Executive vs. Juducial
 

Should the country expect more from the Constitutional Law Professor in Chief?

We've already heard the "political financing sky is falling hysteria" from the unwashed masses of liberal constitutional scholars on this forum, but is it fair to expect more from the first Black Editor of the Harvard Law Review?

President Wrong on Citizens United Case

[Bradley A. Smith]

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections . Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk=

So the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional. What ammanement was cited in this case?

Billy bob is trying to get us all to think that a flood of foreign money is good for our political system. Foreign corporations are completely free to buy majority stock positions in US companies, and they can form US corporations at will. Billy wants us all to think they can't, because he's having a hard time claiming he is in favor of US sovereignty while at the same time, against it. For billy, it's a mixed up world out there. The Right Wing is taking so many hits on this, National Review is trotting out this weak argument and try to make this pig fly. Keep flapping, billy. The president's statement is not false. Ask any accountant, there are a zillion ways to pull it off, and again, I post this link:

http://non-us.com/US-company-for-foreing-citizens.htm

Yeah, real tough, it's just impossible says Billy.

I need to preface my remarks by stating I am not a lawyer; never even played one on TV.
The flaw I see in your first statement,"Billy bob is trying to get us all to think that a flood of foreign money is good for our political system", is that you seem to confuse the law with its consequences.
Correct me if I am wrong ( as if you require my permission), but the SC is to rule on contitutionality of a law. Period. End of the matter.

You seem to be saying that because, in your opinion, the flood of feared international money will be bad, that the SC should have ruled other than they did.

Its not their job to fix bad law. The Legislative branch needs to do its job, and write better law, if that is necessary. But to say that the SC should create a law seems to be against what is their assigned roll.

The opinion expressed above is my own. I have not parroted talking points from any source.

What makes this a tough thing is that every opinion express here is right, including the President's.

If a power from outside the US wishes to influence an election they will now be free to do so without all the silly subtrafuges they have had to go though in the past.

Read up on the 'Bund' movement in the US during the 1930's. Germany knew if the US came into the war too soon it was all over for them, so the Bund was created to infulence Americans of German background to prevail upon our government to not get involved in Europe's war.

The Bund was very agressive about backing political canidates, and the Bund was financined 100% by Germany.

But the McCain-Finegold law was bad in the way it was written, not in it's intentions. I think the elected officials should go back to the drawing board and craft a law that will pass Constutional muster. Apparently not everyone feels this way.

My problem with the SCOTUS ruling is that I can find nowhere in the US Constitution that grants corporations the same rights as a person, in fact, I cannot even find the word "corporation", and yet, the SCOTUS did exactly that, ruling that Congress has no right to regulate their participation in the political process. The ruling was 5-4, meaning four of the justices agree with me. As far as "Congress doing it's job", Congress did do exactly that, and the Supreme Court struck them down based on this invented baloney crafted by the Republican appointees on the bench. Congress had done its job, and they did not like it, and decided to pass a decision that directly benefits their own political faction, allowing billions of dollars from corporate fatcats, national or international, to freely flow into our campaigns without regulation. Perhaps you can show me where a corporation is equal to yourself, politically, in the COTUS.

I will admit right now that this is a weak posting, but....

When I attended University we were taught that Corporations had attained the status of individuals due to some Supreme Court case from 1895 (?) where a Railroad Barron needed his company to be treated as an individual.

The lesson for that day was 'Money Talks'.

I don't remember much more than that, but then it has been about 50 years since I heard this.

And it's been all down hill ever since.

The legal status of corporations have evolved over time. They are taxed, subject to prosecution for civil and criminal acts . . . therefore they have "rights."

Whether George Soros or Steve Forbes spend their personal funds or corporate funds to push an agenda . . . how much does it actually matter?

again with this agitprop article from the c.i.a.'s mouthpiece?

this is the second (that i know of) thread in which you have posted this same article.

can't you find other sources for your campaign of disinformation?

That also means 5 justices disagree with you. But you won't respect that because they are Republican appointees. The only way their judgment would be good is if it agrees with yours or more specifically, whatever the Dems favor. I guess majority decision is only good for you if it goes your way. Otherwise, they suck.

AFAIK, they make interpretations based on the laws. If the laws change and can pass constitutional muster, they can have a different decision.

Yes, we know. All stuff Republican tainted are bad and even dog doo of a Dem is good. :rolleyes:

Yes, it cannot be what they interpret the laws to be based on what they read in the constitution. Sure.

That is my question. Dollars are still dollars and spend the same whether it is by this means or that. As long as it gets to the politician, what is the difference?

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/justice-samuel-alito-shows-distaste-with-barack-obamas-barb-on-campaign-finance-ruling/19335195?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fjustice-samuel-alito-shows-distaste-with-barack-obamas-barb-on-campaign-finance-ruling%2F19335195

someone forgot to tell obomma he is not in a classroom, can he just scold anyone he chooses

this aint over its just starting -- jz

If foreign money wants in on our political game . . . all they have to do is pull a Rupert.

Bwwwwaaaaahhhhhh! Again, no shame or no memory?

But its been said on this site he is foreign ??????????????

so its american dollars that is foreign than

Rupert Murdoch obtained American citizenship back in the 80's. That allowed him to purchase US media outlets.

The presence of foreign money only buys them advertising. It does not buy votes.
Maybe its how we can balance our debt to the Chinese---they buy billions/ trillions worth of advertising; we still elect people we want, and the debt is solved.

As we all know, spending on advertising has no influence on voters. :rolleyes:

However, if someone else is spending on advertising, doesn't that free up campaign resources for other projects? Like haircuts and shopping sprees? :D

Pre-decision, spend as much as you want. Post decision, spend as much as you want. Big difference there.

Pre decision, cannot give money within 30 or 90 days. Post decision, give till the last minute. Small difference.

I never said there was NO effect. I do not believe the effect will be as dramatic as is feared.

So, more of the government needs to stop acting in the best interest of the government and instead in "our" best interests. Yeah, keep waiting...
Maybe there ought to be a private activation of people agreeing not to vote for people taking massive sums of corporate money. Doing things like watching polling sites, participating in the ballot counting, nullifying local and state laws, etc,etc. But then that's "kooky" and "quixotic", "utopian", some such nonsense.

I hjad told myself not to get involved, but here goes

(JR can call me an idiot again if he wants to)

I believe in the FIRST AMENDMENT. If corporations are given the same rights as individuals, which they are then the 1st applies to them as much as it does to JR or myself.

However, I also like the idea of us exercising OUR 1st Amendment rights to track the pols who get the big donations from corporations and 'outting' them. I like the idea of a grass roots watchdog group keeping everybody honest.

Oh and the source of this issue, the McCain-Feingold Law was written to counteract the influence companies, especially Chinese companies had exerted on President Clinton who never saw a dollar, yen, mark,euro, yuan, ruble, etc he did not like...

OK I will now go back under my rock, and haunt the Diesel Discussion...

:D

IIRC, by law, they HAVE TO display their backers, donors or whatever it is you call them on their website.

"All the news that's fit to print" NYT
 

The president appeared to have mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn restrictions on corporate-paid political commercials by suggesting that the decision invited political advertisements by foreign companies, too.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said.

“Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a member of the majority in that decision, broke with the justices’ usual decorum to openly dissent. He shook his head no and mouthed the words “not true.”

The majority opinion in the case, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, specifically disavowed a verdict on the question of foreign companies’ political spending.

“We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our nation’s political process,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.

The court held that the First Amendment protected the right of American corporations to spend money on independent political commercials for or against candidates. Some analysts or observers have warned that the principle could open the door to foreign corporations as well.

President Obama called for new legislation to prohibit foreign companies from taking advantage of the ruling to spend money to influence American elections. But he is too late; Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1996, which prohibits independent political commercials by foreign nationals or foreign companies. - DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28check.html

Absolutely correct, you did not say that. Scroll up and you'll see that you said that foreign money does not buy votes.

Remember ABSCAM . . or perhaps Mister Abramhoff's representation of Pakistani interests might ring a bell. The real question might be better phrased . . . what does foreign money buy?

The problem with internet discussions....
The intent was to state that there was not a direct correlation of money to votes. They can spend all they like, and I vote my principles, as I expect many on here to do.
How much funding of political ads would it take for JollyRoger to become a Bush backer?
Rhetorical question--the answer is obvious. There is not enough money to buy enough ads to change JR's opinion. He has his principles, and viewing Geo Bush in the way JR does, JR will never side with him--in general.

Attempting to buy the votes at the fringes, if that's your analogy, is laughable. The financial horsepower is aimed at the fat juicy middle. Those are the votes that count, the votes that a candidate covets, right?

uh, you don't seem to be disputing the national review's roots, which, i might point out, were brought to light by mr. george will (that noted leftist) back in the seventies. need we even discuss the national review's eternal devotion to the wealthy, powerful and repressive?

anyway, it's important that others know the sources you choose.

I've already posted a couple hours ago at 3:14 EST, regarding what appears to be your not surprising lack of support for your contention, in a related thread where you've also made the claim as “fact”. You should feel free to provide any proof of your "fact" and any relevance you feel that may have to the substantive position outlined in the original posting I offered earlier today. Unless of course you have no substantive dispute and only intend to continue engaging your own “attack of the messenger”, which you earlier in this thread adopted as your battle cry “de jour”!

I make no bones about both my contempt for the impoverished, weak and submissive and admiration for the wealthy, powerful, and repressive; as such I have always been and will continue to be comforted by National Review’s eternal devotions to all manners of the human condition.

"Para sonar no cuesta nada" = To dream costs you nothing,

(Peruvian saying)

Guess you don't believe in the First Amendment. Any others you find annoying as well?

And by the way, I guarantee you Justice Alito knows a hell of a lot more about that case than Obama ever will.

Wow.

That suggests you would admire, such people,as Albert Speer, Fritz Thyssen, and Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, bankers and industrialists of note from 1933 - 1945, ( associated with the Reichsbank, Krupp, IG Farben in the Third Reich times ).

justice alito is a tool.

he's a devout roman catholic fascist. shall we ignore the fact that this "informs" all his rulings. and he's an avowed "federalist", which is pretty odd for someone who's supposed to have respect - as he testified - for stare deciisis. (then again, "true believers" - be it to a poltical and/or religous cult - often use the "ends justify the means" argument)

(and no, its not political - again, let me point out, justice stevens was appointed by gerald ford. and earl warren was an avowed republican appointed by dwight eisenhower. however, both these justices have/had brilliant legal minds, and respect for those that preceded them.)

Do *YOU* believe it should be elevated to the same status for corporate entities, as it is for living breathing human beings, for corporations to use -- said corporations, that would not hesitate to abuse it for bribery and influence peddling, (as before but now more easily?)

*THAT* is the precise question that was before the court.


Hmmm.

Would it trouble you have the second amendment applied to corporate entities to the exact same degree as it does to citizens?


Maybe. (Though that statement reeks of none too subtle right wing hatred of Obama..)

Despite your assertion, Alito ignored 100 years of good legal precedent, logic, and plain common sense, in ruling as he did.

You are probably correct.

Absolutely. And the law makes him just as American as anyone born here. BUT, law, history and logic seldom defeat xenophobia. That is unless the foreign name(s) involved are; John Huang, Moctar and James Riady, Charlie "Yah Lin" Trie, Ng Lapseng, Suen Yan Kwong, Pauline Kanchanalak and Schwartz Gyoergy - AKA George Soros.

That certainly sums you up.

Ah, I see, not wanting foreigners to participate in US elections is "xenophobia" now? Man, they sure are rolling you guys good this time. Head like a hole.

Alito is a partisan hack, he always has been, always will be, and if anyone believes in the First Amendment, I damn well guarantee you it is me.

sooo, is this to say that ALL Roman Catholics are fascist? Painting with a very wide, flawed brush if you do....:mad:

not commenting one way or another on influence peddling, evil foriegners, etc, but the word "person" has meant, in the Code of Federal Regulations, which are codified by law, a person, or group of persons, inc those legally organized by incorporation....

cult membership tends to encourage fascist beliefs in the cult's propaganda. :D

or, who can forget the crusades? or the spanish inquisition? father coughlin?

well, then I guess, based on what Lenin, Mao and Stalin did, that all atheists are mass murderers....

From the root word xenophobe. xen·o·phobe (z n -f b , z n -). n. A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

Rupert Murdoch is a US Citizen, so yes, by definition and appositeness it most certainly is both xenophobia and (for those to whom it applies) a personal problem, not to mention a character flaw of incongruous proportion.

On the other hand, I did miss the meeting where Pauline Kanchanalak's money from the Chinese Peoples' Liberation Army to Bill Clinton's campaign fund was deemed OK - eerrr well...aside from the indictments and convictions.

Besides, some Democrats LOVE George Soros's money.

At least he didn't shout out "LIAR!"

But, he'll also be proven right. ;)

You're still scared of the Fascists? Nazi or Italian? The Crusades? And the Spanish Inquistition? And what did Father Coughlin do to your family? Or you, for that matter?

Why are they even in this discussion?

EH? :rolleyes:

Oh. I know. Namecalling.

Got it. ;)

uh, mr. alito is a self described "proud, devout catholic" - surely he must embrace the glorious past of the church. more importantly, the catholic church, at it's core, has had the same beliefs for 2,000 years. it was a cult at the beginning, and its a cult now.

(we'll get to the fascism later :D)

Correct.