State Supreme Court rules against Citizens United...
gimmesometruth27
St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 22,859
these people are heros to people in this country that want corporate influence out of politics....
this is BIG news. montana's superme court is now on a collision course with the us supreme court over the constitutionality of the citizens united decision that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech and that corporate donations can be given without limit to influence elections.
hopefully this will lead to more states ruling against the citizens united decision.
this should get good....
'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 82168.html
WASHINGTON -- The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns.
The law, which was passed by Montana voters in 1912 to combat Gilded Age corporate control over much of Montana's government, states that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, struck down a similar federal statute, holding that independent electoral spending by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" that such laws were enacted to combat.
That reasoning -- described by the Citizens United dissenters as a "crabbed view of corruption" -- compelled 23 of the 24 states with independent spending bans to stop enforcing their restrictions, according to Edwin Bender, executive director of the Helena, Mont.-based National Institute on Money in State Politics. Montana, however, stood by its 1912 law, which led several corporations to challenge it as unconstitutional.
By a 5-2 vote this past Friday, the Montana Supreme Court declined to recognize the common understanding that Citizens United bars all laws limiting independent electoral spending. Instead, Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing on behalf of the majority, called on the history surrounding the state law to show that corporate money, even if not directly contributed to a campaign, can give rise to corruption.
McGrath's opinion in Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General harkens back to the turn of the 20th century, when Montana's "Copper Kings" -- the natural resource-rich state's version of the robber barons -- competed "for political and economic domination" so effectively that by the time the Montana voters banned corporate spending in a voter initiative, "the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority." One such Copper King, wrote Mark Twain in a quotation cited by McGrath, was "said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."
Paul S. Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, characterized the Montana Supreme Court's reliance on factual findings culled from a century of state history, plus the trial testimony from contemporary politicians of both parties, as "an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption" adopted in Citizens United. Nevertheless, most observers, including Ryan, do not anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court accepting that antidote. The ruling in Citizens United that independent spending does not give rise to corruption introduced a categorical rule that no factual reality can overcome as long as the decision's five-justice majority remains on the Court.
To make this point, dissenting state Justice Beth Baker wrote that Montana "made no more compelling a case than that painstakingly presented in the 90-page dissenting opinion of Justice [John Paul] Stevens and emphatically rejected by the majority in Citizens United."
And state Justice James Nelson, also dissenting, put the point more bluntly. Even while lambasting Citizens United's reasoning as "utter nonsense" and "smoke and mirrors," among other insults, he found himself duty-bound to defer to the decision of the highest court in the land. "The Supreme Court in Citizens United rejected several asserted governmental interests," wrote Nelson, "and this Court has now come along, retrieved those interests from the garbage can, dusted them off, slapped a 'Made in Montana' sticker on them, and held them up as grounds for sustaining a patently unconstitutional state statute."
Nelson wrote that it "would not surprise me in the least" if the U.S. Supreme Court reversed his court's decision without even asking for briefs or oral argument from the opposing parties.
To reverse the Montana Supreme Court, however, the justices would have to extract themselves from a quandary of their own making, noted professor Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine Law School on his popular Election Law Blog. "If the Court were being honest in Citizens United," Hasen wrote, "it would have said something like: We don't care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption."
But by "dress[ing] up its value judgment ... as a factual statement," continued Hasen, the U.S. Supreme Court must now explain why the Montana Supreme Court was not correct to consider the factual record when it came to justifying corporate spending limits in campaign finance laws.
How the Citizens United majority will deny the force of Montana's factual record or, for that matter, Mark Twain's observations -- and whether the Citizens United dissenters will express their schadenfreude at their colleagues' efforts -- remains hypothetical for now. Donald Ferguson, executive director of lead plaintiff American Tradition Partnership (formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership), wrote in an email to HuffPost that his organization has "not yet made a decision on future actions regarding the suit."
this is BIG news. montana's superme court is now on a collision course with the us supreme court over the constitutionality of the citizens united decision that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech and that corporate donations can be given without limit to influence elections.
hopefully this will lead to more states ruling against the citizens united decision.
this should get good....
'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 82168.html
WASHINGTON -- The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns.
The law, which was passed by Montana voters in 1912 to combat Gilded Age corporate control over much of Montana's government, states that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, struck down a similar federal statute, holding that independent electoral spending by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" that such laws were enacted to combat.
That reasoning -- described by the Citizens United dissenters as a "crabbed view of corruption" -- compelled 23 of the 24 states with independent spending bans to stop enforcing their restrictions, according to Edwin Bender, executive director of the Helena, Mont.-based National Institute on Money in State Politics. Montana, however, stood by its 1912 law, which led several corporations to challenge it as unconstitutional.
By a 5-2 vote this past Friday, the Montana Supreme Court declined to recognize the common understanding that Citizens United bars all laws limiting independent electoral spending. Instead, Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing on behalf of the majority, called on the history surrounding the state law to show that corporate money, even if not directly contributed to a campaign, can give rise to corruption.
McGrath's opinion in Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General harkens back to the turn of the 20th century, when Montana's "Copper Kings" -- the natural resource-rich state's version of the robber barons -- competed "for political and economic domination" so effectively that by the time the Montana voters banned corporate spending in a voter initiative, "the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority." One such Copper King, wrote Mark Twain in a quotation cited by McGrath, was "said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."
Paul S. Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, characterized the Montana Supreme Court's reliance on factual findings culled from a century of state history, plus the trial testimony from contemporary politicians of both parties, as "an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption" adopted in Citizens United. Nevertheless, most observers, including Ryan, do not anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court accepting that antidote. The ruling in Citizens United that independent spending does not give rise to corruption introduced a categorical rule that no factual reality can overcome as long as the decision's five-justice majority remains on the Court.
To make this point, dissenting state Justice Beth Baker wrote that Montana "made no more compelling a case than that painstakingly presented in the 90-page dissenting opinion of Justice [John Paul] Stevens and emphatically rejected by the majority in Citizens United."
And state Justice James Nelson, also dissenting, put the point more bluntly. Even while lambasting Citizens United's reasoning as "utter nonsense" and "smoke and mirrors," among other insults, he found himself duty-bound to defer to the decision of the highest court in the land. "The Supreme Court in Citizens United rejected several asserted governmental interests," wrote Nelson, "and this Court has now come along, retrieved those interests from the garbage can, dusted them off, slapped a 'Made in Montana' sticker on them, and held them up as grounds for sustaining a patently unconstitutional state statute."
Nelson wrote that it "would not surprise me in the least" if the U.S. Supreme Court reversed his court's decision without even asking for briefs or oral argument from the opposing parties.
To reverse the Montana Supreme Court, however, the justices would have to extract themselves from a quandary of their own making, noted professor Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine Law School on his popular Election Law Blog. "If the Court were being honest in Citizens United," Hasen wrote, "it would have said something like: We don't care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption."
But by "dress[ing] up its value judgment ... as a factual statement," continued Hasen, the U.S. Supreme Court must now explain why the Montana Supreme Court was not correct to consider the factual record when it came to justifying corporate spending limits in campaign finance laws.
How the Citizens United majority will deny the force of Montana's factual record or, for that matter, Mark Twain's observations -- and whether the Citizens United dissenters will express their schadenfreude at their colleagues' efforts -- remains hypothetical for now. Donald Ferguson, executive director of lead plaintiff American Tradition Partnership (formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership), wrote in an email to HuffPost that his organization has "not yet made a decision on future actions regarding the suit."
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'll never understand why people think this (the Mitt comment) is a big deal. Of course corporations are people, they are made up of people, lots of them.
Now, as for donating $ to campaigns...I think corporations should not be permitted to do so. The people that make up the corporation can do so on their own if they choose.
I guess when your trying to be president and you say "corpartions are people" it just seems a little out of touch.
Only if people don't actually use common sense to understand what someone means.
It's soundbite gold, and that is all people seem to care about anymore. But if people actually used some common sense, it's no big deal.
Ok, let's say you raise taxes on A moving train...you don't think your membership fee goes up? So, who ends up paying? Are you people?
I beleive this!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
remember, these are the same clowns that gave bush 2 the white house in 2000....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
have you paid attention to how they have ruled on cases the last 15 years?
have you paid attention to how these rulings have adversely affected this country?
i am fucking angry about it!
if you are not outraged then you are not paying attention.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
again, another childish statement made by people who don't understand that it is ok for others to have a difference of opinion. If I don't thi like you, I'm not paying attention? C'mon, you are better than that.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm discussing you calling the supreme court a farce. Don't post it if you don't want people to comment on it. I think it was ridiculous.
No, they're not a farce because he disagrees with them. They're a farce for all of the reasons he pointed out above and which you chose to ignore in your efforts to drag this discussion down to the level of personal attacks.
If you don't think the Supreme Court and/or it's decisions are a farce then go ahead and explain why.
what a shame, some beliefs on this forum. So filled with hate. This prominent black individual can tell an extremely convincing story about how rewarding it was to pull himslef up by his own bootstraps out of poverty to a position of eminence and recognition. My countries youth deserve better than what is doled out to them by the likes of Van Jones, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and AMT blinders....
that is why I am here....to help
i am part of many corporations. We are all people. Not faceless trolls.
WOOT
A corporation is an economic institution designed to make money. That's all.
Interesting article here on the subject:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... and-truth/
October 12, 2011, 2:19 pm
Corporations, People and Truth
By GARY GUTTING
The Occupy Wall Street protest movement has raised serious questions about the role of capitalist institutions, particularly corporations, in our society. Well before the first protester set foot in Zucotti Park, a heckler urged Mitt Romney to tax corporations rather than people. Romney’s response — “Corporations are people” — stirred a brief but intense controversy. Now thousands of demonstrators have in effect joined the heckler, denouncing corporations as ”enemies of the people.”
Who’s right? Thinking pedantically, we can see ways in which Romney was literally correct; for example, corporations are nothing other than the people who own, run and work for them, and they are recognized as “persons” in some technical legal sense. But it is also obvious that corporations are not people in a full moral sense: they cannot, for example, fall in love, write poetry or be depressed.
Far more important than questions about what corporations are (ontological questions, as philosophers say) is the question of what attitude we should have toward them. Should we, as corporate public relations statements often suggest, think of them as friends (if we buy and are satisfied with their products) or as family (if we work for them)? Does it make sense to be loyal to a corporation as either a customer or as an employee? More generally, even granted that corporations are not fully persons in the way that individuals are, do they have some important moral standing in our society?
My answer to all these questions is no, because corporations have no core dedication to fundamental human values. (To be clear, I am speaking primarily of large, for-profit, publicly owned corporations.) Such corporations exist as instruments of profit for their shareholders. This does not mean that they are inevitably evil or that they do not make essential economic contributions to society. But it does mean that their moral and social value is entirely instrumental. There are ways we can use corporations as means to achieve fundamental human values, but corporations do not of themselves work for these values. In fact, left to themselves, they can be serious threats to human values that conflict with the goal of corporate profit.
Corporations are a particular threat to truth, a value essential in a democracy, which places a premium on the informed decisions of individual citizens. The corporate threat is most apparent in advertising, which explicitly aims at convincing us to prefer a product regardless of its actual merit.
But even more important is the role of corporations in debates over public policy. Here their immense financial resources give them a privileged position — especially through lobbying — to argue not for what they think is the truth but for what promises to promote their profits. It’s a sign of corporations’ power that their views are often treated on a par with those of advocacy groups (from the ACLU to the N.R.A.) that are, at least to some serious extent, arguing for what their members actually believe. In debates on any issue affecting them, the arguments that corporations advance receive extraordinary consideration, even though we know full well that corporate views express not convictions but self-interest.
But, you may object, what’s wrong with self-interest? Aren’t all parties to political debate moved by some sort of self-interest? In fact, isn’t the point of our political process to make a decision that somehow balances these conflicting interests? Actually, no. Many participants in policy debates hold strong convictions, independent or even opposed to their self-interest. Liberals support higher taxes for themselves, conservatives reject government programs that would assist them, those advantaged by racial and gender discrimination vote to end it. Our democracy depends on our willingness to support decisions we see as right even if they work to our disadvantage.
Corporations, however, are typically immune to such considerations since their defining goal is to generate profit. Individuals running corporations may well be civic-minded and altruistic and may try to make company policies work for the public good. They may also be motivated by excellence — making a good product or providing a service useful to many people. But ultimately profit is king. The very nature of a corporation makes profits essential; those that lose money will not survive.
There are cases when telling the truth is the best means to advance corporate profits. In 1982, when seven people in Chicago died from poisoned Tylenol, Johnson & Johnson appealed to its credo, which makes concern for its customers a primary corporate goal, and told the entire truth about what had happened. This honesty turned a potential public-relations disaster into a triumph.
It’s not, however, unfair to ask what Johnson & Johnson — or any other company — would have done if there were a deceptive response that seemed likely to prove more profitable in the long run. Even Johnson & Johnson’s impressive corporate credo ends by saying, “Our final responsibility is to our stockholders” and “Business must make a solid profit.” The credo is unclear about what happens when there is a conflict between responsible action and long-term profit.
Given their raison d’être, when push comes to shove corporations will honor their commitments to shareholders’ profit. Moreover, from the profit standpoint that defines a corporation, it is clear that the appearance of social responsibility is worth far more than the thing itself. Truth is not a primary corporate value.
None of this means that corporations are evil or that socialism should replace the free-enterprise system. As Michel Foucault said of all power structures, it’s not that corporations are bad but that they are dangerous. The self-serving corporate speech that fills our media and halls of government is particularly dangerous for our democracy. At least for this reason, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are right to distrust corporations.
Somebody that gives an excessive amount to a political campaign is looking for something in return unless they are fools. Most successful businesses are not run by fools. Unions are not run by fools.
Money is the root of corruption in American politics. We need campaign limits. $40M for a presidential run. $8M for as Senate Run. $3M for a House run. Once the limits are set, I know who the politicians will be kissing ass to and it wont be someone paying $10K to have lunch with them.
have you read anything about how thomas refuses to recuse himself from cases when his wife's business dealings and profitting from such rulings create an obvious conflict of interest for thomas?
my guess is no. please inform yourself.
so until you read up on that i will consider you being here to troll instead of "help"..
please do not post in my threads for the sake of derailing them. it muddies the discussion.
thank you.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Corporations ARE just groups of people. Employers, employees, shareholders.
Why are we attacking Wall Street. Claiming the "Main Street"?
Why are we attacking ANY "street" in this country?
Obama's class warfare has to go.
can you clarify exactly what that is?
sounds like something i hear rush or fox news say...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
how about simply publically funded debates. that is it. in real debate format. not the moderators giving time to who they want to win.
why is it necessary to be bombarded by publically funded misinformation ads on television? (I am not suggesting you are for such things)
put them on a stage, ask them all the same question and make people write, by hand, the name of the person they support rather than check a box on a computer. I am saddened to realize that my last statement is impossible in today's American culture because I have a feeling if I stopped 100 people today, most couldn't even name the sitting attorney general or more than one member of the supreme court...or even tell me the three branches of government...sad...makes me sad to think about it...
Citizens United is certainly right inline with the special interest domination of our government...that simple...and people think we have had free market capitalism in this country...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Check out his Kansas speech a few weeks back. (and we both know you don't listen to Rush or watch Fox news)
i can call class warfare just as easily as you can..
"class warfare" is just a buzzword to create and emotional response...
but back on topic, i don't see how the us supreme court can over rule this when montana has the benefit of actual state history and how the elimination of corporate funding has dractically reduced the likelihood of corruption. the us supreme court has painted themselves into a tricky legal corner...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Your plan wages war on the middle-class to pay for a nanny state. You and Obama use class warfare to advance your socialist, share-the-wealth agenda.
But, whatever... this case is going nowhere.