Posted on 12/30/2011 6:07:38 PM PST by SmithL
Helena, Mont. (AP) -- The Montana Supreme Court is setting up a possible challenge to aspects of the high profile U.S. Supreme Court decision that granted political speech rights to corporations.
The state court decided Friday to restore Montana's century-old ban on direct spending by corporations . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
There would be legal ways to do that. The states have the full authority to place any conditions they want on corporations that incorporate in their state, or not incorporate any corporations at all. It is entirely a matter of state law. If they want to say each CEO must paint his face green and bow three times to the governor, they can.
However, most corporations operating in Montana are probably not incorporated in Montana at all.
Most corps capable of making significant (big $) contributions are probable Delaware, SD, or Nevada corps but must register as “foreign” (out of state corps) in MT and agree to follow it’s laws and rules.
However, can the Stats of MT impose rules on Federal elections is another legal issue
It is about time some court found some good sense to undo this idiotic nonsense.
Actually, it is nonsense to think that any Court has any business, or that any government has any business, regulating or limiting First Amendment rights!
betcha there is no ban on the teachers’ union money or any other union for that matter. seems bias to me.
You, sir or madam, are an IDIOT. You'll probably feel more at home over at the DUmp.
Jackass!
“Where liberty dwells, there is my country." –Benjamin Franklin
Islam Delenda Est!
I realize FR has slipped a bit in the decorum department over the years but you have taken it a giant leap towards the DUmmy flavor of discourse. I don't believe that is what is expected here.
Now to the subject that apprantely has you upset, my contention is that the money dumped into politics is corrupting the process and at the root of many of our nation's troubles. I call it corruption.
As an example, there is not one member of Congress that dare wage an effort a effort at serious reform of the banking lobby beyond mild posturing. Yet, I and I believe many FReepers see problems with what they banks have done to this country. Specifically, they did not act responsibly or in a conservative manner.
I don't believe giving them additional voice by allowing them, as companies, to contribute to political campaigns helps solve the problem. Actually, I wish we could find a way to get all money out of politics. It was a big step in the wrong direction to dump a whole bunch more of a corrupting influence into the process by saying companies have free speech rights via campaign contributions.
That in your view might make me wrong but it does not make me a "Jacka**" You use of that word instead of offering a thoughtful reply shows you to be emotional and lazy but I won't accuse you of being unthinking even if you failed to demonstrate that you are.
If you have a point, make it. But save the childish insults. The DUmmies site has plenty of that if you want to go wallow in the mud.
I certainly don't think anyone on here wants to see your cursing.
Let's get that out of there also.
I may be looking at this wrong, but I just don't see money as free speech. I see it as corruption. That is definately the way I see it. Perhaps there is another way but there is no doubt decisions are made more based on who contributes than on what is best for the country.
“..can the Stats of MT impose rules on Federal elections is another legal issue.”
That’s really the question, if the MT ruling conflicts with Citizens United. MT can have its own laws for state office, not Federal. I’d betcha no one who’s opining here has read the law that’s being upheld in MT. The state legislature can amend it to reflect that it refers only to state offices. Unless the goal is to bring the question back to SCOTUS in an effort to overturn Citizens United.
Money given to a good cause by good people is not corrupt.
Money given to a bad person for an immoral purpose is not corrupt, either.
Only the cause or the person(s) involved can be corrupt. Money is neither moral nor immoral.
And it is clearly a proxy for speech -- thus integral to First Amendment protection.
And in the hands of those people it is the tool of corruption. Correct?
In the hands of a carpenter, a hammer is a good thing.
In the hands of a psychopath, a hammer can be a bad thing.
The morality does not reside in the "tool".
Your screen name identifies you as a 2A supporter. Money in politics is no different than your gun in your home.
It is hard to argue with that reasoning. However, it is unfortunately not so simple as all that. If you accept campaign contributions and then vote against the organization (or company) that provided them, you can count on two things. No money in the next election cycle and if you get a contributor mad enough at you, you can count on money pumped into the election against you.
Rationalization sets in, even with people that think they are honest. They look at what they consider to be their mission, what they look to accomplish in office and convince themselves that for the greater good they have to accept the money and accept voting for something they know is wrong.
Multiply that a bunch of times over and you have our political system. It is corrupt and the tool of that corruption is the money. I agree with you that representatives should not compromise over concerns of future campaign contributions. But there are few in politics that actually perform that way.
You make a good case but I still am not swayed.
How would you propose that candidates finance their campaigns, if not by relying on funds from supporters?
I'll admit, I've identified what I believe is the problem but I have not come up with the solution. I don't think I am alone in that one. Any ideas?
Moreover, given that Congress has the power to destroy (or elevate) any individual (or group or corporation) -- due to the immense size and influence of government -- it is clearly within the interest of any individul (or group or corporation) to be able to influence the opinion (and vote) of any Congressman or Senator.
Consequently, my proposal is that any individual (or group or corporation) may contribute any amount of money (i.e. unlimited dollars) to any candidate for federal office -- so long as the contribution is immediately made public and the contributor is openly identified.
Yes, you are looking at it wrong.
Any control on money is control of our right to organize, associate, and fight for what we believe in.
There should me no limit on who can contribute, other than it must not come from a foreign source.
There should not be any limit on the amount that can be contributed.
Money IS Speech.
Yes, you are looking at it wrong.
Any control on money is control of our right to organize, associate, and fight for what we believe in.
There should me no limit on who can contribute, other than it must not come from a foreign source.
There should not be any limit on the amount that can be contributed.
Money IS Speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.