Oh No! Liberals are taking a beating; on Tuesday they lose their filibuster proof super-majority, on Wednesday Obama Care is thrown under the bus by Obama himself, and now on Thursday the SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy declares the major provisions of MaCain/Feingold’s limiting individual and corporate advocacy speech unconstitutional!

Supreme Court rules against McCain-Feingold

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that campaign finance laws that restrict donations from corporate entities are in violation of the 1st Amendment. For almost a century, the government has been working actively to regulate campaign contributions in an attempt to halt influence of unions and corporations.
The most significant law on the subject, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, placed strict limitations on campaign contributions. Lower courts have upheld campaign finance regulation in two seperate cases, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which relied on the precedent set by Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. These decisions held that corporate donations to influence candidates and the electoral process did not constitute speech, and could thus be regulated by the government.
The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, involved the production of Hillary: The Movie, a documentary produced by a conservative group opposed to Senator Clinton’s 2008 bid for the presidency. The dispute regarded the financing of the film, and whether or not it violated federal law.
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion. “The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.” Non-profit and for-profit groups are now free from the restrictions of McCain-Feingold, and can more easily produce advertisements and media operations for or against particular candidates or initiatives.
“”Our nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights,” Justice Kennedy continued.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion, with Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor concurring in part. “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”
This decision will no doubt have a tremendous impact on future elections. It also comes at a particularly important time, as the 2010 midterm elections are just around the corner.

http://informed-dissent.com/blog/?p=599

SCOTUS Opinion - Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

McCain is a leftist?

This decision is a disaster for America right up there with Dred Scott. The idea that corporations are "persons" under the COTUS is a radical idea, it is the "making of law" from the bench worthy of any leftists. You cheer for the Dictatorship of the Corporations, the new form of government in the US. This is a sad day for all of us. You are also so blinded by ideology that you can't even see the harm this will do to the right as well, since unions are considered a corporation under the law. Everyone loses.

Head Like A Hole

God money i'll do anything for you.
God money just tell me what you want me to.
God money nail me up against the wall.
God money don't want everything he wants it all.
No you can't take it
No you can't take it
No you can't take that away from me
No you can't take it
No you can't take it
No you can't take that away from me
Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
I'd rather die than give you control.
Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
I'd rather die than give you control.
Bow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve.
Bow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve.
God money's not looking for the cure.
God money's not concerned with the sick among the pure.
God money let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised.
God money's not one to choose
No you can't take it
No you can't take it
No you can't take that away from me
No you can't take it
No you can't take it
No you can't take that away from me
Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
I'd rather die than give you control.
Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
I'd rather die than give you control.
Bow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve.
Bow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve.
Bow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve.
Bow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve.
Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
I'd rather die than give you control.
Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
I'd rather die than give you control.
Bow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve.
Bow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve.
You know who you are.

-David Bowie

When it comes to the first amendment there is no question McCain is a leftist! This was one of the very reasons many on the right did not support him even though they may have eventually cast a vote for him in 2008.

George Soros is happy too! If leftist corporations are successful they will be able to compete, if not so be it!

Best of all it’s probably a death knell for the Fairness Doctrine in any of its future disguises!

Serious question how is even more corporate money getting infused into politics a good thing? Don't big business and lobbyists of said people already have too much influence?

Myself, I am amazed that these people, who are always obsessed with "sovereignty" and all, think this is some sort of victory. Been in a corporate board room these days? I have, hell most of the directors aren't even Americans anymore. Now we are going to give any foreigner with the cash the ability to directly participate in US elections. Welcome the the United States of Saudi Arabia.

This decision has absolutely nothing to do with the "Fairness Doctrine", it is about corporate power. Bow down before the ones you serve, billy boy.

The court already decided the Fairness Doctrine is constitutional, a long, long time ago. The public owns the broadcast spectrum, it is one of the few things left the corporations don't own.

uh, there's no left in american politics.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

2X

__________________
1979 Black on Black, 300CD (sold), 1990 Black 300SE, Silver 1989 Volvo 780, 1988 300CE (vanished by the hands of a girlfriend), 1992 300CE (Rescue).

Care to explain that?

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.

Graffiti seen in the men's bathroom of the Law School at UOP University of the Pacific) McGeorge in Sacramento, CA., circa 1974:

"Absolute truth is a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision"


I took Constitutional Law from Anthony Kennedy when he was a Professor at that Law School back then. His yearly lesson and speech on Franklin D. Roosevelt's Court packing made Prof. Kennedy a legend in his own time, the classroom was jammed to the rafters each year when he gave that talk.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Another example of the OP's lopsided point of view.

__________________

SCOTUS Ruling Spells Disaster for Political Transparency
Katie Connolly


It's hard to know just yet what the precise impact of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on campaign-finance reform this morning will be. But one thing is for sure: it will be huge. Dramatic, sweeping, fundamental, seismic—all those adjectives apply to this alteration of the political landscape. In all likelihood, Republicans will be the biggest beneficiaries. They've had a long history of taking care of their corporate buddies. And with the Administration today opening a new front in their battle on Wall Street, you can bet the financial industry will happily raid their bursting cash coffers to support Republicans in November.

The decision is a stunning display of judicial activism from a chief justice who promised to engage in anything but. Remember all his promises to respect precedent? Apparently he doesn't. As E.J. Dionne writes: "Remember Roberts saying judges were like umpires calling the balls and strikes? In this case, he and his colleagues canceled the game altogether and decided on their own what the final score would be." Roberts expanded the scope of the initial case before him, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to take on a century's worth of campaign-finance regulation. Dahlia Lithwick describes it perfectly: "The court had to reach out far beyond any place it needed to go....This started off as a case about a single movie. It morphed into John Roberts's Golden Globe night."

For their part Republicans are defending the ruling as rolling back infringements of free speech. They're wrong. The First Amendment protects an individual's right to free speech. Corporations are not individuals, although in this ruling, the Supreme Court equates the two. That leaves the door open for further challenges. Today's ruling focuses on independent expenditures but leaves in place the restrictions that bar corporations from donating to political parties or individual candidates. That's still the terrain of individual supporters and explicitly designated political action committees, which are also subject to strict rules. But with this ruling, it's easy to imagine a legal challenge to allowing direct contributions as well. After all, if corporations are give the same free speech protections as individuals when it comes to political campaigns, why can't they have the same right to donate? That argument might not pass muster with the Supremes, but I'd be willing to bet it will be raised.


A second Republican defense of the ruling invokes transparency. At a breakfast with reporters this morning (admittedly before the result was handed down), Minority Whip Eric Cantor was asked about the case. He focused on disclosure. "Any time we have moved in the direction that these bills like McCain-Feingold have taken us, what you've ended up accomplishing is taking away more transparency. Now you've got these outside organizations, 501c4s and 527s, that frankly are more opaque than transparent," he said. "Anything that moves us back towards that notion of transparency and real-time reporting of donations and contributions I think would be a helpful move towards restoring confidence of voters."

Cantor's deputy, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, shared a similar philosophy. "I watched in California campaign-finance reform and what's happened is...people now move money through central committees at the last minute so you don't get the transparency. It doesn't get [at] what the public thought was going to happen. The best way, the fairest way, is greater transparency. Let people understand where it is going and what's happening."

The big flaw with these arguments is that the ruling promotes, indeed lavishly fertilizes, that opacity that Cantor and McCarthy warn against. Sure Bank of America or Pfizer can now cut and air their own political aids, but will they? I'd venture that they won't—they'll outsource in the muddiest possible way. Few corporations like being overtly political. They worry about alienating that part of their customer base who disagree with their politics, or don't care. They also rightly fear that explicit political activity compromises brand identities they've worked so hard to create. Let's say you're a liberal and the company that produces your favorite brand of recycled toilet paper and environmentally friendly dish-washing liquid starts running ads supporting a candidate running on a pro-life, anti–gay marriage platform. That's not going to breed your consumer loyalty. Corporations aren't like people: they rarely have consistent, thought-out, political philosophies or world views. They might produce environmentally friendly products, but they're doing that to make money, not out of a deeply held commitment to left-wing principles.

That's why independent expenditures are so popular. Bank of America isn't going to run ads itself. It's going to bankroll a nonprofit organization called "Citizens for Banking Justice" or some such name, and they'll make the ads. That imaginary recycled toilet paper company will just give money to a 501c3 called (for the purposes of this blog post) The Society for Family Values who'll run vicious attack ads. And now they'll be able to do so right up until election eve. Sure the ads will have to disclose their sponsor, but that sponsor is the fictional Citizens for Banking Justice or the like, not the financial institutions that really paid for it. Ultimately the corporations will have to disclose their donations, but how many voters will go the extra step to find out that information and relate it back to the ad they just saw? In all likelihood, those relationships will just become passing references in the few media outlets who analyze political advertising.

Today's ruling frees corporations to give unlimited amounts over unrestricted periods to organizations which explicitly endorse or criticize political candidates. That doesn't create more transparency, it simply provides an unprecedented financial boost to the murky world of independent expenditures. And that's bad news for the accountability of our political system.

Main Entry: cor·po·rat·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈkȯr-p(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1890
: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction



Ron Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ticytEUvVhQ

__________________

I love it, I need it, I want some more of it

__________________
Junqueyardjim
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. C.S. Lewis



1983 Mercedes W123 240D 4 Speed 285,000 on the road with a 617 turbo, beautiful butter yellow, license plate # 83 240D INDIANA

2003 Jaguar Type X, AWD. beautiful, good mileage,
Mom's car, but I won't let her drive it!

How did the wise latina vote on this one?