Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[INRM]

Foreign nationals should not be able to give as much campaign money to whoever they wish because they could subvert the democracy of this country. Of course I doubt the supreme court would ever do anything about that.

 

[WildCat]

Foreign nationals should not be able to give as much campaign money to whoever they wish because they could subvert the democracy of this country. Of course I doubt the supreme court would ever do anything about that.

Actually they're not allowed to give any money at all to campaigns.

 

[casebro]

Corporate personhood? Why not. Just put them on a par with felons and foreign nationals.

 

[Dancing David]

So that begs the question, what if a company had foreign nationals as stockholders, or is incorporated in a foreign country.

 

[INRM]

WildCat,

Which is a good thing

 

[Brown]

Decision is out. There will be much wailing.

Opinion Just Issued Minutes Ago.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Could not open. I take it they threw out Feingold-McCain, though?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Could not open. I take it they threw out Feingold-McCain, though?

Not only that, but they threw out ALL campaign finance reform law since 1907... I'm not kidding. There's another thread on this decision.

If people thought the U.S. government was corrupt now, they ain't seen nothing yet

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

since 1907? How the hell did they justify that?

 

[Cleon]

Freedom of speech.

 

[WildCat]

Not only that, but they threw out ALL campaign finance reform law since 1907... I'm not kidding. There's another thread on this decision.

If people thought the U.S. government was corrupt now, they ain't seen nothing yet

So you (and anyone else who disagrees with the decision) think the government should be allowed to prohibit the New York Times from running an editorial endorsing a political candidate?

 

[Peephole]

Because obviously the press can't be treated as a seperate entity.

 

[WildCat]

Because obviously the press can't be treated as a seperate entity.

The New York Times is a corporation, yes? They can run an editorial endorsing Candidate X, but some other corporation (or even a union for that matter) can't buy an ad in the same issue endorsing a candidate?

This is the crux of the matter. As Justices Roberts and Alito noted:

The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.

The Court properly rejects that theory, and I join its opinion in full. The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer.

 

[Peephole]

The New York Times is a corporation, yes? They can run an editorial endorsing Candidate X, but some other corporation can't buy an ad in the same issue endorsing a candidate?

Yes, what is wrong with this idea?

 

[MattusMaximus]

since 1907? How the hell did they justify that?

Hell if I know.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The New York Times is a corporation, yes? They can run an editorial endorsing Candidate X, but some other corporation (or even a union for that matter) can't buy an ad in the same issue endorsing a candidate?

That, to me, isn't the issue - corporations have always been able to engage in this kind of thing.

I think the issue that really sticks in my mind is the notion that these donations are now unlimited in nature. So if Exxon-Mobil, say, wants to donate 0.5% of its $45 billion profits (last year alone) to fiddling with campaigns in Congress and the Presidency, that's a whopping $225 million dollars! Do you really think the idea of a single entity having that much influence on, say, a presidential race is a good idea?

So do the math... whomever has the most money wins. At least before this disaster of a decision, there were some regulations in place to keep things on an even keel. Now it's just open season.

Wait and see. I predict this will cause problems aplenty.

 

[MattusMaximus]

So you (and anyone else who disagrees with the decision) think the government should be allowed to prohibit the New York Times from running an editorial endorsing a political candidate?

Strawman. See my previous post.

 

[WildCat]

Strawman. See my previous post.

It's not a strawman, it's a direct implication of the government's argument.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, what is wrong with this idea?

The 1st Amendment forbids it.

 

[WildCat]

In Scalia's opinion:

The dissent says that when the Framers “constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” Post, at 37. That is no doubt true. All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and women—not, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of “an individual American.” It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different—or at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not “an individual American.”