Citizens United v. FEC (major provisions of McCain-Feingold Unconstitutional)

[Frozen Sooner]

Big decision today by the Supreme Court that basically guts McCain-Feingold (as far as I can tell.) Haven't had a chance to read the full opinion yet, but it looks likely to substantially remove limits on corporate and labor union giving to campaigns.

[SicEmBaylor]

This is very very good news. SCOTUS struck down the meatier provisions of Campaign Finance Reform today specifically regarding corporate and union political donations. This is a major win for the 1st Amendment and Free-Speech.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/7309

[soonerscuba]

I don't know about the legal side of it, but if there are two entities that aren't represented enough in American politics, it's unions and corporations.

[Frozen Sooner]

(Ahem)

I MAY have already started a thread on this...

[Frozen Sooner]

I think it's quite amusing to see people who dislike incorporation of the Bill of Rights talk about this decision as a victory for the First Amendment.

[Frozen Sooner]

This is very very good news. SCOTUS struck down the meatier provisions of Campaign Finance Reform today specifically regarding corporate and union political donations. This is a major win for the 1st Amendment and Free-Speech.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/7309


I think it's quite amusing to see people who dislike incorporation of the Bill of Rights talk about this decision as a victory for the First Amendment.

(whistles)

I also find it amusing that generally people who are FOR incorporation argue against this.

[soonerscuba]

it looks likely to substantially remove limits on corporate and labor union giving to campaigns.Unless I am mistaken, they still won't be able to give directly to campaigns or candidates, but will be able to create their own advertisments or PAC donations, at anytime they wish. I understand, and agree with the logic, it still just feels icky. I don't think this will lead to a heightened discourse.

[NormanPride]

Without much knowledge on the specifics, I generally feel giving money to campaigns is bad.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Here is real comapign reform... ;)

Limit the person to one commercial - written, filmed and edited by college students for a grade in their TV production class.

Limit ad spending to a percentage based on the total number of people in the district. Use a typical cost for a mailed advert flyer.

Accept no corporate/union "issues" adverts.

Require real discussions, candidates response to issues of the districts.

Make any and all laws passed immediately be applied to Congress. Adjust Congress medical/retirement benefits to be comparable to the standard government employee.

This would make elections interesting and would actually allow the real working people to run and possibly serve in Congress. And since it isn't a get rich quick scheme, they will self select to "retire" or not run to get back to their paying jobs...

[bigxii]

I don't know about the legal side of it, but if there are two entities that aren't represented enough in American politics, it's unions and corporations.

You forgot your sarcasm smiley!! So here ya go... :rolleyes:

You're welcome. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Make any and all laws passed immediately be applied to Congress. Adjust Congress medical/retirement benefits to be comparable to the standard government employee.


This right here is unconstitutional. Can't remember what amendment specifically (I think the 27th) but Congress can't pass a law increasing their pay and have it take effect immediately.

[soonerscuba]

This right here is unconstitutional. Can't remember what amendment specifically (I think the 27th) but Congress can't pass a law increasing their pay and have it take effect immediately.They can only change the payscale of the next Congress, which they have a 90% chance of being a part of, what a gamble.

Also, Congress chooses from the same benefits package as any other federal employee.

[Crucifax Autumn]

(Ahem)

I MAY have already started a thread on this...

Yeah, but since when has that mattered to anyone around here! :P

[Crucifax Autumn]

In that case I am fully in support of a 10,000% increase followed by my election to the senate.

[SoonerNate]

Hurray for the 1st Amendment! Another win for the good guys!

[Crucifax Autumn]

Freedomof speech? Can I type mother****er now?

hmmmm....

[Pogue Mahone]

“While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” Justice John Paul Stevens, in the dissent.

[NormanPride]

I understand the sentiment, but if it's unconstitutional then it shouldn't be allowed. Of course, there's a lot of crap out there that's unconstitutional that we still allow.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Wall Street Journal take: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016942930090152.html

info about Citizens united, who brought the case forward: http://www.citizensunited.org/

[Half a Hundred]

I cannot state enough how erroneous, dangerous and potentially treasonous this decision was.

[Boarder]

Big decision today by the Supreme Court that basically guts McCain-Feingold (as far as I can tell.) Haven't had a chance to read the full opinion yet, but it looks likely to substantially remove limits on corporate and labor union giving to campaigns.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25537902/Citizens-Opinion

From what I can tell, it basically says that there is not a compelling government interest to limit political speech by corporations as claimed in Buckley. It does uphold the disclaimer rules, though.

My opinion is that the newer technologies like video on demand and such made it difficult for McCain-Feingold to be upheld. It also is interesting that Citizens United went from wanting their little movie shown to trying to take down McCain-Feingold after it got going. Get all you can, I guess.

Back to work on the next round of campaign reform, I suppose.

[Boarder]

Union workers shouldn't be happy, either. The Unions can now use their treasury to back candidates, effectively forcing a union worker to finance that candidate (although not directly, of course).

[Okla-homey]

While the outcome protects political speech, which is a pretty darn sacred right under the First Amendment, whoa nellie are we in for a future stream of well financed attack ads paid for by groups and entities who have the money to produce and broadcast them.

As an aside, the NRA is positively giddy. No candidate who opposes gun rights will be safe.:D

[Okla-homey]

Union workers shouldn't be happy, either. The Unions can now use their treasury to back candidates, effectively forcing a union worker to finance that candidate (although not directly, of course).

And this is different from the way things were before the subject ruling how?

[Frozen Sooner]

While the outcome protects political speech, which is a pretty darn sacred right under the First Amendment, whoa nellie are we in for a future stream of well financed attack ads paid for by groups and entities who have the money to produce and broadcast them.

As an aside, the NRA is positively giddy. No candidate who opposes gun rights will be safe.:D

And this is different from the way things were before the subject ruling how? ;)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

[/QUOTE]
This right here is unconstitutional. Can't remember what amendment specifically (I think the 27th) but Congress can't pass a law increasing their pay and have it take effect immediately.

Okay, I wasn't refering to pay.


Also, Congress chooses from the same benefits package as any other federal employee.

I don't think that other Fed. Employees can choose Congresses medical program, so I don't think that is true. Hell, everyone was trying to get into one of the postal workers program when I was in the Fed Gov. and they limited it to only postal workers, that's how good it was... This was YEARS ago...

Congress is exempt from OSHA and I bet a few other laws they passed...

[soonerscuba]

Every federal employee chooses from the same plan, there simply isn't any way to break this down further. They have a clinic for people that work in the Capital, so that is a perk, but the financing of their plans is the standard federal plan and choices. The OHSA requirement is so they can underpay and overwork their own staffs, and it's shameful but tradition.

The size and bargaining power makes it one of the best plans in the country, but there isn't a double secret, restricted "Congress" plan.

[Frozen Sooner]

Okay, I wasn't refering to pay.


That's nice, but it doesn't keep your proposed law from being unconstitutional. No matter that you didn't mean to include emoulment provisions, such a law as stated would include them and be invalid.

[Boarder]

And this is different from the way things were before the subject ruling how?
I didn't realize that union PAC contributions weren't limited to voluntary contributions by employees like corporations (were). Wonder why that wasn't in there in the first place? hmmmm.

[stoopified]

I don't know about the legal side of it, but if there are two entities that aren't represented enough in American politics, it's unions and corporations. :D:D:D:DFixed

[delhalew]

This decision was great until Kennedy went on about extending it to the states (incorporation). Oh well, still more good than bad I guess.