USA now officially a Plutocracy, huzzah! Effect on SL?

Uhm... Plutocracy in the thread title should be changed to "Soft Tyranny".

Pelosi was elected.

Voted for her myself in fact.

ACORN got more of us colored folks voting.

That sort of thing always riles up the good ol' southern boys like Chris. They just have to hide it now and pretend something else is what happened.

I hope you checked with Disney before using the word "Plutocracy"

I still don't like her.

/me ponders moving north so I can cancel Pussycat's vote out.

Nancy the Red?

How can you not like someone who rams a 1,000 page spending bill through that no one bothers to read on a Friday Night as she gets into her private plane to fly off to meet the Pope? Then a few weeks later, they all claim outrage and ignorance over the contents of the bill that they passed in the first place.

It's fitting she's the leader of that gang of thieves, she's the most despicable of them all.

Pelosi is over, her time as Speaker ends in November.

She's a little too conservative for my tastes, but you go with what you can get.

Ironically I think some people are being both extraordinarily naive and jaded at the same time about the impact this decision may have on the political process. Aside from how logically flawed some of the analysis has been in this thread, it seems like several people here can't quite appreciate what a difference that unfettered direct access to the funds that large corporations can make compared to the current way they influence the political process.

Currently there are limits on how much individuals can contribute to any candidate in a federal election. There are no such limits on corporations as a result of this Supreme Court ruling. Corporation spending on political campaigns are essentially a way for the extremely wealthy to circumvent the limits on how much individuals can contribute. The Supreme Court has essentially handed down another tool with which the wealthy (approximately 1 percent of the population of the United States hold over one third of the privately held wealth while approximately 80 percent hold less than 17 percent) can influence the political process, and the impact of this tool should not be underestimated or taken lightly.

How much of a difference can the unfettered ability of the wealthy to spend in a campaign election be? One need only look at the last New York mayoral race to realize just how much more skewed the playing field can be made in favor of the wealthy. Michael Bloomberg used ridiculously disproportionate amounts of his money (over 100 million dollars compared to his rival's tab of less than 10 million dollars) to earn a marginal victory over an uncharismatic opposing candidate whose support from his own party at the national level was almost non-existent (some would say the Obama administration's lukewarm endorsement actually had a direct negative impact on Thompson's campaign).

The general consensus is that but for his ability to outspend his candidate by more than 10 to 1, it is highly probable he might have lost the election. Further, his ability to outspend more viable Democratic candidates than Thompson also effectively intimidated several such candidates from even running against him. It was not his popularity, not his stance on the issues, and not his mayoral record. It was his money.

The larger issue underlying this is whether one believes there should be any limits on what people can contribute to a candidate or political party, period. That debate has been in existence for some time, but if you support the notion that there should be no limits then the end result is that political seats can and will essentially be bought by the wealthy at various levels of government in significantly greater numbers than they are now.

A separate issue is that the slim majority of this Supreme Court that issued this decision acted in an unprecedented manner in its level of judicial activism. The respect for stare decisis completely went out the window on this one. “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command” sounds so much fancier than, “We’re making it up as we go along.”

Coming up next? A constitutional amendment granting congressional and senate seats to corporations. Wait for: “The chair recognizes the Senator from CitiBank.”

Sort of what I contemplated on the last General Election..........wanted to go with Bob Barr but felt I would be effectively be tossing a vote to Obama. Went with what what I could get..........McCain.

Even that didn't work.

Yea, but the status quo of Obama getting $70+ million from Unions is A-OK.

Should there be limits on Free Speech? That is the larger issue, not "limits on individuals" which you use to mask the real issue.

Freedom of Speech.

Have you even read any parts of the decision besides MAYBE the dissent?

Care to explain how it was judicial activism?

If precedence were to be followed in all cases then so many things in this country would be wrong and very very different. Japanese internment would be legal, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, Dred Scott v Sanford, and others.

Going against precedent does not automatically mean "activism". Correcting bad decisions, unconstitutional decisions and so on is not activism.

You know, of course, that corporations who "buy" politians actually copper their bets don't you? They contribute to both sides..........that way they get their favors no matter who wins. But, rest assured, with the limits being lifted it will be noted............and we can decide who is bought and who is not. That is if the press ever gets it's spine back.

It's a provision in the Constitution that has been there since almost day one of the Constitution...........it's always good when the Constitution is upheld. You don't like it, change the Constitution. Don't create an unconstitutional law to try to circumvent the law of our land. That's what dictators do..............I'm sure you know that.

Correction. SEIU donated $33 Million to Obama.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indexp.php

Unleash the dogs of war.

Corps are not real people, and shouldn't be speaking in politics.

If the rich want to outspend us, let em do it with their personal money, or let em organize into their own political unions.

Personally I see no problem with something like a general fund. Put all the money for an election into a common pool, and divide it up equally among qualifying candidates. The tricky part is determining qualifying without excluding viable third parties but while excluding fraudulent or fringe.

One method that seems to work in some democracies is equal access and equal media. During elections politicians are restricted to equal media access (debates end up being more common as a result). You so much as hand out a free pencil at a convention, you better make sure your opponent has the same number of pencils to hand out for their cause.

I believe in Freedom and democracy, and I believe these are more important then capitalism and wealth makes right.

Freedom of speech doesn't let you yell fire in a crowded theater, and it also shouldn't let you buy the ability to silence the masses.


ps: Japanese Internment was constitutionally wrong from the get go, regardless of what excuses may have been made when it was done. The Supreme ruled on a like-minded scenario when they declared that Removal of the Cherokee was unlawful a century earlier (which was then soundly ignored).

I've read the Court opinion by Kennedy, the concurring opinion by Roberts and the opinion of Stevens, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I've skipped over the concurring opinions of Thomas, and Scalia but I will take a look at those later this weekend if I have the time. Since you asked, how much of the opinions have you read?

There is no attempt to "mask" the issue here except in your own mind. Waving the concept of freedom of speech under the First Amendment as if it is some kind of unfettered right to express oneself through any means (including campaign spending) only displays ignorance of what "freedom of speech" means under the First Amendment. There has never been an unfettered right to freedom of expression in the entire history of the United States. It's a convenient myth that people like to wave around to support any kind of argument or agenda that they want to pursue, be it "liberal" or "conservative." What we do have to define limits and boundaries of freedom of speech is over one hundred years of precedents. Precedents which this court overrode in what will historically probably be seen as one of the worst among the history of Supreme Court decisions.

This is what was overturned yesterday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform

If you read and follow the links you'll see how the law has been ammended to form the law that was determined to be outside the Constitution. If you will notice the changes were rapidly eating away the original bill........becoming more and more restrictive. Loop holes where created to limit certain types of contributions while allowing other types to be unfettered. Unions could qualify for less restrictions than, say, Exxon. The law was a mess...........and was against the Constitution. Things like this usually happen to bad laws. It's good it's been thrown out.

There does need to be a way to "police" the contribution to political offices.........but the Supreme Court has said it can't be campaign contribution. You cannot limit a right granted by the Constitution.....even if you think it's best.

Corporations are not people.

So how does it make a difference whether it's an organization of people rather than a mass of individuals? Although I understand where your coming from and agree to an extent, the ramifications of selectively validating or invalidating free speech based on who is expressing it can be seen as a violation of free speech.



Equal access makes sense, but this is not about the 'airtime' of the political candidates themselves but the groups that lobby for and against them, which also includes you and me. When the politicians are the only ones allowed to voice an opinion how can you have free elections?

Tell that to the folks who work for a corporation that defines itself by its staff (or associates) such as Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Lowes, or even any union. Those "associates", for the most part, consider themselves "The Corporation". Corporations like any other business is made up of people........the corporations make contributions on behalf of their employees. If the employees find that offensive I'm sure they can make that known.........if nothing else they can disassociate themselves from the corporation. But I doubt you will find many really unfavorable views from the "associates" if it furthers their quest for whatever it is that the political office can give them in return.

Is that abused? Of course it is. But that does not make it a bad thing. What makes it a bad thing is that it's abused because we do not have any oversight...........and we should. No law would be necessary if we had an unbiased press to do it's job. Maybe that will change now since there's going to be a lot of eyeballs on contributions now.

I am slowly reading the case and have been for much of the day, it is 183 pages. I've read the full summary on the ScotusWiki and am also skipping around the PDF for specific words from Scalia and Souter.

- Scotus Wiki of Citizens United v. FEC: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

And the Case itself: Citizens United v. FEC: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

A quick Oral Argument recap from Lyle Denniston:
"When the argument turned to such First Amendment horrors as banning books, banning Internet expression, and banning even Amazon’s book-downloading technology, “Kindle,” the members of the Court seemed instantly to recoil from the sweep of arguments made by Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart.

Even Justice David H. Souter, who tends to support government regulation of campaign spending, looked and sounded stunned when Stewart argued that the government would have power to forbid a labor union to use its own funds to pay an author to write a campaign biography that would later be published in book form by Random House. And, across the bench, incredulity showed when Stewart said the government could ban an advocacy group from using its own funds to pay for a 90-minute documentary if only the first minute was devoted to urging voters whom to choose, and the rest was a recital of information about the candidate without further direct advocacy. "
-------------------

SO yes. Free Speech was definitely, most definitely an issue here when the Deputy Solicitor General walked down that path.


I wish they would just put the case up in text because this PDF is sucking.

Well if you are going to use Wiki as a resource you should at least cite the proper entry which is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

Much of the law and decisions on the page you cited are still considered constitutional (for now). While it is important to note that the court's decision only covers a very specific but very important section of the BCRA, it may ultimately have a rippling effect on Buckley v. Valeo, and arguably undermines the underlying interest that the Court in that case recognized in limiting individual campaign contributions in federal elections.

You said it.