PDA

View Full Version : Federal judge rules that FEC law banning corporate campaign donations is unconstitutional!




devil21
05-31-2011, 03:33 AM
Big news here and another step into fascism and is right in line with SCOTUS's ruling that corporations are "citizens".

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/05/27/general-us-campaign-money_8488515.html



ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A judge has ruled that the campaign-finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional, citing the Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United decision last year in his analysis.

In a ruling issued late Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris tossed out part of an indictment against two men accused of illegally reimbursing donors to Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns.

Cacheris says that under the Citizens United decision, corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals to contribute to campaigns.

The ruling from the federal judge in Virginia is the first of its kind. The Citizens United case had applied only to corporate spending on campaigning by independent groups, like ads run by third parties to favor one side, not to direct contributions to the candidates themselves.

Cacheris noted in his ruling that only one other court has addressed the issue in the wake of Citizens United. A federal judge in Minnesota ruled the other way, allowing a state ban on corporate contributions to stand.

"(F)or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech," Cacheris wrote in his 52-page opinion. "Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within (the law's) limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing." more at link

t0rnado
05-31-2011, 03:54 AM
Making donations doesn't impede upon your rights or anyone else's whether it's an individual or a group doing it.

CaptUSA
05-31-2011, 04:31 AM
Yeah, exactly. I've always said, the way to limit the amount of money going to politicians is to limit their power to affect commerce. When that happens, the political donations will dry up.

Ray
05-31-2011, 05:44 AM
Corporations are just groups of people. The real problem is the ridiculous limit on personal campaign donations.

acptulsa
05-31-2011, 06:17 AM
Corporations are just groups of people.

Not just people. People who aren't limited in the amount they can donate the way non-stockholders are. Stockholders can donate themselves and donate through the company they partially own. And the more stock they own, the less these restrictions restrict them.

The fallacy of corporate personhood.

Pericles
05-31-2011, 08:08 AM
Not just people. People who aren't limited in the amount they can donate the way non-stockholders are. Stockholders can donate themselves and donate through the company they partially own. And the more stock they own, the less these restrictions restrict them.

The fallacy of corporate personhood.

That ^ The courts are on the path of legalizing the bribery of the political class.

acptulsa
05-31-2011, 08:10 AM
That ^ The courts are on the path of legalizing the bribery of the political class.

Well, well down that path. Dozens of things are legal today that would have been prosecuted as bribery when I was a kid.

CaptUSA
05-31-2011, 08:13 AM
If a politician doesn't have the power to affect commerce, there'd be no value in bribing them. You want to solve the wrong problem.

Brett85
05-31-2011, 08:14 AM
I don't know of any libertarians who support 1st amendment killing campaign finance laws. I thought I was over at the Daily Kos when I first read this thread.

jmhudak17
05-31-2011, 09:04 AM
I don't know of any libertarians who support 1st amendment killing campaign finance laws. I thought I was over at the Daily Kos when I first read this thread.

This. +Rep

ChaosControl
05-31-2011, 09:11 AM
I disagree with the decision. I'm sick of this country being corporate controlled.
What good is there supposedly being less government control when there is more corporate control, in the end it is exactly the same thing since the government is already corporate controlled. It's just changing the name, but having the same result. I don't even think corporations should exist, the only valid kinds of business should be sole proprietorships or partnerships.

angelatc
05-31-2011, 09:11 AM
Not just people. People who aren't limited in the amount they can donate the way non-stockholders are. Stockholders can donate themselves and donate through the company they partially own. And the more stock they own, the less these restrictions restrict them.

The fallacy of corporate personhood.

The problem is that the limits exist, though. And that they don't apply to all groups equally. Corporations and unions are roughly the same type of beast, but the rules about how they can contribute in politics is not the same.

sratiug
05-31-2011, 09:30 AM
There are no federal corporations. They have no rights because they do not exist.

HOLLYWOOD
05-31-2011, 09:32 AM
US Government does it through the CIA and US State Department daily... they use our funds to bribe FOREIGN politicians and political groups. It's illegal for a person or corporation to bribe a foreign government but the US Federal government can bribe, conspire and racketeer with anyone it wishes.

Typical HYPOCRISY of American Government... now the Corpor-Fascist partnership can protect themselves a little better courtesy of the SCOTUS. Notice how you're seeing more special interest TV commercial against/for certain candidates? Well, you'll see less from the candidates and more from their corporate sponsors/partners. FASCISM baby

stuntman stoll
05-31-2011, 09:35 AM
If a politician doesn't have the power to affect commerce, there'd be no value in bribing them. You want to solve the wrong problem.

bingo

devil21
05-31-2011, 03:25 PM
I don't know of any libertarians who support 1st amendment killing campaign finance laws. I thought I was over at the Daily Kos when I first read this thread.

Nonsense. Employees of corporations are allowed to donate within the legal limits just like anyone else. This ruling allows people to donate TWICE, if not more and at a large amount. A corporation is made up of people. A corporation is not a person. Allowing the employees to donate and THEN allowing the corporation itself to donate gives certain people the power to sway elections while excluding others from the same benefit. Seems to violate equal protection among other things. The First Amendment doesnt give one the ability to do things that other people (non-corporate) can't do. A corporation doesn't "do" anything. It's a paper entity. Someone, a person, is doing the donating.

(This is outside of the issue that people are considered corporations, not sovereign citizens)

CaptUSA
05-31-2011, 03:39 PM
Nonsense. Employees of corporations are allowed to donate within the legal limits just like anyone else. This ruling allows people to donate TWICE, if not more and at a large amount.

See, here lies the problem with your assertion. You suggest that this ruling "allows" people to donate twice, or more. Think about what laws are. You don't make laws to allow something - it's already allowed unless you make a law NOT to do something. It seems odd to me that you would like the government to regulate how much a corporation can spend on whatever it chooses. But, let's play this out. If a company like GE, which until recently owned NBC, has a media arm, then there'd be no restriction on how much speech that corporation could have. But if another company didn't have a media arm, they'd be limited by whatever limit congressed imposed upon them.

Again, I have to inform you that you are looking at correcting a symptom of the problem instead of the problem itself. The problem is not too much money going to politicians, the problem is politicians having too much power. If a corporation wants that power to view them favorably, they had better pay up. If you take away their power, you wouldn't have to infringe on anyone's right. A person, corporation, union, church, or glee club should be allowed to spend as much of their own money on whatever they wish.

devil21
05-31-2011, 03:44 PM
See, here lies the problem with your assertion. You suggest that this ruling "allows" people to donate twice, or more. Think about what laws are. You don't make laws to allow something - it's already allowed unless you make a law NOT to do something. It seems odd to me that you would like the government to regulate how much a corporation can spend on whatever it chooses. But, let's play this out. If a company like GE, which until recently owned NBC, has a media arm, then there'd be no restriction on how much speech that corporation could have. But if another company didn't have a media arm, they'd be limited by whatever limit congressed imposed upon them.

Again, I have to inform you that you are looking at correcting a symptom of the problem instead of the problem itself. The problem is not too much money going to politicians, the problem is politicians having too much power. If a corporation wants that power to view them favorably, they had better pay up. If you take away their power, you wouldn't have to infringe on anyone's right. A person, corporation, union, church, or glee club should be allowed to spend as much of their own money on whatever they wish.

Government and elections is not voluntary for the country. We can't opt out of the elections and what they bring upon us. All other things that NBC could spend on are voluntary and would ultimately only affect NBC.

I agree that politicians have too much power but frankly, we're running out of time and giving paper entities cart blanche to decide elections through unlimited donation and advertisement is FASCISM. Time is running out. Corporations are not people so why should they have more power than a person?

eta: Id be ok with a single corporation and it's subsidies combined allowed an additional $2400 per election phase. The alternative is to remove all barriers for individual donations. If Steve Forbes wants to donate $10 million to Ron Paul then he should be able. The issue here is that corporations are being recognized as "persons" yet are given MORE access than an actual living person. It needs to be equal or not at all.

Pericles
05-31-2011, 03:55 PM
So why don't corporations get to vote?

CaptUSA
05-31-2011, 03:56 PM
Well, if you think about it logically, spending on advertising is not the same as buying votes. It certainly can frame your message, but it's still up to the voter as to who gets into office. You can spend as much money as you want trying to get ME to vote for someone, but it won't matter. I'm not swayed. Corporations do not have more power to get someone elected, each individual still only gets one vote. (all of this is assuming fair elections) They can't decide elections. They're not buying votes.

But, did you miss my point about NBC? Why would they be allowed to have unlimited speech, but their competitors should be limited? They get to influence their audience, but DuPont can't because they don't have a media arm?

You should be able to donate as much as you want to any cause. It doesn't matter if you're one person or a corporation. It's up t your share-holders as to whether or not they approved of your expenditures. Haven't you had enough regulation?

devil21
05-31-2011, 04:01 PM
See my "eta" above. The real issue here, aside from our agreement that politicians have too much power, is that the table is tilted and people aren't given the same options as corporations are. Real, actual living people are limited to $2400 per election phase/cycle but now corporations are not. Equal protection clause guarantees that constitutional rights, including the First Amendment, apply equally to all. The corporations now have more First Amendment than everybody else.

CaptUSA
05-31-2011, 04:37 PM
Well then, if you believe it is a first amendment issue, then it should not be infringed. Right? Unlimited donations for anyone? Forget the $2400. We're in agreement here.

And if anyone can donate any amount, it shouldn't matter where the money came from, right? You can't have "more" 1st amendment protection since it only grants that a government will not infringe on the rights you already have. Any law that prevents the government from infringing would seem to be a good thing.

I don't mean to be less than understanding here. I used to hold your same position. I thought that anyone who could vote should be able to donate whatever they wish. It was only when I played the logic completely out that I found the fallacy of my original thought. You will too, just keep thinking it out. If you want a weed to stop growing, you have two options: keep pruning it back with more and more restrictions, or understand why it's growing in the first place and solve the real problem.

low preference guy
05-31-2011, 04:53 PM
What? There are people who are actually in favor of putting restrictions to donate to political candidates? What the heck?

I thought this thread was going to have people asking to eliminate ALL restrictions and the abolition of the FEC.

Anti Federalist
05-31-2011, 07:42 PM
Not just people. People who aren't limited in the amount they can donate the way non-stockholders are. Stockholders can donate themselves and donate through the company they partially own. And the more stock they own, the less these restrictions restrict them.

The fallacy of corporate personhood.


That ^ The courts are on the path of legalizing the bribery of the political class.


So why don't corporations get to vote?

Those ^^^

Entities of the state, wholly created by the state, now "allowed" to buy Representatives of the state that created, sustained and to they owe their very existence to.

Color me shocked.

A good question Pericles.

When does Wal Marx get voting rights?

puppetmaster
05-31-2011, 07:51 PM
so I can have as many corps as I want and each one can donate?

tangent4ronpaul
05-31-2011, 09:14 PM
What? There are people who are actually in favor of putting restrictions to donate to political candidates? What the heck?

I thought this thread was going to have people asking to eliminate ALL restrictions and the abolition of the FEC.

If you go to one on the sites that list individual political donations, the number of people that donated to Paul - or at least donated $200 or more, is relatively small. If Lockheed-Martin is allowed to donate a million - they will, and then mark up their products by the same amount that we will pay for with our tax dollars.

If a corporation is to have the same rights as a citizen, they should be limited to $2,400 per election cycle too (primary and general). Then it wouldn't matter.

A different way to do this would be to ban any politician that accepts corporate donations from serving on any committee or casting any vote that would benefit that corporation.

-t

low preference guy
05-31-2011, 09:16 PM
If you go to one on the sites that list individual political donations, the number of people that donated to Paul - or at least donated $200 or more, is relatively small. If Lockheed-Martin is allowed to donate a million - they will, and then mark up their products by the same amount that we will pay for with our tax dollars.

If a corporation is to have the same rights as a citizen, they should be limited to $2,400 per election cycle too (primary and general). Then it wouldn't matter.

A different was to do this would be to ban any politician that accepts corporate donations from serving on any committee or casting any vote that would benefit that corporation.

-t

Individuals own corporations. They can use the corporation to any ends they want that don't violate people's rights. Donating doesn't violate anyone's right. If you own a corporation, you can use it to donate all the damn money you want to anyone for any reason.

Where in article I section 8 does it say that the Federal Government has a right to regulate political donations?

low preference guy
05-31-2011, 09:17 PM
so I can have as many corps as I want and each one can donate?

you should. moreover, you should be able to donate as much money as you want without creating a corporation.

Pericles
06-01-2011, 01:24 PM
It used to work the other way in the 18th and 19th Century. Politicians bought voters with their own money.

Now, organizations buy politicians, who buy votes with other people's money.

Next step is to cut out the middleman. Just sayin'.