SCOTUS overturns 100 years of speech law

[kandrathe]

This ruling has far more impact than the original case intended.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2930090152.html

Good news for the cause of liberty, but bad news for those of us who hate campaign commercials and the dominance of special interest groups influence in campaigns.

Not only is McCain-Feingold dead, but... Kennedy wrote;<blockquote>"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," he wrote. "This is unlawful."

The ruling not only strikes down the federal requirement, it also calls into question similar provisions enacted by nearly half the states. Montana, which adopted restrictions on corporate electioneering a century ago, filed a brief on behalf of more than two dozen states seeking to protect their own power to regulate campaign finance.</blockquote>

[Frag]

I'm really bent outta shape about this. Called my Senator (one is retiring), called my Congressman, called most of my friends and relatives and (most shocking of all) made my first serious facebook update... :ph34r:

Not sure what else I can do other than try to mobilize people. As marginalized as I feel now in the political process, I feel I would be completely inconsequential should this persist. The idea of a multi-national company owned by a foreign government paying to elect/squash a candidate is chilling.

Cheers,
~Frag:(

[Jester]

"Hello, Congress. I know you like to think you're in charge, what with that whole 'legislative branch' thing, but really? We get to make the decisions around here. Yours sincerely, The Supreme Court."

I'm getting a little tired of the Supreme Court. They seem to only have a couple voting patterns: 9-0 (for conservative-biased commonsense rulings) 8-1 (for liberal ones; Thomas *never* votes liberal) and then the partisan 4-4 plus the Kennedy coin flip.

Glad to hear that corporations are getting their precious freedom to misinform the public, buy politicians, and otherwise screw with the electoral process. Once again, the abstract freedoms of imaginary people trumps the democratic rights of actual people. Marvellous.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

"Hello, Congress. I know you like to think you're in charge, what with that whole 'legislative branch' thing, but really? We get to make the decisions around here. Yours sincerely, The Supreme Court."

Actually, the Supreme Court can only address issues brought before it. Congress and the state legislatures can reformulate the laws if the original formulation was found to be unconstitutional. And, failing that, congress can initiate the amendment process. The SC has no power over amendments which are constitutional by definition.

I'm getting a little tired of the Supreme Court.

This set me to laughing. Not to label you, but for the first half, or so, of my life it was the conservatives who said this. More recently, it is the liberals. I guess Ricky Nelson was right.

They seem to only have a couple voting patterns: 9-0 (for conservative-biased commonsense rulings) 8-1 (for liberal ones; Thomas *never* votes liberal) and then the partisan 4-4 plus the Kennedy coin flip.

Yes. It is a bad thing when the SC becomes a political body. Throughout its history, it has oscillated between being nearly the apolitical organization it should be and being very partisan.

Glad to hear that corporations are getting their precious freedom to misinform the public, buy politicians, and otherwise screw with the electoral process. Once again, the abstract freedoms of imaginary people trumps the democratic rights of actual people. Marvellous.

Not that the situation has changed much. The system is flawed in many ways. Expecting true reform is optimistic, to say the least.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I'm really bent outta shape about this. Called my Senator (one is retiring), called my Congressman, called most of my friends and relatives and (most shocking of all) made my first serious facebook update... :ph34r:

Not sure what else I can do other than try to mobilize people. As marginalized as I feel now in the political process, I feel I would be completely inconsequential should this persist. The idea of a multi-national company owned by a foreign government paying to elect/squash a candidate is chilling.

Cheers,
~Frag:(

Here some questions though. If Congress can regulate corporations, tax corporations, and bail them out, shouldn't corporations have 1st amendment rights to address grievances against the government.

2nd, if ABC, NBC, CBS (TV) get 1st amendment speech rights, Gannet Media Corporation (Newspapers) get 1st amendment speech rights, Unions have 1st amendment rights, and book publishing companies have 1st amendment rights why wouldn't any other incorporation get speech rights? What is it about incorporation that suddenly strips one of their protection by the bill of rights?

3rd, if congress had nothing to sell, corporations and special interests would have nothing to buy. People with money can buy government access, because Senators and Representatives are willing to sell them access. Should we be blaming the ones doing the buying, or the ones doing the selling?

4th, due to 527 corporations, McCain/Feingold is bypassed anyway. The rich finance the 527 organization, who then in the name of a special interest group non-profit 501c3 corporation funds advertising against political positions held by their opponents. Hence the lawsuit against, "Hillary: The Movie" in the first place.

5th, what is the difference between "Hillary: The movie" available on demand from a website, and "Hilary: The book" available on demand on Kindle from Amazon? Wouldn't the internet be considered "press", and shouldn't media on the internet be protected? Just because at the time of the framers, "press" meant crushing ink onto paper, doesn't mean that it is how we think of "the press" today. Isn't Daily Kos, or Huffinton Post considered "the press" in constitutional terms. In that regard, why shouldn't the Lurker Lounge forum be protected free speech?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Should we be blaming the ones doing the buying, or the ones doing the selling?

I believe the expression is "It takes two to tango."

--Pete

[weakwarrior]

And, failing that, congress can initiate the amendment process. The SC has no power over amendments which are constitutional by definition.

I was curious roughly how long it takes from the time an amendment is proposed till the time it is accepted. So I looked it up on
Wikipedia. Without looking at the link take a guess at when the most recent amendment, passed in 1992, was proposed.

I should point out that I recognize that this is the exception and not the rule. Generally it only takes a couple of years.

[Jester]

Actually, the Supreme Court can only address issues brought before it. Congress and the state legislatures can reformulate the laws if the original formulation was found to be unconstitutional. And, failing that, congress can initiate the amendment process. The SC has no power over amendments which are constitutional by definition.

Indeed. Perhaps the most solid way forward would be a constitutional amendment spelling out the rights of corporations as distinct from citizens. But, of course, good luck getting that through.

This set me to laughing. Not to label you, but for the first half, or so, of my life it was the conservatives who said this. More recently, it is the liberals. I guess Ricky Nelson was right.

The only guy pleasing himself is Anthony Kennedy, who, by twist of fate, gets to make all sorts of decisions. Where he's liberal, so is the court. Where he's conservative, so is the court. While I have a lot of respect for many of the Jurists, even some of the conservative ones whom I disagree with almost always, the tremendous partisanship is really discouraging. This is doubly true now that David Souter has retired, apparently in disgust. He was my favourite. B)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I believe the expression is "It takes two to tango."

I would definitely be in favor of laws restricting quid pro quo deals by politicians. Whatever we can do to drive K street out of business is good for the country.

Regarding amendment; There is another way, but it would require the populous to really get upset and motivated. Indications from the most bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, indicate we might almost be there. The states (34 needed) can call for a Constitutional Convention, elect delegates, and make wholesale changes to the Constitution. Who knows what would emerge from that?

Professor Stanford Levinson Proposes a New Constitutional Convention
Constitution Threatened by New Constitutional Convention Initiative

[Jester]

Who knows what would emerge from that?

Good question. But the existing politics is not polarized for esoteric reasons - it largely represents the divisions of the population. It's very easy to call for a new Constitution when, in one's own mind, the result is that you get the Constitution you want. It's not so easy when you have to actually wrestle with the real opinions and interests of fifty very diverse states, with three hundred million very diverse people - most of whom do not agree with each other on much of anything. This is the problem with "motivation" - what motivates some people is loathsome to other people - think of the "motivation" of the Obama campaign, vs. the "motivation" of the Tea Partiers. It's nice to think that there is a mass of "people" who are largely in agreement on everything, and who could change things if only they'd get off their butts - but I don't think that majority actually exists.

If there'd been a mechanism for periodically revising the constitution since the beginning, then there would probably have evolved an understanding of how to manage the process. But right now? It'd be a dog's breakfast.

-Jester

[Frag]

Here some questions though. If Congress can regulate corporations, tax corporations, and bail them out, shouldn't corporations have 1st amendment rights to address grievances against the government.

Because corporations aren't people, they're a network for business(es). Secondly, as my previous point doesn't quite line up with U.S's laws, resources aren't equal, nor should the be, but the difference between a corp. and personal resources, as well as laws governing such, are so large that even Warren Buffet can't influence an election in kind now via money (and disenfranchisement does carry legal weight). Lastly, there's consensus of published information on what happens on the corrupting influence on large amounts of money in politics.

2nd, if ABC, NBC, CBS (TV) get 1st amendment speech rights, Gannet Media Corporation (Newspapers) get 1st amendment speech rights, Unions have 1st amendment rights, and book publishing companies have 1st amendment rights why wouldn't any other incorporation get speech rights? What is it about incorporation that suddenly strips one of their protection by the bill of rights?

Bolding mine. Up until this decision (and I believe this still isn't resolved) Unions had the same restrictions as corporations. Network's 1st amendment right, to the best of my knowledge, applies to their employees and did not permit them to run electoral campaign ads (nor would they and keep any shred of creditability they attempt to save).

3rd, if congress had nothing to sell, corporations and special interests would have nothing to buy. People with money can buy government access, because Senators and Representatives are willing to sell them access. Should we be blaming the ones doing the buying, or the ones doing the selling?

Both. As our politics are executed by human beings with all the emotions that come with that condition, even a pure politician would have a beholden feeling to anyone that places them in power, and the more of an impact that entity makes (real or imagined) the stronger the emotion is felt.

4th, due to 527 corporations, McCain/Feingold is bypassed anyway. The rich finance the 527 organization, who then in the name of a special interest group non-profit 501c3 corporation funds advertising against political positions held by their opponents. Hence the lawsuit against, "Hillary: The Movie" in the first place.

Non-profit, this is a matter of resources. Also, 527's are U.S. entities.

5th, what is the difference between "Hillary: The movie" available on demand from a website, and "Hilary: The book" available on demand on Kindle from Amazon? Wouldn't the internet be considered "press", and shouldn't media on the internet be protected? Just because at the time of the framers, "press" meant crushing ink onto paper, doesn't mean that it is how we think of "the press" today. Isn't Daily Kos, or Huffinton Post considered "the press" in constitutional terms. In that regard, why shouldn't the Lurker Lounge forum be protected free speech?

Dart playing? Laws, specifically electioneering communications, outdated as they may be.

Cheers,
~Frag :(

[kandrathe]

Because corporations aren't people, they're a network for business(es). Secondly, as my previous point doesn't quite line up with U.S's laws, resources aren't equal, nor should the be, but the difference between a corp. and personal resources, as well as laws governing such, are so large that even Warren Buffet can't influence an election in kind now via money (and disenfranchisement does carry legal weight). Lastly, there's consensus of published information on what happens on the corrupting influence on large amounts of money in politics.

Actually, no. If a person creates an organization other than a corporation, like a sole proprietorship, a limited partnership, etc. Then all the profits of the organizations are distributed to the owner(s). The owner would be free to spend any amount of that money to engage in speech (make a movie, write a book, pay for advertising). Corporation is a legal maneuver often used to shield an individual from liability, and also to better distribute and keep income streams separate. I have a privately held corporation that I use for my work and I'm the only owner, and the only employee (however I could have partners, or employees if I wanted). A customer through litigation could possible drive my corporation bankrupt, but not me personally. I have in the past drawn a salary from my own corporation, but I don't currently.

Up until this decision (and I believe this still isn't resolved) Unions had the same restrictions as corporations.

Unions were permitted to use their union dues for voter education, and "get out the vote" drives, which were thinly veiled electioneering. But, soft money contributions were prohibited, and hard money had to be tracked through PAC's just like corporations.

Network's 1st amendment right, to the best of my knowledge, applies to their employees and did not permit them to run electoral campaign ads (nor would they and keep any shred of creditability they attempt to save).

Not true. Newspapers routinely endorse candidates, and NBC and MSNBC obviously sided with Obama, amongst other numerous media outlets. Even Rupert Murdoch came out supporting Obama. If the employees can speak, and represent the selection of their corporations (e.g. Chris Mathews, Rachael Maddow, Keith Olbermann (check out this clip mere hours before the MA special election). Could MSNBC decide to fire Keith Olbermann, and replace him with Sarah Palin if they wanted to slant to the other side? You bet! In the oral arguments in this case, the lawyers for the FEC admitted that the McCain/Feingold could also be interpreted to limit the publication of a book 30 days (primary) or 60 days (general election) which could be considered critical of candidates. Not only that, but punishable as a criminal felony with jail time. Isn't that censorship?

Both. As our politics are executed by human beings with all the emotions that come with that condition, even a pure politician would have a beholden feeling to anyone that places them in power, and the more of an impact that entity makes (real or imagined) the stronger the emotion is felt.

<strike>I'm not sure what your point is here.</strike>Ok, I re-read it enough. You are saying that the more I spend, the more affection I can buy. I agree that buying and selling political power should be discouraged. However, the interpretation is that freedom of speech isn't limited to only individuals, nor only individuals of limited means. Corruption, bribery, graft, and quid pro quo to some extent are still illegal. What McCain-Feingold was attempting to curb was the amount of campaign money diverted into political speech in the form of advertising, and such, prior to elections. It exempted media companies, and forced others (corps, and unions) to form PACs which have strict FEC monitoring and oversight. It had also had the effect of limiting free speech.<blockquote>If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the anti-distortion(Austin) rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. -- CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION -- Page 40</blockquote><blockquote>Political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 777 (footnote omitted); see ibid. (the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual”); Buckley, 424 U. S., at 48–49 (“[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment”); -- CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION -- also page 40</blockquote>I'm still in the process of the full reading of this... {begin with 3 cups of strong coffee to suppress yawns leading to somnambulism}.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

[Frag]

I must say Kandrathe that you're exhausting to discourse with, as you don't specify what you're responding to. Your response to the first quote would have been much easier to respond to if you had just used my first sentence about corporation definition that you objected to and not quoted the rest of my response which was the actual meat. Explaining corporation while ignoring the points on rights, access and the very heart of my objection, corruption, leads me to believe you're not actually interested in discourse. I very well could be wrong, but that's how it comes across.

You mentioned MSNBC, NBC, and I believe I said 'shred of creditability'.:P Also, those are specific show hosts not anchors for 'news' and, specifically, they weren't running campaign ads, just commentary.

In no way have I ever felt, nor argued that McCain/Feingold is a good law, nor even about it's constitutionality, but I maintain that it's stopgap effect was a necessary evil. I wrote elsewhere that I'm fine with the philosophical argument for overturning M/F (*), but to ignore the practical effects of what this will do, as well as what it was preventing is seriously shortsighted. Even so, there's nothing particularly wrong with overturning laws like M/F *except* with the way it happened. This ruling was nothing short of spectacular and very disturbing as this was a radical departure from precedent, as well as taking such a limited scope case and applying it to an entire series of laws.

Cheers,
~Frag B)

*I didn't here and I apologize, I overlapped a lot between my FB and Lurker posts.

[kandrathe]

I must say Kandrathe that you're exhausting to discourse with, as you don't specify what you're responding to. Your response to the first quote would have been much easier to respond to if you had just used my first sentence about corporation definition that you objected to and not quoted the rest of my response which was the actual meat. Explaining corporation while ignoring the points on rights, access and the very heart of my objection, corruption, leads me to believe you're not actually interested in discourse. I very well could be wrong, but that's how it comes across.

Sorry. I feel as you do that democracy shouldn't necessarily be relative to the size of your wallet. Warren Buffet (or George Soros) is actually a good example. His personal wealth is very large, and he has every right to sell shares of BH (paying the government taxes for his capital gains) and divert his own money to place ads on the TV. But, BH would in many cases have no free speech rights of defending their own actions. Should corporations have to rely on the benevolence of wealthy shareholders to speak on their behalf? The other concern you did not mention (which was discussed in the brief) was that shareholders/union members may not all have a common view, so who decides on what gets said. For unions, there is the Beck decision, which allows for union members to now designate whether their dues should be involved in political advocacy (however I doubt anyone is auditing them yet). I would say for corporations, you need to vote with your shares, or feet. If a person does not agree with the controlling shareholders opinion, then they can always divest themselves from the corporation.

We need to find a way to keep public servants honest, or expose the ones that are dishonest. More attention needs to be focused on vetting candidates, meaning that people and the press need to expose the candidates record and motivations. Also, I would like to see some serious term limits to be implemented for federal office. Something like 3 times for Representative (max 6 years lifetime), and 3 terms Senator (max 18 years lifetime). We need to trust everyday people more to represent us everyday people. If a bill is too complicated for a representative to understand, then it is too complicated for the American people to understand, and shouldn't be passed. No more multi-thousand page laws. Bills that are unreadable due to size or complexity are ridiculous.

Also, those are specific show hosts not anchors for 'news' and, specifically, they weren't running campaign ads, just commentary.

I'm not saying they are news anchors. They have an open forum for promoting their opinions, even the day before or day of the election. They are spokespersons for the corporations that have put them on the air. You and I don't have access to vent our opinions on a prime time network TV or Radio show. What is "advertising" versus commentary and opinion. Some of this commentary smells much like coercion or propaganda.

This ruling was nothing short of spectacular and very disturbing as this was a radical departure from precedent, as well as taking such a limited scope case and applying it to an entire series of laws.

Yes, it was a surprise. I do understand why they backtracked from Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and also why they could not rule on just the narrow grounds of just Citizen United v FEC. Roberts writes regarding stare decisis, "When considering whether to reexamine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right." The logic of Austin would enable prohibition of speech (political advocacy) by even media corporations, newspapers, TV, internet, and publishers 30 and 60 days prior to elections. This clearly violates the First Amendment protection of speech by the "press", and so then Austin is clearly in violation of the 1st Amendment for some corporations. Section 431(9)(B)(i) of the campaign-finance laws wholly exempts from the definition of campaign expenditure: "any news story, commentary or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication." Couldn't all corporations add a minor "publishing" capacity and also then avoid the speech restrictions?