PDA

View Full Version : Question: New Campaign Finance Laws and C4L




ItsTime
01-24-2010, 05:39 PM
Does the SC ruling help C4L? Can they now run campaign ads or no?

low preference guy
01-24-2010, 05:46 PM
Gleen Greenwald writes (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html):


But the speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood

He is a leftist but he is really good on civil liberties.

angelatc
01-24-2010, 05:48 PM
Gleen Greenwald writes (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html):



He is a leftist but he is really good on civil liberties

But the ACLU and Planned Parenthood were only restricted from speaking in the last few days leading up to an election. Both of those organizations have PACs that can spend money during campaigns. C4L isn't a PAC.

low preference guy
01-24-2010, 05:49 PM
I just wanted to point out to an article related to the issue. I am not arguing either way. I don't know. It'll be nice to get the word from people in the know.

angelatc
01-24-2010, 05:53 PM
I just wanted to point out to an article related to the issue. I am not arguing either way. I don't know. It'll be nice to get the word from people in the know.

It's a great article. I especially liked this line:
Does anyone doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case -- namely, the government's banning the release of a critical film about Hillary Clinton by Citizens United -- is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid?

low preference guy
01-24-2010, 05:57 PM
Yes, I agree with that line. But at the same time I was aware that many people would not "doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid" because the thought wouldn't even cross their mind. They just think "Corporations!... Evil!", "Government! Good!".

dr. hfn
01-24-2010, 06:24 PM
bump for an answer

Live_Free_Or_Die
01-24-2010, 06:33 PM
Yes, I agree with that line. But at the same time I was aware that many people would not "doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid" because the thought wouldn't even cross their mind. They just think "Corporations!... Evil!", "Government! Good!".

Let me correct your analogy.

Government!...Evil!, Corporations!....Created by Government!

romacox
01-24-2010, 07:06 PM
Understand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-goldman-sachs-and.html

Travlyr
01-24-2010, 07:17 PM
Bump for answer.


Understand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-goldman-sachs-and.html

While the FED is reported to be a private corporation, it is convoluted. Their officers are chosen by government. So are they really private or are they a government-banking fascist cartel?

Matt Collins
01-24-2010, 07:18 PM
YouTube - A Non-Deranged, Law-Based Special Comment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFGpoxnbfeI&feature=player_embedded)

low preference guy
01-24-2010, 07:27 PM
Let me correct your analogy.

Government!...Evil!, Corporations!....Created by Government!

That's what a leftist would say?

angelatc
01-24-2010, 07:32 PM
Understand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-goldman-sachs-and.html

So, and I am loosely plagarazing Glenn Greenwald here - do you deny that the government specifically prohobited a movie designed to taint the reputation of Hillary Clinton with the law in place? That the movie was only illegal during a specific period of time?

If corporations don't have rights, should the FBI be allowed to wiretap their phones at random? Stop by and rifle through their file cabinets at will?

Should we really support the precedent of not upholding the law of the land because the outcome might be undesirable?

angelatc
01-24-2010, 07:35 PM
My in opinion, the C4L's position hasn't changed. They are a tax exempt organization, and as such are exempt from endorsing candidates. I don't see how this would change that status.

Imperial
01-25-2010, 12:48 AM
Has anyone gotteen the impression it is like removing Glass-Steagall did with the economy- the regulation may have been bad, but in the massively regulated system we have now it was necessary?

I get somewhat of a similar impression here.

low preference guy
01-25-2010, 01:08 AM
Has anyone gotteen the impression it is like removing Glass-Steagall did with the economy- the regulation may have been bad, but in the massively regulated system we have now it was necessary?

I get somewhat of a similar impression here.

Explanation of the repeal of Glass Steagall:

It removed the restrictions on the banks to gamble. At the same time it keep the guarantees of covering the bank losses.

It removed the fear but unleashed the greed. But Peter Schiff often says: in a free market you need both greed and fear. If you repealed Glass Steagall, you also had to repeal the FDIC.

I fail to see how that is analogous to removing restrictions of political expending by corporations. Could you elaborate?

Matt Collins
07-11-2010, 07:48 PM
YouTube - 3 Reasons Not To Sweat The "Citizens United" SCOTUS Ruling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU&feature=related)