A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Supreme Court Rejects Limits on Corporate Spending in Electoral Campaigns

Posted: Jan 21, 2010

Well, back to square 1. Wonder how many judges are in the pockets of corporations?

Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns

Video

High court rolls back campaign spending limits

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

» LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER

By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 21, 2010; 1:40 PM

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday swept away decades of legislative efforts to restrict the role of corporations in election campaigns, ruling that severe restrictions on corporate spending are inconsistent with the First Amendment's protection of political speech.

;

Posting by E.J. Dionne on the above ruling - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
I agree with his/er comments:

"The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling today to open our political system to unlimited sums of corporate money is a reckless and dangerous piece of judicial activism. It will create havoc in our political system and greatly undermine the legitimacy of the Court that Chief Justice John Roberts leads. I argued last Septmeber that if Roberts led a ruling in this direction, he would be directly contradicting his promises at his confirmation hearings to judicial modesty. 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. Substantively, supporters of this decision say it is about free speech. It's not. Corporations are not individuals, as Congress recognized when it first limited the role of corporate money in politics back in 1907. Corporations are created by law, and they should not be treated the same as we treat live human beings. "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote said in his dissent. He's right. Congress should try to as quickly as possible to limit the damage this ruling does to our political system. What do you think?"
Posted by EJ_Dionne

An equal opportunity outrage from right to left. - if ever there was one.

[ In Reply To ..]
Anyone out there prepared to defend this United States of Corpocracy coupe d' tat?

Mob hit on democracy. - Say what?

[ In Reply To ..]
Our First Amendment guaranteed right to freedom of speech as living, breathing, individual human beings has just been subjugated to mouthless, brainless, heartless, voteless monuments to money, greed and corruption made of steel, glass and Wall Street ticker tape.

We are the lackeys and they are the masters of our fate. My first question as I reel from the shock and awe of the unfettered power grab is who stands to benefit the most from this decision? Like the Strapped for Cash Middle America poster below, I want to know exactly how this happened.

However we feel personally, not much we can do. Its the - constitution. We still follow it,

[ In Reply To ..]
at least for now.

What? Hand that kind of power over to corporations? - over my dead body.

[ In Reply To ..]
We either follow the constitution or we change it. Judicial activism is not a power the Constitution confers upon the SCOTUS, but is evidently decried by the GOP only when it is not favoring it's agenda. There are checks and balances written into it. Let's see how those mobilize against this threat. If they fail in that effort, there is always revolution, which the pages of history tell us is American as apple pie. Acceptance is not an option. The implications are way too far-reaching to simply lay back and watch corporations bulldoze democratic process. No way, no chance, no how.

You're not going to win on this..it IS the constitution.. - rally

[ In Reply To ..]
I dont really agree with it either, but in looking at why they came to this decision, I cant imagine it being overturned.

Wanna bet? Where there is a will, there is a way. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Maybe not tomorrow or the day after, but for those of us who recognize the scope of what this really means, this sleeping dog will not lie for long. There will be backlash and political fallout of staggering proportions over this. Let me put it to you this way. SCOTUS has unleashed a lightening rod that will serve to the galvanize opposition to those who would try to downplay its significance in ways they have scarcely begun to imagine. May not sound like much to you, but there is a distinctly defining moment embedded in this turn of events.

I would bet you are wrong. nm - Fargo

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

I would dial that back to a wish - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
unless you've got lots of money to spare.

So, what court are YOU on? huh? - Guess you just gotta have last word.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

The court of public opinion, smack dab in the middle of - mainstream USA.

[ In Reply To ..]
whose interests SCOTUS used to uphold.

Sorry, but they dont make decisions based on polls, - so you still lose.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

You missed the point. SCOTUS is still an arm of the US govt - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
charged with the responsibility of upholding the interest of living breathing human beings, not concrete, steel, glass and bags of money.

Abortion was made the law of the land by an activist court too. - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
Were you just as outraged when they pulled a "right to privacy" out of thin air to justify killing babies in the womb? A right to privacy that apparently only has a woman has in this country, I might add. So you can't have it both ways....

Well, as I live and breath. Judicial activism outrage gains bipartisan consensus. - Having it both ways, tyvm.

[ In Reply To ..]
Yes we can.

Activist supreme court judges - NJ

[ In Reply To ..]
Evidently, after hearing both sides, Roberts told them to broaden their arguments and try again. That sounds to me like he was looking not to rule on the case before him but to change the law as it as been for a century.

Corporations are not people. They are made up of people, but they are not us. Protecting them under some wild stretch of "freedom of speech" (which protects individuals) is like saying they can register to vote. And I think they just did.

NJ

Similar Messages:

Mar 25, 2014
Maybe there is hope after all... ...

Jun 03, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html What are your opinions on this ruling? Is this constitutional or a 4th amendment violation? ...

Mar 26, 2012
Before the decision even comes down from the Supreme Court on Obama's health care law I have to admit I have no confidence in them. It's all political. Giving the election to bush over Gore and allowing corporations to fund elections makes me think the court is not bipartisan. When the highest court in the land is partisan I have no hope. I feel sad for our country. Do you trust them? ...

Apr 06, 2012
By Peter Ferrara Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added). President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare heal ...

Jan 27, 2011
Where is the outrage? Corruption at the highest levels--I hope they impeach this guy. Source: Los Angeles Times\"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife\'s income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the fou ...

Apr 11, 2010
Ever since Barack Obama's election as president, there has been anticipation among scholars at the University of Chicago's Law School that one of their own could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court bench in the next few years.That anticipation was heightened late last week with news that Obama, who taught constitutional law at the school from 1992 to 2004, soon will be making his first Supreme Court pick.Almost every short list of possible nominees to succeed Justice David Souter inclu ...

Jun 26, 2013
A huge step in the right direction. The legal challenge to Doma was brought by New York resident Edith Windsor, 83. She was handed a tax bill of $363,000 (£236,000) when she inherited the estate of her spouse Thea Speyer - a levy she would not have had to pay if she had been married to a man. "Doma writes inequality into the entire United States Code," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Wednesday's ruling. "Under Doma, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, ...

Sep 17, 2013
In many states, police can rifle through your smart phone—even if you've just been arrested for not putting on your seat belt. —By Dana Liebelson | Tue Sep. 17, 2013 3:00 AM PDT 8 Rich Siegel/Flickr If you're like many Americans, your cell phone is overflowing with personal information—text messages, emails, photos of your friends and family, an organized history of who you've been calling, private notes, automatic logi ...

Jan 13, 2015
but apparently there is another attack in March to try to deny people the tax-credit subsidies offered by the law. ...

May 20, 2015
guts Obamacare. I don't think they will rule that way; but, if they do, there will be big trouble if all those people lose their insurance. ...

Mar 27, 2012
Lets hope they vote on the side of the law and vote it down. If they do the right thing and vote against it, my trust in them may rise, but unsure. Just unsure if they will do the right thing. My take on the health care is this. Those that want it should be able to get it. Those that don't should not be forced to buy a product we don't wish to purchase every month. And on top of that be told the product has to meet certain circumstances, whiich for m ...

Mar 26, 2012
There are so many good things about the Affordable Health Care Act. It's hard for me to understand why someone would even think about going without insurance. Cain and the TBs are full of hot air.Two years ago, thousands of members of the tea party descended on Capitol Hill to protest the passage of President Barack Obama’s health care law.On Saturday, just two days before the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law, hundreds of tea party supporters ...

Jul 25, 2014
Should Obamacare be sent to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and should the SCOTUS actually decide to hear it, the 4 dissenters when the ACA was upheld by the court previously have already made clear in their dissent what they believed Congress' intent was in setting up the exchanges. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (joint dissenting opinion of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) "...because Congress thought that some States might decline federal fu ...

Nov 13, 2014
More than 800,000 Floridians would see their monthly insurance premiums rise, from an average of around $70 to an average of around $350, or roughly a factor of five. More than 600,000 people in Texas, about 325,000 in North Carolina, and another 275,000 in Georgia would see insurance premiums soar by similar amounts. Nationwide, more than 4 million people living in 37 states would be in situations like these. Most would have no way to pay the higher bills, forcing them to drop insurance covera ...

Oct 14, 2013
Adam H. Rosenzweig from the Washington University School of Law proposes a different approach to ending the debt ceiling crisis: Let the Supreme Court resolve it as a Constitutional matter. What should happen when Congress and the President find themselves in a fiscal policy showdown resulting in a Constitutional violation? This question has risen to the fore in light of the recent political showdowns over the so-called “debt ceiling” crisis. Some scholars have argued that there ar ...

May 09, 2014
In this case, a family sued on the grounds that having the Pledge Allegiance recited in school everyday discriminated against their children because they did not follow/worship the Christian God. While their children (and all U.S. children) are free to not recite it, it was argued that non-pledgers were discriminated against, treated as un-American, and un-patriotic, and ridiculed as such. Additionally, even if they wanted to demonstrate their patriotism, these students could not because "Under ...

Jan 26, 2017
This is the strangest vaccine story I have ever come across. Several scientists proved successfully in Germany that measles is NOT caused by a virus. The case was heard before the German Federal Supreme Court (equivalent of our U.S. SupremeCourt). The plaintiff was a biologist, and he was awarded monetary damages. Reseachers in the past decades committed a critical mistake: They used no controls. As a result, components of regular cells were misidentified as vira ...

Feb 17, 2016
he would shift the balance of the court. What hypocrites they are and they get away with it. Apparently Harry Reid has forgotten his own role in trying to do so. Payback is a ....... Just two years ago Harry Reid went for the nuclear option eliminated the filibuster rule of 60-40 votes required to override one so he could pack the super-important DC Circuit Court with extreme leftist. The cool thing about having no moral values and no accountability is that you can lie without a guilty ...

Apr 29, 2010
By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 29, 2010 A splintered Supreme Court displayed its deep divisions over the separation of church and state Wednesday, with the court's prevailing conservatives signaling a broader openness to the idea that the Constitution does not require the removal of religious symbols from public land. A 5 to 4 decision by the court overturns a federal judge's objection to a white cross erected more than 75 years ago on a ...

Jun 10, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/supreme-courts-majority-s_n_607714.html ...

Aug 19, 2016
Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros’ stated vehicle for progressive social change, orchestrated a well-funded attempt to secure a desired outcome in a U.S. Supreme Court case on illegal immigration enforcement, according to a newly discovered memo between the organization’s top U.S. officials and board members. Members of the advisory board include Soros family members, left-wing activists, Ivy League professors and columnists for The Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine. The ...

Aug 19, 2013
"the state wants to “wave a magic wand” and read the broad anti-sodomy law as protecting minors. But the law “does not mention the word ‘minor,’ " From The Washington Post The High Court It is not the headline that Ken Cuccinelli II would have written, of course. But considering the flak Virginia’s attorney general has received for pressing his defense of the commonwealth’s “crimes against nature” law to the Supreme Court, C ...

Nov 18, 2014
On Nov. 7, the Supreme Court said it would entertain the latest legal assault on President Obama’s health-reform program. Leading liberal analysts worry—reasonably—that the justices will cripple Obamacare. Unfortunately, these defenders of the program are making their case by preemptively accusing right-leaning members of the high court of bad faith and rank partisanship. Paul Krugman of Princeton and the New York Times has has called the argument that a sy ...

Apr 20, 2015
A big victory for voting rights and against gerrymandering of voting districts! ...

Jun 11, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit.The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers alleg ...

Jul 01, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/critics-say-supreme-courts-proposition-8-ruling-ta/ ...

Feb 23, 2016
Gotta love that man! LOL ...

Jan 09, 2015
January 8, 2015: As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could prove to be a fatal blow against the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, a new study has concluded that the consequences of striking down the law's subsidies for low- and middle-income individuals will result in a sharp drop in the number of Americans with health insurance, as well as a steep rise in premiums. Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-08/study- ...

Jan 22, 2010
By Ron BrynaertThursday, January 21st, 2010 -- 12:17 pm Republicans say 'freedom won,' liberal jokes real winner is Satan Update: Obama vows 'forceful response' The US Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a 20-year ruling which had set limits on campaign financing by US businesses, and critics, including nonpartisan watchdogs and Congressional Democrats, are up in arms about the decision, which most had feared for a long time. Meanwhile, aside from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), ...

Oct 12, 2012
Right now, they are questioning Bill Sample, Microsoft's Corporate VP. Missed the beginning since I was at the grocery store, so I don't know when it started. ...