A divided Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate political spending, overturning two precedents in a ruling likely to affect campaigning in the 2010 elections.
President Barack Obama called the decision a victory for big oil, Wall street and other interests, and said he would work with lawmakers to craft a "forceful response."
The ruling underscored the impact of former President George W. Bush's two appointments to the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the five-justice majority in ruling that a central provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act violated the First Amendment by restricting corporations from funding political messages in the run-up to elections.
"The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion.
Feingold seethes, McCain shrugs.
What say you, First Amendment fans? The vote was split 5-4. How would YOU have voted, and why?
The premise of McCain/Feingold was ridiculous. Did they really believe that removing the appearance of impropriety would do anything?
ReplyDeleteThe impropiety certainly still exists, as witnessed by the reciprocal funding of Fannie/Freddie and (mostly, but not all) Dem politicians.
And to have removed a basic constitutional right simply to give an unhappy public one less thing to list in the litany of disgust with Washington, takes it a few steps beyond ridiculous.
Did this ruling also remove the more onerous portions of the M/F law regarding the freedom of political speech for individuals? i.e. that part that limited my freedom to take out a political ad within a certain time of a orimary of general election?
If not then it did not go nearly so far as it should have.
"President Barack Obama called the decision a victory for big oil, Wall street and other interests, and said he would work with lawmakers to craft a 'forceful response.'"
ReplyDeleteHey, Barry. What part of "It's unconstitutional" didn't you understand? Although, as he is shown with the healthcare sham, the Messiah obviously doesn't give a flaming rip about what the Constitution says.
I would have said NO as well. I think they should give up on this idea of campaign reform. The original idea was to keep rich people from buying their way into office. It has no come full circle, where rich people who spend their own money to run for office are treated as heros.
I am very happy that the Supreme Court brought some sense to this issue.
He's such a tool. It also enables his favorite labor unions, green businesses, etc., to contribute to him as well. From what I understand, it benefits both parties equally. But of course, BO has to politicize it.
ReplyDeleteSo much for bringing a "different tone" to Washington. Only "different" in reaching new heights of cronyism and partisanship.
"Frivolous" or not, I love this idea:
ReplyDeleteOne perhaps frivolous suggestion already making the rounds of political conversation is to require legislators to wear NASCAR-style uniforms, emblazoned with the logos of their corporate “sponsors.”
I'm not entirely sure that repeal of M/F will be a panacea; the law came about as a result of a pretty widespread disgust with the status quo, IIRC.
Having said that, it occurs to me that if all "interests" are "special", then none are - and this is a feature, not a bug.
Given the ubiquity and low cost of mass social communication via the web, it is easier than every to organize speech to counter speech.
"One perhaps frivolous suggestion already making the rounds of political conversation is to require legislators to wear NASCAR-style uniforms, emblazoned with the logos of their corporate “sponsors.”
ReplyDeleteLMAO! How fitting! It gets my vote too, lewy.
An awful lot of campaign finance now comes from investment banks where the employees are told to contribute. The payback comes tacitly in fees for managing the tax exempt bond issuances. I would rather see the names of JP Morgan or Citi or Goldman on the contribution lists.
ReplyDelete"One perhaps frivolous suggestion already making the rounds of political conversation is to require legislators to wear NASCAR-style uniforms, emblazoned with the logos of their corporate “sponsors.”"
ReplyDeleteLMAO! Perfect!