State Supreme Court rules against Citizens United...

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i want corporate interests out of politics and i do not want them influencing our domestic and foreign policies.

This is quite like dreaming, gimme, but we should never quit dreaming.

gimmesometruth27

brianlux wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i want corporate interests out of politics and i do not want them influencing our domestic and foreign policies.

This is quite like dreaming, gimme, but we should never quit dreaming.

yeah if we are not allowed to dream and envision the country the way we want it to be and fight for that dream, then you might as well just shoot me now my friend...

RFTC

citizens united will be viewed as the tipping point into USA kleptocracy, book it.

Byrnzie

MayDay Malone wrote:

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.

The U.S is already a nanny state, as is the U.K.

gimmesometruth27

Byrnzie wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

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.

The U.S is already a nanny state, as is the U.K.

yep. on a global scale no less...

MayDay Malone

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

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.

The U.S is already a nanny state, as is the U.K.

yep. on a global scale no less...

Are you suprised Gimme? By my count, everything you support is based on the western-european socialist model. This nanny-state is the ONLY outcome that can result from these policies.

I don't think you realize it though... Somehow you think it will just all work out this time, after failing so many times before. I'll never understand how some people really DON'T want to be free. They just want to taken care of...

usamamasan1

handouts are not good for self esteem. gotta earn your keep. If you are part of a corporation (made up by people) and you got a bit of extra money you earned...donate to the GOP if you want to continue earning a paycheck instead of a foodstamp!

WOOT

CH156378

usamamasan1 wrote:

handouts are not good for self esteem. gotta earn your keep. If you are part of a corporation (made up by people) and you got a bit of extra money you earned...donate to the GOP if you want to continue earning a paycheck instead of a foodstamp!

WOOT

" You know, it's interesting, I've been now around long -- you know, I think of myself as a young guy, but I'm not so young anymore. And I've been around for a long time. And it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats."
Donald Trump

brianlux

CH156378 wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

handouts are not good for self esteem. gotta earn your keep. If you are part of a corporation (made up by people) and you got a bit of extra money you earned...donate to the GOP if you want to continue earning a paycheck instead of a foodstamp!

WOOT

" You know, it's interesting, I've been now around long -- you know, I think of myself as a young guy, but I'm not so young anymore. And I've been around for a long time. And it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats."
Donald Trump

Another conservative, Andrew Bacevich, said basically the same thing.

gimmesometruth27

MayDay Malone wrote:

Are you suprised Gimme? By my count, everything you support is based on the western-european socialist model. This nanny-state is the ONLY outcome that can result from these policies.

I don't think you realize it though... Somehow you think it will just all work out this time, after failing so many times before. I'll never understand how some people really DON'T want to be free. They just want to taken care of...

am i surprised by what??? that we are a nanny state on a global scale?? no i'm not because we have been doing it for generations. who the fuck were the warhawks that made us go into iraq for no reason? what was their political persuasion? now we are there nation building and we have been all along. that is the greatest form of "nanny state"...where we go blow something up and then rebuild it so it is better than it was before. their infrastructure is better than ours now. or it will be once we are done there.....if anyone is so anti nanny state, they would have opposed the iraq war and told the iraqis to overthrow saddam themselves. if anyone is pro war, they are pro nanny state by definition of what happens AFTER the war...

i'm a proud liberal. so i remind you of a western european socialist?? at least i understand the outrage over the $500 cheese that you continue to mock and laugh about. i even provided a link on that that explained the entire situation, which you most likely didn't read anyway, so yeah whatever. :roll:

it may work out this time, it may not. but i am not for cutting off all forms of aid to the poor as your posts suggest that you are. i am not for corporate influence in national or local elections, which by definition of the citizens united ruling that you seem to keep defending, implies that you are. which is fine, but you are on the wrong side of this issue. it has worked in montana, why will it not work nationally??

now let's keep this thread on topic, shall we??

MayDay Malone

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

Are you suprised Gimme? By my count, everything you support is based on the western-european socialist model. This nanny-state is the ONLY outcome that can result from these policies.

I don't think you realize it though... Somehow you think it will just all work out this time, after failing so many times before. I'll never understand how some people really DON'T want to be free. They just want to taken care of...

am i surprised by what??? that we are a nanny state on a global scale?? no i'm not because we have been doing it for generations. who the fuck were the warhawks that made us go into iraq for no reason? what was their political persuasion? now we are there nation building and we have been all along. that is the greatest form of "nanny state"...where we go blow something up and then rebuild it so it is better than it was before. their infrastructure is better than ours now. or it will be once we are done there.....if anyone is so anti nanny state, they would have opposed the iraq war and told the iraqis to overthrow saddam themselves. if anyone is pro war, they are pro nanny state by definition of what happens AFTER the war...

i'm a proud liberal. so i remind you of a western european socialist?? at least i understand the outrage over the $500 cheese that you continue to mock and laugh about. i even provided a link on that that explained the entire situation, which you most likely didn't read anyway, so yeah whatever. :roll:

it may work out this time, it may not. but i am not for cutting off all forms of aid to the poor as your posts suggest that you are. i am not for corporate influence in national or local elections, which by definition of the citizens united ruling that you seem to keep defending, implies that you are. which is fine, but you are on the wrong side of this issue. it has worked in montana, why will it not work nationally??

now let's keep this thread on topic, shall we??

Oh brother.

I guess since you blindly support every liberal democratic ideal, you are a staunch supporter of segregation and Jim Crow laws. Stand in the way of any school-house doors lately?

So your party has a racist, bigotted background- does that mean that every Dem does? I don't think so. So why treat Conservatives the same way?

Liberal rules conveniently apply to everyone but liberals. IMO.

and "War makes us a nanny-state?"

FDR was makin us a nanny-state. WWII saved the US economy. And when Barack is done,. WW3 will do it again. Great Wars always follow Dems... because they are weak, and the evil know it.

Mark my words.

And if it weren't for you and me, this thread would have died 3 days ago, so what topic? The topics over.

Peace.

gimmesometruth27

MayDay Malone wrote:

Oh brother.

I guess since you blindly support every liberal democratic ideal, you are a staunch supporter of segregation and Jim Crow laws. Stand in the way of any school-house doors lately?

So your party has a racist, bigotted background- does that mean that every Dem does? I don't think so. So why treat Conservatives the same way?

Liberal rules conveniently apply to everyone but liberals. IMO.

and "War makes us a nanny-state?"

FDR was makin us a nanny-state. WWII saved the US economy. And when Barack is done,. WW3 will do it again. Great Wars always follow Dems... because they are weak, and the evil know it.

Mark my words.

And if it weren't for you and me, this thread would have died 3 days ago, so what topic? The topics over.

Peace.

i'm not going to legitimize this unfortunate misguided drivel that is a feeble attempt to twist my words and my political beliefs around with any sort of substantive reply.... and since you didn't answer my questions i am not going to answer yours..

and mark your words??? are you a prophet now? they are marked, that you just said that obama is going to save the us economy...

Jeanwah

A lot of people here need to watch The Corporation to understand exactly what a corporation is and how it operates.

http://www.thecorporation.com/
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_C ... id=2361637

gimmesometruth27

Twenty-two states join court fight to preserve campaign finance laws after Citizens United

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05 ... z1vQikeZZU


HELENA, Mont. – Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are backing Montana in its fight to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending.

The states led by New York are asking the high court to preserve Montana's state-level regulations on corporate political expenditures, according to a copy of a brief written by New York's attorney general's office and obtained by The Associated Press ahead of Monday's filing.

The Supreme Court is being asked to reverse a state court's decision to uphold the Montana law. Virginia-based American Tradition Partnership is asking the nation's high court to rule without a hearing because the group says the state law conflicts directly with the Citizens United decision that removed the federal ban on corporate campaign spending.

The Supreme Court has blocked the Montana law until it can look at the case.

The Montana case has prompted critics to hope the court will reverse itself on the controversial Citizens United ruling. The 22 states and D.C. say the Montana law is sharply different from the federal issues in the Citizens United case, so the ruling shouldn't apply to Montana's or other state laws regulating corporate campaign spending.

But the states also said they would support a Supreme Court decision to reconsider portions of the Citizens United ruling either in a future case or in the Montana case, if the justices decide to take it on.

Legal observers say don't count on the Supreme Court reconsidering its decision.

"It is highly unlikely that the Court would reverse its decision in Citizens United," said law professor Richard L. Hasen of the University of California-Irvine.

At best, the court would listen to arguments and might agree a clarification is needed to allow the Montana law to stand. But even that is a long shot, Hasen said.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock argues that political corruption in the Copper King era led to the state ban on corporate campaign spending. A clarification of Citizens United is needed to make clear that states can block certain political spending in the interest of limiting corruption, he said.

American Tradition Partnership argues that the state bans unfairly restrict the ability of corporations to engage in the political process that also affects them.

Bullock wrote in a brief to be released Monday that the state does not "ban" corporate political speech, rather, it regulates that speech by requiring the formation of political action committees.

The Democrat, who is running for governor, said the upstart political corporations hoping to take advantage of unfettered spending are merely "an anonymous conduit of unaccountable campaign spending."

Montana and the other states are asking the court to either let the Montana Supreme Court decision stand or to hold a full hearing. They argue laws like the one in Montana that bans political spending straight from corporate treasuries are needed to prevent corruption.

The other states, many with their own type of restrictions hanging in the balance, argue local restrictions are far different than the federal ban the court decided unconstitutionally restricted free speech. Further, state elections are at much greater risk than federal elections of being dominated by corporate money, requiring tailored regulation, the states' court filing says.

"The federal law struck down in Citizens United applied only to elections for President and U.S. Congress," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wrote on behalf of the states. "By contrast, Montana's law applies to a wide range of state and local offices, including judgeships and law enforcement positions such as sheriff and county prosecutor."

The joining states, unlike Montana, ask the court to go further and reconsider core findings in Citizens United. They argue, for instance, it was wrong for the court to say unlimited independent expenditures rarely cause corruption or the appearance of corruption.

And other critics of the Citizens United decision who believe the court was wrong to grant corporations constitutional rights, have intervened and asked the court to reverse itself.

"There is a growing bipartisan consensus that Citizens United needs to be overturned, and Montana is leading the way," said Peter Schurman, spokesman for a group called Free Speech For People. "The Supreme Court has an opportunity to revisit Citizens United here. That is important because there is evidence everywhere that unlimited spending in our elections creates both corruption and the appearance for corruption."

On Friday, Montana's case was given a boost when U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-D-R.I., signed on in support. The senators argue evidence following the Citizens United decision, where millions in unregulated money has poured into presidential elections, shows that large independent expenditures can lead to corruption.

The states who filed the brief in support of Montana are New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

WaveCameCrashin

Sure is funny how Obama trashed and lied about the supreme court during his State of the Union Address, in regards to the citizens united case and now he's taking full advantage of using PAC'S. He's a damn hippocrite and liar at that.. So Gimmie how come your not saying anything about Bill fuctard Mahr giving a Million$ to Obama's PAC ? I guess that's ok as long as it helps Obama ?


My guess is people like Gimmie and the rest who are so upset about this don't even know that all citizens united wanted to do was put out a movie about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election.. This is nothing more than an attack on political Free speech.. Simple as that..




How the Citizens United ruling freed political speech

 

By David N. Bossie and Theodore B. Olson
Friday, January 21, 2011


One year ago today, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It upheld the First Amendment rights of individuals acting through corporations and labor unions to participate in our political process, and it struck down an oppressive thicket of statutes restricting - and even criminalizing - their political speech.

The case arose in 2007, when Citizens United, a grass-roots membership organization, sought to broadcast a film critical of Hillary Clinton, then a candidate for president. The Federal Election Commission deemed the film too critical to be shown in the weeks before an election; if Citizens United had broadcast it, its officers would have been subject to prosecution and potential imprisonment for up to five years. The Supreme Court struck down this prohibition of corporate and labor union election-time speech about candidates as a violation of the First Amendment. To the court's majority, it was "stranger than fiction for our Government to make . . . political speech a crime."



Stranger still were the unwarranted attacks against the Supreme Court that followed. Most visibly, the president used his State of the Union address to accuse the court of having "reversed a century of law" and "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections." That statement was astonishing because none of it was true: The oldest decision reversed by Citizens United was 20 years old, not 100, and foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in elections, just as they were before. As for "special interests," many had been spending at an equally furious rate, apparently unnoticed by the president, well before this ruling.

Still, the attacks continued: Sen. Charles Schumer accused the court of attempting to "predetermine the outcome of next November's elections," handing them to "Corporate America and other special interests." And when the November elections brought grim tidings to many Democratic officeholders, those candidates blamed not themselves nor their unpopular policies but the court. "Clearly the Citizens United decision decided this race," said a freshly defeated Rep. Dan Maffei. Sen. Arlen Specter went so far as to blame Citizens United not only for his rejection at the ballot box but also for "effectively undermining the basic democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote."

Serious charges, but as the justices wrote in Citizens United, "[r]hetoric ought not obscure reality." So what is the reality?

Without question, Citizens United has enabled citizen organizations (curiously and disparagingly labeled "outside groups") to assume a larger role in electoral politics. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, citizen groups spent $296.4 million in the 2010 election cycle - slightly less than the $301.7 million spent by such groups in 2008, but more than four times the $68.9 million spent by comparable organizations in the 2006 midterm elections.

Still, the amount citizen groups spent in 2010 pales next to these enormous sums: $1.35 billion spent by the two major political parties and an additional $1.8 billion by candidates for Congress. While citizens making independent expenditures increased their election spending to nearly $300 million in 2010, that remains less than one-tenth of the more than $3 billion spent by political parties and their candidates.

So why all the hysteria from incumbents? Perhaps because independent spending by citizens has shifted away from Democratic candidates. In 2006, liberal interest groups tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics outspent conservative interest groups by a 2-to-1 margin. By 2010, the trend had reversed, and conservative groups were outspending the liberal groups 2 to 1.

We suspect that what most upsets incumbent politicians about Citizens United is not the fact that conservative groups temporarily have gained the upper hand in independent spending. (Does anyone really think labor unions will not try to even the score in 2012?) Instead, what most bothers the political class is that the speech that surged in 2010 was independent. Politicians could not control the message, so they vilified such speech as "unaccountable." Indeed, the Democratic majority was so unnerved that it cobbled together legislation to make such independent speech as burdensome as possible, complete with a misleading mom-and-apple-pie title: the Disclose Act. But this effort to stifle debate unraveled when it was disclosed that the bill included exceptions favoring powerful interest groups.

As the Supreme Court has ruled, Congress should get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas and placing its thumb on the scale of federal elections. In Citizens United, the court reminded us that when our government seeks "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." The government argued in Citizens United that it could ban books advocating the election of a candidate if they were published by a corporation or labor union. Today, thanks to Citizens United, we may celebrate that the First Amendment confirms what our forefathers fought for: "the freedom to think for ourselves."

gimmesometruth27

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

Sure is funny how Obama trashed and lied about the supreme court during his State of the Union Address, in regards to the citizens united case and now he's taking full advantage of using PAC'S. He's a damn hippocrite and liar at that.. So Gimmie how come your not saying anything about Bill fuctard Mahr giving a Million$ to Obama's PAC ? I guess that's ok as long as it helps Obama ?


My guess is people like Gimmie and the rest who are so upset about this don't even know that all citizens united wanted to do was put out a movie about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election.. This is nothing more than an attack on political Free speech.. Simple as that..

how is what obama said a lie? why were roberts and alito the only ones who seemed taken aback by what he said? could it be because obama called them on it?

he is only taking advantage of pacs because they are now legal. if your opponent is going to use them you would be a moron not to use all the tools at your disposal as well. i do not need to bring up bill fucktard maher because then i would have to condemn everyone who has contributed to a super pac, and frankly who has time for that? we can go back and forth all week naming individuals who gave big money to pacs, but what is the point in that when there is no solution to the problem other than making big donations illegal again? throughout your time here under various screen names you should know me well enough by now that i am not going to excuse obama or maher for this. money should be out of politics. elections should be publicly funded. the fact is, conservatives are not going to call bullshit on citizens united until they get shellacked a few election cycles in a row. then they will realize that the money and the special interests are the problem. that is what happened to the dems in 2010.

i think every one of us should be able to agree that corporations are not individual people, and the money that they contribute is not speech.

is it still free speech to release a movie that is full of lies in order to change perceptions and influence an election?

mikepegg44

supreme court isn't infallible.. they just happen to be last. I am glad someone is challenging this...this election and its financing is ridiculous...

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

supreme court isn't infallible.. they just happen to be last. I am glad someone is challenging this...this election and its financing is ridiculous...

i agree mike. it is almost like the voters are not making the results, but the money is.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

supreme court isn't infallible.. they just happen to be last. I am glad someone is challenging this...this election and its financing is ridiculous...

i agree mike. it is almost like the voters are not making the results, but the money is.

when you put it that way, I guess not much has changed

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

supreme court isn't infallible.. they just happen to be last. I am glad someone is challenging this...this election and its financing is ridiculous...

i agree mike. it is almost like the voters are not making the results, but the money is.

when you put it that way, I guess not much has changed

i will rephrase that to say "those who have the most money who are donating the most money are deciding the electoral outcomes".