http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/ ... l?hpt=Sbin

This is sad. Corporations are now allowed to spend as much as they want to finance a candidate, or finance attacks against a candidate. Over 100 years of precedent preventing this is thrown out the window.

Justice John Paul Stevens said some great things in his dissent on this.

* Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

* The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

* 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 may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible 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.

* The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress hasplaced special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907....We have unanimously concluded [in 1982] that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process"...and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation...The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaignspending as an invidious novelty born [in a 1990 opinion].

* The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.

This is straight up judicial activism, and sad to see. I hope Congress reacts and passes legislation to close this loophole.

There's been bad political story after bad political story this week, but this one takes the cake.

Does anyone know what the vote on this one was? I'm too lazy to check right now.

From an e-mail I just received from OSPIRG (Oregon Public Interest Research Group):

"The tortured legal argument is this: We're infringing on a corporation's rights by keeping it out of elections ... rights specifically granted to people.

A corporation is not a person with voting rights. Corporations are not your neighbors, cannot get married, cannot die, and are not a part of "We the People." Giving corporations the rights of people would fundamentally change our democracy.

Unless we stand up, the problem of corporate money in politics could go from bad to unimaginably worse.

Already, moneyed institutions have too much power over government. I shudder to think of a situation in which Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil and Big Pharma have even more control. In fact, if this had been the law of the land in 2008, ExxonMobil alone could have outspent both Barack Obama and John McCain forty (40) times over. [1]"

Oh my fucking God, I cannot believe this ruling. How does granting a CORPORATION the same rights as a person advance the cause of democracy? Can someone please explain that to me? How is this an example of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" to quote Lincoln?

Corporate power is the biggest problem in American politics and the SCOTUS just handed the keys of the country over to bug business if you ask me. I am fucking beside myself.

Special interests on the left aren't just as well funded as ones on the right.
It's a wash.

The vote was 5/4 but I can't find who voted for what...I'm guessing Kennedy swung to the right.

Here's the opinion but I can't get it to load. The SC site is extremely slow right now
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Let me also add I find it hilarious that Liberals are getting all bent out of shape because some of John McCain's legislation was overruled

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Who did you think was driving up to this point?

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

This is sickening.

_________________

5-4 right down the normal conservative / liberal lines.

Majority Opinion:
Roberts
Scalia
Thomas
Alito
Kennedy

Dissent:
Stevens
Ginsburg
Breyer
Sotomayor

I'm under no misconception that big business was not already in charge. However this just takes it to a new level.

Also, that wasn't just McCain's legislation. There's another name on the bill. And that's what gets me so upset, both liberals AND conservatives agreed on the campaign finance reform laws, yet here comes the Supreme Court to over-rule public (and for once legislative) consensus. And on what grounds? If these fuck-wads like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, et al are supposed to be strict constructionists, then all I have to say is that I don't believe the Constitution mentions the word "corporation" once. How is this a strict interpretation of the Constitution?

Because 100 years of jurisprudence says corporations are people.

They didn't make this shit up.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Yes, but this is such a patently obvious ideological decision it's not even funny. 50+ years of jurisprudence says affirmative action is legal too, but you can bet your ass this court wouldn't be too worried about stare desicis if they got an affirmative action case on their docket.

Corporations have never been afforded the rights on an individual when it comes to voting rights. That's why this is so absurd.

And furthermore, this doesn't answer my question of how is this ruling a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I mean, isn't that what these guys said in their confirmation hearings? "I believe in a strict reading of the Constitution...blah blah blah". Yeah, strict when it fits your agenda, loose when it doesn't.

C'mon CC. I know you love to play devil's advocate, but are you really going to tell me that you think this is OK?

I really don't understand why this is framed in a left vs. right way.
You can argue there are no winners here and the American people are the losers, but like I said, it's not like one party has a lock on corporate influence.

Special interests of the left will get a huge influx in cash too.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Well, I'd say it's being framed that way because of who voted what here.

But that is beside the point. And in bringing up McCain-Feingold earlier, that's exactly what I was trying to get at. This should not be a partisan issue because both parties at least give lip service to supporting campaign finance reform. Yet, you pretty clearly do have a partisan split in the vote. And, I do believe it's pretty clear that corporate donations will favor GOP candidates, as you yourself said earlier.

But again I go back to the Constitution, as Chief Justice Roberts said he would do when he took the job, and I say, where do you find Constitutional support for this ruling? Remember, I said I agreed that the DC handgun ban was probably unconstitutional although I didn't like the fact that it got overturned, so I'm not just using the Constitution to fit my own needs. I truly do not see how anyone can vote in favor of this ruling and claim to be a strict constructionist.

re-reading what I said...that was a typo.
I meant "are" not "aren't".
I believe there's just as much activist/corporate cash out there for both sides (progressive insurance anyone?).

I think people assume the GOP would benefit from this I'd love to see evidence of this.

/George Sorros has deep pockets too.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Well, I would say the idea that this ruling will be a "wash" as far as the net effect is pretty disingenuous. Yes, there is George Soros. Yes, there are some left-leaning corporations. But honestly, if you got together a list of the biggest-earning corporations in the country, how many of them do you think would truly not prefer to have Republican leadership in Washington?

I agree with this. The only left vs. right here comes out because of the general voting records of the judges.

However, think about the larger picture. Republicans railed about 'judicial activism' during the Sotomayor hearings. Yet, these judges that were nominated by Republicans just got done making a ruling that most consider to be judicial activism. I would agree that reversing 100 years of legal precedent fits that bill.

The ruling is just bad. Neither party will get some kind of advantage from this, although I still think most corporations are more Republican leaning. (Considering that Repubs are always 'LOWER TAXES ZOMG', that appeals to corporations which are double taxed.)

We're just likely to see more nasty, negative attack ads from both sides, and less influence from the common man in the electoral process.

Oh....this is why Democrats are upset about this decision
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/m ... cycle=2010

Corporations may now actually edge out the lobbyists, and Unions providing the current Democrat fund raising advantage....got it.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

And the green party suffers.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual