And the same restrictions that applied to them "a century" (Obama's words) ago still apply. The SCOTUS overturned McCain/Feingold stuff; not a 100-year-old law.

 

You are wrong.

 

"Citizens United is what is known as a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Specifically, Citizens United held that laws banning corporations from spending their vast treasuries to influence elections violates the constitution because they “impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.” Congress could not call out one class of entities—corporations in the Citizens United case itself—and place limits on how much they can spend to broadcast their views about the election.

 

When the Supreme Court hands down a constitutional decision, the effect is not simply to strike down a single law. Rather, any law which conflicts with the Supreme Court’s reasoning is no longer enforceable. Thus, for example, when the Supreme Court declared public school segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education, it didn’t just mean that Linda Brown got to go to a previously whites-only school. It meant that all segregated public schools anywhere in America would eventually be shut down."

 

From ThinkProgress.org

 

 

The ruling does not apply only to McCain/Feingold. It is broad reaching.

The Supremes did not overturn a century's law. What was restricted in the early 20th century is still restricted--direct contributions from corporations/unions to political campaigns.

From what I'm hearing and reading, you are wrong.

And this is based on what?

 

 

Really, this should be another thread.

 

But, if I am going to get into it, let me just ask:

 

Even if I put a lot of effort into my explanation, would it have any impact on what you think about the issue at all?

You are wrong.

 

"Citizens United is what is known as a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Specifically, Citizens United held that laws banning corporations from spending their vast treasuries to influence elections violates the constitution because they “impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.” Congress could not call out one class of entities—corporations in the Citizens United case itself—and place limits on how much they can spend to broadcast their views about the election.

 

When the Supreme Court hands down a constitutional decision, the effect is not simply to strike down a single law. Rather, any law which conflicts with the Supreme Court’s reasoning is no longer enforceable. Thus, for example, when the Supreme Court declared public school segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education, it didn’t just mean that Linda Brown got to go to a previously whites-only school. It meant that all segregated public schools anywhere in America would eventually be shut down."

 

From ThinkProgress.org

 

 

The ruling does not apply only to McCain/Feingold. It is broad reaching.

 

From what I'm hearing and reading, you are wrong.

According to a source the two of you have seemed to like in the past, the Huffington Post, you guys are wrong.

 

But the Court did not overturn "a century of law." The provision upended by the Court was only seven years old. It was a novel innovation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law adopted during the Bush Administration.

 

There is "a century of law" restricting direct corporate contributions to candidates. Last week's decision didn't address that law. While the logic of the opinion -- which says corporate speech is entitled to the same protection as individual speech -- calls into question the corporate contribution ban, it doesn't overturn it. And the Court has traditionally treated direct contributions differently from so-called "independent expenditures" -- ads that discuss candidates but financed by private parties without the candidate's help.

According to a source the two of you have seemed to like in the past, the Huffington Post, you guys are wrong.

 

But the Court did not overturn "a century of law." The provision upended by the Court was only seven years old. It was a novel innovation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law adopted during the Bush Administration.

 

There is "a century of law" restricting direct corporate contributions to candidates. Last week's decision didn't address that law. While the logic of the opinion -- which says corporate speech is entitled to the same protection as individual speech -- calls into question the corporate contribution ban, it doesn't overturn it. And the Court has traditionally treated direct contributions differently from so-called "independent expenditures" -- ads that discuss candidates but financed by private parties without the candidate's help.

I don't read the Huffington Post and have never linked to it, RTS, which partly explains your consistent misassessment of my views.

 

And I said nothing about how long the law had been in effect, although I should have eliminated that part from his post I quoted.

I don't read the Huffington Post and have never linked to it, RTS, which partly explains your consistent misassessment of my views.

 

And I said nothing about how long the law had been in effect, although I should have eliminated that part from his post I quoted.

I did say seemed. Add that to your consistent misassessment of me...

 

Since you didn't, it was fair game. No?

I did say seemed. Add that to your consistent misassessment of me...

I have never misassessed your views ... they're patently obvious in virtually every anti-Obama thread you start.

I have never misassessed your views ... they're patently obvious in virtually every anti-Obama thread you start.

Don't recall any pro-Bush threads you ever started....

 

I have at least started a pro-Obama thread before, which you chose to ignore. :sssh:

Don't recall any pro-Bush threads you ever started....

 

I have at least started a pro-Obama thread before, which you chose to ignore. :sssh:

Do you remember any anti-Bush threads I started?

Really, this should be another thread.

 

But, if I am going to get into it, let me just ask:

 

Even if I put a lot of effort into my explanation, would it have any impact on what you think about the issue at all?

 

Never mind.

 

My reason for asking was to see how you could possibly believe that true; not to see whether or not you could change my mind.

You are wrong.

 

"Citizens United is what is known as a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Specifically, Citizens United held that laws banning corporations from spending their vast treasuries to influence elections violates the constitution because they “impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.” Congress could not call out one class of entities—corporations in the Citizens United case itself—and place limits on how much they can spend to broadcast their views about the election.

 

When the Supreme Court hands down a constitutional decision, the effect is not simply to strike down a single law. Rather, any law which conflicts with the Supreme Court’s reasoning is no longer enforceable. Thus, for example, when the Supreme Court declared public school segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education, it didn’t just mean that Linda Brown got to go to a previously whites-only school. It meant that all segregated public schools anywhere in America would eventually be shut down."

 

From ThinkProgress.org

 

 

The ruling does not apply only to McCain/Feingold. It is broad reaching.

 

Actually, as usual, I'm right. And here's two consistently liberal sources to back me up--the Huffington Post & New York Times.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/alito-was-rude-but-right_b_440207.html

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/?scp=2&sq=linda%20greenhouse&st=cse

Actually, as usual, I'm right. And here's two consistently liberal sources to back me up--the Huffington Post & New York Times.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/alito-was-rude-but-right_b_440207.html

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/?scp=2&sq=linda%20greenhouse&st=cse

 

From the NY Times blog you linked:

 

It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

 

So here is what happens - everybody gives money how they want to in this years election and nobody can stop the corporations until there is another SCOTUS case when they decide specifically on the motion. Until then, the ruling is so broad as to render what the President said as true.

From the NY Times blog you linked:

 

It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

 

So here is what happens - everybody gives money how they want to in this years election and nobody can stop the corporations until there is another SCOTUS case when they decide specifically on the motion. Until then, the ruling is so broad as to render what the President said as true.

 

I was simply making the factual point that what was illegal 100 years ago is still illegal. Corporations cannot take money directly from their treasuries and give them to pol. campaigns.

 

I'll grant that they can get loopholes around this. But the President made it seem as though the SCOTUS was overturning some law that had been on the books for a century, when that is factually not true. It just isn't. The law is still there.

It is interesting to see reaction from the person occupying the office of the POTUS and of those that are anti-corporation to this recent supreme court ruling.

 

The demonization of 'big corporations' is a major theme of the current administration and has a somewhat populist ring. So it is definitely fashionable.

 

But it is interesting that most of the opposition to McCain-Feingold has come from non-corporation entities. The original law was challenged by the following group - California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. Now there an interesting mix - hyper liberal Left coasters with hyper conservative NRA and McConnell.

 

Parts of the law were struck down in 2006 by a case that was brought on by....Wisconson Right to Life. That weakening of the law was not brought on by 'big corporation' but by a freely assembled group of like minded people who felt they were being 'disenfranchised' (my term) from the political process. Actually, using contitutional verbiage - they were being denied the right to petition as a group - at least for the 60 days before an election.

 

And the most recent ruling was brought about by legal action by a non-profit group.

 

So why the demonizing of only the corporations by the POTUS? Why not demonize unions, non-profits and other freely assembled groups that want the right to speak freely, even 60 days before an election? It is these groups that have brought the legal action that has restored many rights the original McCain-Feingold removed.

 

Good background and source for some of above:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform

 

The 8,000 lb elephant (and donkey) in the room is the power of the 2 national parties and the issue of 'soft money'. PACs, unions, groups, corporations, etc. can give to them freely and do so. This gives enormous and vast financial and other resources to the Republican and Demcratic parties. With their resources they can greatly help or punish a candidate in their own party. This can make the individual politician in certain states or districts where this 'national' help is needed completely beholding to the party. To me, that is dangerous. A politician always has to evalute who his true to when there is conflict of opinion and action between his/her own personal views, those of his/her voters, the country and the nation party. I would like to think that the order of his/her decision making is how I laid it out above. But with the influence of national party money in elections I am afraid the national party interests get moved to the top in terms of influencing politicians votes. I do not know what the percentage of 'party line votes' is historically. But it seems that 'party line' votes are far more common today. I contend tht is due to the need of politicians to be beholding to the national party and their resources at election time.

 

But you will never hear any politician say the problem is with the national parties. So it must be - those evil big corporations!

Do you remember any anti-Bush threads I started?

I certainly recall you just piling on.