Judge Strikes Down Ban on Corporate Contributions Directly to Candidates

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

Reagan-appointed federal Judge James Cacheris just ruled that corporations have a constitutional right to contribute money directly to political candidates:

In a ruling issued late Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris tossed out part of the indictment against two men accused of illegally reimbursing donors to Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns.

Cacheris says that under last year's Citizens United Supreme Court case, corporations enjoy the same right as people to contribute to campaigns.

The ruling is the first of its kind. The Citizens United case had applied only to independent corporate expenditures, not to actual campaign contributions

.

Today's decision extends beyond the egregious Citizen United decision because Citizens United only permits corporations to run their own ads supporting a candidate or otherwise act independently of a candidate's campaign. Cacheris' opinion would also allow the Chamber of Commerce and Koch Industries, for instance, to contribute directly to political campaigns.

If today's decision is upheld on appeal, it could be the end of any meaningful restrictions on campaign finance — including limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals and corporations can give to a candidate. In most states, all that is necessary to form a new corporation is to file the right paperwork in the appropriate government office. Moreover, nothing prevents one corporation from owning another corporation. Thus, under Cacheris' decision, a cap on overall contributions becomes meaningless, because corporate donors can simply create a series of shell corporations for the purpose of evading such caps.

http://www.alternet...._to_candidates/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I've read the Constitution and don't recall it containing a right for Corporations to directly purchase legislative, executive or judicial candidates. If someone could point me to the article of the US Constitution that provides for that right, I'd certainly appreciate it.

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

I've read the Constitution and don't recall it containing a right for Corporations to directly purchase legislative, executive or judicial candidates. If someone could point me to the article of the US Constitution that provides for that right, I'd certainly appreciate it.

Corporations have the legal right to personhood.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Corporations have the legal right to personhood.

Okay. That still doesn't constitute the right to purchase legislators. I haven't seen that in the Constitution either.

[^_^ 5,021]

How is giving them money so they can more effectively campaign the same as 'purchasing' them?

Edited May 27, 2011 by \

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How is giving them money so they can more effectively campaign the same as 'purchasing' them?

Do I really have to answer that?

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

Okay. That still doesn't constitute the right to purchase legislators. I haven't seen that in the Constitution either.

I hear what you are saying, but short of a constitutional amendment that redefines corporations as not equivalent to a person, this sort of thing is going to happen, IMO. That's the real travesty of justice.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Corporations are allowed freedom of speech. To stop their constitutional freedoms also means they can stop ours.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I hear what you are saying, but short of a constitutional amendment that redefines corporations as not equivalent to a person, this sort of thing is going to happen, IMO. That's the real travesty of justice.

If corporations are equivalent to persons, they should be taxed as such - i.e. no more corporate loopholes in the tax code. Let's just say that the principle of no taxation without representation should cut both ways. Then we'll see how much of a person a corporation really wants to be.

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

If corporations are equivalent to persons, they should be taxed as such - i.e. no more corporate loopholes in the tax code. Let's just say that the principle of no taxation without representation should cut both ways. Then we'll see how much of a person a corporation really wants to be.

Amen.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I've read the Constitution and don't recall it containing a right for Corporations to directly purchase legislative, executive or judicial candidates. If someone could point me to the article of the US Constitution that provides for that right, I'd certainly appreciate it.

its right after the part that gave the unions this right years ago.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

its right after the part that gave the unions this right years ago.

And what part is that? Can you point me to it?

[SMOKE 1,426]

And what part is that? Can you point me to it?

no. but, i haven't heard you bitching about unions buying elections for the dems. i'm guessing you think it kinda sucks that the campaign finance playing field got evened up?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

no. but, i haven't heard you bitching about unions buying elections for the dems. i'm guessing you think it kinda sucks that the campaign finance playing field got evened up?

Unions and corporations are not even nearly comparable. You know that, of course.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Unions and corporations are not even nearly comparable. You know that, of course.

financial means, no they're not. but, as far as being willing to dump loads of cash into candidate's campaign fund to get favors later. they're neck & neck on the unscrupulous scumbag meter. i'm sure you know that