HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Supreme Court upholds Cit...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:43 PM

Supreme Court upholds Citizen United 5-4- .... breaking

High Court Says 'Citizens United' Applies To States
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

text size A A A June 25, 2012
The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its 2-year-old decision allowing corporations to spend freely to influence elections. The justices struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.

By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

The majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.

The same five justices said in 2010 that corporations have a constitutional right to be heard in election campaigns. The decision paved the way for unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions in elections for Congress and the president, as long as the dollars are independent of the campaigns they are intended to help. The decision, grounded in the freedom of speech, appeared to apply equally to state contests.

But Montana aggressively defended its 1912 law against a challenge from corporations seeking to be free of spending limits, and the state Supreme Court sided with the state. The state court said a history of corruption showed the need for the limits, even as Justice Anthony Kennedy declared in his Citizens United opinion that independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/25/155704776/high-court-says-citizens-united-applies-to-states

13 replies, 1662 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court upholds Citizen United 5-4- .... breaking (Original post)
Ichingcarpenter Jun 2012 OP
L0oniX Jun 2012 #1
sharp_stick Jun 2012 #2
L0oniX Jun 2012 #4
KharmaTrain Jun 2012 #12
Rambis Jun 2012 #3
Puzzledtraveller Jun 2012 #13
KeepItReal Jun 2012 #5
Siwsan Jun 2012 #6
MrScorpio Jun 2012 #7
fredamae Jun 2012 #8
surrealAmerican Jun 2012 #9
bluesbassman Jun 2012 #10
Mcubed1945 Jun 2012 #11

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:45 PM

1. Corporate owned scum bags!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:45 PM

2. I think we may need

a Constitutional Amendment to put this horrific ruling out of it's misery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:46 PM

4. I'd like to see those traitors thrown out of the country ...after being tar'd and feathered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:08 PM

12. Good Luck With That...

Firstly, more than 1/3rd of the legislatures in this country are controlled by rushpublicans...no way they're gonna give up such a big cash advantage. This horse is long out of the barn and you're asking those who stand to profit and benefit from it to disarm? Ain't gonna happen. The only hope is that people see all the spending as a negative on a candidate...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:46 PM

3. Activist Judges running roughshod over states rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rambis (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:13 PM

13. I get it, but that claim always come bouncing back.

It's because we never call them activists when it's positions we agree with. Furthermore, if we want to trot states rights than we may have to concede Arizona. We want to have our cake and eat it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:58 PM

5. 100 years of settled law in Montana upheld by State Supremes just thrown out

Someone lied to congress... And it ain't Eric Holder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:00 PM

6. Maybe it's time to re-think this 'lifetime appointment' system

It can be a recipe for disaster, as we now see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:16 PM

7. American Feudalism, Here We Are! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:20 PM

8. Only congress can impeach SCOTUS Justice

so keep that in mind when voting-there is absolutely No way a R controlled anything will do whats right.
Give both senate and house a really big-filibuster proof Dem majority, put a mop and broom in their hands and clean up this mess the repubs have created. We need constitutional amendment to prevent this from ever happening in our country and to our people again!

We let this corporatization happen via complacency and its going to be "us" who fix it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:33 PM

9. That totally sucks.

k & r.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:38 PM

10. I guess Kennedy didn't have his TV on during the Walker recall election.

Blatant partisan bullshit. I am not surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:04 PM

11. Although we're angry, they might be right.

I'm not going to claim I know what the right answer is. It just seems to me that the SCOTUS might be right that corporations can spend lots of money on campaign under our constitution. The facts of the cases in Montana certainly demonstrate how that legal right can be abused by those same companies.

My point is that perhaps we shouldn't be railing against SCOTUS but discussing strategies to organizing voters and working on an amendment to the constitution doing away with that right. It will be very difficult considering the massive amounts of money that will be poured into congress to oppose that amendment. I am sure it will have to be a very well led grass roots movement organized on the web, perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread