Supreme Court Overturns 20 year ban on businesses directly funding campaigns

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ShumaGorath**

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8473253.stm

US Supreme Court overturns campaign spending limit

The ruling could transform the way political campaigns are fought

The US Supreme Court has rejected long-standing limits on how much companies can spend on political campaigns.
The ruling is likely to change the way presidential and congressional campaigns are funded, including this year's crucial mid-term elections.
The court's 5-4 vote ends a 20-year ban on businesses using money from their own funds to pay for campaign ads.
But US President Barack Obama condemned the decision, pledging to work with Congress for a "forceful response".
He said the court had "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics".
"It s a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans," he said in a statement.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said the prohibition of direct contributions from companies and unions to political candidates was a form of censorship.
"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavoured speakers," he wrote.
His view was mirrored by that of Chief Justice John Roberts who said that upholding the limits on corporate campaign spending would have restrained "the vibrant public discourse that is the foundation of our democracy".
But Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed strongly, saying that the court's ruling threatened "to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation".
He was joined in his opposition to the ruling by the court's three other liberals, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.
The ruling also overturned part of a landmark campaign finance bill which banned unions and companies from paying for political ads in the closing days of an election campaign.
The Supreme Court also said that any campaign adverts that were not paid for by the candidate or their party must be clearly marked with the name of the sponsor.
The decision comes less than 10 months before the congressional mid-term elections.

I wonder what the first multinational will be to break a billion in campaign funding. I wonder when I'll get to swear allegiance to a corporation?

**garret**

Oh this must be what my teacher said was so big in the surpreme court.

**Wrexasaur**

Man... I was listening to something about this on NPR earlier.

When your main argument is "Well, if Joe Shmoe can have free speech with his dollar, why can't I (multinational corporation incorporated)?", that is not a good sign.

Joe Shmoe incorporated, voting with their hard earned dollars (insert 9 zeroes here...).

**sebster**

Thing is, freedom of speech is important because it represents the free exchange of ideas. It would be bad to prevent a person or corporation adding to the political debate, that would be censorship and it would be wrong.

But money is not the free exchange of ideas, money is in fact a stored form of value used to buy goods and services. The idea that giving money to politicians is considered as speech is a very stupid thing.

Meanwhile, I'm guessing the 5-4 split was along party lines - 5 GOP appointed justices to 4 DNC appointments?

**avantgarde**

Freedom isn't free, which is why it needs corporate sponsors.

Srsly though a bold step for corporate rights. Did you know a corporation is not, despite being a person, allowed to marry, run for office or vote. That's discrimination.

Super srsly though, I eagerly await the franchise wars, don't tell me who wins.

**Ahtman**

Brawndo, it's what plants crave!

I believe it was indeed a partisan vote Seb.

**Zip Napalm**

Nobody seemed to mind the The Walt Disney Company (ABC television), General Electric (NBC television) or CBS Corporation (CBS television) spending their money on political goals. I don't see why other corporations(small or large) shouldn't be allowed to.

**ShumaGorath**

Zip Napalm wrote:Nobody seemed to mind the The Walt Disney Company (ABC television), General Electric (NBC television) or CBS Corporation (CBS television) spending their money on political goals. I don't see why other corporations(small or large) shouldn't be allowed to.

I hope I get to swear allegiance to google when they absolve the nation.

**Wrexasaur**

I support Nestle and co.

**sebster**

Zip Napalm wrote:Nobody seemed to mind the The Walt Disney Company (ABC television), General Electric (NBC television) or CBS Corporation (CBS television) spending their money on political goals. I don't see why other corporations(small or large) shouldn't be allowed to.

People mind, it's just much harder to stop. Also, remember that using your tv network to put out your political opinions, while bad, is not the same thing as giving money directly to a politician.

And remember this now frees up unions to pay all the money they want to the Democrats. You thought the HCR bill was full of protection for special interests... imagine what it'll be like once there's no control on the payments made by any organisation.

**ShumaGorath**

sebster wrote:
Zip Napalm wrote:Nobody seemed to mind the The Walt Disney Company (ABC television), General Electric (NBC television) or CBS Corporation (CBS television) spending their money on political goals. I don't see why other corporations(small or large) shouldn't be allowed to.

People mind, it's just much harder to stop. Also, remember that using your tv network to put out your political opinions, while bad, is not the same thing as giving money directly to a politician.

And remember this now frees up unions to pay all the money they want to the Democrats. You thought the HCR bill was full of protection for special interests... imagine what it'll be like once there's no control on the payments made by any organisation.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

George Adam Smith

**warpcrafter**

Well, so much for the military industrial complex operating in the shadows. How long until they show up at our doors to insert RFID chips in our spines and tattoo bar codes on our foreheads?

**reds8n**

ShumaGorath wrote: I wonder when I'll get to swear allegiance to a corporation?

GW 4 LIFE

... until you're "eaten by the Tyranids" and never referred to ever again.

**Ahtman**

reds8n wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: I wonder when I'll get to swear allegiance to a corporation?

GW 4 LIFE

... until you're "eaten by the Tyranids" and never referred to ever again.

Oh you must be talking about the Squ...

**Albatross**

I for one welcome our new GW overlords - I don't want to get 'squatted'.

**gorgon**

GW bastiches must have triggered Ahtman's explosive collar.

The Imperium isn't a fantasy, it's our future under GW's rule. The reason GW's never told us the Emperor's name is because it's spelled T-O-M K-I-R-B-

*BOOM*

**Dal'yth Dude**

Unions don't have nearly as much money to spend as corporations.

Imagine this scenario: Senator X votes for a clean environment or a bill that requires oil companies to pay more for their extraction of oil from national parks. Exxon says they'll spend $5 million to defeat Senator X or anybody else that will vote for those bills. Do you think Senator X will still vote for either bill?

**Frazzled**

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Unions don't have nearly as much money to spend as corporations.

Bull

t.

**jbunny**

Why does everyone think Corporation = Evil = Republican?

The evil special interest groups are on both sides.

**Altered_Soul**

jbunny wrote:Why does everyone think Corporation = Evil = Republican?

The evil special interest groups are on both sides.

OMG read Neuromancer n00b!

All corporations are evil and out to get us unless we can hack into the mainframe and wear mirror-shades and save humanity by plunging us into a new dark age.

**jbunny**

Please don't call me a noob.

**Altered_Soul**

jbunny wrote:Please don't call me a noob.

Please don't miss a sense of humor.

**Dal'yth Dude**

I don't think Corporations = evil. They are amoral interested only in profits. It is the lack of morality I find disturbing coupled with the legal semi-personhood where they get several of the benefits of being a person, but none of the bad aspects. It is a continuation of the Anglo emphasis on market efficiency with no input on the moral compass that real people have. If a company thinks it is profitable to to harm its customers they will continue to do so until legally stopped. Now that companies can spend as much money as they want on electing/unelecting a politician that legal check is minimized.

Furthermore, this decision was a definite overreach by a conservative judicial activist clique. The original case was narrowly construed and this case, just like the earlier trade law case mentioned here on dakka, overturns 100 years of case law.

Finally, this decision overturns one of the checks and balances on the effects of corporate policies in governing. If you think companies and industries getting bailed out now and that corporations writing legislation is an issue now, how do you think it is going to get better?

**Gen. Lee Losing**

It makes me smile a little bit.

How many people here, before they go to vote, say to themselves, "I really want to vote for person X, but person Z spent more money so I really should vote for him."?

I live in CA, and wither you agree with it or not, Prop 8 passed and the No on 8 spent more money.(and had much better commercials!)

Money does not equal autowin.

**Da Boss**

If you think money has no effect, you're insane.

**DarthDiggler**

The state of Illinois has never had any restrictions on campaign contributions from corporations to politicians. In fact Illinois has had virtually no campaign restrictions of any kind, ever. This past fall a very watered down form of reform was passed which was dismissed by the Better Government associations as window dressing.

The point is, even in free wheeling Illinois we do not have a Motorola Governor or a Boeing Mayor. The way districts are set up, there is no amount of money that can change an election in this state.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Da Boss wrote:If you think money has no effect, you're insane.

Oh it definitely has an effect. Don’t get me wrong.

But the recent Brown win in Mass is another example of the side that spent less winning.

I just feel that effects can be overstated. If McDonalds starts pumping billions into a politician’s campaign, I will still vote my conscience. There are always attacks on the guy that I am rooting for. Doesn’t change the opinion of the vast majority of people.

There are just a few gullible people out there, I guess.

But my question remains, how many Dakka members are that wishy-washy?

**Da Boss**

I think it could sway a larger number than you seem to, but certainly, it won't sway interested or educated voters THAT much.
And then there's the problem of Corporations buying votes and influence through campaign funding.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Da Boss wrote:I think it could sway a larger number than you seem to, but certainly, it won't sway interested or educated voters THAT much.
And then there's the problem of Corporations buying votes and influence through campaign funding.

You make an excellent point, in regards to the nature of voters.
I personally believe that all votes have selected issues that matter to them, and vote based on those. Maybe they are not economic experts, but are very concerned about environmental issues. So they might be swayed in the economic debates by funding, but will never believe a well-funded lie about environmental issues.

**Altered_Soul**

Its not about money going into the pockets of Dems or Repubs that will sway people, because most people are firmly planted Dems or Repubs. A large interest can fund either side, or both at the same time, to get to the conclusion they desire. It potentially manipulates the game theory of electoral politics.