|
page:
<<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>>
of 1 pages
|
< previous page | next page >
|
| Sep 5 @ 6:08 AM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech
|
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
While watching the latest Bill Moyers Journal I saw a piece that could have huge significance regarding free speech.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments this upcoming Wednesday, Sept 9th, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Citizens United, a conservative group headed by a well-known anti-Clinton fighter, David Bossie, produced a film during last year's election campaign called "Hillary: The Movie".
Because the movie is partially financed with corporate funds, it fell under restrictions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 -- as the McCain-Feingold law is formally known -- on "any broadcast, cable or satellite communications" that refers to a candidate for federal office within a certain time frame before an election. The law's requirement that ads clearly state the name of the group paying for them made Citizens United's planned 10-second media ads unworkable, the group said. Source
Citizens United says in it's complaint that "since the ads are not subject to the EC corporate funding restriction, it is unconstitutional to require disclosure of the donors who paid for the advertisements or disclaimers on the advertisements. Citizens United also claims that the film itself is constitutionally exempt from the corporate funding restriction under WRTL II (a previous case)."
The fundamental issue is whether there should be "any" controls over political discourse, and whether corporate funding can and should be regulated under current law.
More perspective....
In 'Hillary: The Movie' case, Supreme Court considers major shift in election lawSupreme Court precedent on corporate spending limits may be overturned. The conservative majority has opposed campaign spending laws in narrower cases, citing free speech.Reporting from Washington - President Theodore Roosevelt campaigned as a trust-busting reformer, but was embarrassed by revelations that his 1904 campaign had received secret contributions from New York insurance companies. At his urging, Congress passed a law to keep corporate money out of political races. Now, that century-old ban stands in danger of being overturned by the Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the basis of an equally venerable principle: free speech in politics. The justices signaled the prospect of a profound shift in election law by scheduling an unusual special argument for Sept. 9. At issue will be whether to overturn two rulings that limit corporate spending in elections. In the first, the high court in 1990 upheld a state law barring corporations from using their "immense aggregations of wealth" to buy ads to oppose or endorse a candidate. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia dissented. The second was the court's 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold Act by a 5-4 vote, including its ban on corporate or union-funded broadcast ads that target a candidate in the month before an election. Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented, along with then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. The two precedents are endangered by a new case growing out of last year's presidential election and involving "Hillary: The Movie."….. Full Source here
More Background:
About Hillary: The Movie
The Supreme Court Reviews Hillary: The Movie
Supreme Court Appears Divided Over Hillary Clinton Movie in Campaign Finance Case
I’m in no way trying to make this a partisan issue, since campaign finance abuse knows no boundaries or political divisions. Just wanted to know people’s opinions. Is upholding current restrictions good or should the law be struck down?
|
|
  |
|
| Sep 5 @ 9:17 AM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech |
|
eastham
Posts: 7,913
|
Corporations have certainly found their way around the formal ban with the establishment of PACs and other entities. Commercial bankers shelled out lots of money in the 2008 election, with John McCain outpacing Barack Obama in donations from this sector.
If the few impediments to corporate meddling in elections are gone, it will not be a good thing for the republic.
|
| |
|
| Sep 5 @ 9:31 AM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech
|
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
Agree, East.
This passage in one of the articles I cited above goes to the crux of the matter...
Advocates of campaign funding laws are sounding the alarm. Striking down corporate spending limits would be "a radical step" that would change the character of elections, said Fred Wertheimer, president of the nonprofit Democracy 21.
"Banks like Citicorp, investment firms like Merrill Lynch and insurance companies like AIG would be free to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of their corporate wealth to directly support the election of federal officeholders who do their legislative bidding and to directly oppose [those] who refused to carry out their wishes," Wertheimer said.
"This could take us back to the era when people referred to the senator from Standard Oil," said Washington lawyer Trevor Potter, who last year advised Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. "If you have hundreds of millions of corporate dollars flowing into these races, it could drown out the speech of ordinary voters."
Skeptics of the campaign finance laws are not convinced.
"This would not be the end of democracy," said Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University in Ohio and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. About half the states, including California, permit corporations to spend freely in state races, he said, and few corporations have chosen to invest large sums in those contests.
Others note that wealthy individuals -- such as financier George Soros and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg -- already spend vast sums of money to sway elections or to support their own candidacies.
At issue before the court is whether to erase the legal distinction between corporations and individuals.
There is a good argument for both sides, but I still think there should be some controls or limits with corporate "and" individual spending. Big money politics is getting to the point of crowding out less influential voices.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 5 @ 12:20 PM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 7,501
|
Interesting. There may be an element of foreshadowing here: When the case was argued in March, the justices did not focus on the details involving the video, but on whether the law itself was suspect. At one point, the lawyer defending the FEC was asked whether Congress could ban a corporate-funded book during an election year that attacked a candidate.
Yes, although no such law exists, the FEC lawyer replied.
"That's pretty incredible," Alito said. Maybe this will give Congress a chance to actually focus on turning out some intelligible, commonsense campaign finance legislation.
|
| |
|
| Sep 5 @ 5:34 PM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech
|
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
Yep, saw that, too, Night. It will be interesting how the Court will rule. 
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 5 @ 6:28 PM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech |
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,278
|
oppps...double post..
[Edited on 9/5/2009 6:42 PM]
|
| |
|
| Sep 5 @ 6:28 PM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech
|
|
musicianfriend
Posts: 2,278
|
Maybe this will give Congress a chance to actually focus on turning out some intelligible, commonsense campaign finance legislation.
Perhaps...not such a bad idea..but it seems...with to many rules..corruption always seeps in...
What about total freedom.....make any movie you want....but heres the kicker..
If they lie...then they are in trouble..
Corporate money...vs. George Soros's billions....whats the difference..
I have no problem with as much information as possible coming out BEFORE an election..
If that had happened..then perhaps..we would not have such a controversial president..
The best solution would be for us to kick out all these CFR people and take our gov. back....
Be a nation again..within its own borders....grow our economy back ....
We dont need the world....and they dont need us..
Anything smaller is much easier to manage...
If we went back to a more manageable government..ran by qualified decent people ...and not powermad money mongerers..then perhaps..we would not have to deal with this crap..
I think there is way to much money involved in campaigns..
The regular guy cant even get a chance anymore..
The country used to be ran by regualar people..Business men...farmers...etc..not professional lifer lawyers...as is the situation now....
Its not working very well....we do need a change..but not the one Obama promises...but a change back to our roots....where things worked more perfectly...
The gov. has grown into an unmanageble behemouth..
The whole system is clogged up with Rep vs Dem...which I feel is being done on purpose..cause you know how I think....There are the same party..in essence..
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 5 @ 6:32 PM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech |
|
ForumMod
Posts: 1,812
|
mam, may i have your benevolant permission to delete your double posting in the interest of conserving web font? 
|
| |
|
| Sep 5 @ 6:33 PM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech
|
|
arieann
Posts: 2,080
|
The whole system is clogged up with Rep vs Dem.
I must agree. Our nation is not only dem vs rep, but race/race, religion/religion. I can honestly say there are a lot of great liberals in the country, and here on MD.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 5 @ 6:52 PM |
Impending, Important Supreme Court Case Regarding Free Speech |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,506
|
The whole system is clogged up with Rep vs Dem.
It wasn't always that way. This is only from 1857 to the present.
From 1833 to 1856, it was the Whigs versus the Democrats.
And so on. If you go back through our entire nation's history, over 220 years since the Constitution was ratified, only during around 10 years did we NOT have two major parties.
And it wasn't at the start of the nation, either. It was from the end of the War of 1812 (c. 1815) to 1824. The Federalist party had imploded, with many of its members joining the Democratic-Republican party (the parent of the modern Democratic party, which incidentally didn't have the same policies as the CURRENT Democratic party).
So from the start of the nation, we had some 20 years of partisanship, then a disintegrated second major party, which eventually coalesced back into the Whigs, which became the modern Republican party (which, again, didn't have the same policies as the CURRENT Republican party).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
page:
<<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>>
of 1 pages
|
< previous page | next page >
|
|