Judge Nap say that Justice Alito was Right

[bobbyw24]

The Supreme Court issued a ruling last week on the campaign finance that is still being discussed all over the country. In fact, it was even mentioned by President Obama at Wednesday night’s State of the Union address. The high court invalidated its own 20-year-old ruling -- which had upheld a one hundred-year-old statute on group political contributions -- and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law.

The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials.

The court also threw out the portion of McCain-Feingold law that had prohibited persons who pool their funds or contribute to Political Action Committees (PACs), from spending those funds, directly or through PACs, in the 60 day period preceding an election. Since that 60 day period preceding the election is the most vital in any campaign, the court held that the prohibition on expenditures during that time was a violation of the free speech guaranteed to all persons, individually and in groups, by the First Amendment.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/28/andrew-napolitano-obama-state-union-campaign-finance-alito-supreme-court/

[yokna7]

I am still confused on the ruling. I have read conflicting accounts of this ruling. The right says that that a ban on foreign funding is still a law, that only the ban on corporations funding has been lifted. Is this absolutely correct?

I really feel that with websites being the big resource of campaign funding is already a source of foreign funding. There is really no accountability in internet fundraising.

[bobbyw24]

I am still confused on the ruling. I have read conflicting accounts of this ruling. The right says that that a ban on foreign funding is still a law, that only the ban on corporations funding has been lifted. Is this absolutely correct?

I really feel that with websites being the big resource of campaign funding is already a source of foreign funding. There is really no accountability in internet fundraising.


In a sweeping 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down several longstanding prohibitions on corporate political contributions, saying legislative measures to control such spending infringed upon corporate First Amendment free speech rights.

The majority framed the decision, which will now allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited treasury funds on independent campaign expenditures, as essential to American democracy.

http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261

[yokna7]

In a sweeping 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down several longstanding prohibitions on corporate political contributions, saying legislative measures to control such spending infringed upon corporate First Amendment free speech rights.

The majority framed the decision, which will now allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited treasury funds on independent campaign expenditures, as essential to American democracy.

http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261

Yeah, I know that, but the portion of the statement that Alito was disagreeing with is what I want clarified. I believe they only overturned the law that stated corporations could not use general treasury funds to make electioneering communications, which was in the 2002 McCain-Feingold act and the portion of that bill that states that foreign entities cannot contribute in the same way is still in place.

So wasn't Obama wrong?

[disorderlyvision]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/28/andrew-napolitano-obama-state-union-campaign-finance-alito-supreme-court/


Despite claims made by the president, last week's Supreme Court opinion on campaign finance specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling last week on the campaign finance that is still being discussed all over the country. In fact, it was even mentioned by President Obama at Wednesday night’s State of the Union address. The high court invalidated its own 20-year-old ruling -- which had upheld a one hundred-year-old statute on group political contributions -- and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law.

The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials.

The court also threw out the portion of McCain-Feingold law that had prohibited persons who pool their funds or contribute to Political Action Committees (PACs), from spending those funds, directly or through PACs, in the 60 day period preceding an election. Since that 60 day period preceding the election is the most vital in any campaign, the court held that the prohibition on expenditures during that time was a violation of the free speech guaranteed to all persons, individually and in groups, by the First Amendment.

Thus, as a result of this ruling, all groups may spend their own money as they wish on any political campaigns, but they still may not--as groups--contribute directly to candidates’ campaigns. The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold that prevents corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups from giving money directly to candidates was not challenged in this case, thus its constitutionality was not an issue before the court. Groups will thus effectively be running and financing their own campaigns for candidates independent of those candidates’ campaigns.

The case arose in the context of a challenge by an advocacy group that produced a 90-minute motion picture called "Hillary: The Movie," a highly critical movie about Hillary Clinton, to a ruling by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC had ruled that in reality the movie was an anti-Hillary political ad. And, since it was financed by an advocacy group, it was banned under the Supreme court's 20- year-old ruling, the one that the Court just invalidated. That movie can now, two years after it was made and eighteen months after Sen. Clinton abandoned her presidential campaign, be distributed and viewed.

During the course of oral argument on this case in October in the Supreme Court, one of the FEC's lawyers replied to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia to the effect that the FEC could ban books if they were paid for by corporations, labor unions, or advocacy groups. This highly un-American statement in the Supreme Court by a government lawyer--that the federal government can ban political books--infuriated a few of the justices. The conservative justices were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote between the conservative and liberal blocs on the Court. The Court's newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined the dissent.

On Wednesday night, during his State of the Union address, the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. When he said this, Justice Samuel Alito, who was seated just 15 feet from the president, gently whispered: “That’s not true.” Justice Alito was right. The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling. So the president, the former professor of law at the one of the country’s best law schools, either did not read the opinion, or was misrepresenting it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is Fox New Channel's senior judicial analyst.

[FrankRep]

The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig. by Thomas R. Eddlem

The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2808-the-coming-small-business-revolution-on-politics-after-citizens-united-v-fec

[yokna7]

The last paragraph is what I was looking for. We were discussing this here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228801

Obama just Pwned himself on national tv.................again.

[LibertyEagle]

Good to see this. Clarifies a lot. Thanks for posting it. :)

[disorderlyvision]

Good to see this. Clarifies a lot. Thanks for posting it. :)

no problem ;)

[TCE]

Yeah, I know that, but the portion of the statement that Alito was disagreeing with is what I want clarified. I believe they only overturned the law that stated corporations could not use general treasury funds to make electioneering communications, which was in the 2002 McCain-Feingold act and the portion of that bill that states that foreign entities cannot contribute in the same way is still in place.

So wasn't Obama wrong?

Obama stated that he wants a bill passed to ban corporations from spending money in political campaigns, especially foreign companies. Allito was shaking his head because free speech is free speech no matter what the bill says. If such a bill gets passed, the court system should be able to strike it down again.

You are right, but that is basically what Obama said. He doesn't want corporations using their funds to influence elections.

[dannno]

Well maybe if the court struck down all the other un-constitutional laws congress has passed we wouldn't be living in a corporatist society.

[TCE]

Well maybe if the court struck down all the other un-constitutional laws congress has passed we wouldn't be living in a corporatist society.

This is a good first step, though, especially if the provision from McCain-Feingold that groups can't advertise within 60 days of an election was struck down. Rand was complaining about that because the Kentucky Taxpayers Union couldn't run any ads.

[RyanRSheets]

They struck the spending limit for corporations but left it in effect for individuals. This was probably part of the plan all along. Watch a case for individuals get thrown out.

[TCE]

They struck the spending limit for corporations but left it in effect for individuals. This was probably part of the plan all along. Watch a case for individuals get thrown out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._Federal_Election_Commission

In the first case challenging McCain-Feingold, it was 5-4 to keep it intact, but this time it is 5-4 in the right direction. O'Connor's essentially swapped for Alito's, and so we got it right this time. If McConnell vs. FEC were to come up again, McCain-Feingold would be almost surely thrown out.

[tuco.sargent]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._Federal_Election_Commission

In the first case challenging McCain-Feingold, it was 5-4 to keep it intact, but this time it is 5-4 in the right direction. O'Connor's essentially swapped for Alito's, and so we got it right this time. If McConnell vs. FEC were to come up again, McCain-Feingold would be almost surely thrown out.

I hope it does come up again. If they're for PACs giving an unlimited amount to politicians then how can they be against individuals doing so?

[Dustancostine]

I hope it does come up again. If they're for PACs giving an unlimited amount to politicians then how can they be against individuals doing so?

Just form a one man PAC.

[erowe1]

They struck the spending limit for corporations but left it in effect for individuals.

I don't think limits for individuals were even part of the case.

But, pardon my ignorance, what limits for individuals are you talking about? Am I currently prohibited from self-publishing a book about a person running for office within a certain time period before an election the way the federal government was arguing a corporation should not be allowed to do in this case? And if such a prohibition really does apply to me as an individual, it would seem that this ruling still does recognize that right on my part, even if indirectly, since I could just form a corporation and do the same thing by way of that.

[hotbrownsauce]

I don't know if I want businesses doing any more damage than they already do such as when they are lobbying. And I don't agree with suppressing free speech by individuals or by individuals when in groups.

[bossman068410]

3 Reasons Not To Sweat The "Citizens United" SCOTUS Ruling

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