Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

New York Times ^ | 1/21/10

[steve-b]

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns....

[oioiman]

no, they just run both parties, dictate the terms of political engagement, and further ensnare us all in an ever-growing fascist state where all profits go to private purses, all losses are pawned off on the public, and the political landscape is walled off from any meaningful reform. Endless fetishising of the private vis-a-vis the public gets no one anywhere except further down the rat hole of tyranny. If the outcome of a decision is destructive to the body politic and the daily lives of the people, does it matter if the person drawing up the well-bucket of tyranny is a government bureaucrat or a private enterprise back commissar. Tyranny and loss of control and accountability is the result no matter who pulls the strings.

[Credo]

Lonesome,
I agree the democrats are little better than the mob. The GOP won’t be able to counter this until they figure out how the democrat party since FDR is all about raw naked power.

McCain Feingold IMHO made it possible for the Soros Lefty groups turn campaigns into cesspools through their 527’s.

MF was the worst non veto of the Bush administration. It is ironic that McCain reaped the consequences of his own bill. Unfortuantely we’re all feeling those consequences now.

As an aside, speaking of coal; does anyone have info on how KKK Byrd engineered clean coal restrictions that make it more difficult for non WV coal producers to compete because of the restrictions. Essentially other states’ coal comes out of the ground cleaner and doesn’t need the cleaning Byrd’s cleaning regulations required thus making it non profitable for those states to produce coal. I remember reading about this but I can’t pin it down.

[1776 Reborn]

Could you imagine trying to explain how capitalism works to a kid today?

[Labyrinthos]

The SCOTUS decision is truly stunning. The decision goes much further than simply negating portions of McLame-Feingold, in that the Court overruled Austin, a twenty year old precedent that upheld restrictions on corporate campaign advertising. If I have read today's decision correctly (Kennedy tends to get verbose and there are a number of concurrences), the Court not only struck down the prohibition of PAC advocacy ads within 30/60 days of a primary/general election, but the prohibition against corporate campaign advocacy, in general, as well the prohibition against deceptive and misleading campaign ads.

The SCOTUS basically said that corporations have the same rights as individuals and that a corporation should not have to incur the burden and expense of setting up and operating a PAC that it is not even allowed to directly fund, as a prerequisite to engaging in political speech. Most importantly, the Court emphasized that the best way to fight deceptive or misleading campaign ads in not with laws and regulations that use criminal penalties to limit speech, but with more speech and less government regulation. The Court basically B-Slapped the FEC in proclaiming that the First Amendment is incompatible with a regulatory scheme that requires a corporation to get the blessing of government bureaucrats as a prerequisite to engaging in protected political speech.

The only part of the law under review that the Court upheld is the requirment that corporate ads on TV/Radio disclose the source of the ad and state whether it has the approval of a particular candidate. (Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion that would have struck this provision also.)

Again, this is a truly amazing decision that upholds the most basic premise of the First Amendment.

[rwfromkansas]

This is a confusing decision, as some aspects of McCain-Feingold remain and were not struck down. In fact, much remains.

Can anyone put the low-down on what exactly has changed?

[rwfromkansas]

According to CNN, this was a narrow ruling and much of McCain remains.

So, which is it?

[Labyrinthos]

CNN is wrong.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors."

I think this was the correct decision. I'm all for spending as much money as people want on campaigns. My only requirement would be full disclosure and no foreign money in our campaigns.

I also like the idea of candidates having their own voice saying they approve of the add. Candidates should not be able to put out an add bashing and lying about someone and then be able to claim they didn't put it out. If your add is good, you should have no problem putting your stamp of approval on the add.

In general, as much money as you want to spend and transparency. I think that's how our republic works best. Let the voters hear the message and make decisions based on as much knowledge as possible.

[livius]

I agree, it is a truly amazing decision. I think it will have an impact in other areas, too.

[agrace]

lol

[Osage Orange]

Correct........

[the_Watchman]

Would this ruling clear the way for FreeRepublic to accept advertising so that Jim could make lots of money?! That would be great! :)

[americanophile]

This is huge.

[Crim]

Hell...I cant find it any article yet...but when I count on my fingers and toe...with thomas in decent....SOTO WAS IN THE MAJORITY????!!!!!

Oh man that’s a bitch slap in the face of 100 years of progressive restrictions of corporite speech...and OBAMA SOROS PUPPET.

And TWO libs in the majority???

WOW.

[Deo volente]

Quote of the Day:

“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. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority.

[bvw]

There are five separate decisions today on Campaign Financing Laws. The libs, including the illegitimate Justice Sotomayor, dissent on most of them, but in the one that UPHOLDS public reporting of the amounts, names and addresses of those who have donated over some small amount ONLY Thomas dissented.

[patlin]

Now we need to get the 233 year old one UPHELD!

Complete UNITY at birth for ALL future presidents!

birth on American soil + 2 American citizen parents = natural born citizen

[Crim]

Yeah I read to fast I guess....

Thanks for the correction.

[KansasGirl]

Sotomayer, along with Ginsberg, Stevens, and Breyer, dissented. Thomas, Salia, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito were the majority.

[KansasGirl]

Salia = SCalia