Is it possible that there was more to this decision than the piece that is getting all of the press coverage? Could a vote have had an impact on other forms of speech? Books?

 

You mean like this....

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/john-lott-supreme-court-campaign-finance-mccain-feingold/

 

Indeed, when President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March, Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations.

 

"If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.

Edited January 25, 201016 yr by Bluegrasscard
fix highlighting

You mean like this....

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/john-lott-supreme-court-campaign-finance-mccain-feingold/

 

Indeed, when President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March, Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations.

 

"If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.

 

What is SEIU wanted to write a pro-Obama book? Would that have violated the pre-SCOTUS ruling?

 

Secondly, if corporations are an treated the same as you and me should we give them one vote? Isn't voting a form of speech? I know one of the dissenters posed this interesting question.

BTW...why does this favor 'the right'? Unions were impacted by this as well. Seems to be a trade off.

 

Also, money is speech. If you want to start a non-profit of like minded people to run ads and get the message out you can start a non-profit to do that. Money voluntarily given to this function can now run ads with their message. Under McCain-Feingold - they could not and thus collective issue-oriented groups made up of like-minded indivudals were shut out of the political process.

BTW...why does this favor 'the right'? Unions were impacted by this as well. Seems to be a trade off.

 

Also, money is speech. If you want to start a non-profit of like minded people to run ads and get the message out you can start a non-profit to do that. Money voluntarily given to this function can now run ads with their message. Under McCain-Feingold - they could not and thus collective issue-oriented groups made up of like-minded indivudals were shut out of the political process.

 

Good question as to how the "right" won.

What is SEIU wanted to write a pro-Obama book? Would that have violated the pre-SCOTUS ruling?

 

Secondly, if corporations are an treated the same as you and me should we give them one vote? Isn't voting a form of speech? I know one of the dissenters posed this interesting question.

 

Corporations can not give to individual candidates so they do not have exactly the same rights.

 

I would not mind if corporations were banned from giving to the political parties as well. I believe that because contributions to invidiviual candidates is capped at around $2,000 candidates are completely dependent on the deep pocket political parties. And that is one of the reasons for the loss of independence in elected officials.

 

Also, if the government want to shut down a specific channel of advertisement - TV ads - that could be done. Britain does this. If that channel were shut down for all direct candidate advocacy by all parties, individuals, groups, etc. then it probably would not be considered a free-speech issue. But given dollars involved that will never happen.

Corporations can not give to individual candidates so they do not have exactly the same rights.

 

.

 

Since its easy for a candidate to determine how much money he/she gets in donations on a company-by-company basis I don't exactly believe they above.

 

Isnt' the thinking behind the latest ruling that corporations/unions/other groups get to "speak" in regards to elections? How far do we go with their "rights?" Why one and not another?

Edited January 25, 201016 yr by Clyde

 

Isnt' the thinking behind the latest ruling that corporations/unions/other groups get to "speak" in regards to elections? How far do we go with their "rights?" Why one and not another?

 

'Their' rights are 'our' rights since we are they.

 

This is also a 1st amendment right - the freedom to assemble. That freedom has no use if the assembly has no voice and no way to promote and petition is cause. The court has ruled so in many cases.

 

 

http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper57.html

 

The right to peaceable assembly provides the opportunity for all citizens, whether they are employed by the federal or state government, by private businesses, or by a nonprofit organization, to participate in America's political life and in the electoral process. An example is picketing in cases of civil right issues and anti-war demonstrations. Picketing is protected when it is for a lawful purpose and is conducted in an orderly manner and publicizes some type of grievance. Many groups and organizations use assembly as a way to show support for an idea or dispute.

 

I strongly believe in the bolded statement from the article above. A poor person with little money has no political voice. A 1,000 poor people each with little money but collectively with enough money to print posters or take out an ad in local newspaper, etc. do have a political voice. If you prevent collective organizations, no matter how big or how small or in whaterver form (corporation, union, non-profit, special intrest, etc) from being able to participate in the political process then you have potentially prevented most Americans from participating in the political process.

Let me chime in with some non-analytical thoughts, and we can go from there.

 

Under the law, newspapers owned by parent corporations that voice opinions in favor of particular candidates were actually violating the law. Only one such decision I am aware of, and almost all newspapers were essentially ignored, however, the law said what it said. This decision frees them from those restrictions. Why are newspapers that are owned by corporations allowed to spend money taking sides but corporations themselves are not? It is an intellectually dishonest law and was called out as such.

 

Judicial activism is being stretched here. Activism is generally the creation of law, such as the Griswold v. Connecticutt decision that found a "penumbra" to the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of personal choice. Calling this decision the "creation" of law is misleading. It found that corporate entitities have rights of free speech just as citizens do, and it was NOT the first time the Supreme Court had held that way.

 

The left conveniently ignores that unions, traditional bastions of liberalism, joined in this lawsuit and celebrated this decision.

 

Discuss amongst yourselves. First read the decision, though. The best language is Chief Justice Roberts' concurrence, and discussion of the "lonely pamphleteer."

Good question as to how the "right" won.

 

The reason the "right" was on the so-called winning side is that they had the Constitution on their side.

There is no direct mention of voting in the Constitution other than that the members of the House shall be chosen by the people in Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The "one man one vote" was a ruling by the Supreme Court to eliminate gerrymandering, not to hinder free speech. The idea that union or corporations were never considered and restricting them is an example of judicial activism.

An example of judicial activism is in Justice Stevens' minority opinion "the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government .... It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense." If a case reached the Supreme Court reviewing a law using the terms "common sense" and a "strange time" it would be struck down as these terms could not be properly defined. One person's common sense may not be anothers common sense. The Court has made rulings like this before, because terms are not defined or legally definable.

This Court decision defended free speech and did not harm the belief of "one man one vote."

I don't understand what's not reasonable about what I said. Just because someone makes more than me doesn't mean he deserves more of a voice.

 

From Fastbreak: "I would like to hear your views on how this ruling violates the First Amendment... and conversely, how the previous precedent that was over turned was more faithful to the First Amendment."

 

I don't think he's been answered but I'll go back over all the responses again to make sure. I'm totally ignorant in constitutional law which is one of the reasons I find these types of threads so interesting.

 

As to the above, I understand that they may not deserve more of a voice but on the other hand is it right to muzzle someone because he makes more than you? How about if they're more famous than you and have an audience?

BTW...why does this favor 'the right'? Unions were impacted by this as well. Seems to be a trade off.

 

Also, money is speech. If you want to start a non-profit of like minded people to run ads and get the message out you can start a non-profit to do that. Money voluntarily given to this function can now run ads with their message. Under McCain-Feingold - they could not and thus collective issue-oriented groups made up of like-minded indivudals were shut out of the political process.

 

Heard on Mike McConnell's show that the largest contributors are unions.

The reason the "right" was on the so-called winning side is that they had the Constitution on their side.

There is no direct mention of voting in the Constitution other than that the members of the House shall be chosen by the people in Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The "one man one vote" was a ruling by the Supreme Court to eliminate gerrymandering, not to hinder free speech. The idea that union or corporations were never considered and restricting them is an example of judicial activism.

An example of judicial activism is in Justice Stevens' minority opinion "the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government .... It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense." If a case reached the Supreme Court reviewing a law using the terms "common sense" and a "strange time" it would be struck down as these terms could not be properly defined. One person's common sense may not be anothers common sense. The Court has made rulings like this before, because terms are not defined or legally definable.

This Court decision defended free speech and did not harm the belief of "one man one vote."

 

Why can't we then say that the left won because unions can now have a voice?

Why can't we then say that the left won because unions can now have a voice?

 

We could. However, more accurately, the Petitioners won.

We could. However, more accurately, the Petitioners won.

 

Correct. My point is that neither side won and neither side lost.

Correct. My point is that neither side won and neither side lost.

 

The winners are the people of our nation, as the Constitution was upheld as intended by our Founding Fathers. A viewpoint that conservatives adhere to, not unions, although they benefit from the original intent of our Founding Fathers.