Citizens United v FEC

[JPhillips]

There's a huge campaign finance case being heard today at the Supreme Court. In short, the court will decide whether the current bans on direct contributions from corporations and unions are constitutional. A reversal could be the first step in dismantling all of the federal laws on campaign finance. Here's the NPR story, by Nina Totenberg, on the case:

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have returned early from their summer recess to hear arguments in a case that could rip apart the legal underpinnings of the nation's campaign finance laws. For more than a century, for all practical purposes, those laws have barred corporations from spending money on candidate elections.

Wednesday's argument is a double first: The first argument to be heard by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and the first time new U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan will argue a case before the Supreme Court.

The justices view the case as so important that they are hearing it three weeks before the official opening of the new term, and they have taken the unusual step of allowing same-day broadcast of the audio.

So what's the hoopla about? Plenty.

Campaign Safeguards Vs. Free Speech

The nation's campaign finance laws date back to the early 1900s, an era of freewheeling corporate monopolies and uninhibited corporate influence in politics.

President Theodore Roosevelt, elected on a campaign pledge of reform, was embarrassed when he learned that his own campaign had received secret corporate contributions from insurance companies, and he promptly persuaded Congress to pass legislation banning corporate campaign contributions altogether.

Forty years later, Congress extended the ban to union contributions and to spending by both corporations and unions. The Watergate scandal prompted more restrictions. And in 2002, Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold won passage of a law that sought to plug loopholes that had made these bans into legal Swiss cheese.

One major provision of the McCain-Feingold law banned the broadcast of independent political advertisements about candidates within 30 days of an election if the ads were financed by corporate or union funds. The Supreme Court upheld this provision six years ago, but since then, conservative groups have repeatedly brought new challenges, including a relatively minor challenge that was heard by the court in March.

The argument went badly for campaign finance reform advocates when a government lawyer was asked whether Congress could also pass a law banning the publication of a corporate-funded campaign book just before an election. Yes, said the lawyer, adding that no such law exists. At the prospect of book-banning, Justice Samuel Alito blurted "that's pretty incredible," and other justices openly gaped.

In June, the justices ordered the case re-argued, only this time, they said they wanted the lawyers to focus on whether the Constitution permits any ban on corporate spending in candidate elections. In short, the court said it is considering whether to reverse decades of its own decisions.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have reconvened early to examine a corporate campaign finance case involving an anti-Hillary Clinton movie.

At the center of the case is a slashing, 90-minute critique of Hillary Clinton called simply Hillary: The Movie. The film was produced by Citizens United, a conservative group that wanted to buy cable access to air its film during the 2008 presidential primary season. The group also wanted to broadcast ads for the movie. The message was not subtle. As one trailer put it, with quick bites from speakers in the movie: "She's no Richard Nixon, she's worse ... vindictive ... venal ... sneaky ... scares the hell out of me."

When the Federal Election Commission ruled the movie and its advertisements could not air within 30 days of a presidential primary, producer David Bossie went to court.

"People should be able to articulate ideas and visions of candidates without any repercussions," Bossie says.

A three-judge federal court panel ruled that the film could be understood as only one thing: a campaign ad telling voters that Hillary Clinton was "unfit for office."

The panel decided the film could not be broadcast right before an election because of the way it was financed. Under the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, if you want to air a movie that is the functional equivalent of an ad, just before a primary, you cannot use corporate or union general-treasury funds, and you have to disclose who paid for it.

Since Citizens United failed on both counts, the federal court judges said, neither the film nor ads for it could be aired. In making their decision, the judges pointed repeatedly to the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the McCain-Feingold law in 2003.

The composition of the high court today, however, is far different than it was six years ago. Two new Bush appointees now sit on the court, and it is entirely possible that with three other justices long opposed to campaign funding restrictions, there is now a narrow court majority to undo nearly a century of campaign finance law.

A Question Of Funding

Does [free speech protection] apply to foreign nationals? Does it apply to the government of China or Russia or Iran in this country? Does it apply to corporations? Those are all different players who are not individuals, not voters, not citizens.

Election law in the United States has been built for decades on the notion that corporations and unions cannot use their general treasury funds to elect or defeat a candidate, because shareholders and union members may disagree with how the money is being spent, and because the amount of money at stake would corrupt and unbalance the system.

McCain and Feingold say there is nothing in the law that inherently prevents Bossie from airing his movie on television.

"There's no prohibition on running any kind of political advertising. It's just a question of how it's funded," says Scott Nelson, an attorney who represents McCain and Feingold.

Citizens United could have aired the movie if it didn't accept corporate contributions, Nelson observes, or if it had paid for the film with money from a political action committee, known as a PAC.

A PAC is a group of individuals who contribute their own money to fund campaign efforts. By law, their names must be disclosed. Citizens United has a PAC but didn't want to use it for the film. As producer Bossie puts it, "I shouldn't be forced to use some sort of mechanism because somebody in some building here in Washington tells me I have to."

Bossie, like other opponents of the McCain-Feingold law, sees campaign spending and disclosure restrictions as interfering with the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

Should Corporations Have The Same Free Speech Rights As People?

"The most important right we have in a democracy is the right to participate in the electoral process. We've smothered that right with the most incomprehensible, burdensome, unintelligible set of regulations and laws, some of which are criminal laws, surrounding that freedom. That's intolerable," says Ted Olson, who argued in support of the McCain-Feingold law as solicitor general for the Bush administration. On Wednesday, he will be arguing against it.

Olson maintains that corporations are individuals, in a constitutional sense, and should be able to express their views. Money, he says, is speech.

"You can't speak without money," Olson says. "In this day and age, you need resources to reach people. And that's part of the right to speak." He adds: "There's nothing more important under the First Amendment than to talk about elections."

The question always is: Who does the First Amendment apply to? Do only individuals have the right of free speech? Or does this right extend to corporations and unions as well?

The answer has profound consequences, says Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and a longtime McCain adviser.

"Does it apply to foreign nationals? Does it apply to the government of China or Russia or Iran in this country? Does it apply to corporations? Those are all different players who are not individuals, not voters, not citizens," Potter says

Corporations, he notes, are creations of the state established, in essence, to enable businesses to amass wealth. Corporations, unlike individuals, can live forever, and they have special privileges. Their owners, for instance, are insulated from liability in lawsuits and from responsibility for corporate debt.

A Decision With Potentially Profound Impact

Campaign reform advocates say that if the court strikes down limits on corporate campaign spending, the whole electoral system will be distorted. Corporations, with billions of dollars in profits each year, will be able to swamp the system, and they will do it using front groups so that voters won't know who is sponsoring the ads they see.

"It's a disaster for democracy," says campaign reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. "It puts corporate money in the driver's seat. It will unleash amounts of money in campaigns that we have never seen before."

The Supreme Court is closely divided on this issue. At the March argument, five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared hostile to the existing law. For the court, though, the larger question is whether conservatives — Roberts in particular — are prepared to reverse decades of election-law decisions.

At his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005, Roberts said this about reversing precedent: "I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and even-handedness. It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided."

The question, said Roberts, is whether society has settled expectations based on the court's previous rulings, whether the precedent is workable and whether reversal would undermine the legitimacy of the court. His answer to those questions will have a profound impact on the way elections in this country are conducted.

[JPhillips]

dola

One of the more interesting aspect of this for me is how it would open the door to foreign funding of campaigns. Corporations are now international entities regardless of where they are based. What's to stop a foreigner or a foreign government from incorporating in the US and then anonymously pouring money in to a favored campaign?

[JonInMiddleGA]

By a fairly thin margin, I'd prefer to see a lot of the current provisions struck down ... which usually means that the other side has very little to worry about since I'm more often than not on the down side of SCOTUS rulings.

[DaddyTorgo]

we need real campaign finance reform to make it more difficult for corporations and special interests to buy politicians

[Big Fo]

Corporations already own the government, it can't get that much worse right?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

One of the more interesting aspect of this for me is how it would open the door to foreign funding of campaigns. Corporations are now international entities regardless of where they are based. What's to stop a foreigner or a foreign government from incorporating in the US and then anonymously pouring money in to a favored campaign?

From other threads, a lot of people seem to think that foreign terrorists have constitutional rights. Shouldn't those same people think foreign entities have a constitutional right to free speach?

And lots of people want to prosecute corporations criminally, which of course means that corporations have certain constitutional rights in that process. But do we only give them rights associated with criminal procedure, and restrict them from others we don't want them to have (like free speech)?

If we just mix and match and pick and choose who has which constitutional right, based on how desirable the outcome is, what does the constitution matter?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

we need real campaign finance reform to make it more difficult for corporations and special interests to buy politicians

Originally Posted by molson

From other threads, a lot of people seem to think that foreign terrorists have constitutional rights. Shouldn't those same people think foreign entities have a constitutional right to free speach?

And lots of people want to prosecute corporations criminally, which of course means that corporations have certain constitutional rights in that process. But do we only give them rights associated with criminal procedure, and restrict them from others we don't want them to have (like free speech)?

If we just mix and match and pick and choose who has which constitutional right, based on how desirable the outcome is, what does the constitution matter?

I guess I am in the minority who thinks that foreigners have no US constitutional rights, because they are, in fact, NOT US citizens. The whole thing in Guantanamo, while i don't condone torture persay, is a joke to say the least. Giving these people US constitutional rights is absurd.

I also believe that it should be harder, not easier, to pour money into a political campaign by corporations. Just my opinion of course.

[sterlingice]

"The nation's campaign finance laws date back to the early 1900s, an era of freewheeling corporate monopolies and uninhibited corporate influence in politics."
-Ah, yes, so different from today

"Olson maintains that corporations are individuals, in a constitutional sense, and should be able to express their views. Money, he says, is speech."
-I've never understood both parts of this line of reasoning. One, how does money guarantee free speech? And how did we get to such a corrupt point where a corporation is entitled to the same protections under the law as an individual person?

This is one of those rulings that scares me. I've long maintained that the biggest single way to "clean up" Washington would be publicly funded elections or, at the very least, extremely strict caps on election spending.

It's also the type of thing that frustrates me about America these days. It's such a huge, important case that people will look back on years from now but you can't get people to pay attention to now because they don't understand the gravity of it. This is the type of thing CNN should be covering with wall-to-wall news instead of whatever some non-celebrity is doing or some missing white woman but people just don't understand the gravity of the situation.

SI

[Autumn]

I don't think it's necessarily mixing and matching to decide what rights a corporation should have. A corporation is an invention, a legal entity we create. We get to decide, as a society, anything we want about it. You certainly have a point that people need to think clearly on this, but I think it's not inconsistent to pick and choose rights in this case.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

[b]...instead of whatever some non-celebrity is doing or some missing white woman but people just don't understand the gravity of the situation...

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I guess I am in the minority who thinks that foreigners have no US constitutional rights, because they are, in fact, NOT US citizens. The whole thing in Guantanamo, while i don't condone torture persay, is a joke to say the least. Giving these people US constitutional rights is absurd.

Just to clarify this - you believe that it'd be ok for an American arrested abroad to be subjected to torture or imprisonment without trial in a similar manner?

You can't pick and choose who should be treated according to laws imho, if you set down laws then everyone should follow them - I sincerely believe that a society is judged by how it treats its lesser mmbers whether those are criminals, foreign nationals or the poor.

(as an aside as a 'foreigner' if the US didn't treat me fairly I sure as heck wouldn't be living over here and I think you'd probably find that the amount of tourists visiting would decrease somewhat )

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Just to clarify this - you believe that it'd be ok for an American arrested abroad to be subjected to torture or imprisonment without trial in a similar manner?

You can't pick and choose who should be treated according to laws imho, if you set down laws then everyone should follow them - I sincerely believe that a society is judged by how it treats its lesser mmbers whether those are criminals, foreign nationals or the poor.

(as an aside as a 'foreigner' if the US didn't treat me fairly I sure as heck wouldn't be living over here and I think you'd probably find that the amount of tourists visiting would decrease somewhat )

There's a difference between "OK" and constitutionality. Iran and North Korea both recently imprisoned American citizens. That's not cool, but the governments of North Korea and Iran certainly aren't bound by the U.S. constitution, just as we're not bound by their laws.

As for foreigners - I think the constitution (the entire constitution) applies to individual U.S. citizens and those individuals living here legally, and that's it. Certainly not corporations and certainly not foreign terrorists.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Is there a way to ensure that we're not

a. falsely imprisoning people
b. torturing those we've imprisoned

without "giving these people US constitutional rights"? Or is this an all or nothing thing?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Is there a way to ensure that we're not

a. falsely imprisoning people
b. torturing those we've imprisoned

without "giving these people US constitutional rights"? Or is this an all or nothing thing?

Definitely not an all or nothing thing. We can protect foreign prisoners all we want. Just like police departments and state appellate courts can go further than what is required by the constitution. The constitution is just a floor of guarantees.

But if we want to give them actual constitutional rights, they (and foreign non-terrorists) are going to want them to, and it would be a reasonable request.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Then who is in favor of giving "foreign terrorists constitutional rights"? Have I missed that?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Just to clarify this - you believe that it'd be ok for an American arrested abroad to be subjected to torture or imprisonment without trial in a similar manner?

Never said this, or even implied it for that matter. Not sure where you got this from or where you are going with it. Many other countries do not follow the same "laws" that we follow/created. Of course I do not want Americans to be tortured/arrested/imprisoned abroad, that is an absurd statement.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

You can't pick and choose who should be treated according to laws imho, if you set down laws then everyone should follow them - I sincerely believe that a society is judged by how it treats its lesser mmbers whether those are criminals, foreign nationals or the poor.

(as an aside as a 'foreigner' if the US didn't treat me fairly I sure as heck wouldn't be living over here and I think you'd probably find that the amount of tourists visiting would decrease somewhat )

Once again, what you are saying really makes no sense. The people being imprisoned in Gitmo were accused of terrorism and other crimes. I have no way of knowing if they were guilty of these crimes or not, but to say that they weren't being "treated fairly" and comparing this to a level of tourism in the US is just absurd. Perhaps they did not deserve the treatment they received, but I am not the one to determine that.

Criminals should be treated as what they are: criminals. Geneva gave certain rights to prisoners of war, but I am pretty sure that this did not include anything about non-citizens of the US obtaining US Constitutional rights.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Then who is in favor of giving "foreign terrorists constitutional rights"? Have I missed that?

The Supreme court, at least in terms of habeus corpus, at GITMO, because the U.S. has control over that area.

Otherwise, those who argue that foreign prisoners must be tried in civilian courts, are presumably arguing that they all have full constitutional guarantees (can you have a U.S. "civilian" trial without the associated constitutional rights)? (That argument though, might be turning into a fringe opinion, though it was much more common when Bush was president).

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

From other threads, a lot of people seem to think that foreign terrorists have constitutional rights. Shouldn't those same people think foreign entities have a constitutional right to free speach?

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Then who is in favor of giving "foreign terrorists constitutional rights"? Have I missed that?

I was just referring to what Molson said. Not pointing to anyone in particular.

[path12]

I haven't been following all the threads Molson references, but are we equating the Geneva Convention with "constitutional rights"? Because I believe the Geneva Convention is the guideline we're supposed to be using with regards to foreign combatants/terrorists.....

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

From other threads, a lot of people seem to think that foreign terrorists have constitutional rights. Shouldn't those same people think foreign entities have a constitutional right to free speach?

And lots of people want to prosecute corporations criminally, which of course means that corporations have certain constitutional rights in that process. But do we only give them rights associated with criminal procedure, and restrict them from others we don't want them to have (like free speech)?

If we just mix and match and pick and choose who has which constitutional right, based on how desirable the outcome is, what does the constitution matter?

Not sure who you mean since I've never argued that foreign born terrorists have constitutional rights.

It's amazing that you can make so many complaints about generalizations.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not sure who you mean since I've never argued that foreign born terrorists have constitutional rights.

It's amazing that you can make so many complaints about generalizations.

You missed the first sentence of my post, "From other threads, a lot of people", not "JPhillips".

Many people here have argued that foreign terrorists are entitled to civilian trials in civilian U.S. courts. I can't remember if you were one. But now that Obama is going along with the status quo, it seems he's given people "moral permission" to stop demanding that, as they did under Bush.

A civilian trial assumes constitutional rights. If you have a civilian trial without the constitutional rights - it's just a military tribunal.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by path12

I haven't been following all the threads Molson references, but are we equating the Geneva Convention with "constitutional rights"? Because I believe the Geneva Convention is the guideline we're supposed to be using with regards to foreign combatants/terrorists.....

I wasn't equating these two things, just mentioning them in the same paragraph. The Geneva convention gives certain basic rights to prisoners of war. These rights should be extended to terrorists, if in fact, it is considered a "war". In no fathomable way, at least in my opinion, should US constitutional rights ever be offered to non-US citizen terrorists, convicted or otherwise.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by path12

I haven't been following all the threads Molson references, but are we equating the Geneva Convention with "constitutional rights"? Because I believe the Geneva Convention is the guideline we're supposed to be using with regards to foreign combatants/terrorists.....

uniformed foreign combatants yes. terrorists...not necessarily (although I suppose we could voluntarily if we you know...wanted to take the high road).

[CamEdwards]

JPhillips,

I'm wondering just how boisterous you want our sea of liberty to be. Jefferson, after all, had no problem with Citizen Genet coming over here and attempting to influence our politics.

As for ending private funding of campaigns, that's really not what this issue is about. Rather, it's about whether or not groups of individuals, acting together, will have a robust 1st Amendment when it comes to political speech, or whether or not we'll be shut up while millionaires and billionaires can spend their money in individual support or opposition of candidates.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

JPhillips,

I'm wondering just how boisterous you want our sea of liberty to be. Jefferson, after all, had no problem with Citizen Genet coming over here and attempting to influence our politics.

As for ending private funding of campaigns, that's really not what this issue is about. Rather, it's about whether or not groups of individuals, acting together, will have a robust 1st Amendment when it comes to political speech, or whether or not we'll be shut up while millionaires and billionaires can spend their money in individual support or opposition of candidates.

Unfortunately, I am leaning towards the latter actually happening.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

As for ending private funding of campaigns, that's really not what this issue is about. Rather, it's about whether or not groups of individuals, acting together, will have a robust 1st Amendment when it comes to political speech, or whether or not we'll be shut up while millionaires and billionaires can spend their money in individual support or opposition of candidates.

No, it's not about ending private funding of campaigns. But a ruling against campaign finance legislation gets us one large step further away from, not closer to such a situation.

I find the wording of your second sentence interesting as it could be construed either way as to who you are talking about.

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Unfortunately, I am leaning towards the latter actually happening.

Well that's the thing. If George Soros or T. Boone Pickens want to spend $100,000,000 promoting their favorite candidate, or bashing their least favorite, that's going to continue to be fine and dandy. If 10,000,000 Americans want to band together and each contribute $10 to counter Soros or Pickens with ads of their own, do we really want them to be silenced?

Soros, after all, has given millions of bucks to groups promoting campaign finance reform like Democracy 21, because people like him are going to be the chief beneficiaries of tight restrictions on corporate or group spending.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

No, it's not about ending private funding of campaigns. But a ruling against campaign finance legislation gets us one large step further away from, not closer to such a situation.

I find the wording of your second sentence interesting as it could be construed either way as to who you are talking about.

SI

I'm not a millionaire or a billionaire, if that helps to clarify things.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well that's the thing. If George Soros or T. Boone Pickens want to spend $100,000,000 promoting their favorite candidate, or bashing their least favorite, that's going to continue to be fine and dandy. If 10,000,000 Americans want to band together and each contribute $10 to counter Soros or Pickens with ads of their own, do we really want them to be silenced?

Soros, after all, has given millions of bucks to groups promoting campaign finance reform like Democracy 21, because people like him are going to be the chief beneficiaries of tight restrictions on corporate or group spending.

Maybe I misunderstand campaign financing, but isn't the option open to 10,000,000 Americans right now, by donating to the appropriate political campaign or group?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

JPhillips,

I'm wondering just how boisterous you want our sea of liberty to be. Jefferson, after all, had no problem with Citizen Genet coming over here and attempting to influence our politics.

As for ending private funding of campaigns, that's really not what this issue is about. Rather, it's about whether or not groups of individuals, acting together, will have a robust 1st Amendment when it comes to political speech, or whether or not we'll be shut up while millionaires and billionaires can spend their money in individual support or opposition of candidates.

To be honest I'm not sure where I stand right now, but I do think that the court's decision to expand the scope of this case to cover corporate and union spending has the potential to lead to a major overhaul of campaign spending.

As to your other points, the restrictions on advertising that this case originally was limited to apply equally to Pickens/Soros or Citizen's United. As I understand it the problem isn't that CU was silenced, but that they ran afoul of spending and disclosure rules that apply equally.

And I'm surprised that you're supporting such activist judges to repeal the will of the people as carried out by their representatives.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

To be honest I'm not sure where I stand right now, but I do think that the court's decision to expand the scope of this case to cover corporate and union spending has the potential to lead to a major overhaul of campaign spending.

As to your other points, the restrictions on advertising that this case originally was limited to apply equally to Pickens/Soros or Citizen's United. As I understand it the problem isn't that CU was silenced, but that they ran afoul of spending and disclosure rules that apply equally.

And I'm surprised that you're supporting such activist judges to repeal the will of the people as carried out by their representatives.

they are only "activist" if it runs counter to your personal philosophy

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm not well-versed enough on this topic to know what should happen, but it's an interesting read. Lots to think about. Thanks for posting, JPhillips.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

As for ending private funding of campaigns, that's really not what this issue is about. Rather, it's about whether or not groups of individuals, acting together, will have a robust 1st Amendment when it comes to political speech, or whether or not we'll be shut up while millionaires and billionaires can spend their money in individual support or opposition of candidates.

Exceptionally good spin here. Reading this at face value "corporations" are only groups of individuals who come together to pool money for a specific political purpose.

Now, while that's certainly the case, it seems a pretty big omission to not mention that the invalidation of these laws would also allow such things as BP, Airbus, GE, etc... to drop millions or even billions of their shareholders' dollars into political campaigns, or independent political ads, unfettered. Surely that needs to be a consideration, no?


The crux of the problem here seems to me to be the fact that in today's media environment, it is incredibly hard to undo the effects of bad publicity (whether based on truth or simply outright lies), especially in a timely manner as required by the realities of today's political campaigns. I don't know how you solve this.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Exceptionally good spin here. Reading this at face value "corporations" are only groups of individuals who come together to pool money for a specific political purpose.

Now, while that's certainly the case, it seems a pretty big omission to not mention that the invalidation of these laws would also allow such things as BP, Airbus, GE, etc... to drop millions or even billions of their shareholders' dollars into political campaigns, or independent political ads, unfettered. Surely that needs to be a consideration, no?


The crux of the problem here seems to me to be the fact that in today's media environment, it is incredibly hard to undo the effects of bad publicity (whether based on truth or simply outright lies), especially in a timely manner as required by the realities of today's political campaigns. I don't know how you solve this.

You can't. Especially with "tweets"....

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Exceptionally good spin here. Reading this at face value "corporations" are only groups of individuals who come together to pool money for a specific political purpose.

Now, while that's certainly the case, it seems a pretty big omission to not mention that the invalidation of these laws would also allow such things as BP, Airbus, GE, etc... to drop millions or even billions of their shareholders' dollars into political campaigns, or independent political ads, unfettered. Surely that needs to be a consideration, no?


The crux of the problem here seems to me to be the fact that in today's media environment, it is incredibly hard to undo the effects of bad publicity (whether based on truth or simply outright lies), especially in a timely manner as required by the realities of today's political campaigns. I don't know how you solve this.

I think it's more an issue for shareholders than the government.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think it's more an issue for shareholders than the government.

Maybe we're going to start bailing out every floundering corporation in order to give the government control of their spending.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Maybe we're going to start bailing out every floundering corporation in order to give the government control of their spending.

Isn't bailing out these corporations, with the American people subsequently "owning" them, fairly similar to socialism/communism?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Hmmm, that is certainly a unique way to look at it, Roma.

[CamEdwards]

Here's the analysis of the oral arguments from SCOTUSBlog:

Nothing found for Wp Analysis-two-precedents-in-jeopardy #more-10669

Interesting tidbit about Chief Justice Roberts and Solicitor General Elena Kagan:

And he openly ridiculed her contention that corporations’ political spending had to be curbed in order to protect stockholders who may not share the political positions the corporation was taking. He said she was making an “extraordinarily paternalistic” argument, akin to arguing that “Big Brother” had to “protect shareholders from themselves.” The Chief Justice also commented: “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of bureaucrats.”

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm not a millionaire or a billionaire, if that helps to clarify things.

Not really. Let's go back to what you said.

As for ending private funding of campaigns, that's really not what this issue is about. Rather, it's about whether or not groups of individuals, acting together, will have a robust 1st Amendment when it comes to political speech, or whether or not we'll be shut up while millionaires and billionaires can spend their money in individual support or opposition of candidates.

I, as a private individual can spend money in support or opposition of candidates currently. And, in fact, I can spend just as much as your later mentioned George Soros or T. Boone Pickens- we are each limited to $2000. If I had their resources, I could try to create an organization where I could try to get others to help bundle their money for a candidate but that's it.

I could create a 527, which is, frankly, a loophole that needs to be subject to the same laws as PACs- but that's pretty much my only avenue and I still cannot directly advocate for or against a candidate. But a ruling in this case against campaign finance and you can kiss this change goodbye.

So, I guess you must be opposed to overturning campaign finance laws as they currently exist.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think it's more an issue for shareholders than the government.

You've not addressed my point.

You've painted this as a choice between letting "groups of individuals, acting together" pool money to influence campaigns or simply ceding such expenditures (and related influence) to rich individuals. Which altogether misses the influence actual corporations (BP, Alcoa, GE, Pfizer, etc...) would have on campaigns if allowed to use their resources to purchase airtime for this purpose directly. This is important because arguably these corporations have access to a significantly bigger tap of money, collectively, than either "groups of individuals, acting together" or rich individuals.

I'm not, at this point, saying whether or not this would be a bad thing. I'm just saying it's a huge elephant in the room that your argument completely ignores.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Not really. Let's go back to what you said.



I, as a private individual can spend money in support or opposition of candidates currently. And, in fact, I can spend just as much as your later mentioned George Soros or T. Boone Pickens- we are each limited to $2000. If I had their resources, I could try to create an organization where I could try to get others to help bundle their money for a candidate but that's it.

I could create a 527, which is, frankly, a loophole that needs to be subject to the same laws as PACs- but that's pretty much my only avenue and I still cannot directly advocate for or against a candidate. But a ruling in this case against campaign finance and you can kiss this change goodbye.

So, I guess you must be opposed to overturning campaign finance laws as they currently exist.

SI

Actually, I'd like to see them all go away. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, after all. I don't have a problem if George Soros wants to spend $100,000,000 on television advertisements that say my candidate is a douche, but I want to be able to get together with some like-minded individuals on my side and counter those advertisements as well.

I care less about donation limits to specific candidates than I do donation limits/restrictions on political speech of outside organizations... probably because I'm much more inclined to donate to an outside organization than an actual candidate.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Hmmm, that is certainly a unique way to look at it, Roma.

Not sure how accurate it is, but when you think about it....even though we "own" GM, the government is who really owns the company. Imagine this happening nation-wide, across many different industries. I may be way off, but it is eerily similar to communist Russia...

[JPhillips]

I think nation-wide, across many different industries, and permanently are the key differences.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think nation-wide, across many different industries, and permanently are the key differences.

Very true. I haven't kept up with things, has GM been set free yet, or are we all still stockholders for our government owned automobile company?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Interesting tidbit about Chief Justice Roberts and Solicitor General Elena Kagan:

IMO, it's the wrong argument. We don't need to protect shareholders against the political actions of the corporations in which they invest because a) the political actions of the corporations (i.e. lobbying, for a simple example) are for the purpose (ostensibly) of maximizing shareholder value and b) if a particular shareholder doesn't like the actions of the company, they can sell their stock.


Again, what these arguments are ignoring is that the political direction of a corporation can be influenced by a relatively small (and potentially very like-minded) group of people: the board and, say, the C-level execs. It's certainly reasonable to assume that in an unfettered system these people may agree to use the enormous capital at their disposal for political ends. After all, they already do this (i.e., lobbying and groups of personal donations) and wield an enormous amount of influence. Now imagine the kind of influence they'd wield if they could simply direct a percentage of their revenues to political ends.

People complained that Obama had so much money at the end of his campaign that he could air a primetime infomercial. The money he spent on that is peanuts compared to what corporations (actual corporations) could spend. Worse, corporations could simply outright lie in these ads and still withstand the cost of litigation for, say, libel/slander, that ensued after the election, in an unfettered system.


Again, I'm not sure how you fix all of this, I'm just saying that if we're somehow viewing this as a fight for the rights of "groups of individuals, acting together" to have equal influence to the Pickens & Soros of the world, be aware of the unintended consequences.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Very true. I haven't kept up with things, has GM been set free yet, or are we all still stockholders for our government owned automobile company?

It's only "similar" to socialism if the government uses its ownership to direct the day-to-day activities of the company. Which the Obama Administration has not done and, in fact, about which Obama himself has said he is "not interested in running a car company".

It's completely unrelated to Communism in which the workers themselves (theoretically) own the means of production. All production - across all industries.

[path12]

OK. So we know that much of America is easily led (whether by right or left).

Say Exxon gets fired up about an issue. A very small percentage of their profits from the last year could buy a hell of a lot of advertising/programs to sway the masses, seems to me.

Not sure I think that's a good idea. But corporatism does appear to be the wave we're riding.

[JPhillips]

5-4 decision released today siding with Citizen's United. It seems as if there is now no limit on corporate or union direct expenditures on candidates.

[molson]

It's always amusing to me how "liberal" and "conservative" justices can hold either very narrow, or very broad views about the scope of constitutional rights depending on what they think about the underlying litigants and their causes.