Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

[pauldun170]

Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits
James Vicini
WASHINGTON

Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits
Wed, Sep 9 2009WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court struck down on Thursday long-standing limits on corporate spending in U.S. political campaigns, such as this year's congressional races and the 2012 presidential contest.


The 5-4 ruling was a defeat for the Obama administration and the campaign finance law's supporters who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system to promote or defeat candidates.

The ruling by the conservative majority transformed the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in future presidential and congressional elections, which already have broken new spending records with each political cycle.

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

The decision was a victory for a conservative advocacy group's challenge to the campaign finance law as part of its efforts to broadcast and promote a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She later became President Barack Obama's secretary of state.

The justices appeared at a special Thursday session to summarize the ruling and issued a total of five separate opinions exceeding 175 pages.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights. "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote.

The court's conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees, previously voted to limit or strike down parts of the law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.

The court's four liberals, including its newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by Obama, dissented.

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

[derf]

The problem with this is that $1m will make or break a US congress or senator campaign. But for a company like shell, $1m can fall out of its pockets on its way to lunch. All they need to do is to dump $100m into the political system and they have their way for a few years

[goof2]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

The 5-4 ruling was a defeat for the Obama administration and the campaign finance law's supporters who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system to promote or defeat candidates.

The Obama campaign spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars to win in 2008. How effective has this campaign finance law really been?

[EpyonXero]

Originally Posted by goof2

The Obama campaign spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars to win in 2008. How effective has this campaign finance law really been?

Its not the total amount of money its the fact that now all of the money can come from one place.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by EpyonXero

Its not the total amount of money its the fact that now all of the money can come from one place.

So what? They have to report where the money comes from. If Shell did decide to give a candidate $100 mil, you don't think that will be used against the candidate?

Would McCain have won with another $500 million? I really don't think so. Would Obama have won by a larger margin with another $500 million? Again, I don't think so. Judging by what I saw this last election cycle each candidate is taking in enough money to overly innundate the American people with advertising. I don't see how more advertising is going to change anything, and if unpopular companies are donating large sums to a candidate it is going to hurt more than help.

[pdog]

The majority of that money came from actual people. This gov't is supposed to be of the people, for the people. Corps are not people, no matter what the legal definition.

Originally Posted by goof2

The Obama campaign spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars to win in 2008. How effective has this campaign finance law really been?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by pdog

The majority of that money came from actual people. This gov't is supposed to be of the people, for the people. Corps are not people, no matter what the legal definition.

george soros is people? :Lol:

[goof2]

Originally Posted by pdog

The majority of that money came from actual people. This gov't is supposed to be of the people, for the people. Corps are not people, no matter what the legal definition.

We know that the majority of the money Obama raised was through private donations because he had to publish his donor list. Would you be likely to vote for a candidate that received $100 million from Shell, Dow Chemical, or Merck? How about Soros Fund Management or Miramax? If companies and candidates want to throw good money after bad that is their choice. Either way it isn't going to buy elections since they are already bought and paid for.

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by pdog

The majority of that money came from actual people. This gov't is supposed to be of the people, for the people. Corps are not people, no matter what the legal definition.

I didn't know Skynet was the only corporation out there.

Corporations can have their entire business destroyed (where PEOPLE from the janitor to the CEO can lose jobs) through legislation from a congressman. I say they should have some say so in what the fuck happens in DC. Besides plenty of businesses and organizations buy there way as it is now. If the unions didn't give craploads of money and support to President Obama do you believe that he would have given them their "Cadillac Health Insurance" tax break?

Whatever I or a collection of Is want to do with their money is their business. McCain-Feingold is a kick in the balls to our constitution and President Bush should have been impeached for signing that bill.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Corporations can have their entire business destroyed (where PEOPLE from the janitor to the CEO can lose jobs) through legislation from a congressman. I say they should have some say so in what the fuck happens in DC.

They do. It's called voting.

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Besides plenty of businesses and organizations buy there way as it is now.

So let's make a bad situation even worse?

Free speech my ass. This ruling is an abomination and a fucking disaster for this country.

I think some of you people have completely lost your minds. Do you really believe that any entity should have a bigger say in Government than you do, simply because they have more money than you do?

Everyone favor of this ruling, please PM me your address, and I'll send you a free "I'm A Moron, Please Ass Rape Me" t-shirt.

Any hope we may have had, of turning around the corrupt and bullshit way our government is run, has died, and you're all yelling hooray for free speech.

Fucking unbelievable.

JC