Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

Orion said:

That doesn't make sense.

They are taxed because they are businesses, not because they are individuals, yet in the political landscape they are treated as individuals. This needs to change.

You get taxed because you make income. I don't see how that equates to having the right to make huge campaign donations to sway political forces.

Click to expand...

Isn't this about placing advocacy ads and NOT campaign donations?

UtahBill said:

so the money can't be given to the politicians? the money gets spent directly on advertising and such by the donors?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Prior to this decision, corporations could go out and conduct "voter education" or "issue advocacy" however they saw fit. The only limitation that was placed on them was a ban on "electioneering communications" (i.e. ads specifically advocating for or against a candidate's defeat) that were broadcast within 30 days of an election. "Electioneering" is incredibly narrowly defined, meaning that anything that could be interpreted as anything other than an explicit endorsement was perfectly fine.

That meant that corporations could air an ad saying this:

'VOICE-OVER: Sometimes it's just not fair to delay an important decision.

" 'But in Washington it's happening. A group of Senators is using the filibuster delay tactic to block federal judicial nominees from a simple "yes" or "no" vote. So qualified candidates don't get a chance to serve.

" 'It's politics at work, causing gridlock and backing up some of our courts to a state of emergency.

" 'Contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster.

Click to expand...

all the way through election season without violating the law even one bit. They could also air ads saying "Vote for Joe Johnson," but not within a certain number of days before the election.

In Citizens United, the court took the next logical step, saying that corporations could air ads even if they constituted electioneering, even within the 30 day period. The practical effect of the decision in terms of the amount of ads will most likely be minimal.

What the decision also said is that the current laws banning any direct contributions from corporations to candidates are still completely valid, as are the laws requiring the organization broadcasting the ad to state its name at the end.

digsbe said:

It may not have been directly been about that, but it does effect campaign donations to some degree. I know they were thinking in terms of constitutional law (and by the law I would probably agree with their ruling), but I don't like the idea of corporations and unions being able to donate an infinite amount of money to a campaign.

Click to expand...

How will it affect donations?

Again, corporations and unions are not able to donate an infinite amount of money to a campaign.

RightinNYC said:

Yes.

Prior to this decision, corporations could go out and conduct "voter education" or "issue advocacy" however they saw fit. The only limitation that was placed on them was a ban on "electioneering communications" (i.e. ads specifically advocating for or against a candidate's defeat) that were broadcast within 30 days of an election. "Electioneering" is incredibly narrowly defined, meaning that anything that could be interpreted as anything other than an explicit endorsement was perfectly fine.

That meant that corporations could air an ad saying this:



all the way through election season without violating the law even one bit. They could also air ads saying "Vote for Joe Johnson," but not within a certain number of days before the election.

In Citizens United, the court took the next logical step, saying that corporations could air ads even if they constituted electioneering, even within the 30 day period. The practical effect of the decision in terms of the amount of ads will most likely be minimal.

What the decision also said is that the current laws banning any direct contributions from corporations to candidates are still completely valid, as are the laws requiring the organization broadcasting the ad to state its name at the end.



How will it affect donations?

Again, corporations and unions are not able to donate an infinite amount of money to a campaign.

Click to expand...

Then I am for it....it will be refreshing to know i who is funding the
information presented.....instead of just having the politician repeating the words of others who finance them.

UtahBill said:

Then I am for it....it will be refreshing to know i who is funding the
information presented.....instead of just having the politician repeating the words of others who finance them.

Click to expand...

Oh, this decision wasn't made in a vacuum. Don't think for a second that these corporations or their lobbyists haven't been busy figuring out ways to cover their backsides.

Since the entity or entities financing independent expenditures must be disclosed, a corporation leading the way against a particular candidate risks alienating a significant block of its potential customer or shareholder base.

[...]

If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.

K&L Gates : Newsstand : <i>Citizens United</i>: Questions and Answers

Click to expand...

BWG said:

Oh, this decision wasn't made in a vacuum. Don't think for a second that these corporations or their lobbyists haven't been busy figuring out ways to cover their backsides.

Click to expand...

Oh, so you mean that corporations can do exactly what they have been doing for decades? What you're describing is not new.

Re: Left and Right United in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

Objective Voice said:

It's not enough that lobbyist can pay big bucks to influence legistlation but now thanks to the SC major corporations can "contribute" big bucks to directly from their own cauffers to any campaign race they want. Talk about captialism running amock!!

Click to expand...

I guess you missed the fact that the corporations are still banned from contributing to a campaign.... any campaign, this change in law only allows them to run political ads.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with capitalism or individuals contributing to public campaigns as long as they aren't doing so while holding a prominate position of influence within a major corporation. But when you allow big businesses to make such direct contributions...now you've opened the door to all sorts of questionable ethical and perhaps even illegal practises. Not a smart decision by the SCOTUS at all.

Click to expand...

Again, all they can do is buy ads, not contribute to campaigns.