Alan Grayson Petitioning Against Looming Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision

[bobbyw24]

In response to news that the Supreme Court will hold a special public session on Thursday, which some expect could bring a highly-anticipated campaign finance decision, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) is circulating an online petition opposing the decision, which is expected to undo limits on corporate spending in federal campaigns.


The petition, which Grayson is operating via his reelection campaign, had 25,000 signatures as of Wednesday evening. "I can't remember us doing anything like this that drew so many petitioners in such a short time," Grayson said.

Here's the text:

Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable.

This issue transcends partisan political arguments. We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. You must stop this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/alan-grayson-petitioning_n_430743.html?&just_reloaded=1

[Elwar]

Instead we prohibit free speech. Such as Gary Johnson having to dodge every question about the possibility of his running because legally he can't say that he's running if he wants to keep his PAC.

The biggest campaign reform should be not giving politicians the power that attracts huge corporations.

[MsDoodahs]

I think the decision has already come down - I saw a headline break on Bloomers a few minutes ago...

[MsDoodahs]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60K3SK20100121

U.S. court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

[tangent4ronpaul]

It's worse than just Corporations - it's unions too. Unlimited spending, and they can do it right up to the election.

We are soooo screwed! :(

-t

[ItsTime]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227593

[Elwar]

It's worse than just Corporations - it's unions too. Unlimited spending, and they can do it right up to the election.

We are soooo screwed! :(

-t

I read the decision and it said that limits were still constitutional.

It is a win for the First Amendment.

[angelatc]

It's worse than just Corporations - it's unions too. Unlimited spending, and they can do it right up to the election.

We are soooo screwed! :(

-t

So if corporations are people, does this remove the campaign spending limits for individuals too?

Or did they keep our limits in place but give corporate america an endless tap?

[Elwar]

Decision can be found here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

I stand corrected:

Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b’s restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Given this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA §203’s extension of §441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled.


It reasons that corporate political speech can be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits,424 U.S., at 25, and the Court does not do so here.

Basically...because corporate expenditures were outlawed, there was no law giving a spending limit. So, with it being made lawful, there is still no limit.

[Epic]

Good decision by Supreme Court IMO - it's a lot more complicated than you guys may think. Read some Cato Policy Papers...

Unions and companies already do spend the money on campaigns, but they have to launder it and put it through a lot of PACs and nonprofits, etc... so there is no transparency.

This rule was why Rand Paul couldn't have his taxpayer group put up ads before the elections.

[Elwar]

This rule was why Rand Paul couldn't have his taxpayer group put up ads before the elections.

So...with this decision would Gary Johnson or Ron Paul be able to run ads through their PACs for 2012?

[HOLLYWOOD]

BOUGHT and PAID FOR... from Small Claims up to the Supreme Court... I've always said, why the hell are these people called "Honorable"?

THE WEALTHIEST Judicial Branch of Federal Government in History. That's not all... just read this... All I can say, Lawyers at all levels and magnitude, have cost the American People their wealth/Savings/Freedoms and Destroyed the country into decline. Even Bankruptcy Courts are corrupt.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DWNbcHjaNhsC&dq=Courting+Failure:+How+Competition+for+Big+Cases +Is+Corrupting+the+Bankruptcy+Courts+(&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=3JdYS_y4D4mVtgeultWlBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://blog.kir.com/archives/Courting%20failure2.jpg

[puppetmaster]

They can throw all the cash they want at the elections
Grassroots will always win if we stay the message in a large scale. We have to stoke the fire within people to be free!! This time in our history is perfect, as desparation will lead to open minds....

[Epic]

Cato:


today the supreme court struck a major blow for free speech by correctly holding that government cannot try to “level the political playing field” by banning corporations from making independent campaign expenditures on films, books, or even campaign signs.

As justice kennedy said in announcing the opinion, “if the first amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech.”

while the court has long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption in elections, it has also repeated that equalizing speech is never a valid government interest.

After all, to make campaign spending equal, the government would have to prevent some people or groups from spending less than they wished. That is directly contrary to protecting speech from government restraint, which is ultimately the heart of american conceptions about the freedom of speech.

No case demonstrates this idea better than citizens united, where a nonprofit corporation made no donations to candidates but rather spent money to spread its ideas about hillary clinton independent of the campaigns of primary opponent barack obama, potential general election opponent john mccain, or any other candidates. Where is the “corruption” if the campaign(s) being supported have no knowledge, let alone control over what independent actors do? — be they one person, two people, or a large group?

today’s ruling may well lead to more corporate and union election spending, but none of this money will go directly to candidates — so there is no possible corruption or even “appearance of corruption.” it will go instead to spreading information about candidates and issues. Such increases in spending should be welcome because studies have shown that more spending — more political communication — leads to better-informed voters.

in short, the citizens united decision has strengthened both the first amendment and american democracy.

[dantheman]

Raw Story posted a good article about how now International Corporations who own U.S. subsidiaries can get in on the campaign elections.

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/blogger-the-corporate-globalization-electoral-system/

Citgo, owned by Petróleos de Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, can essentially use their money here in the U.S. to buy TV ads bashing the opponent he dislikes. Did the Founding Fathers intend for this?!

As Rep. Alan Grayson put it, "You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Raw Story posted a good article about how now International Corporations who own U.S. subsidiaries can get in on the campaign elections.

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/blogger-the-corporate-globalization-electoral-system/

Citgo, owned by Petróleos de Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, can essentially use their money here in the U.S. to buy TV ads bashing the opponent he dislikes. Did the Founding Fathers intend for this?!

As Rep. Alan Grayson put it, "You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers."

Funny coming from Grayson. Does anyone here even believe that politicians, before this, weren't bought and paid for? Instead now, it'll be in the open instead of in the dark recesses. This is a win for us, and for the first Amendment. As I will say again, laws never stop what they intend to stop. Laws, should only be in existence for the punishment of crime, not to try and influence societal behavior.

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - 3 Reasons Not To Sweat The "Citizens United" SCOTUS Ruling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU&feature=related)