lobbyists and spend gobs of money on political ads if politicians were neutered in their ability to craft legislation that targets certain constituencies at the expense of others.
In other words, we have become too much like Greek democracy and the Roman empire. Our government if far too large and wields far too much power. As such, it makes sense that individuals and groups of individuals want to persuade the politicians who run it to create policy that will benefit them. The answer is to return to the system the founders intended, where the federal government is far less involved in all of our lives.
You may call me a radical for believing in such an idea, but I am in good company.
A sad fact is in many corporations a few individuals own a majority of the stocks and hence if your argument is to be taken then the company only needs to ask those that hold a lot of the stocks.
I agree with JBear: A corporation is not a person. If corporate employees or shareholders wish to donate to a political campaign, they remain free to do so.
What is needed is a simple Constitutional Amendment specifying that
(1) Only a registered voter who is eligible to vote for a position may contribute to candidates for that position.
(2) Candidates for any position may accept contributions only from registered voters who are qualified to vote for that position.
The penalty for a candidate who knowingly accepts invalid contributions or who fails to adequately validate contributions should be:
(1) expulsion from office
(2) forfeiture of all remaining campaign funds.
Additional penalties for both a person giving and a candidate receiving an illegal contribution should be:
(1) a fine of at least five times the amount of the illegal contribution
(2) jail time of up to 1 year per illegal contribution
(3) a minimum of 366 days time served in jail.
(4) permanent disbarment from holding elective, appointive and civil service positions in government and from doing any business with the government.
This would ensure that only those with a direct, personal interest in an election would be allowed to contribute to a campaign. Any registered voter in the US could donate to a Presidential campaign, any registered voter in a state could donate to a Senate campaign for that state, and any registered voter in a House district could donate to a House campaign for that district.
Contributions in cash or in kind from non-citizens, out-of-area contributors, corporations and PACs would be banned.
Your name, simian, aka monkey, relic, aka from another era,, matches your posting perfectly. You are an out of touch liberal / progressive who wants European Socialist (Communist?) governance brought to this country. Well, no thank you.
Log in
You are not alone in your misconceptions, and you have many.
Corporations are legal entities. They have whatever rights we grant them. They do not have inalienable rights as "We the people" do.
Person hood is based on a lie.
Corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do.
Corporations do not have the right to vote; why do you think nothing of them competing with you for representation?
Excerpt from an interview with Thom Hartman, author of Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights:
"What was really amazing to me was that when I went down to the old Vermont State Supreme Court law library here in Vermont, and read an original copy of the Court's proceedings in the 1886 "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" case, the Justices actually said no such thing. In fact, the decision says, at its end, that because they could find a California state law that covered the case "it is not necessary to consider any other questions" such as the constitutionality of the railroad's claim to personhood.
But in the headnote to the case — a commentary written by the clerk, which is NOT legally binding, it's just a commentary to help out law students and whatnot, summarizing the case — the Court's clerk wrote: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
That discovery — that we'd been operating for over 100 years on an incorrect headnote — led me to discover that the clerk, J.C. Bancroft Davis, was a former corrupt official of the U.S. Grant administration and the former president of a railroad, and in collusion with another corrupt Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Field, who had been told by the railroads that if they'd help him get this through they'd sponsor him for the presidency."
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int0500...
Yep, that quaint document known as the Constitution should have always said "We the Corporations, PACs, and Special Interests" instead of "We the people." Who did those Constitution writers think they were trying to make this a government of the people. The people be damned! And I need to go back and find that part of the Bible where God made corporations since we consider our rights to be God-given. And yet somehow corporations like Goldman-Sachs found a way of channeling almost $1million to the Obama campaign so obviously this law was pretty worthless anyway.
hahahaha…until the party was hijacked by all the racist southerners in the 60's when de-segregation was made law. and now, it's just the "wrong" party from way back when with a different name. it's OK pal, you can keep on thinking that R's have something to contribute to the country other than exploding deficits, overseeing the increases in wages between rich and poor, thinly veiled racism, and basing your "thoughts" off of a fairy tale book about a Jewish zombie carpenter from 2,000 years ago. good luck with that, genius.
also, it's: Democrat and speech. Spell-check is your friend.
The really disturbing thing is there were actually four Supreme Court justices who think it's peachy-keen to limit speech in the United States.
wow finally a way to combat the special intrests that the left seems to love such as unions and AARP etc that for years have gotten away with that which Obama now decries! The pols are just afraid that the corps will now spens money on air time to get their massage out and no longer line the pockets of politicians.
then why'd you guys approve the first $700 billion bailout? oh, yeah, that's right – a R president signed off on it. hmmm…quite the free market there. just give it up, no party believes in that and they'll both go to where the money is (which is complete bullshit.).
=== popurls.com === popular today…
yeah! this story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
So, then, a labor union should get approval from all its members before it takes sides in a political race as well, right?
If you don't agree with the political contributions of a corporation you own stock in, you do have the right to sell your stock. If you are a union member and don"t agree with their political contributions, what can you do, quit?
How can people support the selling of politicians to the highest bidder? How can honest hard working Americans compete with corporate greed and their billions of dollars? Corporations are not people. Our civil liberties as individuals are being eroded by organized mobs – ie, corporations, unions, and political action groups. The people behind these groups can donate individually, and through every one of the "front" organizations to buy votes and power in Washington. Meanwhile, people who work hard every day and lose their money to Wall Street and have to retired on a meager Social Security check, which is under threat too, are being marginalized and the power of their vote and voice is being lost.
Obama preparing ‘Forceful Response’
Your response was the 'wise latina' Obama, that is the response you get as President so get over it loser!
You want less money in politics? Shrink the federal government to its constitutional limits, and it will have far less involvement in our daily lives, so far fewer interests will be pursued in that venue. No lobbyist will waste money trying to influence a politician's position on health care legislation if the government is not involved in health care.
Hey, "Genius", do you know when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out? June 25, 2004, right before the 2004 presidential election. It was created by Dod Eat Dog Films, a corporation. It was initially financed by Miramax Films, a division of the Walt Disney Company, and distributed by the Fellowship Adventure Group, LLC through Columbia Tri-Star Entertainment.
And since when is it wrong to "explicitly call for the defeat of a political figure during an election?" That's the essence of free speech, whether it is done by newspaper companies, film companies, television companies, or independent companies.
Get a clue before you start pretending to be smart, or telling other people to go away. The truth hurts.
People, wake up, this does NOT violate the first amendment because a corporation or political group is not an individual. Why are you so hard-pressed to give equal rights to an idea, and marginalize the value of human beings? The people behind the corporation can use their voice and money as an individual – why grant them anonymity and limitless power to influence when individuals do not have that right?
"Could I, as a foreigner , setup a corp in the states and then pump foreign bucks into whatever agenda I want to?" Then I think your name would be George Soros.
"…shareholders are people." So are Canadians. Your point?
Fox is only successful because it fills a market (for center-right news) that most other news outlets had ignored. MSNBC, which would like to be the Fox News of the left, gets terrible ratings because there are so many other left-leaning news sources available.
Just like with your previous "smarter than you" comment, your remarks expose you as clueless.
People with common sense are not going to "hush" or "go away."
AMAZING…….The liberal judge that through out the “Hillary” movie had no problem with the movie “W” which crucified George Bush. The liberal mind is so corrupt and offensive that nothing coming from these clowns surprises me anymore.
Corporations include profit and non-profit.
Additionally, government, which is the arbiter, and enforcer of union/employer relationships has no need for unions.
HA……………………………………………………HA…………………………………………………..HA…………………………………………….
DID I MENTION HA HA HA HA
SORRY UNIONS ………YOUR INFLUENCE IS NOW COUNTERED
As Pat commented: "But I believe that it is inappropriate of the board or CEO to take part of the profits of the stockholders and without their consent run a political ad." So is Congress trying to pass a healthcare plan (including abortions and healthcare for illegals) that the majority of Americans do not want and then taxing us to pay for it. I also wonder about this ruling that it levels the playing field in that I bet there was no restrictions on unions providing contributions to democrats all these years. Maybe now all those banks that paid back their TARP money with interest, but are being attacked because Obama wants more money from them are going to pour money in to democrat rivals. Will be interesting to see this fall.
The law is based on a lie. A corrupt law clerk, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the headnote in the Santa Clara v. Souther Pacific Railroad case that had nothing to do with the actual ruling in the case. It's your constitution, too, are you willing to surrender it mindlessly?
Great, just what the USA needs – more corporate influence! Hooray!
The whole country is completely f*cked, and the world is laughing as it tanks.
agreed… that is why the Dems are sooooo upset… How it was setup the Unions were able to pour money in but the voice of corporations were silenced… this is a sound decision by the Supreme Court
we just did
[...] morning, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the case of Citizens United v. FEC. The upshot of the decision is that “the Government may not [...]
As if F9/11 wasn't explicitly created to make idiots like you ramp up the Bush hate, the war hate and the hate hate so the Democrats would be voted in again.
I think what got F9/11 a pass was that it was a work of fiction more than the fact it was outrageously leftist, though.
And when YOU get a 100 rating, try the "go away" stuff again. You might look less pathetic, loser.
oh yeah !!
Somebody mentioned Acorn…according to the majority of comments, there is wide support for unbridled funding and promoting of candidates and their campaigns by corporations ( of which you simply refer to as “a group of people” ); therefore, the complaints about Acorn being biased toward Obama during the last pres. election are really just a bunch of crap, no? You people don’t really support anything except what you are told to support, don’t think anything but what you are told to think, and don’t do anything but what you are told to do. The “founding fathers” of who you folks constantly refer would be embarrassed of the nation full of puppets you have become thanks to the massive PR campaigns of corporations and your inability to think for yourselves.
Why was a corporation restricted but unions not? Unions took union dues and used them for political favors much more than corporations. Just put a limit on the amount and forget about it. If I had ever belonged to a union or corporation that supported a candidate that was against my beliefs, you can damn sure believe they would have heard about it. Fortunately my 46 year and still going career never had any union aspirations. We believed we could negotiate ourselves and that brains and devotion would get us all the perks we needed.
exactly, corporations were powerless on capital hill wielding so little influence.
I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
Instead of trying to pass a law restricting corporate money, why not (as a lawmaker) simply refuse any corporate money. Problem solved.
Why shouldn't corporations have the same rights as unions and/or any other association of like-minded individuals? Individuals, unions, associations, corporations, partnership and so forth are all impacted by elections. They (it) should have the ability to communicate to the voting public their point of view. Think about it, should Mr. Soros, as a very rich individual, have communication rights that others that are classified as corporations, unions or whatever, do not?
Thats right. All unions spread lies, and all corporations are bastions of truth and purity. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get a barcode tattooed on my forehead so I can sell my farm, leave my family, and become one with the corporations. God Bless General Electric!
As scary as the 5-4 decision in Wachington DC v. Heller, the entire bill of rights is under attack and we are only wining by the slimest of margins.
My faith in the U.S. Supreme Court is again affirmed! What I found shocking in this decision was the defense of McCain-Feingold by the most liberal members of the court. Any rgovernment restriction on political speech is a path to tyranny. Had McCain and Feingold written reasonable restrictions on corporate funding of politicians, this law might have withstood a legal challenge, but the law was so poorly crafted and over reaching, it was bound to fail. Thank God there are still justices on the court who honor the Bill of Rights. The liberals on the court and in congress have shown they cannot be trusted to protect our rights.
Do unions get blessings from their members before backing another Democrat, I don't think so
Does that mean a corporation wrote the constitution? ^_^
What a dufus. Or were you trying for sarcasm. If not, you need to look at everyone who was muzzled by M-F, good and bad, and then look at the power that was given to SEIU, ACORN, Big Media and Hollywood elites, GE, AIG, et al. Tell me how M-F worked, then tell me why this despot regime is engaged in crony capitalism like NONE in history.
OBAMA IS JUST MAD BECAUSE NOW GEORGE SOROS WON'T BE THE ONLY ACT IN TOWN………..
Whom should we silence? Corporations? Mom and pop companies? Industries? The self-employed? The laborer? The 1st amendment must apply to all or it applies to none. What are we afraid of — that if corporations are allowed to put money into getting the message out that people will listen, understand and act? Sure, some will try to misinform. But that happens constantly now by unions and others, so why is it that one class of citizens (owners of corporations) should be denied the opportunity to respond?
Sorry John, I thing you are indeed an honorable person but
when you start messing with the Constitution that's where
I draw the line. Our founding fathers probably forgot more
about our republic than today's politicians will ever know!
[...] » Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment. Obama preparing ‘F…. This entry was posted on Thursday, January 21st, 2010 at 1:10 pm and is filed under Our voice. [...]
Hahaha. This is not 1st Amendment. But go ahead and think it is. I LOVE IT. My Corp's Money will CONTROL the law AND the politicians. AND if I'M A MAJOR STOCKHOLDER MORE FOR ME. I WIN. You LOSE.
No money? You lost BIG TIME.
Loser little people. hahahahhaha…. Money RULES. Badly, but who cares as long as I HAVE IT.
The problem was the Hillary movie was released within 30 days of a primary election. Farenheight 9/11 was not. It is that simple.
Only technically are you correct. But a corporation is made up of PERSONS including the share holders (any of us who happen to have 401Ks or IRAs). This limited PACs which can be created by 2 to 200,000 (or any astronomical number you want to use) PERSONS who want to elect the same candidate to office. Why can't they pool their money together without being penalized? Why can't a UNION give money? Why can't a PAC give what it wants? Why can't Proctor & Gamble give what it wants? What right does the government have to limit how ANYONE SPENDS THEIR MONEY when it comes to advertising for a candidate?
it was sarcasm
What's obvious is that you're just making things up and you're the only one who believes any of it.
You're incorrect. I think you can't get anything right. Keep voting DNC, dummy! 6-25-04 was the release date. Too bad you won't look anything up before saying something stupid. But your masters like you to stay stupid, don't they?
Corporate America already owned the political process, this just ratifies it.
OK. Cool
)
Get ye, to a dictionary.
THERE IS A GOD!!!
SCOTT BROWN!
MASSACHUSETTS!
HEALTHCARE (WE PRAY) DOWN THE FRIGIN' DRAIN!
MORE WRINKLES ON PELOSI. MAYBE SHE WILL GO HOME. HER DAYS ARE NUMBERED.
DIRTY HARRY – YOU ARE A FAILURE. LEAVE.
AGITATION WITH THE UNTRUSTWORTHY "O" AND HIS ADMINISTRATION
THE UNIONS ARE FURIOUS. SO IS UP-CHUCK SCHUMMER
McCAIN AND FEINGOLD SHOWN TO BE IDIOTS – 'AGAIN'. (DON'T VOTE FOR THESE CLOWNS.)
TALK RADIO 'IS' FREE SPEECH… I SAID "FREE". FREE. FREE. FREE. FREE.
CHICAGO THUGS & GOONS… WE ARE WATCHING YOUR EVERY MOVE.
GOD BLESS THE SUPREME COURT AND THE 5 WHO 'KNOW THE CONSTITUTION' AND WILL
'UP HOLD OUR LAWS'. NOW WE NEED PROPERTY RIGHTS RETURNED AS IT WAS BEFORE…
GOD BLESS AMERICA! IT IS A VERY GOOD DAY.
I knew that McCain-Feingold sucked. I knew it was unconstitutional. I'm glad we have a Supreme Court with enough justices who have brains and ethics enough to consider the Constitution to STILL be the supreme law of the land. Enough with the shenanigans. Let's have full disclosure and no more disruptions to freedom of speech. How hard is that?
Yes, but Companies pay taxes on Profit. Because they have not been able to give money there is no clear guideline on how political funding works. It is very possible that political donations can be counted before profits and therefor not taxable (similar to a 401k).
Also I don't believe this ruling addressed the limits on individual donations. Until that is resolved Unions and Companies actually have more rights as it pertains to using money for political campaigns.
Wow…too bad The Anointed One from Chicago forgot to mention the SEIU, the trial lawyers, ACORN, the entertainment industry, the steelworkers, the teamsters, and all the other left-leaning "special interest" groups that pollute the process. I've changed diapers that have more positive substance than this administration. What a confederacy of twits.
It's January – but November's coming!!
Except whey they're Michael Moore films, the entire print media, TV networks and the like.
Unions have been suppoting candidates for decades. Here in MA, they paid for people to hold signs, had several radio and print spots of their own, and of course told their members how to vote. All to no avail., Such are calculated investments..
So why shouldn't corporations have the same opportunity?
This ruling was inevitable; McCain-Feingold was a broadside onthe First Amendment. Good to have this behind us. I can't wait for Obama's "forceful" response.
Corporations are not people. They are often owned by foreigners. The supreme court just screwed the common man. Laugh at that you idiots.
Excuse me, vomit is reserved solely for broadcasts by PMSLSDs Oglemen and Thrill Matthews.
Does that apply to unions too? Union leadership takes the union membership dues (profit) and without the consent of the membership run a political add.
This was a Direct Shot across the Bow of Congress about the Health Care Monstrosity. Read it carefully and see just what the Justices were saying about our Freedoms. That onerous warning to Congress is a shock to their system.
That is why Obama is caustic about this and condemned it.
A corporation IS NOT A PERSON!, Welcome to the Fascist States of America, where money talks, and your job walks, well, it wont be long now, you pathetic RUsh bots making 40K carrying the water for those making 40 million, have finally once and for all sold yourselves into post industrial serfdom, you deserve it. Rev. Wright was right.
Neither are PACs, non-profits, MoveOn.org, or the millions of mythical people who sent money via the internet to Maobama.
Thank you Republicans for making my country into a bastion of fascism.
I new it was unconstitutional the second I heard it , and could not believe it went threw , I new at that time Feingold
the once one of the ones who challenged , constitutionality all the time . it's time for both to go I'm sick of the whole lot
anybody that has been in more then 2 terms , vote them out and they can't be lobbyist for life and you are off the gov.
insurance
You are right about a corporation not being a person but it is a legal entity and as such it to has rights under the constitution.
What is is about "Congress shall make no law.." that they don't understand. __Didn't they make a law?__Wasn't that against the constitution?__If I am dumb, y'all in government are dumber.__Like sotomeyer, stevens, ginsburg and breyer, and Barry too.
Right on dude!
I cannot find ANYTHING McCain has does worth a dam(n) either.
What a loser AND a sh*tty pilot…….
Using your logic the unions should be held to the same standard, agree?
You know, I suppose that many corporations in the United States are partially, even largely owned by foreign investors, such as Communist Chinese billionaires, Russian billionaires, French billionaires, etc., etc. These people may not own a majority of the corporations but it isn't necessary to own a majority, only enough to have influence. So, by directing a corporation to give money to a particular candidate they have a hand in choosing who will run for elecied office in the United States, and to a degree who wins, for we all know that a campaign needs money or no one gets elected.
When are you going to grow up Frankie?
"I truly believe that both democrats and republicans want the best for our country at heart, they go about it in different ways …."
Dude, if you don't understand what the left is trying to do to this country but instead Pollyanna your way through life….. I feel VERY sorry for you.
GROW SOME STONES. STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY!
God what a skippy…..
First Amendment protects political speech — there should be no "forceful response" limiting free speech. If political speech is regulated, the political class will be empowered forever. The people will have no voice.
They are democrat plants.
They get paid min wage to "web 2.0" the rest of us REAL people…..
disgusting isn't it?
So, if a corporation merges with another corporation, is that a marriage? If the stockholders are all male, is it a gay marriage? If they spin off another corporaton did they have a child?
is a union a person? Why are they treated differently?
Here Here!
Listen to the Cowboy. His logic is irrefutable!
Under the law, a corporation is a "person." They are taxed, and they can be held criminally liable for their actions. Corporate law specifically states that a corporation is a person.
Oh and don't forget the wise old latina.
I bet she came down on the RIGHT side of the issue…. NOT
Moore did not belong to any political group so it falls under media/entertainment.
Great!
Now let’s get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Neither are unions or big labor, but they have been buying elections for years
WTF ????????
He works with the dumocraps (dems)
Sorry – I haven't read the whole story about this. Does this mean the entire McCain-Feingold is unConstitutional? Or did it only strike down part of it?
It's about time! Had this been done before the last election, maybe we would have Romney in the Oval instead of BHO!
I believe it actually was the Supreme Court which ruled the Corporation is a person. Prior to that it was the US government which decided if the Corporation benefitted the country and should be granted or retain the charter. It is widely accepted that modern economies couldn't exist without corporations. The only problem being taxation without representation….hence the tolerance of lobbyists.
Why did it take so long to overthrow this McCain/Feingold bill? If we had enough info maybe Obama/Pelosi wouldn't be in such powerful positions
Let's not forget Judas McCain's Rio Grande Shamnisty Bill proposal of 2007. I'm still waiting for an apology, Mr. Senator.
The simple fact is that investors decide to place their money with a corporation to generate income. In the same way that I would not invest in Greenpeace, or the World Wildlife Federation because of their political views, investors are free to decide where they will and will not invest. The individual is entirely free to express their political preference, and discontent, by removing their money from the corporation. No one is forced to invest in anything they don't believe in, at least not. And with a bit of luck and some hope, no one ever will.
You forgot "The Great One" Mark Levin
Get off the forum ya big dope!
This decision restores some faith in the Supreme Court. Freedom of speech is one of our most precious rights, and the government should do nothing to curtail it, with the exception of such things as obscenity or the provocation of violence.
AMEN to the Supreme Court and God bless them.
OBAMA is the KING of selling out to extremists communists/socialists/anti-american/anti-christian/anti-jewish/etc. OBAMA is in bed with SEIU, George Soros, and ACORN all CORRUPT ILLEGAL money lanundering CROOKS.
God bless America!
A corporation is not a CITIZEN. It is a ROBOT controlled by Americans and foreigners. "The personhood" of a corporation is a fiction that was embraced by the Supreme Court in the 1880's and has now been sanctified by the Court.
Corporations and other robots have no legitimate claim to the rights of CITIZENSHIP under the Constitution of the United States nor the universal HUMAN RIGHTS set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
The Supreme Court has confused NONCITIZENS with CITIZENS, and has asserted the right of NONCITIZENS to bribe politicians. In doing this, the Court has elevated corporations to a position of supreme power and has validated the FINANCIAL CORRUPTION OF OUR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, which isolates the GOVERNMENT from the CITIZENS.
"The marketplace of ideas" is merely a METAPHOR for free public discussion by CITIZENS. The extremist idealogues on the Supreme Court have accepted this metaphor as the literal commodification of PUBLIC POLICY.
Justice Thomas actually wrote that corporations should be able to make cash payments anonymously.
You are correct. A corporation is a representation of a multitude of people…employees, management, shareholders and the like. In fact, several people.
As a very conservative republican, I'm now glad that McCain was defeated. He had no business carrying the banner of conversatism. BHO is doing an excellent job of exposing liberalism for what it is, and the putrid stench that is permeating from his adminiistration will reek for decades and result in a wave of conservatism. Remember how Jimmy Carter paved the way for 12 years of Reagan/Bush? BHO is doing a far better job than Jimmy Carter did.
That's America! Free to live, free to think! End elitism now!
coorporations cannot vote, because then voter fraud would be rampant.
I heard the same rant and drew the same conclusion.
When a corporation has infinitely more money to spend on a political issue than the average citizen that makes them that much more powerful as well, which makes their ability to get change made in their favor over the good of the people that much easier, which makes it our responsibility to stop them from using that power.
How come Obama didn't say this is George Bush's fault?
Poor oDumbo he has ninety percent of the media on its collective knees in front of him and he wants more.
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". Only a self-deluding moral relativist would fail to comprehend what those ten words mean. Only a dishonest lefty politician with a duplicitous, hidden agenda, would cloak his indignation about special interest money influencing elections while accepting pay for play contributions from tax exempt, Soros funded, networks disguised as "charities", dues funded union kickbacks (SEIU and NEA), and priviledged corporate back scratchers like GE ("green job hustlers), media conglomerates (in the tank propagandists), booty robbed from the private sector that re-circulates dirty money back to the government (AIG, Goldman Sachs, GM, and on and on). Simply shameful. Have you heard the one about Massachusetts?
He's a staunch conservative, just not a staunch libertarian. if he were a libertarian, he would be able to live with the fact that people may or may not believe in God. Most staunch conservative think Jesus is the saviour, but that's one's personal experience versus another. Free to live, free to think! That's the way it ought to be!
Wrong. Nothing is more idiotic than McCain or his partner in crime Finegold.
Well, that's progress. There's a lot more to be done – like get all the RINOs out and maybe quite a few liberals.
If it can be proved that corporation sways a particular way, then people can always consider not consuming its good and/or services. What's key is having transparency as to who give what to whom and how much and when.
A corporation is not a voice. It is an entity with different motivations, goals and objectives than an individual. How hard is it to figure out that when a corporation donates to both parties, it is not about political ideology. They are hedging their bets so whoever is elected must vote for their interests instead of the peoples. It is so expensive to run a campaign that our representatives sell their souls and our futures to get these donations. This is self evident from all of the laws being passed and closed door sessions for Unions, Big Pharma, Oil, Lawyers, Insurance Companies, Halliburton, Arms manufacturers and the list goes on. It is absolutely shameful! A great read is the political thriller "National Contender" which focuses on this very subject. Until the press unbiasly reports a politicians platform and laws are passed for the people, then we are in for more of the same. What a bias report by the NY Times opening with the abomination of a Bill. Open your eyes fellow citizens, we are being snookered.
It's not the money that is the problem. It is the career politician. Set constitutional term limits on congress and they will have no need to continually accept bribes to pay for their campaigns to stay in office. It might be a good idea to set some sort of limit on the supreme court too.
Sorry…
McCain is NOT a CMH recipient…
And didn't you hear? Free speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution…all speech, even unpopular speech…
No Go, Joe, time for you to blow…
It's about Freedom Of Speech!
Finally!!! The largest "club", "association", group, membership…. will finally be able to run adds again. Someone tell me just why the freaks in tiny minorities get to run adds, but my association (the largest in the USA) doesn't? N R A ! ! ! National Rifle Association!
Nothing infuriates me more than when the courts have to apply judicial review to strike down poorly written and badly researched legislation. It should never happen. While President Obama can wring his hands all he wants about this, the fact remains that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. I am not a fan of big business distorting the political process in the United States. But the First Amendment needs to be preserved, and from a matter of Constitutional law, the majority got this right.
The collective membership of the House and Senate is primarily composed of – get ready – lawyers. Have any of them ever read the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights? Are the primary articles of our Constitution so hard to comprehend that a member of Congress cannot write legislation that could stand up to basic judicial review? Add to this that individual members of the House and Senate as well as committee staffs have legislative and legal aides, teams of lawyers and the resources of organizations such as the Congressional Research Service. Yet, these frigtards push through 2,000 page bills that are not worth the paper on which they are printed.
That McCain-Feingold even got to the Supreme Court is ridiculous. It should never have left the House Committee on the Judiciary as written. How many millions of dollars were wasted because nobody did their homework?
Shame on you, Senators. While your intentions might have been semi-decent, your execution of this legislation was appalling.
so i guess by your logic… anyone shot down is by definition, a bad pilot! You no good worthless piece of shyte! You have insulted many, many vets I assure you!!
Yay for Freedom Of Speech! We get to say nasty things about Politicians as long we want to!
You've been asleep since January, right…?
CL, you KEEP that flag right where it is…
Wow. Don't tell the union folks about this. They'll be asking for their dues back.
Supporters of this decision are ignorant because they will be trampled by corporations who don't give a fluck about us. Your support is illogical and based only on opposition to "liberals".
How does it feel to have your nose cut off to feed your spite?
Idiots.
A corporation is not a person, it is an entity created by a statute that allows a business to be operated in a manner that protects the owners from being sued by people damaged by their business. Corporations have generally been considered to be limited entities, which have only those rights specifically granted by statute. Thus the First Amendment (or any of the bill of rights) should only apply to corporations if those rights are specifically granted by the statute. The constitution provides rights to people and to states, not to businesses.
This is not a victory for the first amendment, it is a shifting of first amendment rights from the people to artificial entieties
Clearing up misconceptions.
“A corporation is a person.”
Um no. Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves to think “We the People” meant “We, Exxon, Walmart, etc.” PEOPLE are PEOPLE. Legal constructs can never be. Individual liberty must always come before corporatism; this includes unions too (which are a type of corporation).
“Money is free speech.”
I have to laugh at that one. If money is speech, then there’s a lot of Americans denied their basic freedoms especially in this post bailout, double-digit unemployment world. But that’s not the reality. Money is money. Speech is speech. Nobody is stopping the PR arm of BigCo from speaking their peace.
With this ruling, you can foresee the rise of fascism in this country. Expect more bailouts, corporate welfare, wars of resources, and other things our government does while serving its corporations rather than its people.
A corporation is made up of many type's of people with diffent views. To send money to only a select type of people without consulting all of its sum is the same as 1 person giving more than the allowed sum. If the people in these corporations want to send money so be it but as the top management does not speak for the whole, I don't feel they should spends the share holders and employee's money.
It took them 8 years to decide this because…
Corporations can't donate to candidates and this decision didn't change that. Read the case. This was a non-profit corporation that wanted to distribute a video about Hilary Clinton–McCain-Feingold prohibited that within 60 days of an election. This decision simply means that a "corporation" (which means any group of citizens) may speak its views about a candidate even within 60 days of an election—NOT that a corporation may donate money directly to a candidate. So, I can form a non-profit corporation, solicit donations to it, and run an ad against Evan Bayh at any time. So can McDonald's, if it wants. So keep your pants on.
Neither is a religion. It is a collection of people. Care to censor religions?
So by your logic, it is ok to censor someone when they "call(ed) for the defeat of a public figure during an election"?!?
Hell, that's the LAST time you want to censor (or the first, if you are a liberal)
[...] Government shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech. Via Big Journalism, the NY Times writes: WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two [...]
About bloody time!
You will regret this decision when chinese state-owned corporations start spending billions in campaign influencing advertising. Why does everyone think Corporation means USA corporation? People: CORPORATIONS ARE NOT ALL OWNED OR RUN BY AMERICAN CITIZENS OR THEIR INTERESTS!
Kudos to this decision. This will no doubt usher in a new era of unprecedented freedom and democracy, where all voices (that have the money and resources to take precedence over others) will be the only ones heard by Americans.
~This message brought to you by Taco Bell and General Motors
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. …
Does his comment also refer to the …stampede of special interest money…coming from hte Unions, Trial Lawyers, NEA, ad infinitum?
a corporation is a "legal entity", not a person. how many corporations do you know of serving time in prison? they exist to limit the real owners liability. corporations should not have the same rights as a citizen. the shareholders should have the rights and the full liability of their actions.
A foreign person. Corporations are global.
I saw lots of NRA ads last election. You must not have actually watched the campaign.
“Sailorboy” makes a good point:
“Wouldn’t it be prudent to at least make sure that there was no foreign ownership of any corp contributing to an American political campaign? Could I, as a foreigner , setup a corp in the states and then pump foreign bucks into whatever agenda I want to? Do you think that is wise”
Such laws have been on the books for a long time that prevent the inclusion of foreign money into our politics. Laws that were horrifically violated by the Clintons in the the 90’s through the early 2000’s with ChiCom cash, and the Obama’s with Saudi and other Middle Eastern concerns who flooded his campaign with millions in 2008.
Our corrupt and spineless system allowed all of them to get away with it, just as our mainstream media ignored the crimes and refused to report them. It’s no wonder Obama and his sycophants are crying foul so loudly. To the dismay of all Democratzi the Supreme Court has just taken a major step towards protecting our free speech and the First Amendment
In case anyone has missed the point, corporations PAY TAXES! They pay obscene taxes. One of the abuses of power that brough about the American Revolution was the practice of taxation without representation. Corporations do not get to vote, they do not have congressional representation beyond lobying which they are forced to do to keep the politicians from picking them to death. You want to disallow political contrbutions by corporations, simple, quit taxing them.
All the McCain-Feingold law did was give George Soros and his 527's and the like free reign to get their Marxist/Progressive nut jobs involved undercover in our national politics via ACORN, SEIU and and Black Panthers. I say let the fat cats spend their money on advertising out in the open. Let's get down and durty and see what shakes loose from our political system. No more shady deals, no more internet bundling of cash behind the cover of 527's. Get it all out there in the open. Question?? How many jobs have you ever gotten from a poor man or one that is on welfare? That's what I thought. Money is the life blood of all things on this earth including politics, soooo, let it all hang out, get it out in the open and let the best whatever win. Get er done!!!!
JBear, you should have taken a basic business law course in college (oops, you probably did not go to college if you do not kno this). A corporation is a legal person.
What makes you people think some law limiting what corporations can say will elimiate their influence on candidates? I’m not afraid of speech of any kind. What I don’t like is seeing protected groups get to say all they want (unions) while other groups can say nothing (corporations). I’m not so easily swayed by campaign commercials, campaigning of any kind or anyone saying whatever they feel like saying. Either it makes sense or it doesn’t. I don’t vote based on how many commercials I see and I dang sure don’t want some people with more rights than others. You people who think corporations are controlled by a few people don’t seem to care that unions are controlled by a few people. You just want things your way period. Those days are over. Thank God. There’s another group who’s speech is unfairly limited btw. Religious leaders have rights too. But you want them silenced. You want everyone silenced that doesn’t agree with you. I won’t soon forget the left trying to dismiss the votes of soldiers in Florida in 2000. If ever there was a group trying to dominate the conversation it’s the left. They go on and on about the right and religious people shoving stuff down their throat and ignore the way Obama has hidden everything he’s tried to do with late night votes on multi-thousand page bills with no debate and no time to even read the bills. I want to stand on the highest mountain and scream “HYPOCRITE” loud enough to be heard around the world. Well that’s what happened in MA Tuesday. It wasn’t me though. It was “Ted Kennedy’s voters”. Ted’s dead and so is healthcare, cap and trade, the second stimulus (and maybe much of the first one), and every other thing Obama wanted to shove down our throats. Thank you voters of Mass..
but isnt it true that war is supposed to be dealt with swiftly and calculated.we have done neither.the politicians have to much control over the military in some aspects.
right a legal person, a foreign person. A foreigner who you want controlling our nation's political system.
Obama is out of his cotton picking mind if he expects us to believe he cares about corruption in politics after he just finished giving the unions the health care payoff.
I just want all of you rejoicing to remember this decision next year when we are trying to figure out why certain banks, automakers, and newspapers are getting bailout money, and others are not.
The political decisions are now for sale outright.
Yes, most giant corporations are INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS. This perverted decision opens the floodgates for money coming from China and elsewhere to BUY AMERICAN PUBLIC POLICY!
What a wonderful week it has been!
First, Scott Brown's senatorial election victory caused a tectonic shift in the People's Republic of Massachusetts and proved that ALL Democrat seats are now more than theoretically vulnerable in November.
Second, Air America, (aka Communist Talk Radio) is ceasing operations and declaring bankruptcy.
Third, the Supreme Court declared most of the McCain-Feingold pre-election speech ban as unconstitutional.
Fourth, black bigot Erroll Southers, withdrew his name from TSA (Airport Security Oberfuehrer) consideration.
Fifth, we're rid of Conan O'Brien, whose very first Tonight Show monologue featured a pitch for Hispanic bigot Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court bid. Too bad he walks away richer though.
God Bless the USA!
You guys are sick…I guess you folks can decide who to buy as your next president….we should definitely go to public campaign financing……This actually is not a First amendment issue….if anything, it denies the power of my vote…which the Supreme court Corporation of America says I no longer have…what a joke!
[...] From Big Journalism: [...]
People join organizations because politicians rarely listen to the individual unless they are wealthy. It is wrong for the government to deny political speech to organizations which represent the views of their members. This is a great victory for freedom and liberty.
About damn time we retired this abomination from RINO McLame. The idiot did nothing but hamstring our party while the union dogs stole all the bones. I'm tired of stupid politicians and we need to turn almost every one of theme out.
Obama is a Stalinist with a Big S and he needs to be shut down at every opportunity.
Hey Obots, how's that hope-N-change workin out for ya?
Boy, oh, boy … will they be celebrating at WalMart..
The Dems have benn punching at them for the longest time, knowing full well that the Unions can give them all the $$ they want, but Walmart can't fund any opposition. It's been kind of like the cartoon with the cat that knows how long the dogs leash is and can therefore attack and then run beyond leash range to safety. Except, one day, the dog's leash breaks. The latest beating was forcing WalMart to play nice with SEIU and healthcare. Today, Walmart's leash was broken….
WALMART is now free to buy every town council that opposes them.
Your flag some how got turned upside down you ignorant bastard
from a Constitutional point of view, it's the right decision. does that make things any tidier in this political process? nope. it's one of those decisions where doing the right thing is sometimes a tad distasteful. we all want free speech until we feel it's being used against us.
JBear…Oh yes, my friend, a corporation is as much a breathing, living entity as a person…check the law!
Neither are Unions…but they can still fund elections.
Go back to the Eisenhower glory days,
90%+ tax bracket.
TAX UNEARNED INCOME NOT WAGES
Rent monies are unearned !
Read the original "Common Sense" Tom Paine
maybe not but the peope who own it are and they should have the right to do with their money as they please.
Madison is considered the father of the Constitution, he was from Virginia too. Four of the first six presidents were from VA, two from MA. The four from VA each served two terms, the two from MA each served one term.
All you people who think money is speech so read up on Joe the plumber. Speech is speech. If Joe isn't enough proof try finding video of the town hall meetings on health care. You won't find many news reports on them because those evil corporations (you know – the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, etc.) either buried that story or made the protestors out to be Nazis. I'm guessing you libs think THOSE corporations get to say their mind. But not Fox News of course. Hypocrite doesn't begin to cover what you people are saying. You want to pick and choose who gets to have free speech and that will NEVER work. BTW have you people ever heard of the internet? Yeah it takes a corporation to get your views out – except on the greatest free speech vehicle in the history of the world. And of course the libs were out to shut down conservative voices there too. Can anyone say "China"?
Lets see what Hussein does in response to the Supreme Court ruling-it may shed some light on what Christians will be able to do one day against the murder called abortion.
Listen people, I'm a republican, always have been.. but some of you people have lost your minds. This is not about the first amendment, this country has never, never been so corrupt, and now it got worse. Since when did our precious first amendment become fodder for corporations. And you people cheer, you are all lost.. And don't think, "oh good, corporation money is for us the Republicans." They all came out in massive numbers for Obama, these very same companies. its all corrupt. They do not need you, or side with you. Look at all the support Obama got from big insurance companies, why? Look guys, think ok? I disagree with all commie hatred of business, but these companies do not, why? The will be the government, just think on it for a bit. This is not good, and Obama will do nothing. He loves it, trust me. Take care
Neither are Govt. sponsored and supported Unions!!!!
According to the Supreme Court they are. The 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In that case corporations were granted the status of "natural persons" as defined by the 14th Amendment that protected the rights of freed slaves."
I have lobbied in the past in Washington. For anyone to decry corporate free political speech while ignoring the unions, particularly the government employees unions, the environmentalists, abortion rights groups, and the AARP having unfettered access to Congress and the White House is a joke. These groups lobby in lockstep for each others positions and have 10 times as much power as any corporate lobbying group. The left wants free speech as long it is by groups that they agree with. At least true conservatives say that everyone should have free speech. George Orwell was right.
Yeah, like Goldman Sachs that gets 12 billion of our tax dollars, then pays an effective tax rate of 1% after 11 billion in bonuses and compensation payout. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&a...
Wall Street and multinational corps already run the government, so this is just a small victory for them and the ultra right whingers. http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/09/during...
Yes, wonderful victory for the 1st amendment. I'm sure the signers of the constitution would be pleased to know that artificial organizations created out of thin air by the courts, with millions of dollars in resources, armies of lobbyists, and an unlimited life span, with no moral code other than to maximize profits, have had affirmed their right to influence the political process much more than actual, flesh and blood citizens.
Great decision, by the barest of majorities. Let's hope Obama doesn't have the opportunity to appoint any more Justices.
Obama opposes special interests being involved in politics? Let him start with ACORN and his union buddies.
It was such a bad, unconstitutional law, too bad Bush didn't veto it, as he should have.
Have we (left and right) just unwittingly entered a new age of Global Feudalism? Both the right and left of course want to "win" political power, but at what price? The founding fathers and their predecessors fought and died (and with great luck just barely prevailed ) against exactly the forces that were just unleashed and signed into law: rule by money, for money. In fact, the entire constitution was specifically designed to eternally fight the power of Regressive Feudalism deep into the future, Feudalism's modern instrument and embodiment, the corporation, has finally found and exploited a crack in the constitution wide enough to slip through,. Will the eternal and ancient foe of free men, Feudalism, finally re-conquer and destroy its eternal enemy, self rule by "The Rabble"? And when gone from this country, the great bastion of Democracy, will it quickly fade from the globe as a distant memory? Methinks, sadly, Yes.
A huge, self-interested company bribing a corrupt politician does not count as free speech. However, they can produce all the propaganda they want, that's free speech.
i'm not commenting on this case here by any means, i haven't read it. just think this is an important side of the debate:
let's say you are at a Speaker's Corner, a place to openly debate issues, and you pull out a megaphone that is so loud it makes other speech inaudible. you are told to put it away, that you can speak, but not to the point where it effectively makes everyone elses' free speech pointless. is that violating your free speech? or would allowing you to speak violate everyone elses?
Unions have had the freedom to support whom they chose for years. What is the difference? – none. The playing field has been leveled. The democrats cannot win without an advantage. Its gone and may the best ideas win.
[...] [...]
G.W. Bushs' legacy is, and will be, the victory in the middle East and hi