Visitors
CATO video on SCOTUS Decision
The Supreme Court struck a major blow for free speech by correctly holding that government cannot try to “level the political playing field” by banning corporations from making independent campaign expenditures on films, books, or even campaign signs.
As Justice Kennedy said in announcing the opinion, “if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech.”
While the Court has long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption in elections, it has also repeated that equalizing speech is never a valid government interest.
After all, to make campaign spending equal, the government would have to prevent some people or groups from spending less than they wished. That is directly contrary to protecting speech from government restraint, which is ultimately the heart of American conceptions about the freedom of speech. …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM&feature=player_embedded
Libs/Progressives and the MSM are going to now say that special interests will now own elections. What they don’t tell you is this ruling means the total opposite.
Under the guise of campaign finance laws, “special interests” have been effectively shutting down political speech they don’t agree with.
This ruling is most important for free speech under the First Amendment, and shuts down the monopoly of political speech by the very same MSM who now decries this ruling. That is why Soros, GE, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and company are crying!!!
.... Eky before you try and blast me... I have read all of your talking points from Alan Grayson, Media Matters... Chucky Schumer... so please only original rantings.
.... and since you plastered them on other sites.. without being called out.. I expect the same respect for the CATO institute.
Email
Print Article
Favorites
Report Abuse
User Comments
 |
Obama is incapable of interpretation of law and it is sad since he taught it. His opting out of public financing only allowed him to be financed by special interest groups after making a promise to not opt out before hand. Obama is a full of shit liar. |
 |
If you want to be technical , his largest supporter was individual donations.. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Goldman did alot for Bush too if I recall. |
 |
Once the get a hold.. they will mandate all kinds of stuff... yeppers you will have to go to the gym and get signed off for your taxes that you were there for X amount of time each year... BIG BRO is getting bigger!!! |
|
And you think this Supreme court ruling will make any of it Better? |
|
Blast you, Nah, would I do that. I see you settled for Cato, How is Charles Koch and the oil business these days? Mighty right wing libertarian ( or corporate anarchists???) opinion you picked. Never the less, I'll make this simple. Is a Corporation a Person? Answer. NO. See how easy that was... |
|
Take away the people and what do you have? Of course they are people.... just like the unions.. ! |
|
No, those people in those corporations already have those rights, and can exorcise them whenever, no problem with that. That legal construct of an entity that never dies, that never needs clean food and water or schools, that can amass more wealth than individuals and unions (though I don't like Unions or corps with this power, and I have said that from day one...), and that is created only for making a profit for its shareholders, Is not a person. These are not hard concepts. I think many are just disagreeing or for this because they think the other side don't like it. But as soon as a republican becomes populist or anti-bank or anti-corporation, what do you think will happen then. This is not good for anyone. I noticed another Right wing blogger here posted on this, noting how it is a bad ruling. Maybe you and him should discuss this too. Perhaps then you will listen. |
 |
Freedom of speech is NOT confined to the individual. The Constitution clearly states that the government shall not abridge free speech, whether you're a n individual or corporation. That is why Unions enjoy the freedom of speech amendment. |
|
Ummm, yes, it is. Corporations are not even MENTIONED in the U.S. constitution. Perhaps if you had read it, you would know that... |
|
I have read it and SCOTUS is already of the opinion that free speech extends to organizations, non-profit and otherwise, unions, corporations, governmental districts and any other entity that requires people for their being. That is why they protect the free speech rights of Code Pink, Planned Parenthood and all those other activist groups. The Constitution doesn't mention corporations or any of those othe orgs because it doesn't limit them. Perhaps if you had read the Constitution as much as I have, you might know that. |
|
"The Constitution clearly states that the government shall not abridge free speech, whether you're a n individual or corporation"... Clearly states or doesn't mention it because it is ok. HEY, they didn't mention gays or Athiests, I guess we are ok to full rights too then, huh? Oh wait, no, only the things righties like of course...Even when they are really being dumb-asses and proving they are both constitutionally illiterate and intellectually challenged... Truth is, the founders didn't have a high opinion of corporations (East India Company ringing any bells to "TEa Partiers". If you know your history, it should...). Corporate Charters were 10-40 years, could be revoked in a moments notice for illegal activity. Also, personal assets were not protected, if the CEO got a lawsuit for everything, they would lose everything . This ruling, does not meld with the opinions of the creators of this nation. And there is a reason for that... |
|
Only in your mind, eky. Because the constitution does not limit the free speech of a corporation, or any other organization, you think it doesn't apply to them. Perhaps you should have read the opinions befor5e going off on your high horse. It must really be frustrating for you to constantly be on the wrong side of the arguement all the time. Perhaps a class in Constitutional studies might help you. |
|
Oh so things not directly mentioned in the constitution also get constitutional rights, inclusion by omission...LOL. Terrorists? Mexicans? Marsians? Oysters? Parrots? Platypi? Feeling stupid yet, you should... |
|
BTW, are you now for open boarders and letting Illegals vote too? I mean, if they wanted to now, Bin Laden could create a corporation over here now, and use its complete treasury to get elected anyone or kick out he doesn't like. Right? Maybe he is, and will now. Do they know, do we know. But Cato Says
|
and that works for her...
|
That's smoe serious conjecture on your part. Of course it's validity doen't hold water. |
|
"doen't Smoe" comments just crack you up sometimes....They do me... |
|
Kinda like your "open boarder" comment does. |
|
Might as well, you are fine selling them the air time, and you are fine having lost your voice in politics. What does it matter now? Let them in, Amnesty for all... |
|
Your frustration is showing. Why don't you fill us in where this SCOTUS rulling opens the borders. Or are you just attacking the typos for fun? |
|
I am going by things I read in the dissent by the other supreme court judges, and common sense of course. And you are mixing messages. I said we might as well open the boarders, because they can influence our elections greater now than if we just let them in and vote. For example this by Sotomayor.. "...In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests mayconflict in fundamental respects with the interests ofeligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. ..."
|
|
More from the dissent...
So these so called "Talking points" as our host referred to them as, are actually concerns found by the dissenting Supreme court Justices, and the concerns they had with the ruling. Of course, it is easier for righties who probably could have rode the "short-bus" to call it talking points and thus keep from actually having to debate what the founders meant by PEOPLE. Breathing, walking talking PEOPLE.
|
|
Well of course, I expect nothing less from you than to give and believe in just one side, all your arguements prove that. They are all wrong and you're right. Your useless arguements are a complete waste of time. |
|
|
|
You see ek, you never address the issue of why all other organizations such as SEIU, planned parenthood, code pink and etc enjoy those very freedoms yet you rail on because now corporations have the same freedom. I don't disagree with the issue of organizations or corporations being able to donate an unlimited amounts to campaigns, I don't think they should, but until a legal, effective way can be found, we have to live with it. SCOTUS made the correct decision; we should now direct our attention to the politicians and candidates. Perhaps a law stating they cannot accept money from PACs, special interest, organizations and corporations in any amount. At least that way, there is no free speech issue. And, I don't need luck when arguing against the same old lame arguements, no one does. |
|
You misunderstand the ruling. It is not about rather or not they can contribute to the politician. It is rather or not they can spend unlimitedly on tv ads for and against issues and politicians to the fullest extent they wish. And rather or not American people should be deciding this. |
|
And yet, you still evade the issue of SEIUs, planned parenthoods and code pinks enjoying the freedom but not corporations. The SCOTUS decission was strictly on the free speech issue, which campaign contributions and ads have been upheld as free speech, which was the correct decision. You misunderstand the decision. As a strictly free speech issue, all restrictions were removed, which were constituted as Unconstitutional in the first place. Because the dessention, which numbered 4, didn't like it, to bad, the correct constitutional ruling was made. We may not like it, but there it is. Campaign contributions should be restricted to INDIVIDUALS only, not unions, organizations, corporations or PACs. If you remove the politicians ability to take money from unions, organizations, corporations or PACs, you have effectively curtailed the influence these groups have over those corrupt politicians. |
|
All restrictions being the "PEOPLE' requirement...Again, the constitution was for people, not legal constructs. And because a Majority on the Supreme court think something is a good Idea, doesn't mean it is. Think Dred Scot. Good grief...this shouldn't be that hard... |
|
Then why are you making it seem difficult. The Constitution starts with individual freedoms, that's the people, it then restricts GOVERNMENT in their control and reserve it for ther State and the people. If you take the time to read and UNDERSTAND the 1st amendment, you will see that it ensures freedom of speech to the people and the PRESS. Of course, I'm sure you don't consider media outlets as corporations, do you. When the SCOTUS tries to legislate instead of judicate, decisions such as Dred Scott happen. In this most recent case, they upheld the right of corporations to free speech just as they would have for the press, unions or politically activist organizations. Simple as that. Don't make it more difficult than it is. |
|
And you don't think killing 100 years of campaign finance reforms isn't "Trying to legislate". Press being reporters, not the companies. The founders had a really "skeptical" opinion of the corporations. Corporations are not people, thus do not deserve "free speech". The individuals working for the company already enjoy those rights. This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with buying the democracy in one final large swoop. But some apparently have little value in that...
|
|
100 years is poppycock. These so called campaign reforms you speak of have only been hear for a relatively short period of time, not 100 years like your messiah would have you believe. The press aren't people either, yet they enjoy this free speech. The Unions aren't people either, yet they collectively enjoy this free speech. This has everything to do with free speech and nothing to do with buying democracy in any swoop. But apparently, some would take that free speech from us. |
|
Wow, you really haven't read the dissent have you. I linked to it above, you really should. No they did not have it to this degree, Unions or corporations. Are you a corporation? Because if not, then why would a ruling of no helped or hurt you in any way? No unions didn't have this power before, but they do now. So does Cheveron. So does Halliburton. So does AIG, hey there is a good one. Should AIG take bail-out money and buy ad time for "bail-out candidates". Government contractors using tax payer dollars? Those laws were there for a reason, and it was to protect OUR speech, not the speech of corporate interests. It is not for government created entities to turn around and then "create" the government through unchecked campaigning (not just direct but now unlimited indirect campaigning and ads). |
|
Oh please, the dissent, on it's own merits, clearly has a narrow defined rule on what the first amendment means. If, as you say, it only pertains to people, then why does it clearly name "press" in it. Of course, you, like them, probably consider "press" people. And yes, I read the dissent, but I'm not so sure you read consent, but then a majority of 5 to 4 consenting probably isn't Democratic to you, is it.
|
|
Joe-EY! |
 |
They are going to do whatever they can get away with ,,but not on our watch.Now wonder he didnt last as a law professor,,he never wrote either.Liar haven't said that today!Hes making a fool of himself daily,,cant last 3 more yrs. GOod luck Bliss! |
|
It is hard to know everything.... the way 0 bashes then coddles it is hard to know how the results will line up... I like jojo's comment below... I am on day six without nicotine.. so I am having a hard time sitting and blogging... yikes!!! |
|
Thanks to both of you for the well wishes... I will make it... hard but I am tuff... quit once before for 5 years... this time I know that even after years I can not ever pick one up... never ever... don't want to have to go through this withdrawl crap ever again.... !!! |
|
|
|
The same folks that want the Constitution to be a living breathing document... don't think a Corporation are people? Now that is an oxymoron!!! |
|
I don't care who they donate to or what cause. They are not people. And the constitution was not written for them. Illegals might as well now, they can spend unlimited dollars on campaigns behind the mask of corporations. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda should form a corp and do so and start running ads against candidates, just so the hopelessly ignorant can see this ruling for what it is and go..."oh, yea, this isn't good...". They have more influence that a vote now, they have the airwaves. Wonder if China will take some of the debt we have to them in trade for their favorite candidates. How much is that, how many trillion? Think about it.... |
|
EKY.. plenty of money came to Obama from foreign entities... The Gaza Strip Brothers.. |
|
Jojo: And those people already have their constitutional rights. This isn't rocket science...People Breath, corps don't... If you don't like it, why on earth, other than immature spite (my actual guess), would you applaud this ruling. It's not because you have considered what it says on its face. Not because you apparently disagree with the principle of foreign money in campaigns (EXCEPT when its a Democrat of course...) If you were pissed about that, you should be ranting over this. You're not, which tells me volumes. |
|
Bliss: If you don't like foreign contributions to campaigns, why would you be in favor of this, This just made everything worse. |
|
The Washington think tank, the Campaign Finance Institute, has found that Obama led the pack with small and secret donations pulling in about $31 million during 2007. One concern is that foreigners can make illegal online contributions. Obama's website allows donors to choose an address in one of 227 possible countries or territories, including Iran, Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Yemen. It is a crime for most foreigners to donate to American campaigns at the federal level; however, those with green card status can donate legally as can Americans living abroad. |
|
All the more reason you should be against this ruling.... |
|
Hidden donations were more difficult to manuver,and thus were not typically a possible major factor in elections. Now however....It's anyone's game, except the people. |
|
Find me a president that didn't in the past 30 years....We know the Saudis and Bin laden porked up the Bush family. Again, if this bothers you, you should be really disturbed by the ruling. Corporations just took us over, thanks to 5 conservative republican appointed judges. They need impeached, and we need a constitutional amendment clairifying constitutional rights are for 'natural' citizens and not legal constructs of the government. |
|
Keep showing you are a whack job, that will help your positions.... |
|
hey I heard that Senator Brown was kin to Obama, have you requested his long form certificate. Or is he 'pale' enough to not need such measures in your opinion? |
|
EKY... all kinds of people from Scott's past stepped up and told us about him. We were even introduced to his mechanic... his coaches.. saw his high school gym where he was team leader.. saw all kinds of photos... met his neighbors that said he had always driven a truck for the 20 years they had been neighbors... All American Boy! Where are those every day grew up with him folks for Obama????? the Enigma? |
|
eky... you always bring up skin color.... over and over.. are you a racist? |
|
Birtherism is born or racist hate. It's the only reason they pushed the birth certificate issue. I am not going to pretend they are not racists, and will certainly call them out on it. It was debunked in the primary and only racist idiots still believe it, and I have no problems pointing that out... |
|
I does not matter what the make-up of your family is, Irrelevent. What matters is you still despite proof and debunk, think he is not american and that is because he is half black, let's be honest. Now, around these parts, racists have something called BALLS and they use them (for things other than tea-bagging), they admit they are racists, and are not cowardly about it hiding behind some debunked "Obama is from Mars and that is why I don't like him" thing... Grow some or get over it, it's debunked. By the Way Bliss" eky... you always bring up skin color.... over and over.. are you a racist? " The "I'm Rubber you're glue" defense? Really?
|
 |
Obamas decision to not take public financing was so that McCain would be limited and he wouldn't... Big Corporations and Unions put tons of money into his campaign... I also question why Obama does not know the Law or the Constitution since he was supposed to be a Hot Shot Constitutional Lawyer, even though he no longer has a Law License nor does the FLOTUS.... Why would you take all that education and then either loose or let your Law License go?? That is a question that I would like the answer to.... I do know that court papers show that Michelle was asked by the court to relinquish hers, but it did not say for what... |
|
I would like to know too Marian!! |
|
Drop in the bucket to what you will see now. And the so called "tea party" who really are corporate puppets as demonstrated by their thumb-up the rear attitude on this ruling, will find itself as silenced as anyone else. This is what proved to me they are sheeple, and not really standing by ANY principles except the ones written on the corporate
|
they kiss...
|
Pucker up buttercup... |
|
"Drop in the bucket to what you will see now" so it was OK when it was your team? Now that Corporations will actually have to say who they are supporting you have a problem? |
|
Pawty at Bawny's
|
|
I never said it was ok, I said now it will be worse. And yes, corporations are not people, and are not required to primarily be run by U.S. citizens so I do have a problem. I prefer constitutional rights for "people"...Call that strange... |
|
No, but I would have no problem driving it. Looks like it might be a bit high up though... |
|
But foreign companies can now purchase as much ad time as they wish. I want free speech. FOR PEOPLE. People. That is the elephant in the room you are missing. PEOPLE. |
|
Groups I am associated with? You don't want the answer to that, we would be here for hours...LOL. If you mean who do I donate to and support. My inbox is a nightmare.... Again though, I have never condoned this ruling for anyone. I have only condemned it... |
|
Why do you keep missing that this is bad WHOEVER YOU ARE? |
|
|
|
|
|
Neither was Rupert Murdoch ...But they are.. A. Citizens and B. PERSONS. It's so easy its hard...is that it??? |
|
Eky, unless you have been to a Tea Party event, you do not know what you are talking about.... What you are saying about Tea Parties is coming straight from the Liberal Left Wing Talking Points and the likes of Chris Matthews who has never been to a Tea Party even either... Just Watch and Wait and See.... |
|
EKY... only repeats talking points... Media Matters, Alan Grayson sites are saying... exactly what Eky is repeating.. I believe Judge Alito and even the NYT's says Obama mis-interpreted the ruling... LOL |
|
We know the NYT is left leaning and covers for Obama but they also know the truth of this will come out... with the upcoming elections... and ads that will soon be being purchased and they can't afford to cut ties with the buying public... |
|
I know Tea-partiers, I have had many discussions with them, and not just you guys on blogster. I have been Invited to an event, but honestly If I went it might spiral into a lynching (deliberate choice of words)... |
|
Who said the upcoming ads would be truthful? Heck, media sources have issues with truth, Fox for starters (when you take your own journalists to court to make them change a story, you should know something is amiss with the network). Now, "talking points" I simply asked on question. Are corporations PEOPLE? That should be an easy question to answer, for most... |
 |
Well 4Bliss, I feel this is a very slippery slope but I guess we will see |
|
Yes we will James... eye's open.. !!! my eyes were open last time... and the unequal money advantage O had was not good.... imo.. But this decision has been mis-interpreted... |
|
He had the advantage because people hated McCain and seen how republicans rule by Bush. You should be mad at the republicans for what they did in power to turn the people against them. Not the candidate that offered (And has delivered) Better... Yes, it has been misinterpreted, Cato and this post proves it... |
|
EKY, I am glad to hear that things are better for you under this administration!! Try telling the 17% of out of work People in this nation that their lives have been made better in this last year and see what they say. List three things that is better in this last year in your opinion.... Not in the government, but for the people. |
|
1. Lilly Ledbetter equal pay for equal work. 2. Hate crimes legislation finally passed. 3. The rate of job losses has declined, and the previous quarter's GDP has risen. Only 3? That was easy... |
 |
@ekyprogressive, with an overwhelming majority in Congress and a Super Majority in the Senate you really think passing those little pieces of legislation were really going to make the Front row of his Presidential Library? |
|
Women should be happy that they should be paid equal to their male counterparts. I am happy that hate crimes legislation is passed and that DADT and DOMA are next.
|
 |
I actually read all of these comments. Isn't the First Amendment great? You couldn't even write some this stuff in Canada. |
|
It's woderful...For PEOPLE.... |
The rantings from the left is ludicrous but revealing. Their "interpretation" is convenient. The 1st Amendment, it seems to them, is to spin and manipulate to their advantage, as Obama attempted in the SOTU address where he made a fool of and embarrassed himself globally. Even many far left libs contradicted his statement as being in erroroneous and demeaning to himself and SCOTUS.