By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned...posted by delmoi at 7:45 AM on January 21, 2010 [3 favorites]
** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.It's a small consolation, of course. But the internet has been moderately helpful in casting a spotlight on embarrassing connections for candidates. In certain elections, the people knowing that a certain company just forked $200,000 over to you might be a bad thing.
** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.
(2) ... this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.Make of that what you will.
(2) ... this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.Repeated for emphasis.
The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. Theposted by Electric Dragon at 8:35 AM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
Government has “muffle[d] the voices that best represent
the most significant segments of the economy.” McCon-
nell, supra, at 257–258 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). And “the
electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge
and opinion vital to its function.” CIO, 335 U. S., at 144
(Rutledge, J., concurring in result). By suppressing the
speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-
profit, the Government prevents their voices and view-
points from reaching the public and advising voters on
which persons or entities are hostile to their interests.
Factions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the
remedy of “destroying the liberty” of some factions is
“worse than the disease.” The Federalist No. 10, p. 130 (B.
Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison). Factions should be checked
by permitting them all to speak, see ibid., and by entrust-
ing the people to judge what is true and what is false.
There is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication. When constitutional questions are "indispensably necessary" to resolving the case at hand, "the court must meet and decide them."(So much for the balls and strikes, eh, Chief Justice?)
Though faced with a constitutional text that makes no distinction between types of speakers, the dissent feels no necessity to provide even an isolated statement from the founding era to the effect that corporations are not covered, but places the burden on petitioners to bring forward statements showing that they are.(Scalia's emph.)
The majority’s rejection of the Buckley anticorruption rationale on the ground that independent corporate expenditures “do not give rise to [quid pro quo] corruption or the appearance of corruption,” ante, at 42, is thus unfair as well as unreasonable. Congress and outside experts have generated significant evidence corroborating this rationale, and the only reason we do not have any of the relevant materials before us is that the Government had no reason to develop a record at trial for a facial challenge the plaintiff had abandoned. The Court cannot both sua sponte choose to relitigate McConnell on appeal and then complain that the Government has failed to substantiate its case. If our colleagues were really serious about the interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption, they would remand to the District Court with instructions to commence evidentiary proceedings.posted by Electric Dragon at 9:59 AM on January 21, 2010 [5 favorites]
Top Republicans on Wednesday were hostile toward President Obama’s plan to create a bipartisan commission on cutting projected deficits, raising doubts about the prospects of a main piece of his budget strategy. [...] This sounds like political cover for Washington Democrats who are starting to realize that their out-of-control spending is scaring the hell out of the American people,” Mr. Boehner said of the tentative deal between the White House and Congressional Democratic leaders on Tuesday night.Face it. They’re just not that into you, Barry.
DNC should spend some of the funds raised, to put a picture of Tim Kaine on all Milk Cartons.posted by enn at 11:56 AM on January 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
The White House will move health care reform to the back burner, in order to "let the dust settle" after Democrats lost their Senate super-majority.So Obama, who has deferred to Congress for the last full year, has a new plan: continue to defer to Congress. HE'S NOT LEADING.
Asked today if health care was on the back burner, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "The president believes it is the exact right thing to do by giving this some time, by letting the dust settle, if you will, and looking for the best path forward."
He said the administration wants to give Congress time to figure out their next move.
"The President thinks the speaker and the majority leader are doing the right thing in giving this some time and figuring out the best way forward," he said.
He also noted that President Obama "has a very full plate" with financial reform, the economy, the wars and other matters.
No person who does not reside in the United States shall, during a referendum period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular answer to a referendum question unless the person is(lovingly stolen from the Canadians)(a) a United States citizen; or
(b) an immigrant as defined in 8 USC § 1101.
Scalia to retire or die (he turns 74 in about a month)
the only way to overturn a Supremes decision
No, but if you're on the board of a Chinese company who's running attack ads against candidates who support a carbon tax, you should watch out.What about a Chinese company that owns 10% of Exxon? What about Pepsi-Co with it's Indian CEO? That's the whole point. Corporations are trans-national. There is no such thing as an "American" company in terms of the actual money, shareholders, directors, etc.
No, I mean we can do that, because foreigners outside the U.S. have fewer protections under the U.S. constitution than people inside the U.S. (and in some cases, foreigners inside the U.S. have fewer rights than citizens inside the U.S.).Despite what Lou Dobbs might say, that's not true at all. There are some privileges that citizens have, and only citizens can vote. But other then that, all the same rights apply.
How about this? I set up an American-owned corporation which sells $5 pieces of paper to foreigners, perhaps on ebay. Each piece of paper guarantees that the corporation will spend $4.50 on advertising to influence a particular issue or candidate. The money is funnelled through Chambers of Commerce and thus cannot be traced back to the corporation.Foreigners can already donate to the ACLU. They can already push issues but now they can advertise for (and against) candidates directly. That's a lot more direct.
Who's complaining about "party lines"? People are complaining that the Supreme Court voted to enshrine the right of corporations to spend money, without limit, in direct attempts to influence elections.This is a split pretty much along party lines with Democratic nominees in the dissent along with Stevens (appointed by Ford).This. I don't understand how people can complain about the Republicans voting party lines when the Democratics do the same. Just because it's 5-4 and not 4-5?
"Back in 1995, Chris was heading the FX workshop for Stanley Kubrick's A.I. (before Kubrick died and it got sent to Steven Spielberg). According to the Directors Label book, Chris was really getting into film, and Second Bad Vilbel was to be his first attempt at putting his ideas into motion. But his inexperience in directing and editing lead to a messy shoot and disappointment at the loss of such potential: this was a classic track and it deserved a classic video!"So that's a critique. It isn't uber great, but it was his first film. He did Aphex's "Come to Daddy", which is another classic. I believe he also did Windowlicker, but I may be wrong. That said....
http://www.director-file.com/cunningham/autechre.html
One of the central lessons of the Bush era should have been that illegal or unconstitutional actions -- warrantless eavesdropping, torture, unilateral Presidential programs -- can't be justified because of the allegedly good results they produce (Protecting us from the Terrorists). The "rule of law" means we faithfully apply it in ways that produce outcomes we like and outcomes we don't like. Denouncing court rulings because they invalidate laws one likes is what the Right often does (see how they reflexively and immediately protest every state court ruling invaliding opposite-sex-only marriage laws without bothering to even read about the binding precedents), and that behavior is irrational in the extreme. If the Constitution or other laws bar the government action in question, then that's the end of the inquiry; whether those actions produce good results is really not germane. Thus, those who want to object to the Court's ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called "compelling state interests," that the Court's decision will produce "bad results" is not really an argument.posted by delmoi at 5:36 PM on January 22, 2010
More specifically, it's often the case that banning certain kinds of speech would produce good outcomes, and conversely, allowing certain kinds of speech produces bad outcomes (that's true for, say, White Supremacist or neo-Nazi speech, or speech advocating violence against civilians). The First Amendment is not and never has been outcome-dependent; the Government is barred from restricting speech -- especially political speech -- no matter the good results that would result from the restrictions. That's the price we pay for having the liberty of free speech. And even on a utilitarian level, the long-term dangers of allowing the Government to restrict political speech invariably outweigh whatever benefits accrue from such restrictions.
While you may feel that way, obviously the supreme court has a long history of viewing corporations as people from a legal perspective.
Corporations are not people, they do not have the same rights as people. Restrictions that, if they were imposed on people would be rightly viewed as unconstitutional and violations of human rights, are perfectly fine and dandy to slap on corporations.
I am a free speech fanatic, I will and (online anyway) have defended the right of people and groups I personally despise (the KKK for instance) to speak. I do not see how that means I have to agree that IBM, or Monsanto, or GM has the same right to free speech as real people do.
Corporations aren't people, money is not speech.
We should notice not just the bad consequences of the decision, however, but the poor quality of the arguments Justice Kennedy offered to defend it. The conservative justices savaged canons of judicial restraint they themselves have long praised. Chief Justice Roberts takes every opportunity to repeat what he said, under oath, in his Senate nomination hearings: that the Supreme Court should avoid declaring any statute unconstitutional unless it cannot decide the case before it in any other way. Now consider how shamelessly he and the other Justices who voted with the majority ignored that constraint in their haste to declare the Act unconstitutional in time for the coming mid-term elections.posted by russilwvong at 7:07 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]
Citizens United, a small nonprofit corporation almost entirely financed by individual contributions, had made a very negative film about Hillary Clinton. It asked the Court only to rule that its method of distributing that film, on a video-on-demand service, was not outlawed by the Act. It offered several arguments, some of them plausible, for interpreting the Act that way. So the Court did not have to decide whether to overrule the Act: it could have agreed with Citizens United while reserving that larger question. But after they first heard arguments in the case, the five justices declared that they wanted, on their own initiative, to consider declaring the Act unconstitutional. They introduced that unnecessary issue themselves and then scheduled an emergency special hearing during the summer so that they could strike down the statute as quickly as possible. ...
The conservative justices also had to overrule two of the Court’s prior decisions—its 1990 Austin and 2003 McConnell decisions. In his Senate hearings, Roberts declared his great respect for judicial precedent: he said that just because he thought that an earlier Court decision had been wrongly decided or poorly argued would be no reason to overrule it. It would have to have proved unworkable or its basis in principle would have to have been eroded by other intervening decisions. Kennedy offered no evidence that restrictions on corporate electioneering had proved unworkable, which is not surprising because such restrictions had been in place since 1907.
« Older Atlas Obscura was previously mentioned here, but a... | Happy 10th birthday to Boing B... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by billysumday at 7:39 AM on January 21, 2010 [57 favorites]