SCOTUS: Corporations have First Amendment rights

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key provisions of some of the central laws governing how the nation's political campaigns are financed just ahead of the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional primaries and election season.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, overturning a 20-year-old decision that barred such contributions.

"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

The new ruling blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also strikes down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned unions and corporations from paying for political ads in the waning days of campaigns.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=122805666

[Darnell 8,478]

Excellent ! Now all can get back to 'business as usual' !! I'm so happy - Can make new budget next quarter for 'campaign contributions'.

I'm excited !

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Excellent ! Now all can get back to 'business as usual' !!

Business as usual, as it was 20 years ago. That's how far back this ruling takes us.

[Kevin and 10]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key provisions of some of the central laws governing how the nation's political campaigns are financed just ahead of the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional primaries and election season.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, overturning a 20-year-old decision that barred such contributions.

"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

The new ruling blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also strikes down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned unions and corporations from paying for political ads in the waning days of campaigns.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=122805666

Doesn't surprise me. The 'Corporations are persons' has been in dispute for years.

[Darnell 8,478]

Business as usual, as it was 20 years ago. That's how far back this ruling takes us.

Ya, I 'got that' from yer post. I'm SO EXCITED about this !!!

[SMR 368]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key provisions of some of the central laws governing how the nation's political campaigns are financed just ahead of the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional primaries and election season.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, overturning a 20-year-old decision that barred such contributions.

"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

The new ruling blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also strikes down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned unions and corporations from paying for political ads in the waning days of campaigns.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=122805666

I have always believed that regulating soft money is unconstitutional. You can perhaps regulate how much money someone actually donates to a campaign. However, if an individual or corporation wants to run it's own ad about a candidate or political issue, that has to be protected by free speech. That's what the first amendment is about. If someone wants to criticize or support an issue or candidate, they have to be allowed to do this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key provisions of some of the central laws governing how the nation's political campaigns are financed just ahead of the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional primaries and election season.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, overturning a 20-year-old decision that barred such contributions.

"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

The new ruling blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also strikes down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned unions and corporations from paying for political ads in the waning days of campaigns.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=122805666

How is restricting campaign contributions an infringement on the 1st Amendment??? That to me is as logical as saying that every American is being denied their 1st Amendment right if they can't broadcast their own ad on TV or radio.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How is restricting campaign contributions an infringement on the 1st Amendment??? That to me is as logical as saying that every American is being denied their 1st Amendment right if they can't broadcast their own ad on TV or radio.

What prevents you from broadcasting your TV or radio ad?

[NickD 203]

What prevents you from broadcasting your TV or radio ad?

Money, it's all about money, and may the ones with the most of it, regardless of how they got it, have complete control over the rest of us.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What prevents you from broadcasting your TV or radio ad?

For one, networks can tell me to go take a hike. Second, it requires money. By restricting corporate donations (money), the court is arguing that they are being denied their 1st Amendment Right. Equal access should come into play, IMO.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, complete control? We don't have to believe the stupid campaign ads do we?

[natty bumppo 297]

Well, complete control? We don't have to believe the stupid campaign ads do we?

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it ..."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For one, networks can tell me to go take a hike. Second, it requires money. By restricting corporate donations (money), the court is arguing that they are being denied their 1st Amendment Right. Equal access should come into play, IMO.

Networks can tell corporations to take a hike, too. And yes, it requires money. So, get a job. Unlike corporations, you can actually vote on election day. How about that equal access?

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it ..."

So, freedom of speech should be limited because people are stupid enough to take spin for fact?

[natty bumppo 297]

So, freedom of speech should be limited because people are stupid enough to take spin for fact?

didn't say that ... just posted an old quote ...

can't idiot proof everything ... the world will simple produce a better quality idiot ...

[SMR 368]

How is restricting campaign contributions an infringement on the 1st Amendment??? That to me is as logical as saying that every American is being denied their 1st Amendment right if they can't broadcast their own ad on TV or radio.

I'm not sure of the details of the ruling, but like I said, it's not about restricting hard money so much as restricting soft money. Saying that a company can't donate to a campaign isn't really about the first amendment. However, saying that a company can't independently do things to support or oppose a candidate or policy is violating the first amendment.