US Supreme Court overturns ban on corporate election donations

[kertejud2]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...,4141508.story

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.



Until now, corporations and unions have been barred from spending their own treasury funds on broadcast ads or billboards that urge the election or defeat of a federal candidate. This restriction dates back to 1907, when President Theodore Roosevelt called on Congress to forbid corporations, railroads and national banks from using their money in federal election campaigns. After World War II, Congress extended this ban to labor unions.

In today's decision, the high court struck down that restriction and said the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads.

This ushers in a new era of greatness for the American political system. Its gonna be great!

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by kertejud2
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...,4141508.story




This ushers in a new era of greatness for the American political system. Its gonna be great!

Didn't Obamma run on the idea that he was going to limit the amount of money corporations can contribute to political campaigns?

Wasn't another one of his policies to be a 3 year ban on lobbying in washington after previously holding a government position?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by broken_legs



Didn't Obamma run on the idea that he was going to limit the amount of money corporations can contribute to political campaigns?

Wasn't another one of his policies to be a 3 year ban on lobbying in washington after previously holding a government position?

Well its out of Obama's hands now as any such legislation would be considered unconstitutional. The SC has basically expanded on their reasoning behind not having limits to campaign donations (like Canada has) because of the 1st Amendment.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

USA! USA! USA!

[Antonito]

This should help the economy immensely as I'm sure the inefficiencies in the current system of using dummy accounts and other work-arounds means only a portion of the corporate donations make it to the intended candidate.

Who says the Supreme Court doesn't like the Free Market?

[st184]

Originally posted by kertejud2

The SC has basically expanded on their reasoning behind not having limits to campaign donations (like Canada has) because of the 1st Amendment.

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
USA! USA! USA!

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by Antonito
This should help the economy immensely as I'm sure the inefficiencies in the current system of using dummy accounts and other work-arounds means only a portion of the corporate donations make it to the intended candidate.

Who says the Supreme Court doesn't like the Free Market?

I hope you're being sarcastic. The only thing this makes more efficient is the ability for large corporations to legislate themselves a competitive advantage and gain political favors. The motives behind a move like this have nothing to do with the free market. More direct influence on government by corporations will make the markets less free.

[Antonito]

Lol more direct influence. Yes, because that law actually discouraged corporations from buying influence before now

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by mx73someday


I hope you're being sarcastic. The only thing this makes more efficient is the ability for large corporations to legislate themselves a competitive advantage and gain political favors. The motives behind a move like this have nothing to do with the free market. More direct influence on government by corporations will make the markets less free.

Missing the point and confirming the point in the same paragraph is quite the skill.

[broken_legs]

^^^ lol

I'm watching news down here right now

They are saying that political donations are considered "Speech" and thus political contributions are a right provided for under the constitution.


That's a pretty perverted interpretation.

I give the USA another 5-10 years before all out Civil war.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by broken_legs
^^^ lol

I'm watching news down here right now

They are saying that political donations are considered "Speech" and thus political contributions are a right provided for under the constitution.


That's a pretty perverted interpretation.

I give the USA another 5-10 years before all out Civil war.

Its what is preventing any sort of election reform. John McCain tried really hard to put limits on individual donations IIRC and it kept getting shot down because of that interpretation. But this declares that corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals, which is what makes it a pretty terrible ruling.

[CUG]

Originally posted by broken_legs
^^^ lol

I'm watching news down here right now

They are saying that political donations are considered "Speech" and thus political contributions are a right provided for under the constitution.


That's a pretty perverted interpretation.

I give the USA another 5-10 years before all out Civil war.

I have $500 that says otherwise.

[ZenOps]

Interesting, But I still think Canada is more interesting. In Canada a private individual is not allowed to give more than $1,100 to any political party or individual per year.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?...textonly=false

Although I'm not sure how such an arbitrary decision and dollar amount comes about. Really - if you want to fully ensure non-corrupted officials the dollar amount should be zero (Like FEDex mail carriers who are not allowed to accept tips of any sort)

Of interest as of 2007.

"You can no longer make a cash contribution of more than $20 to registered political entities."

Much like tipping the doorman - you can tip your local politician $19, but not $20 or more. Again - seemingly arbitrarily derived number.

Hell - I'll tip $20 to any politician who swears an oath of fealty to Canada that they will never, ever put themselves on self proclaimed paid holidays and shutdown the government from the inside (prorogueation)

Heck, I'll tip extra to a waitress that shows a little leg. C'mon Rob Anders - show me some leg, lol

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by CUG
I have $500 that says otherwise.

Tea Parties are organizing everywhere.

It's not covered in the media, but people are getting PO'd

[01RedDX]

.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
I really don't know how a completely corrupt system can get any more corrupt.

Well, the ruling doesn't put any stipulations on foreign owned corporations, so Putin/Medvedev (through Gazprom) and Hugo Chavez (through Citgo) could directly finance American politicians with as much money as they want.

This is just getting started.

[Feruk]

I'd like to see some statistics comparing fundraising donations to how well one does at the polls. I don't see the "democracy" in a system where one candidate who advertises his name 10 times as much (as he did more fundraising) gets elected because nobody even hears about the second guy. Anyone in Calgary remember the last mayoral election? I can't remember the names of a single candidate except the two who advertised all over the place (Bronco and that other dude who later turned out to have some sort of tax evasion problems in Haiti or something like that). Where's the democracy in that?

With this change, it'll just give corporations an even bigger opportunity to buy elections. A candidate's not gonna do the right thing every time if he is constantly worried about campaign contributions.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by broken_legs


Tea Parties are organizing everywhere.

It's not covered in the media, but people are getting PO'd

all the government would have to do to escape the tea baggers is go up a flight of stairs away from a handi-dart accessible ramp.

And it is getting coverage in the media. Hell, the media is one of the major driving forces behind organizing the tea parties.

[ZenOps]

I think they changed it for the exact reason being that they want to destroy democracy.

Heck - if you want true democracy "one man one vote" Then you have to give every man on the planet an equal say.

Now that you have a nearly half billion Chinese moving on up into a financially stable middle class - if you keep the current system of limiting per individual, the rest of the world will always have access to more funds than the entire of say - Canada. Heck - if you can pull down $1 in funding from 1% of the up and coming Chinese middle class - I don't even know why you would even bother with politics.