2010: High court ruling may have huge impact on 2010 races [McCain-Feingold]

The Hill, Washington, DC ^ | 2009-09-07 | Reid Wilson

[rabscuttle385]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments from campaign finance reform advocates and opponents in a case many insiders say will be the most significant decision in more than 35 years.

The case the court will hear, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has the potential to overturn key elements of campaign finance law that prevent corporate spending on elections, a move that would open the door to millions of dollars that could not be spent previously.

“This is the biggest case in campaign finance law, really, since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976,” said Rob Kelner, a partner at Covington & Burling and a leading Republican election lawyer. “It has the potential to make the 2010 election the first one in the living memory of most American adults in which huge volumes of corporate money are thrown into the process.”

[Jacquerie]

Your feelings are all well and good, but do not trump the plain language of the Constitution.

[freedomfiter2]

Your feelings are all well and good, but do not trump the plain language of the Constitution.

Off the top of my head, I don’t recall the word corporation being used in the Constitution. Allowing corporations to pump cash into the elections just dilutes the freedom of speach of actual individuals and hides the identity of contributors. Do we really want Soros and his like hiding behind a myriad of pseudo corporations while pumping hundreds of millions into the next Presidential race?

[Jacquerie]

What part of:

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . (or) to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,”

is not clear?

[freedomfiter2]

Every citizen has the right to freedom of speach as an individual. No corporation is a citizen. Giving campaign donations is not speach. Running ads is speach and even corporations should be allowed. Constitutionally protected rights belong to the people and the states, not to organizations.

[Jacquerie]

So you don't think the Constitution means what it says. Okay. Depending on the day, four or five supreme court justices agree with you.

[okie01]

But they shouldn’t spend billions of dollars for lobbyists to pay off elected officials to make government favor them above individuals.

The reason they spend billions of dollars for lobbyists is because they have billions of dollars at stake.

You're not going to get the money out of politics until you take power away from government. There is a reason why Congress writes tax policy and jillions of regulations -- it keeps the money coming their way.

Reform Congress...and you'll go a long way toward reforming the process.

In the meantime, let the corporations try to defend themselves against rampant extortion.

[freedomfiter2]

I agree that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to make a law that abridged the freedom of speech. I just don’t believe that giving money to a campaign is speech.