In a 5-4 decision, the court says government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
Although I wish there was a way to limit lobbies, this was not the way to do it.
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/21/supreme-court-drop-kicks-mccainfeingold-scores-victory-for-1st-amendment/
But here is what I found interesting in Justice Kennedy's opinion:
When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought [Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority]. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
"Where a person may get his or her information..." wouldn't that put an end to the Fairness Doctrine in any form?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
on'y if it's called the fairness doctrine....the sour losers will find a way to styffle the one's that don't agree wit' 'em.....
First off, a few things that really piss me off about this:
1) Why did it take this long to finally throw out this bull pelosi crap in the first place?
2) Why are there four justices on the Supreme Court that still think that is ok to suppress speech?
3) Why are there still parts of this bull pelosi law allowed to stand?
Ok, so why would it be proper for the USeless Govt EPA to spew unfounded crap about CO2 being regulated and a company using sound science not allowed to say anything? Liberals see that speech should be limited when it does not agree with their views.
Corporations are groups of people doing what anyone should be able to do in a free society. These people have a common view. Why should the USeless Govt be allowed to control that?
The FEC has been a worthless organization. It is about time we get rid of that useless organ of the socialist elite and use that money to pay down the debt.
I have heard a lot of rancor from a number of folks in this liberal city of Austin. The wealth envy hangs like a pall over this city. They seem to suggest that it will ruin speech forever.
There is nothing wrong with unions and ACORN spreading their message. But if a corporation wants to respond they have the government to strangle them. If the government wants to spread filth and bull Pelosi about CO2 being a gas in need of control then we should not have the benefit of hearing other views from folks that are directly impacted by this nonsensical Bowel Gore drivel.
At what point will they realize that the government has business dictating what I can hear and cannot hear? They act like it is up to the government to ensure that we do not hear "bad things." These are the same people that look at talk radio and suggest that it controls the minds of people. Why can I not have the freedom to hear what I choose to hear. They act like someone has them in restraints in a chair forcing them to hear stuff.
I guess if I was a liberal then I would be weak minded, in need of a mother to care for me, hang out in a basement somewhere, drink my life away...
I wonder. Is circulating those "People of Wal-Mart" emails considered hate speech and not protected?
LOL, those ARE bad!!!
AND NO I'M NOT RELATED!
AUNTIE EM............YOU LIE!!!!!
you have said you're from kin-tucky....so hun YOU IZ related!!!
i agree the the mccain-feingold bill was a travesty. but this supreme court ruling that corporations have the same right as people in their campaign contributions. it made me get dizzy the obama got on the side of Jefferson on this one.
as the Washington Post said:
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is 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.
and Jefferson said:
Thomas Jefferson bluntly declared in 1816 the need to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” His was a common view, for leaders at the time knew that corporations are inherently antidemocratic artifices of the wealthy elite, allowing controlling investors to do two dangerous things: (1) amass far more money than other interests can muster and use it to elevate their private interest above the common good; and (2) absolve investors of any personal responsibility for the damage done by their corporations.
you been hoodwinked
Well that's one opinion Doc, but these corporations do consist of individuals that have rights, so this is just an extension of their rights.
Businesses tend to go with whoever is friendly to business and in this economy that means jobs which is always better for our citizens.
Remember, spending money on campaigns do not always translate into votes.
You have your eyes closed!!!
Plus the ruling also enforces the rights of individuals to get their news and reviews from sources they want, instead of having government pick it for us.
Jefferson also said:
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right
of every citizen in his person and property and in their
management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
and
"The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they
are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to
Gideon Granger, 1800.
And since this case came before the Supreme Court based on a movie about a political figure, I find this one especially appropriate:
"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press,
nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas
Jefferson to John Jay, 1786
"nor that be limited"
i'll agree that the corporations do need the 1st amendment rights. i just don't want them to have campaign contributions.
a few years ago GM was supposedly eyed for purchase by the chinese government. do you want the chinese to have billions on dollars in campaign ontributions? it was bad years ago, with al gore taking money from chinese. now it's going to get worse.
I don't think it's a matter of who we want owning corporations. Like it or not, this ruling IS constitutional.
Even if China bought GM, they could only buy a certain percent of it since it is a publicly traded company. Stockholders are the offsetting governance. Board of directors can be hard to get along with. Learned that the hard way in a previous job.
tshirt-doctor
I think that the framers of the Constitution wanted to believe that people, eventually, could be trusted to read for themselves and think for themselves. The problem that we have today is that certain interests have had complete unfettered access to feeding us crap and others cannot respond.
Look at all this global warming stuff. Bowel Gore has all sorts of political support and he in turn offers all sorts of political support. Now the USeless Govt EPA has joined forces with the "Bowel" to broadcast all of their global warming crap.
Those industries impacted by the science or nonscience of global warming. How can they fight to get their message out there when the debate is federally set up against them by enforcement of punitive measures (until this past week)?
Yep, when you let everyone have a chance to speak some will have more effective ways of getting their message out there than others. However, I do not want the USeless Govt in the way of any one of them!
Like we used to say in the Army, "shoot 'em all down and let God sort 'em out." Well, let them all talk and I will figure out what is important to me. The alternative? Go to jail because you happen to say something at the wrong time about the wrong person because you are associated with the wrong person. When I give money to candidate I have to answer some question about who my employer is. Pardon me, but that is outrageous bull Pelosi and an affront to my rights as a human.
Like I said before, why are there still parts of this stinking law still in effect????
Post a Comment