• 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!

Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The first paragraph says it all - corporations rule this country now and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed to spend whatever they wish on politics

Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

WASHINGTON -- 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.
 
Sweet. Time to run for office to get my hands on some free money.
 
finally, a growth industry. we can all get jobs creating distortion campaigns to convince each other to vote for corporate candidate x or y.

employment problem sizzolved.
 
And here I foolishly had hope that the court would fix their mistake. What a silly thing to think...
 
The immigration ruling will be filling the airwaves while this important decision will be glanced upon. Money influences campaigns and elections. I believe the era of the Super-PAC needs to end and we should place more importance on who the person is rather than their party platform. This pretty much ends any hope of ending a two-party system that has failed us for many years.

Money buys the commercials. Commercials influence the people without regard to actual validity. Ignorant masses vote for the same corruption. It never ends.
 
The first paragraph says it all - corporations rule this country now and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed to spend whatever they wish on politics

I like how they ruled that the individual is limited while corporations are not. Corporatism, killing the Republic while being cheered for by the government.
 
I like how they ruled that the individual is limited while corporations are not. Corporatism, killing the Republic while being cheered for by the government.

Nobody is stopped from using their own money to advocate for any candidate. Individuals can spend unlimited quantities of money advocating for anything they wish. That has never been restricted.
 
You folks do realize this was argued for and benefits the unions, right? It's not just corporations, but unions who are behind this.
 
You folks do realize this was argued for and benefits the unions, right? It's not just corporations, but unions who are behind this.

Wrong: the unions opposed Citizens United and they opposed this.

The AFL-CIO supports the overturning of the Citizens United decision and calls for immediate action to end the dominance of our political system by corporations and the 1%. The AFL-CIO has long advocated for measures to bring about greater fairness, openness and participation in elections—reforms that enfranchise voters and ensure that wealth does not wield disproportionate influence. We support public financing of campaigns, limitations on individual contributions to candidates and parties and public disclosure of political expenditures. We also support measures to enable citizens to vote more easily, and we oppose voter identification and similar measures that are aimed at seizing partisan advantage through disenfranchisement. And, we oppose misleadingly labeled “paycheck protection” measures that would exacerbate inequality by hampering union political activity while leaving corporate and rich individuals’ political spending unimpeded.

AFL-CIO Executive Council Statement on Citizens United

The unions don't have near enough money to counter unliminted corporate donations.
 
Supreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending

Supreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending - The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a plea to revisit its 2-year-old campaign finance decision in the Citizens United case and instead struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.The same five conservative justices in the Citizens United majority that freed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts in federal elections joined Monday to reverse a Montana court ruling upholding the state’s century-old law. The four liberal justices dissented...

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.”


I found this especially interesting, since the conservative bloc on the Supreme Court was ruling against state's rights, and since the background of the Montana law goes directly against Kennedy's statement that expenditures by corporations won't give rise to corruption.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread merge
 
Re: Supreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending

Supreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending - The Washington Post



I found this especially interesting, since the conservative bloc on the Supreme Court was ruling against state's rights, and since the background of the Montana law goes directly against Kennedy's statement that expenditures by corporations won't give rise to corruption.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Yes, this is really a matter that should be left to the states ... err ... unless it would disadvantage big money Republicans ... then it's clearly a federal issue.
 
Re: Supreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending

Yes, this is really a matter that should be left to the states ... err ... unless it would disadvantage big money Republicans ... then it's clearly a federal issue.

The thing that really makes me sad is that the Roberts Court is acting in a blatantly activist manner, where they're overturning precedents that have stood for a century without challenge, and have on several occasions gone far past the question in front of them... and are still applauded by the same people who bemoaned "judicial activism." This is the most activist court in living memory, but Conservatives don't care.
 
Time to amend the Constitution.

Corporations and Unions are NOT people...

Agreed. And for all the talk around here about corporations, the unions benefit from Citizen's United as well. A reversal of Citizen's United would also restrict the union's "right" to donate to campaigns without limit.

Btw, head on over to Opensecrets.org, numbers six and seven of the top ten are union PACs. Take a look at the Heavy Hitters list and the top tier is filled with unions.
 
Agreed. And for all the talk around here about corporations, the unions benefit from Citizen's United as well. A reversal of Citizen's United would also restrict the union's "right" to donate to campaigns without limit.

Btw, head on over to Opensecrets.org, numbers six and seven of the top ten are union PACs. Take a look at the Heavy Hitters list and the top tier is filled with unions.

What's your point, exactly? Unions have been against the Citizens United decision, so I don't see how that's relevant, unless you just want an excuse to attack unions.
 
Agreed. And for all the talk around here about corporations, the unions benefit from Citizen's United as well. A reversal of Citizen's United would also restrict the union's "right" to donate to campaigns without limit.

Btw, head on over to Opensecrets.org, numbers six and seven of the top ten are union PACs. Take a look at the Heavy Hitters list and the top tier is filled with unions.


OK, I did "head on over to Opensecrets.org" and found the following

2012 Top Organizations Funding Outside Spending Groups in the top 30 donor groups listed, unions contributed $17,302,000 - a lot of money but let's look at the top individual donors:

Sheldon Adelson and his wife have contributed $25,000,000 to conservative causes in this election cycle, he may provide even more - Adelson's Pro-Romney Donations Will Be 'Limitless,' Could Top $100M

But, but ... Sheldon's not a corporation! True but for anyone to claim the unions are spending as much or more to support the President's re-election when just one individual is giving more than the top labor groups combined is a bit out there. Mr Adelson's Drug Clinic is shown to have contributed another $15,000,000

In the list of top 20 corporate/group donors, there are only three unions listed and one corporation, DreamWorks Animation, shown as donating to Liberal causes.

At this time, there is no way to claim the playing field is level for all contenders
 
They are made up of people who they represent.

Really? If HoboCorp donates $3 million to supporting the campaign of a certain candidate, who is HoboCorp representing? The investors? They weren't briefed on it, and they had no direct say on the matter.
 
Really? If HoboCorp donates $3 million to supporting the campaign of a certain candidate, who is HoboCorp representing? The investors? They weren't briefed on it, and they had no direct say on the matter.
Yes, really!
 
Really? If HoboCorp donates $3 million to supporting the campaign of a certain candidate, who is HoboCorp representing? The investors? They weren't briefed on it, and they had no direct say on the matter.

If HoboCorp pays $120,000,000 in taxes who represents HoboCorp's interest in passing laws to help support more Hobos? After all, their coporate slogan is "WE NEED A HOBO UNDER EVERY BRIDGE".
How dare you deny the rights of Hobos!
 
Last edited:
welll.... good.

it's good that neither States nor the Federal Government can limit independent political expenditures ( key word is independent)..... I know it's not popular, but I can't help siding with the 1st amendment on this one.
 
If HoboCorp pays $120,000,000 in taxes who represents HoboCorp's interest in passing laws to help support more Hobos? After all, their coporate slogan is "WE NEED A HOBO UNDER EVERY BRIDGE".
How dare you deny the rights of Hobos!

Every person who works for HoboCorp has a vote, and everyone who is affected by HoboCorp has a vote. That is how they represent their interest: at the ballot box. I walk over bridges, I have an interest in the hobo-bridge ratio too. HoboCorp shouldn't get more say than me because they have more money. That leads to a plutocracy.

Though to be fair, HoboCorp has a pretty laudable goal.
 
Back
Top Bottom