General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-montana-limits-on-corporate-campaign-spending/2012/06/25/gJQA6kpi1V_story.htmlThe vote was the usual 5-4
WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
From http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/supreme-court-rejects-corporate-campaign-spending-limits/
"Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits
Associated Press, June 25, 2012
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its two-year-old decision relaxing limits on corporate campaign spending. The justices on Monday reversed a Montana court ruling upholding state restrictions.
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."
LiberalLoner
(9,761 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)So far, the Washingtonpost link just has the headline, with no story.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)This is the biggest reason why Obama must be re-elected.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)Justices and the people who would hold up confirmation of less conservative Justices.
malaise
(267,823 posts)What the fuck!!!
Huey P. Long
(1,932 posts)I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
-Thomas Jefferson
malaise
(267,823 posts)ReTHUGs have been bought by corporations and control the courts.
It will take the unity of the 99% to destroy this plutocracy.
Huey P. Long
(1,932 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)You will find contributions paid to both candidates by the same big donor, the whitewash being that certain donors favor a certain ideaology. This may be true for some big donors, because you will see that they only contributed to one candidate and routinely back a certain party. The huge donors give to both, they are just hedging their bets, so that no matter who wins, they will have a friend in the White House.
glinda
(14,807 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Planned Parenthood is a corporation (formal name: "Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc." . Suppose, in a deep red state where Planned Parenthood owns the building in which it operates a clinic, the state passes a law confiscating that building so that it can be turned into a memorial tribute to Ronald Reagan. In response, Planned Parenthood runs into federal court and invokes the Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law...." (emphasis added) What result?
Under current law, the result is clear. Planned Parenthood is a person. The state has deprived it of its property without due process of law. The corporation's right to keep its property is superior to the right of the state to enact a right-wing agenda.
If the Constitution were to be amended to provide that a corporation is not a person, however, then the Fourteenth Amendment wouldn't apply here. Planned Parenthood would lose. The confiscation of its building would be permitted.
Before you argue that a state's power should always be superior to a corporation's rights, you need to consider all the ramifications of that position.
My personal opinion is that the error in Citizens United was not in holding that most Constitutional protections extend to corporations -- a long-established doctrine in American law, and a correct one. The error was in failing to recognize that huge campaign expenditures are speech but are also conduct. Another long-established doctrine is that conduct can be regulated even if it expresses an opinion. The First Amendment protects a person's right to walk into a courthouse wearing a jacket that says "Fuck the Draft" but it doesn't protect a person's right to burn his draft card. Burning the draft card is conduct, which the government may prohibit, because it has (well, had, in the days of conscription) a legitimate interest in requiring young men to have and carry draft cards. That's the precedent the Supreme Court should have applied.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)'the error ... was not in holding that (1st Amdt) extends to corporations'. Justice Stevens' brilliant Citizens v. United dissent strongly disagrees with you:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission :
"Third, Stevens ... discussed how the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside of profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.
Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not 'We the People' for whom our Constitution was established. Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. ... Corporate spending is the 'furthest from the core of political expression' protected by the Constitution, ... and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. ..."
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Suppose the spending is minimal -- Engulf & Devour, Inc. writes a press release opposing a new pollution-control bill being considered by the state legislature, and emails the press release to a few dozen media contacts. Is that an activity protected by the First Amendment?
Remember that, if a progressive state government could prohibit that conduct, then a wingnut state government could prohibit the Sierra Club from issuing a press release in favor of such a bill.
My guess is that Stevens would have held both those press releases to be protected by the First Amendment, even though they were issued by corporations. As your quotation indicates, it's when we get to the area of corporate spending that other considerations arise.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Folks, this is why we have to give this president a second term: the gods willing, perhaps he will have an opportunity not just to stanch the downward slide of the court (should Bader-Ginsberg or another have to retire) but to switch the 5-4 balance.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)the total corporitization of America, this should remove any doubt that people don't count in USA, Inc. If we look back at history, many know where the US is headed now.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Baitball Blogger
(46,576 posts)We only live one lifetime, and since 1998 it's been pretty shitty to be an American oppressed by other Americans.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)think really big thoughts. Hint: it has nothing to do with elections
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Huey P. Long
(1,932 posts)They're all bought and paid for. EVERYTHING. Politicians, judges, and the stooges/functionaries who serve them.
More pain ahead till critical mass is reached. Much more pain. Prepare.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)What a fucking.....FUCK!
This is very bad news.
PB
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)I had hope they were gonna reconsider. We are totally fucked now.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Or is the Supreme Court going to say state's rights are okay depending on how it effects the corporations?????
PFunk
(876 posts)'nuff said.
glinda
(14,807 posts)NOT! This makes me very very angry.
sakabatou
(42,083 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Here is the ENTIRE Opinion and the Dissent:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA
WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC.,
ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MONTANA, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF MONTANA
No. 111179. Decided June 25, 2012
PER CURIAM.
A Montana state law provides that a corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party. Mont. Code Ann. §13
35227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation. 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montanas arguments in support of
the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.
The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed. It is so ordered.
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1
BREYER, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA
WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC.,
ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MONTANA, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF MONTANA
No. 111179. Decided June 25, 2012
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. 558 U. S. ___, ___
(2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Courts holding for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions. Id., at ___ (slip op., at6768). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a substantial body of evidence suggesting that [m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements. Id., at ___ (slip op.,at 6465).
Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Courts legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Courts finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 3637, 363 Mont. 220, 235236, 271 P. 3d 1,
2 AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK BREYER, J., dissenting 3637. Thus, Montanas experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Courts decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Courts supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.
Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Courts per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant
possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)What irresponsible egoism by the illegitimate five.
Thanks for posting the entire decision and dissent.
randr
(12,408 posts)is out the door.
Not only do these justices have the appearance of corruption, I think the congress should hold impeachment hearing and make them prove otherwise.
Initech
(99,915 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)keep thinking
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I thought that has always been one of their big platforms.
Bryn
(3,621 posts)and 50 states and US President/Congress?
Wow! Those 5 people must be feeling very powerful. This is insane.
upi402
(16,854 posts)insanity..
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)what check and balance? Completely imbalanced!