Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support the decision as well. McCain-Feingold is nothing more then an incumbency protection bill. I am glad a section of that has been declared unconstitutional.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not yet familiar enough with campaign finance law to form an opinion of the decision or the ramifications of the decision, but I do hope that Congress passes a law so that political speech by corporations is subject to the same rules as those by political individuals.

As a quick example, if Goldman Sachs wants to run an ad for Candidate X, the ad should have to include Lloyd Blankfein saying, "I am Lloyd Bankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and I approve this message."

I would support that. I also think we should have next day full disclosure on the internet of all campaign donations.

Other then that, I would oppose any restrictions on fundraising.

If Five or Six Millionaries want to fund an anti-War candidate for President like Gene McCarthy in 1968, they should be able to. Just require them to put it on the internet the next day, that
George Soros gave them $12 Million, Warren Buffet gave that person $10 Million and so on.

If Jon Corzine can buy the Governorship of New Jersey or Meg Whitman the Governorship of California. Then a middle class candidate should be able to get support from Conservative or Liberal donors larger then 2,500 a cycle. Its a simple case of fairness.

If Unions can campaign for Card Check, The corporations should be able to campaign against it.

If environmental groups can promote their debatable theory as the undeniable fact. Oil companies should be able to respond by pointing out that it is questionable.

If GE can promote Altnerative energy and its gov't subsidies by promoting Global Warming via MSNBC then oil companies should be able to promote offshore oil drilling.

It is also not surprising that the people most pissed off about this are Liberal Democrats even though Unions would on paper benefit from this rulling.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unmitigated disaster.

Corporate funding will overpower all other political discussion, and the only politicians capable of winning will be either corporate stooges or those few who represent ultra-safe Democratic districts.

With complete control of legislatures, the government will eventually represent wealth instead of people, much as happened in Mussolini's Italy. We might not have a strutting poseur like Mussolini, but we might have corporations gaining the power to do such things as form private militias that will make the Bloods and Crips look like elementary students resorting to their fists.  

The Supreme Court ruling has all but disenfranchised anyone not a millionaire even if the process will take fully four years to show its fullest ugliness. If you think that Dred Scott was bad, that one at least spared the majority of Americans the fullest effects of tyranny. By no means do I trivialize the nastiness of Dred Scott to blacks -- they had little to lose in 1857 as things were.

This will move us back to the days when you could have rapid swings in the party composition of the House and Senate.

With the exception of wave years. 80% to 90% of incumbents are safe. The big problem has been fundraising. The second big problem is gerrymandering.

If you require full disclosure, what do you guys fear so much about this? Most companies won't back candidates for fear of losing customers. They will however run commericials educating and encouraging support for policies.

I would much prefer Rich people donating to campaigns that have an incumber have 10-1 fundraising advantage and never have to be held accountable to the voters. As I said, Gene McCarthy was backed by a few rich people and he drove LBJ out of the race by doing so well in NH.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unmitigated disaster.

Corporate funding will overpower all other political discussion, and the only politicians capable of winning will be either corporate stooges or those few who represent ultra-safe Democratic districts.

With complete control of legislatures, the government will eventually represent wealth instead of people, much as happened in Mussolini's Italy. We might not have a strutting poseur like Mussolini, but we might have corporations gaining the power to do such things as form private militias that will make the Bloods and Crips look like elementary students resorting to their fists.  

The Supreme Court ruling has all but disenfranchised anyone not a millionaire even if the process will take fully four years to show its fullest ugliness. If you think that Dred Scott was bad, that one at least spared the majority of Americans the fullest effects of tyranny. By no means do I trivialize the nastiness of Dred Scott to blacks -- they had little to lose in 1857 as things were.

This will move us back to the days when you could have rapid swings in the party composition of the House and Senate.

With the exception of wave years. 80% to 90% of incumbents are safe. The big problem has been fundraising. The second big problem is gerrymandering.

If you require full disclosure, what do you guys fear so much about this? Most companies won't back candidates for fear of losing customers. They will however run commericials educating and encouraging support for policies.

I would much prefer Rich people donating to campaigns that have an incumber have 10-1 fundraising advantage and never have to be held accountable to the voters. As I said, Gene McCarthy was backed by a few rich people and he drove LBJ out of the race by doing so well in NH.

This is far worse.

Freedom of speech does not mean the right to a pliant audience, the right to monopolize the media, or the right to drown out alternatives, let alone to slander at will.  Corporate America just won those dubious rights, and it now has the potential to kill democracy. Gross inequality of freedom of speech implies the absence of the freedom of speech.

Politicians will be accountable only to the interests who buy their campaigns, and once those interests buy those campaigns the politicians will remain bought.  If you think incumbency is a problem now, then wait until the only people who can get elected have the predominant cash behind them -- and employers end up with the right to fire people who support the "wrong" politician. There will be political freedom to oppose the leadership, which will become increasingly servile to giant corporations at the expense of everyone else.

Giant businesses will use their legislative power to get even more authority -- including perhaps the "right" to form militias that use deadly force on strikers. After all, workers have the duty to work 70-80 hour workweeks for the bare essence of survival, right?  Such will be the decision of tycoons and executives when they have nothing to fear from democratic opposition.  And if you think that small business will be a viable option, then think again; giant corporations will push legislation that destroys such competition.  

This decision will not cause the immediate cessation of democracy in America, but it could bring about its effective end as early as November. The House and Senate could end up with enough seats filled with enough myrmidons in the Reichstag or Supreme SovietCongress even to impeach in turn Barack Obama and Joseph Biden for strictly-political grounds.

There will be no book burnings; most people will be lacking the money with which to buy books, or even with the aid of the public library, the time in which to read them. There will be no mass rallies;  those take time from toil. Thugs on the street to rough up opponents? The opponents will have nothing to live for but cheap booze.  

Corporate America has behaved badly over the last few decades, and given unlimited power it will act even more atrociously.

Bad as Dred Scott was,  it was nullified in eight years.

I am ready to become a citizen of the Republic of Michigan.

You need help.

First off, Corporations are not going to back candidates because they don't want to risk losing customers. They will back ideas and issues like drilling off shore, investments in Alternative energy, etc, etc.

Second these people are already buying Candidates. Last year, Obama called John McCain, Exxon John. Do you want to know who actually got more money from Exxon, BARACK OBAMA, thats where the change we can beleive in went by the way. They do it through bundling and through personal contributions from the Executives of the Corporations, so technically they aren't directly from the corporation. But the idea that we are not currenltly awash in money is reall, really LOL.

Lastly, did you know, that pryor to 1972, political donations were completely, unregulated. It didn't stip Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ from acheiving progressive reforms. In 1968, Gene McCarthy, the anti-War Senator who drove LBJ out of the 1968 Presidential race, was bank rolled by 5 or 6 millionaries out of California who were tired of Vietnam War.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know how it's easier to see from outside sometimes?  Like the other UK poster, it seems a stunning decision to me, and I really despair of seeing a great country doing these things to itself.  It's a strong blow to the idea of democracy, surely.  A fraction of a percentage of people with the power to have the loudest voice.  The process continues of making normal people's voices smaller and smaller as it becomes impossible to compete with people/corporations with the most buying/bribing power.  The internet had slightly done us all a favor by returning a voice to the masses (after television had been hijacked by people who wanted to force their opinions on people that couldn't talk back) - it still will have that power, and may be the tool that allows sense to prevail still.

Well we do have a little something called the Bill of Rights an in that is a Freedom of Speech and the freedom of Association clause. And thus the freedom of those associations as groups of individuals to speak freely.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sorry for the direct lifting from Wikipedia, but..

"First Amendment interpretation

Freedom of speech in the U.S. follows a graduated system, with different types of regulations subject to different levels of scrutiny in court challenges based on the First Amendment, often depending on the type of speech.

Types of Speech

Core Political Speech
This is the most highly guarded form of speech because of its purely expressive nature and importance to a functional democracy. Most simply, core political speech is interactive communications about political ideas or issues that are not motivated by profit."


So, I wonder how they will get past that last part, as that will be their motivation ultimately.  But excuse my not feeling confident that they won't be allowed to ride roughshod all over it.

Because that is not what the Consitution says. The Courst job is to interpret the constitution and strike down any statutes or even previous Precedent(including previous interpretations) that ride roughshod over the "Constitution".

What the hell is that from, anyway, I have never seen that before? Its not the constitution thats for sure, and thats what matters not some unidentified text lifted from wikipedia.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes about Wikipedia.. one leaves themselves wide open when using it without researching what they used.

However, does a thing really need to be written for people to display common decency?  I would suggest that thinly-veiled support of parties as a means to ensure future profits isn't decent, and that needs no constitution to know that.  Just a right-thinking mind.

And (I know I tried to use the Constitution as part of my argument, but that's because I know you all like to fall back on it to determine your morals when you need back-up), whoever gave people a right to tell people that haven't even been born yet, and had no choice WHERE they'd be born what's what... that seems very un-democratic to me, especially as it's main use seems to be getting mis-used by Republicans to further their own cause, which is possible only because it's outdated like them.  But I guess that's for another thread.

The Constitution can be amended, you know. But only when there is overwhelming support for doing so. This was a clear case of populist politicians passing and incumbent protection plan, shrouding it in populist rhetoric and violating the constitution in the process.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You do realize that any commercials that corporations make directly are required to reveal their source?

It's the indirect ones that cause problems.

How is that really affected by this verdict though?

Yes. In fact this verdict makes it possible for them to come out into open.

I am 100% for Full Disclosure requirements.

I will state again most compainies won't back candidates, they wil back ideas. Oil companies will back OCS. Those commecials for Natural Gas have been running for months. They now can run doing election season.