It's what allows me to sit here, in what feels like cardiac arrest, and scream at the Supreme Court for not coming up with SOME rationale to continue the ban on corporate political advertising. We've had it up to here with the current crop of slick, selfish legislators controlled by special interests. Now we'll get people who will get elected strictly by mountains of corporate dollars. Buy a new factory, equipment or hire more folks? Nooooo, buy legislative seats!

Think about it. The Court has just made things so much more efficient - they've eliminated the need for lobbyist middlemen!

I found the decision to be encouraging in that it goes back to the Constitution as written rather than as arbitrarily adapted as a ‘living’ document. There is a way to ‘adapt’ the Constitution to changing times and that is amending it.

The words of the First Amendment seem clear to me. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” …no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…’ seems to fit within Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion that, “Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

Justice Stephen’s opinion in the minority, “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” appears to extend the idea that amending the Constitution is something that should be continuously done through a paternalistic court.

Sen. Chuck (where's the camera) Shumer [D-NY] sure didn't care for the decision! He must realized all that $$ could be used in a re-election campaign against him!

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

It's what allows me to sit here, in what feels like cardiac arrest, and scream at the Supreme Court for not coming up with SOME rationale to continue the ban on corporate political advertising. We've had it up to here with the current crop of slick, selfish legislators controlled by special interests. Now we'll get people who will get elected strictly by mountains of corporate dollars. Buy a new factory, equipment or hire more folks? Nooooo, buy legislative seats!

Think about it. The Court has just made things so much more efficient - they've eliminated the need for lobbyist middlemen!

I guess it's all a matter of whose ox gets gored or more precisely whose special interest gets the advantage. Those left of center complained little about George Soros dollars, Hollywood left dollars, trial lawyer dollars and union dollars pouring into Democratic coffers. I don't recall you posting your protest and screaming objections? Now your worried that corporate dollars may level the playing field with your special interests. Double standard? Yeah....I know, your opposed to all special interest contributions.....you just happen to choose this decision to draw the line and vent. Fairness would eliminate all contributions or let everybody play. The court was right on more than just Constitutional grounds.

Jersey girls rock.....from a Manasquan beach bum.

Originally Posted by cabo35

I guess it's all a matter of whose ox gets gored or more precisely whose special interest gets the advantage. Those left of center complained little about George Soros dollars, Hollywood left dollars, trial lawyer dollars and union dollars pouring into Democratic coffers. I don't recall you posting your protest and screaming objections? Now your worried that corporate dollars may level the playing field with your special interests. Double standard? Yeah....I know, your opposed to all special interest contributions.....you just happen to choose this decision to draw the line and vent. Fairness would eliminate all contributions or let everybody play. The court was right on more than just Constitutional grounds.

Jersey girls rock.....from a Manasquan beach bum.

Amen!!!!

Look at the case. The Federal Elections Commission decided that film makers could not show “Hillary – the Movie” on television because it violated McCain – Feingold. The thought was that a “corporation” made the movie and it was seen as being unfair and a violation of law. Basically they saw this movie as a long infomercial. And Michael Moore movies are all right. How can four, supposedly intelligent, justices support that? This is a great victory for free speech. Now the President has something else to demonize.

Originally Posted by cabo35

I guess it's all a matter of whose ox gets gored or more precisely whose special interest gets the advantage. Those left of center complained little about George Soros dollars, Hollywood left dollars, trial lawyer dollars and union dollars pouring into Democratic coffers. I don't recall you posting your protest and screaming objections? Now your worried that corporate dollars may level the playing field with your special interests. Double standard? Yeah....I know, your opposed to all special interest contributions.....you just happen to choose this decision to draw the line and vent. Fairness would eliminate all contributions or let everybody play. The court was right on more than just Constitutional grounds.

You just HAVE to find SOME way to criticize me because of my politics. It's that paranoia which has really grabbed you and some others here who can't find anything redeeming about someone who doesn't follow your exact thinking. How in the world would you know how many times I have made statements opposing the undue influence of all kinds of special interests? Would it shock you that this has been one of the deepest concerns I have had about our country for more than 40 years? I simply made the point again because the Court decision is important, current news.

If you deny that you posted this just to take another shot at someone who doesn't agree with you, then I can only conclude that you did it to show your support for the corporate giants receiving a golden invitation to line up with all the other special interests and further erode 'small d' democracy.

ijusluvit...do the "deepest concerns" you have expressed for your country over the last forty years trump your concerns or the concerns of others about the attempted systematic assault on and erosion of the First Amendment?

It is my understanding, please enlighten me if I am misinformed, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that would be the case in issue, relied heavily on the argument of Ted Olsen for Citizens United. The fact pattern, that I am sure you are aware of, in brief summary, was a case brought by the Federal Government to ban a documentary movie critical of Hilliary Clinton just before the election, based on a perceived breach of McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Law. If I left out salient points, feel free to add or clarify.

The legal dynamics of the case and specifically Ted Olson's brilliant argument brought the First Amendment issues front and center. It is my understanding, notwithstanding opinions or representations to the contrary, that Olson argued freedom of speech compatibility. Olson and the court during that argument asked the Federal Government, specifically Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, if the same ban would have been applied if it was a book and not a movie. The government responded in the affirmative and said the ban would have been enforced if it was a book. The court, at least one more time asked if a book ban or Kindle type book ban, under the same circumstance would be enforced. The Feds said yes. Legal scholars who are more informed than I, tell me they believe this is the point the final decision was most influenced by. Maybe it's just little ole "paranoid" Cabo that sees the dangers of a government that arbitrarily becomes the censor for what we should read and not read and how we can express ourselves. A "slippery slope" by any definition.

Should campaign finance reform trump freedom of speech? Spare me the ad homonym attacks and your ill informed speculations about why I post. Touche on an exchange of speculations.

Thank you for responding and have a nice evening.

I hate the fact that I technically agree with the Supreme Court. Money IS speech when that money is being used to buy advertising time, ad space, etc. The Constitution DOES prohibit Congress from prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Nobody can argue against the fact that money has polluted politics. However, I'm at a loss to solve this problem.

I ask all who do not agree with this decision by our highest court; where have you been? Why have you not objected to the Unions giving millions of dollars to elect Obama?

The Unions are corporations.

Originally Posted by cashman

I ask all who do not agree with this decision by our highest court; where have you been? Why have you not objected to the Unions giving millions of dollars to elect Obama?

The Unions are corporations.

This little quote from an editorial by a man who OPPOSED the decision by the Supreme Court....

"This is not to join in liberal alarums that the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will necessarily swamp federal elections under a deluge of corporate money. Nobody really knows how big a difference it will make. Corporate freedom to spend on elections does not seem to have had much impact in the 26 states that already allow it, perhaps because big businesses are wary of making enemies as well as friends. And union spending for Democrats will offset any Republican advantage in corporate spending."

http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/

Bucco, thanks for an informative link. Bradley A. Smith, in the link you provided, said:

What does this case mean? Well, the government argued that it had the authority under the Constitution to prohibit Amazon from distributing books on Kindle; to prohibit Barnes and Noble from selling, or Simon and Schuster from publishing, a 500 page book with even one line of candidate political advocacy; to prohibit a union from hiring an author to write a book (say, "Why Working Americans Should Support the Obama Agenda"); and to ban a political movie from being distributed by video on demand.

So this decision means no, the government does not have that power under our Constitution. I'm literally shocked that anyone would think the government should have won.

.....and I am shocked that proclaimed freedom of speech advocates would be critical of the decision. It is amazing that the liberal component of the court provided the dissenting opinions 5-4. This should be a wake up call to freedom loving Patriots on just how important Supreme Court appointments are. It the court had one more Obama liberal.....imagine what are country would have lost.

Reverting back to my original post, I guess some place more emphasis on political advantage, power and whose ox gets gored than preserving our basic rights. I remember a time when the old Democratic Party my mother worked for (JFK's campaign), would be doing high fives and celebrating a victory for freedom of speech. Instead, sprinkled with Chuck Schumeresque whining, crying and complaining that the court is wrong and he intends to craft legislation to overturn the decision, we have those bemoaning the perceived loss of campaign funding advantage. So much for "freedom of speech" from the left. Good luck Chuckie.

I cannot understand how the folks who criticize the 'liberals' and the 'leftists', etc, can be so pleased with the Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I'll assume it not just because the decision vindicates the producers of the Hillary (evil) movie.
Yes, the majority had a logical or even obvious constitutional basis for their decision, but that decision flies in the face of reality. Have you seriously thought about why those silly 'liberal' judges so strenuously opposed the majority? Are they just plain stupid for not making it a 9-0 slam-dunk? The judges were convinced the majority decision would shift unprecedented power to special interests and knew that the Court had the unique opportunity to check this expanded threat to the electoral process.

How does it matter if special interests are corporations (good), or unions (evil)? If you rail against the 'evil' special interests when the spirit moves you, do you also recognize the institutions you favor might be as bad or worse?

If we try to live strictly by literal interpretations, logic says we cannot arm and send out any citizen if we accept the commandment "thou shalt not kill."
And it's the same logic to actively support the possession of an automatic weapon by anyone, in the name of celebrating and reinforcing the second amendment.
It's the same logic to suggest that all banking and other financial regulations are unnecessary, unconstitutional, and even socialistic (really evil!).
It's the same logic as suggesting that, exercising our individual rights, we should be able to refuse any tax we don't like, regardless of whether we won, inherited, stole, found, or earned our personal wealth, in the country that made it all possible.

It appears you have answered my question. It would seem you do believe that campaign funding regulations, a statutory issue, trumps freedom of speech, a Constitutional issue. So your OK with the Federal government banning books, movies, videos, Kindle books and other means of expression based on what they decide is appropriate. I guess that would pave the way for banning free speech on the radio and television. You know, we can get rid of that pesky Limbaugh fellow, that crazy Beck guy, Hannity and so many others the left disagrees with. Wait a minute....the left already tried and continues to try that with the Fairness Doctrine. "That is reality." Google it or try this from Wikipedia

The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent conservatives and libertarians who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times have said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to and contempt for the successes of conservative talk radio.

I don't understand the logic of introducing religion via the "thou shalt not kill" point. That is from the Ten Commandment not the Constitution.

Regarding the other "logic" based arguments, there seems to be a confused disconnect or misunderstanding of the difference between Constitutional Law and statutory law.

Perhaps this will clarify the difference. From Answers.Com:

Statutory Law, as distinguished from constitutional law and the common law, is that body of law laid down by a legislature. Both the U.S. Congress and state legislatures enact statutes either by bill or by joint resolution. Federal statutes take precedence over state statutes, and state statutes are superior to the common law. Statutory law is inferior to constitutional law, and courts exercise the power of judicial review when they declare statutes unconstitutional. Statutory law is codified under titles describing the areas of action to which they appertain, and these titles are grouped together in codes. The administrative branch of government enforces statutory law often through the promulgation of administrative rules and regulations that have the effect of law as long as they lie within the limits set by the statutes.

Thanks for the rebuttal.

The telephone tornado alarm went off at 5 am. System worked well. However the Midland radio tornado alert hasn't worked the last few times. Anyone else have a problem.

I have to agree with the Supreme Court, as much as I believe that money has polluted politics and that it buys campaigns. I believe far more in Free Speech.

There has to be a better solution.

One possible proposed solution, if you can believe it, is to increase the size of the House of Representatives. It was frozen at 435 a long time ago but our population keeps swelling. The *theory* goes that more offices mean more candidates which means a representative has a much smaller constituency and is more likely to listen to The People than The Corporations because the coporations can't buy EVERYone. In other words, by artificially freezing the supply of Congresscritters, you've increased their power making them more attractive to being bought.

In NH, that just doesn't work. We have the 3rd largest legislative body in the world and we pay our reps $150/year. You read that right - my phone bill is more than we pay our reps in a year.

I also happen to agree with term limits and the Line Item Veto, and support the idea of Constitutional Ammendments to get them if need be (since the Supreme Court said the LIV, as done from the Contract With America, was unconstitutional).