Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court restores ban on corporate political money
AP via SFGate ^ | 12/30/11 | MATT GOURAS, Associated Press

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: corporatefreespeech; corporations; freespeech
Yeah, why should the 9th Circus have all the fun being smacked down by SCOTUS?
1 posted on 12/30/2011 6:07:46 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


2 posted on 12/30/2011 6:14:40 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

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


3 posted on 12/30/2011 6:52:38 PM PST by MindBender26 (Don't bother me with the small stuff. I'm too busy trying to save the Republic from Obamaism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Court restores ban on corporate political money.

It is about time some court found some good sense to undo this idiotic nonsense.

4 posted on 12/30/2011 7:01:47 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

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!


5 posted on 12/30/2011 9:29:51 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

betcha there is no ban on the teachers’ union money or any other union for that matter. seems bias to me.


6 posted on 12/30/2011 10:00:42 PM PST by GOP Poet (Time for Bambi and his commie crew to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom
The "idiotic nonsense" is in your post.

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!

REFUSE. RESIST. Do NOT Submit! ★FREEDOM!★


7 posted on 12/30/2011 11:03:40 PM PST by Neil E. Wright (An OATH is FOREVER OathKeeper III We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Neil E. Wright
The "idiotic nonsense" is in your post. You, sir or madam, are an IDIOT. You'll probably feel more at home over at the DUmp. Jackass!

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.

8 posted on 12/31/2011 7:22:18 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet
betcha there is no ban on the teachers’ union money or any other union for that matter. seems bias to me.

Let's get that out of there also.

9 posted on 12/31/2011 7:41:53 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
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!

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.

10 posted on 12/31/2011 7:45:36 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

“..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.


11 posted on 12/31/2011 7:50:55 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom
I may be looking at this wrong, but I just don't see money as free speech. I see it as corruption.

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.

12 posted on 12/31/2011 8:07:31 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Only the cause or the person(s) involved can be corrupt. Money is neither moral nor immoral.

And in the hands of those people it is the tool of corruption. Correct?

13 posted on 12/31/2011 10:32:23 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom
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.

14 posted on 12/31/2011 10:59:34 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: okie01
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.

15 posted on 12/31/2011 11:43:50 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom
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?

16 posted on 12/31/2011 11:50:41 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: okie01
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?

17 posted on 01/01/2012 2:13:48 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom
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? It's tempting to restrict contributions to people (and groups and corporations) who are located in the jurisdiction the candidate is campaigning to represent. However, consider that many people (and groups and corporations) might have an interest in the legislation that the candidate might (or might not) support.

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.

18 posted on 01/01/2012 5:40:01 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

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.


19 posted on 01/01/2012 7:07:57 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

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.


20 posted on 01/01/2012 7:08:06 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

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.


21 posted on 01/01/2012 7:08:14 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

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.


22 posted on 01/01/2012 7:08:31 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
There should me no limit on who can contribute, other than it must not come from a foreign source.

Does that suggest that corporations should not be able to contribute?

23 posted on 01/01/2012 7:49:02 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

If they can’t be represented they can’t be taxed. Being included in the political process is a necessary part of how this country is structured.


24 posted on 01/01/2012 7:53:12 PM PST by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

No, it does not, not at all.
As long as it is a United States domestic corporation.
BTW, the ban on foreign political money has been in force for decades.


25 posted on 01/02/2012 10:05:38 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

No, it does not, not at all.
As long as it is a United States domestic corporation.
BTW, the ban on foreign political money has been in force for decades.


26 posted on 01/02/2012 10:05:41 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

No, it does not, not at all.
As long as it is a United States domestic corporation.
BTW, the ban on foreign political money has been in force for decades.


27 posted on 01/02/2012 10:05:56 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: discostu
If they can’t be represented they can’t be taxed. Being included in the political process is a necessary part of how this country is structured.

Silly, corporations don't pay taxes, they only collect taxes. Only people pay taxes. You should have learned that in conservatism 101. Your argument does not work but keep trying. This has been a good discussion in this thread. A lot of good thought going on. You are not alone in the people that disagree wtih me...so far. :)

28 posted on 01/04/2012 12:14:31 AM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: discostu
If they can’t be represented they can’t be taxed. Being included in the political process is a necessary part of how this country is structured.

Silly, corporations don't pay taxes, they only collect taxes. Only people pay taxes. You should have learned that in conservatism 101. Your argument does not work but keep trying. This has been a good discussion in this thread. A lot of good thought going on. You are not alone in the people that disagree wtih me...so far. :)

29 posted on 01/04/2012 12:57:58 AM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

“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.”

How the hell would you know, newcomer!!!!


30 posted on 01/04/2012 1:09:35 AM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

You’ve got this one wrong on multiple levels.

First they DO pay taxes on their own income.

Second they ARE people legally. Corporate personhood is a hot topic but as the law currently stands when they incorporate (form a body) they become legally a person with duties (like taxes) and rights (like freedom of expression).


31 posted on 01/04/2012 8:07:15 AM PST by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Second they ARE people legally. Corporate personhood is a hot topic but as the law currently stands when they incorporate (form a body) they become legally a person with duties (like taxes) and rights (like freedom of expression).

Not any corporations I have been involved with. It is a seperate entity, not one and the same as its owners. Maybe I misunderstand your point.

32 posted on 01/04/2012 7:54:59 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
How the hell would you know, newcomer!!!!

Want to take a test on FR history? Bet I know more than you think I do.

Let's try and easy one. What is HTML bootcamp? I have not seen it refrenced around here in a quite a few years but it used to be a regular posting.

Bonus question: Give one reason why a fellow FReeper would direct another FReeper to HTML bootcamp?

33 posted on 01/04/2012 8:04:11 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

Actually EVERY corporation you’ve ever been involved with was a “person” under the law, filled out income tax forms, and could spend express itself via commercials and political donations. Now they might not have had taxable profit, and they might not have chosen to express themselves, but they still had to fill out 1120 and had the ability to make those donations.


34 posted on 01/05/2012 7:36:09 AM PST by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson