• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,914
Reaction score
60,404
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wed Sep 9, 2:33 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporate spending limits in U.S. political campaigns may be too broad and silence free-speech rights of small businesses like a local hairdresser, Supreme Court conservatives said on Wednesday.

But the court's four liberals, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said more harm than good could be done by overturning precedents upholding the restrictions on corporations and labor unions.

The comments came during arguments in a special session to consider ending long-standing limits on corporate and union spending in political campaigns.
The case involves a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who is now President Barack Obama's secretary of state.

A lower federal court barred the advocacy group Citizens United from promoting the film, "Hillary: The Movie," ruling it was covered by the laws on campaign advertising, though the group had argued it was a documentary and thus exempt.

Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits - Yahoo! News

Any one else predict a ruling saying that the movie should have been able to be promoted, but without ruling McCain Fiengold unconstitutional?
 
McCain/Feingold should be overturned. It's a horrible piece of abusive trash meant to keep the incumbents in and challengers out. It should have been call The Incumbent Protection Act.
 
Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits - Yahoo! News

Any one else predict a ruling saying that the movie should have been able to be promoted, but without ruling McCain Fiengold unconstitutional?

This should be interesting, I'm surprise that nothing was mention of the Moores 9/11 Crap of a Movie that was ruled not to be a Politcal Add. If I understand the group who is sueing they are citing the Moore Movie as the reason it should have been able to broadcast the movie.
 
McCain/Feingold should be overturned. It's a horrible piece of abusive trash meant to keep the incumbents in and challengers out. It should have been call The Incumbent Protection Act.

Well then lets go all the way by declaring the Two Party System as illegal also.
 
Can someone tell me the difference between a "Campaign Contribution" & a simple "Bribe?"....I see no difference! (other than BRIBE is shorter, more direct & captures the intent better);)
 
Last edited:
Can someone tell me the difference between a "Campaign Contribution" & a simple "Bribe?"....I see no difference!

That's what lobbyists do, legally bribe our representatives.
 
Can someone tell me the difference between a "Campaign Contribution" & a simple "Bribe?"....I see no difference!

Practically, probably not enough. Technically, a campaign contribution is money for a candidate whose platform you agree with, while a bribe is money to vote a particular way.
 
That's what lobbyists do, legally bribe our representatives.

legally is such a stiff term. They do so under the radar of the law, it allows them well more leeway.
 
Hello hyperbole.

Why you think our Founding Father were in favor of the two party system??? If we are going to get rid of McCain-Feingold then lets go all the way and declare the Two Party System a Monopoly that should be broken up just like Ma Bell and US Steel were.
 
Practically, probably not enough. Technically, a campaign contribution is money for a candidate whose platform you agree with, while a bribe is money to vote a particular way.

I see.....in other words a distinction without a difference!:lol:
 
I see.....in other words a distinction without a difference!:lol:

Well, no. I have contributed to a couple campaigns. I got nothing for my donation except to pleasure of seeing my guy win. It was not a bribe.
 
Who wants to bet that if this movie were about Sarah Palin, the Liberals in the justice system wouldn't have barred anyone from promoting it?

Is it possible to not have hyper-partisan crap brought into every thread?
 
Is it possible to not have hyper-partisan crap brought into every thread?

This is a debate forum. If you want a, "let's all get along and be happy forum", perhaps you should look elsewhere.
 
Best analysis I've found so far:

Analysis: Two precedents in jeopardy | SCOTUSblog

If supporters of federal curbs on political campaign spending by corporations were counting on Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to hesitate to strike down such restrictions, they could take no comfort from the Supreme Court’s 93-minute hearing Wednesday on that historic question. Despite the best efforts of four other Justices to argue for ruling only very narrowly, the strongest impression was that they had not convinced the two members of the Court thought to be still open to that approach. At least the immediate prospect was for a sweeping declaration of independence in politics for companies and advocacy groups formed as corporations.

The Court probed deeply into Congress’ reasoning in its decades-long attempt to restrict corporate influence in campaigns for the Presidency and Congress, in a special sitting to hear a second time the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205). At issue was whether the Court was ready to overturn two of its precedents — one from 1990, the other from 2003 — upholding such limitations.

From all appearances, not one of the nine Justices — including the newest Justice, Sonia Sotomayor — appeared to move away from what their positions had been expected in advance to be. In her first argument, Sotomayor fervently joined in the effort to keep any resulting decision narrow — seemingly, the minority position but one she had been assumed to hold.

Three Justices — Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — have explicitly urged the Court to overturn the two precedents that sustained congressional limits on campaign financing by corporations and labor unions. Kennedy and Thomas only seemed to reinforce that position on Wednesday; Thomas remained silent, but had given no indication earlier of a change of mind.

That lineup has always put the focus, as the Court volunteered to take on new constitutional questions in the Citizens United case, on the Chief Justice and Justice Alito. While both have been skeptical in the past about campaign finance laws, supporters of such laws had fashioned an array of arguments they hoped would lead Roberts and Alito to shy away from casting their votes to create a majority to free corporations to spend their own treasury money to influence federal elections. None of those arguments seemed to appeal to either Roberts or Alito.

...
 
Who wants to bet that if this movie were about Sarah Palin, the Liberals in the justice system wouldn't have barred anyone from promoting it?

I would predict exactly the same split, with exactly the same justices on the same sides, regardless of who the candidate was. Since neither Sarah Palin nor Hillary Clinton are running for anything, why would that POSSIBLY affect their decision?
 
Who wants to bet that if this movie were about Sarah Palin, the Liberals in the justice system wouldn't have barred anyone from promoting it?
Wasn't there a movie about killing President Bush?
 
Is it possible to not have hyper-partisan crap brought into every thread?
Pointing out liberal hypocracy is not hyper-partisan.
 
Well, no. I have contributed to a couple campaigns. I got nothing for my donation except to pleasure of seeing my guy win. It was not a bribe.

Would you believe the same is true of Exxon-Mobil or UnitedHealth Group or WellPoint when they donate to politicians?
(I don't...I think the "Pleasure" their "donations" bring them is simply reflected on their accounting dept. balance sheets)
 
Last edited:
Who wants to bet that if this movie were about Sarah Palin, the Liberals in the justice system wouldn't have barred anyone from promoting it?

"What if" scenarios are fun to play, but bring absolutely no relevance to the table. Thank you for playing, but stick to the facts.
 
Wasn't there a movie about killing President Bush?

There have been a couple of unflattering movies about Bush and the SCOTUS never got involved. Just more evidence that the SC got into because it's about a member of Krewe Obama.
 
Back
Top Bottom