Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It's like when the Mormon Church in Utah decided to get involved with the marriage issues in California. To me, that's just bullshit.

Um, Paul. I hate to break it to you, but there are numerous LDS churches in California.

I also hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of churches like the First AME, whose voters turned out in droves to vote AGAINST it. Oh, yes.

Good liberal American whites are going to want to attack the black churches. They might be viewed as racist. On top of that, if they decide to egg black churches, it will harken back to the 60's South. Finally, they know that such protests would result in them getting their asses kicked.

Go after the Mormons. Yeah. That'll do it.

Note: I voted No on Prop. 8. But since I'm used to getting the shit end of the stick in voting I have learned to just deal with it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ross Perot remains the biggest example that money doesn't overwhelm voter intelligence.

George W. Bush remains the biggest example that it does.

money isn't the primary reason Bush narrowly defeated Gore.

I know that. I was using your post as a straight line to make the point that electing a lummox like G. W. Bush to the presidency of the United States not once, but twice, was shamefully counter-intelligent. Historically, we will never live it down until the day finally comes, long after we are all gone, when the name of George W. Bush has faded into the same obscurity as, say, Chester Arthur or Millard Fillmore.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And that's the "state" version of what my issue is with multi-nationals getting involved with our national elections.

They CAN'T. They couldn't before this decision, and they can't now. Read 441(e).

Quite a lot of shark-jumping going on.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

And that's the "state" version of what my issue is with multi-nationals getting involved with our national elections.

They CAN'T. They couldn't before this decision, and they can't now. Read 441(e).
Quite a lot of shark-jumping going on.

I'm glad you think the issue is settled, but there are quite a few people with a hell of a lot more credibility that think it's not.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-election-rules31-2010jan31,0,5997255.story

I'm actually kind of shocked how few people even thought of this. It was the very first thing I thought of when I heard the news more than a week ago.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And that's the "state" version of what my issue is with multi-nationals getting involved with our national elections.

They CAN'T. They couldn't before this decision, and they can't now. Read 441(e).
Quite a lot of shark-jumping going on.

I'm glad you think the issue is settled, but there are quite a few people with a hell of a lot more credibility that think it's not.

I don't give a flying FUCK about your 'credibility' issues, Paul. You jumped the shark, plain and simple.

Quote

§ 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b) “Foreign national” defined
As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.

Quote

§ 611. Definitions
As used in and for the purposes of this subchapter—
(a) The term “person” includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, organization, or any other combination of individuals;
(b) The term “foreign principal” includes—
(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;
(2) a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States; and
(3) a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.

441a being repealed has no effect on foreign persons and companies - they're STILL barred.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

I'm sure you think you're right, but have you read the linked article?

There are some significant loopholes and I can't for the life of me understand why you (or any US citizen) would be against closing them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm sure you think you're right, but have you read the linked article?

There are some significant loopholes and I can't for the life of me understand why you (or any US citizen) would be against closing them.

I did read the article, but I don't agree. Evidently, the authors haven't read 441e either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Here's a similar article on FoxNews:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/30/obamas-rebuke-high-court-highlights-fear-foreign-influence-elections/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Here's a similar article on FoxNews:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/30/obamas-rebuke-high-court-highlights-fear-foreign-influence-elections/

They'd do better to worry about the union electioneering.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Here's a similar article on FoxNews:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/30/obamas-rebuke-high-court-highlights-fear-foreign-influence-elections/

They'd do better to worry about the union electioneering.

Why? A major manufacturing company can out spend any union any day of the week. Unions are fairly toothless regardless of how much they're held up as scapegoats.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here's a similar article on FoxNews:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/30/obamas-rebuke-high-court-highlights-fear-foreign-influence-elections/

They'd do better to worry about the union electioneering.

Why? A major manufacturing company can out spend any union any day of the week. Unions are fairly toothless regardless of how much they're held up as scapegoats.

Really? You might want to look at the "heavy hitters" list over at open secrets. There's a LOT more professional orgs and unions than there are businesses.

Just in the top 20 (1989-2010):
AFSCME is #2.
National Assoc. of Realtors, #3
American Assoc. for Justice, #5
IBEW, #6.
NEA, #7.
Laborer's Union, #8
SEIU, #9
Carpenters and Joiners Union, #10.
Teamsters, #11
Communications Workers of America, #13
American Federation of Teachers, #14
AMA, #15
UAW, #16
Machinists and Aerospace Worker's Union, #17
Nat'l Auto Dealer's Assoc., #18
United Food and Commercial Worker's Union, #20

Do you want me to run the donation numbers vs. those evil corporations, as well, or do you get the picture?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

That's a list based on the previous rules and it also not a fair comparison between companies and unions.

Just take the automotive sector. While the UAW might look like it overshadows any single automotive company, if you combine all of the automotive companies, they dwarf the UAW by a good margin.

You're comparing collectives to individuals and crying foul . . . under the circumstances, that's hilariously ironic.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Okay. Now I've had the chance to have a bit more thought and reflection on this. I still believe that the SCOTUS made a decision that was correct. It upheld the right to freedom of speech, no matter who you are.

The decision regarded a section of McCain Feingold. It did not overturn the other laws that involve foreigners speaking in the U.S. Fortunately, I believe that it sets the table for the nullification of those laws in the future. Speech is Speech - it doesn't matter who is saying it.


I will point, however, to what I view to be a disturbing thing that occurred subsequent. in the state of the Union address, the President said something to the effect of disagreeing with the SCOTUS decision and urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to "right this wrong."

This statement is Palin-esque. I would expect more from a Constitutional Scholar educated in the Ivy League. He is urging Congress to pass a law that the SCOTUS opined is Unconstitutional.

As a legal scholar, the President should know that there are two ways to reverse this: (1) a constitutional amendment; or (2) pack the Court, pass a law, have it heard again and reverse it.

One way or another, our new hope and change President is urging the passage of an Unconstitutional law. He is telling the American people that the freedom of speech must have political limits.

I always thought it was Republicans who were nationalistic and xenophobic. "We should be like the rest of the world" say the liberals. Interesting thought - don't let the rest of the world say what it thinks. Don't let corporations or unions say what they think in an election cycle.

What the President said was indefensible. Ask yourself, "What if Palin had argued for the passage of an Unconstitutional statute? What if Bush said the SCOTUS should be ignored?"

Sorry. I was wrong. That sounds Nixon-esque. If the President does it, it is Constitutional.

Pass the Tylenol, folks. This is hugely saddening. I expected more from him.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

I agree that it was not appropriate for the President to criticize the decision in that forum. However if a law is badly written, isn't it sometimes possible to write a new law that achieves the same goal and yet passes constitutional muster? Isn't that what the anti-abortion types have been trying to do for years (along with packing the court of course)? I have no idea if that is possible in this case, and have mixed feelings about how desirable that would be anyway. On one hand, corporations are (or should be) the "engine of the economy", and so they will have a perspective on things that voters should be aware of and consider. Similarly organized labor will have ideas that should be considered (many great ideas have come from labor unions, for example the weekend, which is critical for most dropzones to be able to survive). What I am concerned about is the idea that it will be even more difficult for diverse ideas to be heard if one side has the financial equivalent of 5-mile-high speakers to just drown out every other point of view. Also if private news/media corporations have a "right" to political speech, are they still obligated to carry news coverage of opposing perspectives? I'm thinking of Rupert Murdoch here. Of course the internet could alleviate some of this (unless, for example, Google decides to censor sites that advocate positions Google Inc doesn't like), but television/radio/print media still are probably the main source of "news" for most people. I'm also concerned that big money could be used for "swift-boating", bringing out a massive attack campaign at the last minute, not leaving any time for the attacked to respond. One thing about American political speech, there is no legal requirement to be truthful; you could falsely accuse your opponent of being a NAMBLA charter member and if they lost the election because of that there is no legal remedy. It seems to me to be reasonable to encourage as many voices as possible to be heard, but it's also in the public interest to find a way to balance speech with the opportunity to listen, consider, rebut and debate. Just having everybody yelling through ever-larger loudspeakers isn't very conductive to making reasoned choices.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 380]

One more thing, I'm still uneasy with the idea of corporations (and labor unions) as legal persons. I recall a case a few years ago where a construction company broke a gas line, with the result that gas seeped into the crawl space under a nearby diner, which exploded killing several people. The construction company had not bothered to check about gas lines before digging. Of course there were lawsuits, but before the trial the construction company went out of business, and immediately reopened under a new name, but in the same offices and with the same management. Legally, the original company no longer existed, so neither it nor any of the employees could be held responsible for the incident. (I'm sorry, I can't find a link, google brings up over a million hits). So as long as corporations can use Lazarus-like tricks to evade criminal or civil responsibility, they aren't "persons" like you and I are, whatever the law may say.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That's a list based on the previous rules and it also not a fair comparison between companies and unions.

"Fair comparison"? Not sure how a "fair comparison" is needed, seeing as how it's a historical accounting of contributions - but the fact that you feel it's needed is telling.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Update:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html

Quote

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

[Southern_Man 0]

It's a good thing important rights like free speech are protected by the Supreme Court and not by the legislature, then.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

Was that how they asked the question? "Do you support giving corporations unfettered rights to do XXXX?"

And yeah, if they asked if Nazis should be allowed to march or if Christian nuts can protest outside soldier funerals or if the flag can be burned, you get a pretty high percentage of people who won't support rights they're not directly interested in.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

[Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

And of course, the President also would like Congress to pass an Unconstitutional law. I can see how th epublic may have misperceptions, but the Constitutional Scholar President?

My wife is hotter than your wife.