A Resounding Defense of the First Amendment: ‘Congress Shall Make No Law’
by David BossieThursday, in his resounding defense of the First Amendment in the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority:
…[w]hen Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
“Censorship” is a dirty word in America, and that is why the restrictions at issue in our case were cloaked in the guise of “campaign finance reform.” But the fact remains that any restrictions on political speech, especially those that criminalize such speech, send us down a very slippery and very dangerous slope.
Last March, our government argued in court that it has the Constitutional authority to ban books that mention a candidate for federal office. The government later retracted that statement, but is there any doubt that such a statement never would have been made if there had not been 100 years of progressively more intrusive restrictions on political speech preceding it? Had the Court not acted, what was to prevent the government from asserting that authority over the internet, which does not have the benefit of two centuries of tradition and jurisprudence protecting it?
There is also the practical issue of the relatively unremarked and inconvenient fact that 28 states permit corporate political speech during elections. Virginia, which recently held a gubernatorial election, is one such example. If , as many argue, corporate political speech is corrupting by definition, where was the impropriety in that election? In fact, I would challenge opponents of our case to compare the corruption levels in states prohibiting corporate and union expenditures with states that allow it. I think that such a comparison would demonstrate that corporate speech is not inherently corrupting.
Finally, as the Court acknowledged, the position that corporations cannot engage in political speech has a fatal logical flaw. Almost every major media outlet in the country is owned by a corporation and most of them advocate for or against candidates via endorsements, opinion columns, or politically-oriented programming. Why should General Electric, which owns MSNBC, be permitted to use its nearly unlimited resources to influence elections, while I, who made Hillary The Movie using corporate funds for roughly .03% of the budget, could be put in prison for airing the documentary?
This issue has little to do with corporate speech. The real issue is whether or not we are willing to take a giant leap down the slippery slope towards government regulation of the content of books, movies, or even the internet. As Justice Kennedy wrote yesterday, “For me, the choice between putting up with corporate ads or jailing citizens for political speech is a simple one. Thankfully for all Americans, the Supreme Court agrees.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
103 Comments
Thank you David Bossie. You are a true American hero.
Our President said about this ruling, "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest." Really? I can.
The SCOTUS decision was most appropriate and correct in every form. HOWEVER…… do NOT lose sight of the fact that FOUR justices voted AGAINST the First Amendment. America ! Stay alert !
"…[w]hen Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
EXCELLENT!
That statement? It just put the last nail in the coffin of Health Care. Read it, carefully and slowly.
And yet this was a 5 – 4 decision in the court. Just one more appointment by this "progressive" regime could change the balance of the court, and in this case the government's position on "banning books" would have been upheld.
How motivated should we be to elect strict constitutionalists to Congress in November, and to the presidency in 2012?
Isn't it an oxymoron that newspapers are 'owned' by corporations, and yet they ALWAYS endorse a candidate, usually a Democrat…and yet they are yelling the loudest??
Very motivated. No option.
Well done David Bossie. Strike a real blow for freedom, and most especially freedom of speech. We are in a struggle for this great Republic, and it’s efforts like this that will make the difference! Right-on America!
It would be rude of you to make the newspapers endure competition. You know those journalists are very smart and read the New York Times. They know what's best for us all.
I will never understad why the McCain/Feingold Bill wasn't struck down as unconstitutional when it first passed. I always thought that the Supreme Court job was to protect us from congress making laws that violate the Constitution of the great country. With a five to four split in the court tells me that some on that court cannot even read the Constitution, maybe that's because it is written in such clear plain language.
I am starting to feel hopeful.
Kudos to you David, and a job well done by Ted Olsen.
There are many definitions regarding Corporations….The simplest one is: A Corporation is a Political Entity licensed to do business. Therefore, they are technically Political lst of all. And Business 2ndly, with the various benefits and protections…that non-corporate, citizen-owned businesses do not have. Evidently, they don't have to behave acdg to American or State loyalities or interests.
To me, and I'm probably wrong; I consider them to be a foreigner with no voting rights, as they are a non-citizen.
You make a great point, CL. Might I mention that SCOTUS just leveled the playing field against the unions with this momentous decision. I find it totally hypocritical that Obama opted out of campaign reform while running and "going private" in securing campaign contributions where he generated significantly more money.
The ObamaPOS vows he will attempt legislation to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. Bright man trying to end run the Supreme Court. What a fool. Go ahead, Hussein! The people are watching you very very closely. I think, frankly, that you are currently finished. Your lame-duck status is yours now. Stupid man….
If America ever wanted the right man to defend the Constitution it is Ted Olsen. I have followed his arguments over the years. He is a supremely (no pun) gifted and talented Constitutional attorney. Google him.
Man does not make law.
He sure is entertaining, eh?
You mean the Ginzburg who wants to lower the age of consent for young females from 18 (in most states) to TWELVE YEARS OF AGE ? Or Sotomayor who is the Courts biggest racist ? How about Breyer who prefers "enlightened" European law as a preference ? These people should have been removed for breach.
I wonder how many of our readers here understand the ObamaPOS statement to end run the Supreme Court. Our Marxist president is saying that he will (as Wilson and Roosevelt attempted) offensively and ostensibly tear down the First Amendement that belongs to the American people. Is there any further convincing required as to WHO this SOB really is ? Any attempt would be an act of treason and a breach of his oath. Watch for comments from Ted Olsen if this gains traction.
While I delight in the daily nitwittery that comes from the Dali Bama and his Band of Merry Men, I am cringing at what is happening to my country while they play President.
unquestionably, although his notoriety increased dramatically for his involvement in the 2000 election, and the sad and untimely death of his wife on 9/11.
When the POTUS feels the Constitution is a living document open to translation, should any of us be surprised at his blatant disregard for our liberties?
And just to prove that nobody was listening over 9 years ago…check this article out. Make sure to watch the video. It's not new news by any means, but it has only been news since after he was already elected. Yet another point as to why this ruling is so important…!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obama...
Ted Olsen is a good, steady all around hand. He is savvy, and does not jump into the fray unless it is relevant. i have admired him for years. Do you recall his wife? That sure was sad, eh?
So when will Hillary The Movie be available? I would be happy to chip in for four more copies to be sent to the dissenters.
Thank God there are, at a minimum, five people in Washington who get it.
Democrats Shocked That Supreme Court Would Rule That Groups of Individuals As Well As Individuals Have Free Speech Rights http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/01/democrats-sho...
This argument could not have come at a worst time. We had this clown cornered, now this rapper is back with a different band.
Obama wrote a brand new tune now that his health care song dropped out of the hit parade.
His anti bank/corporation tune hit the air waves yesterday and all the disc jockeys on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC are going to try and jamb this song down our throats, just like they tried with Obamcare.
I just hope the Republicans don't have to rely on another pick up truck driver to save our country. Guys like Scott Brown do not come around that often.
try this one Gregory–Corporation-(n)-"A legal creation with the rights and liabilities of a person"- Webster's Dictionary.. Yes–.You are definitely wrong…
The supreme court ruled through Mc Cain that terrorist can now influence our election process through corp. and the Republicans cheer? SC once again ignores the constitution and commits murder or have the republicans forgot one of their other supreme rulings about abortion.
The supreme court ruled through Mc Cain that terrorist can now influence our election process through corp. and the Republicans cheer? SC once again ignores the constitution and commits murder or have the republicans forgot one of their other supreme rulings about abortion.
exactly where in the constitution does say a corp is a person?
Unfortunately the Justices on the Supreme Court can not bring litigation to court on their own in order to determine its' constitutionality , they can only do this when someone takes the issue to them.
McCain's name on this silly piece of legislation made things just a tad dicey.
Anyway, the important thing is that freedom of speech is once again the way the constitution intended it to be.
With this 5-4 ruling it is becoming apparent that Justice Kennedy is becoming the most important man in the United States.
Why wouldn't these Progressives like this ruling? They threw a conniption fit when Palin may or may not looking to ban a book. They should celebrate this ruling!
Three cheers for upholding the freedome of speech and our constitution SCOTUS and a pox on the head of POTUS . Guess his hope and change for an American dictatorship has been in his words "buzz sawed" This has been the best week in two years for the whole country even for those coolaid drinkers who have not yet seen the light. Come November the final blow for the communist pigs in Washington and we can all go on with our normal lives again
WATCH AMERICA! The "PROGRESSIVES" CONTROL THIS SITE TOO!
Corporations represent their collective stockholders just as Unions represent their collective members. One person cannot stand up to the Obama worshiping Corporation called MSNBC. However, another Corporation can. The left has long fed you the line that Corporations are evil. They are employers of many many working Americans. However, those who get their funds from "Government programs" would not understand this.
My friend, the Constitution does not say that a corporation is a person; although the Constitution does make reference to "person" or "persons". Case law, throughout the ages, have designated corporations as "persons". You know that I agree with you on these points.
You said: "terrorist can now influence our election process through corp."
Wasn't that the case during the election, when Obama opted out of funding, instead electing to receive "private funds" from "undisclosed sources"?
Let us not forget that Roberts, Alieto, Thomas and Scalia are not going to be around forever.
Kennedy so far has proven to be on the right side of the constitution for the most part.
I am sure there are a lot more Sotamayors out there and Obama knows where they are at.
Let,s just hope there are more truck driving wanna be American senators out there as well.
To me, a corporation airing ads supporting or opposing a political issue or candidate is little different than the many grass-root activist groups and unions doing the same thing.
Corporations do have a vested interest in government policies that effect business just as individuals have a vested interest in government policies that effect the individual. As corporations provide jobs and other economic benefits to this country, I have no problem with them having some voice in the public arena.
Ralph,
Haven't you heard Obama's new song? It is going to be HUGE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpevc2t_Frw
corp are also made of and owned by Foreigners. so your happy that terrorist can influnce our election process. Your happy that you basically gave them the right to vote?
Please defend giving another weapon to a terrorist.
Please defend diminishing the voice of those who fought the terrorist.
We the people have stood up to the BO machine and we didn't need hand out by the government or their entity a corp.
case law yes not the constitution. case law is wrong then.. it is wrong now.
BO was very wrong,
My concern is a corp is an arm of the government a creation of government. a corp is property of people.
property is taxed
people are not.
the moment government property is a person then a person will become property and taxed.
we are very close to that in health care.
property tax clearly states we rent our land from the government and it can be taken away.
each step we take to making humans property is one day closer to slavery and the ovens.
.
Where's the liberal love for social justice and free speech?
Currently, media corporations Disney, GE and Time-Warner, NYT, LA times, have a virtual monopoly on political free speech and it's all left wing — where's the social justice in that?
This is a victory for all Americans.
.
Heard it on the Limbaugh show yesterday.
I can't wait to see what the top hits will be in November.
Why is this so hard for anyone, whose IQ is higher than Teddy Kennedy's blood alcohol content, to grasp this?
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.
No truer, nor powerful words were ever penned, or spoken.
corp. is a business an entity of the government. it is property and thus taxed
property tax means you rent your proprty from the government or they will take it away
where is the victory? your voice was diminished. they gave property a voice in the election process.
How much did corporations control the elections prior to McCain/Feingold.
Kennedy / Johnson / Nixon / Carter / Reagan / Bush / Clinton / Bush……… ????
I, for the life of me, just can not see this cororate Boogie man.
they have been giving me a paycheck for the last 45 years.
As far as i am concerned, that gives them just as much right a I do to formulate opinion that will determine who shall be president.
What happens when a college professor, as an individual, uses his position as an educator of a certain course in a classroom and expresses a political opinion to his captive audience.
And the topic of his opinion is completely foreign to the subject matter of the particular course that he was contracted to teach.
Let us hope that the day will come when we all recognize that freedom of speech should never again be questioned or challenged no matter what the forum.
A PROGRESSIVE TAKEOVER DOES NOT CARE ABOUT ANY BILL OF RIGHTS, AMENDMENT I OR ANYTHING ELSE!
OUR BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE "TARGET" OF THE "PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT" NOW IN WASHINGTON!
THEY HAVE BEEN CHIPPING AWAY AT OUR BILL OF RIGHTS SINCE MARXISM BEGAN!
Woo Hoo! more influence for " bailout seeking" banks, SEIU and Moveon.org, I'm sure that will end well. It's for the best I supose. I have long felt that individual tax paying citizens have too much power in the electoral proceess.
Hooray! for expensive highly polished propoganda in the form of "grass-roots activisim" all unwittingly paid for with your purchasing dollars or someone's forced upon them union dues.
Hooray for Freedom! I'm sure Nathan Hale is proud to have spilled his blood for ACORN's ability to influence congress.
Although I don't want corporations and organizations donating money to political campaigns (making the individual personal donation insignificant) I applaud the supreme court for upholding the first amendment. This may also prevent the re-implementation of the "fairness doctrine" to silence conservative talk shows and commentators.
THE ILLEGAL PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS AFTER ONE WASTED YEAR IN OFFICE!
NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED! THERE IS NO CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN TO REPORT! IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT!
The End!
Check out the new version of "Mmm Mmm Mmm Barack hussein Obama" at: http://www.myspace.com/rogerweber
You'll get a laugh!
A PROGRESSIVE TAKEOVER DOES NOT CARE ABOUT ANY BILL OF RIGHTS, AMENDMENT I OR ANYTHING ELSE!
no one wins with this ruling
it simply says property has a bigger voice than a person.
I do remember…. Flight 77 and the pentagon as well as the controversy surrounding the account.
Media Corporations use their money to hock for politicians on a daily basis and I don't see the Federal Election Commission shutting MSNBC down over their coverage. It's called free speech. Kennedy was dead on. The dissenting judges stated that it would corrupt the electoral process because they had no Constitutional argument to put forth. They were there to rule on the Constitutionality of the law. But they don't care about the law and couldn't come up with a Constitutional rationale for their decision, so they threw out more social justice BS.
If I were you, I would worry less about the definition of a person and more about what our judges are doing. Because I can assure you, it isn't jurisprudence.
[...] Read more at Big Government [...]
barbarian, if you're really concerned about the Constitution, then look at this short video about the case. It will explain why this law was unconstitutional. And why it directly effects YOU. Trust me, you won't like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM&fe...
or search youtube for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Leg-up-tingly feeling??? Me too.
BHO upset over SC turn on McCain/Feingold? Hmmm…could it be boss-man Soros has demanded a return on his investments? McCain – Obama have a direct connection, both have extensive histories involving Soros. Follow the money, anyone connected to Soros is bought and paid for.
[1] Soros bankrolled the BHO fraud election. To this date BHO has not disclosed the source of $600million 2009 BHO directed campaign "donations".
[2] Soros bankrolled the inglorious McCain-Feingold bill [campaign finance “reform” law that nobody but Soros wanted]. Using phony research polls, Soros was able to sell the hoax that the American people were desperate for campaign finance reform. The creation of 527 organizations essentially allowed George Soros to purchase the Democrat Party, albeit somewhat stealthily. David Horowitz and Richard Poe correctly refer to Soros as head of the Shadow Party, a party within the Democrat Party. This Shadow Party is now, via BHO, unmistakably ruling the country.
Arizona, my God, what will it take to get rid of McCain?
As for BHO: he could be gone today if only Breitbart or Drudge would report the facts about Hawaii DOH.
BHO COVER-UP in Hawaii DOH.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/10/red-flags-...
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/12/his-name-i...
What? Your kidding right? Are you reading the U.S. Constitution?
Tip: It's the one that DOES NOT include the name Hugo.
In his radio/you tube address, Obama vowed to 'overturn' this?
How? And isn't this man a 'constitutional lawyer'? Didn't he teach 'constitutional law' to students?
Surely he would remember something in the constitution called THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!! And something in that 1st amendment, something like "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF".
And that, as a constitutional lawyer, he would have heard of "Marbury v. Madison"? In which ensured judicial review to the courts of our laws?
I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on tv, and I know this stuff. Now, more than ever, I want to see his education records, cause even pre-law students know this crap.
The point is that a corporation is not a PERSON. A person can vote, a corporation can not. There is no other argument. You can not make a single point that would change the fact that corporations do not equal voters and elections are about voters.
The courts judgement is one that is also distortional. PERSONS are granted the freedom of speech in the constituion, not corporations.
By the way, the contition, unless it's hiding it in secret, does not make reference to the financing of campaigns.
cl
THANK GOD. I HEAR OBAMA IS GOING TO GO AFTER THE HIGH COURT, HE'S A LITTLE BIT PISSED OFF?
SO, HE DONE WITH HEALTHCARE THAT IS HE CAN'T FORCE CITIZENS TO SIGN UP? WHAT OTHER B.S. CAN ''WE THE PEOPLE'' GO AFTER .
There goes my job application with the thought police….right into the trash.
Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
How is it even possible to descent on this issue? Those nominated to the United States Supreme Court are suppose to be the Greatest Constitutional Minds our Country has to offer. This 1st Amendment Issue is Constitution 101. There should be a explanation for voting this way and a Meeting of Minds to decide if these Judges breached their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Thank you Justice Kennedy for getting one right!
These people always do things for the wrong reason. I venture to say that most of what our government does today is in fact unlawful. Infinite law can not be broken by any man or life force, & it is that the prevention & hindrance of life, must die. All natural law fallows this order. These radicals are unlawful in everyway, according to infinite law. They shant take it far. I pray the people see.
Judging by the movie "Hillary" there are going to be some doozies about Obama come 2012.
Very good Johnk144! This needs to be talked and written about more so the people clearly understand we must defend and uphold the Constitution. I was more than a little startled at the closeness of the decision.
Even high school debaters would know this. Thankfully, overturning a decision isn't up to "King" Obama.
NO NO NO – freedom of speech is an individual right no a corporate one. This just further proves ideology is in all three branches of our SERVANTS OF THE PUBLIC. All the SCOTUS did was even the money field. Now the corporate scum have to pay off both the WARFARE and the WELFARE parties.
I disagree with 98% of what OBAMBI does but all SCOTUS did was make both gangs Rebloodlicans and Democrips stronger for their war for the turf called AMERICA.
When will WE THE PEOPLE wake up and figure out for the non-servants of the public IT'S only ABOUT JOB SECURITY.
Further proof we need the CONSTITUTION PARTY in Washington to send the power back to WE THE PEOPLE.
We don't need politicians we need PATRIOTS. For the PARTY people those are individuals not a football team. Think about it. Did you really need corps. ability to have more pull for you to think for yourself? If you did I'm very sad for this nation.
As Obamao gears up for his "sorry state" of the union address, I only wish for one thing. I hope Joe Wilson and a multitude proclaim in unison… "You lie". That would really be icing on our freedom loving, constitutional believing cake.
The poor stockholder. Like they all are making millions! The small stockholder doesn't bother about the top of their food chain. As long as they get their dividends check pennies!! While the corporate leaders who now has a stronger vote than the average American Citizen makes million Its a joke!!
The unions run from the bottom up The workers are the big winners! Check out their Cadillac health plans.
HEALTH CARE REFORM IS THE ISSUE GBNA
During the 2008 campaign, Fox News interviewed 40 former pre-law students (and one instructor) who would have been in the same Columbia pre-law classes as Maobama and not one of them remembers him AT ALL. Where's the proof he ever went to Columbia? Perhaps he just hung out with radicals who attended Columbia, but needed to pad his resume.
Right side, from your future bride in Toronto, I have been forwarding David Bossie's speech at the Restoration Weekend regarding the Hollywood Left. If you haven't seen it you must and forward it to fellow patriots. As soon as I heard about the ruling it rung a bell, so I went back to view Bossie's comments. I contacted Iowntheworld and Moonbattery with the link .
http://www.davidhorowitztv.com/restorationweekend...
Regarding your proposal, stand in line behind "The Hammer" Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, Rush, Andrew Klavan, Nick Gillespie (Reason), David Horowitz, Bill Whitle, Breitbart, I can keep going if you like!!. Us Conservative chicks dig the real men. I know I married one, takes no guff, a gentleman, honest and can fix any dam thing that breaks down,cars, plumbing, boat engines, no doubt your the same ,so just looking at your pic I will add you to my list of favorite conservative men. Congratulations on Brown's election, I think I heard the sigh of relief all the way from Toronto. My parents came to T.O. in 62 from what is now Croatia. In 10 years dad and mom after non stop hard work built a successful biz. Dad is a tried and true capitalist, who was relentless in educating his kids about the evils of communism "where the hell is the chapter on Stalin" when looking over our history books.
I remember for almost all of my 41 years, if a republican kept papers about his health or education withheld from the people, the media would throw a hissy fit!
But if we want to see his records…. WE'RE EVIL! WE'RE BIRTHERS!! WE'RE ENEMIES OF THIS KING!
So in 2012, when a republican withholds a health report, all you libs STFU!
to quote Democratic Congress standout Alan Grayson.
Gregory, You pulled THAT definition of corporation out of your ass! A "political entity?" Pah-leez!
Yes, he does. The problems come when he confuses Law with Justice.
[...] A Resounding Defense of the First Amendment: ‘Congress Shall Make No Law’ [...]
This gives free reign to corporate communism and the modern day robber barons of the world. Anyone that believes that these enities and the powers behind them (such as groups like the Bilderbergs and Carlyle) have our best interests at heart are fools. This is a green light to globalization.
To me it says that everyone has a voice and the right to free speech. Remember that this ruling applies to unions as well as corporations. To both corporations and unions: I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it!
To quote Nancy Pelosi, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" (/sarc)
Randy Randy Randy. Soros , Acorn, seiu, et all already HAVE free reign, (but you want us to ignore the builderberg behind the curtain i guess)
umm, justavet, corperations are in essence instrements of the will of the People who run them. as such, you could consider a corperation a lawfull assembly of people. in order to protect the constitution, i jioned a non prophet corperation that has been very effective, this corperation is made up of millions of patriotic americans who share like goals. i freely chose to assosiate with this corperation, , (unlike my membership in the SEIU, wich is forced apon me) and under the charter i am alowed to vote for the corperations officers, thus i am part of the directed will of the corperation
my name is Jon. I'm the NRA (lifetime member since 1987)
to many in this argument are basicly ignorent of just what a corperation is.
what gets me is all the panic, and anti cooperate angst, (incorparacnaphobia is alive and well), all the diatribes about evil cooperations being allowed into the political process (mostly from the left and right, the progressives, the populist, and the wing-nut conspiracy brigades)
ignored are the tyranicle actions of the FEC, and the merits of case the supreme court decided on, in favor if citizens united
did all you anti corp people read the article before you posted?
…[w]hen Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
"citizens united" is not a "evil-mega corp" and they were the target of this unconstitutional law.
a parable… first they came after the company's, and i said nothing because i hate evil megacorps…….. ( we all know how this ends)….. thank God the supreme court supports the constitution.
John Stuart Mill observed that while it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. Your article and many of the comments made regarding this prove him correct. Corporations will now be able to blackmail office holders by spending millions in advertising to oppose those who who want to rein in their excesses, such as those that led to the current financial debacle. Your advocacy of corporate omnipotence is disgusting.
they are not the greatest Constitutional minds at all. For example Sonia Sotomeyer has a poor record when it comes to Constitutional matters, and the criteria for her being picked did not have anything to do with her understanding of the Constitution.
It is because these "picks" are so mediocre in the first place that you have something like this 5-4 ruling.
Thank heavens that Kennedy has not retired from the Supreme Court. He might make some iffy decisions but when it comes to the Constitution he is very sharp. I cannot say that about Sotomayor
yes you are wrong because you do not understand the nature of corporations, neither do you understand the case.
Courage Ralph
the people did hit back by sending Scott Brown to the Senate. The blaming of the banks is going to go over like a lead balloon.
What it requires in hitting back is to get to the truth of the matter. What about the bonuses paid to Fannie and Freddie executives…. there needs to be concentration on Fannie and Freddie…. and on such people as Dodd who did nothing to prevent the disaster. You need to highlight that legislation that forces banks to loan to people who cannot pay back their loans.
make that a mere college lecturer
I hope so and paid for by ordinary citizens
The Citizens United case involved funding of the film that was something like 0.03% of the funds. It was not as though a corporation was totally involved in the making of the film. The application of McCain-Feingold in preventing the film from being aired is the reason that this law had to be struck down. It was restricting free speech because of penalty clauses (that is what I can gather from the case)
tell your Soros funded bosses that the point has failed to be made.
since they are paid trolls – paid by Soros most likely, no they did not read the article. They came with a set piece that they had to insert in the comments.
Elitists are in fact the ones that are totally stupid. Usually they start of with a series of false assumptions, including the assumption that people with degrees could not possibly be conservative. Well there is the first false assumption for you to consider.
Let's get a few things straight about campaign donations. Owing to McCain-Feingold the PACs were created so that certain corporations could funnel their money to a favourite candidate and they could do it over and above the legislated amount. This explains why candidate empty suit preferred to spurn the public funding of his Presidential race in favour of hiding behind the PACs.
Now we begin to look at organizations such as SEIU, Project Vote, ACORN, AFL-CIO etc. These are corporate entities, just like TYCO or some other company. The unions have been funding the Democrat Party for donkeys' years. They are corporations.
However, the case is less about campaign funding and more about the matter of free speech. The most important part of the Kennedy ruling is the reference to the Constitution: "No person shall make a law that restricts …. and free speech.". (Paraphrased). The fact is that McCain-Feingold as it was applied in the Citizens United case showed that it was a law that restricted the free speech of individuals because of a 0.03% funding of the film from a corporate body. This was therefore effectively a breach of the Constitution because it was restricting free speech by banning the showing of the film on television.
Corporations such as GE already have a large amount of influence in elections because of the manner in which they control newspaper editorials, as well as TV content and editorials. It does not seem fair that someone like Chris Matthews can sit there salivating about the empty suit but someone wanting to show a film that was not flattering towards Hillary was silenced. In other words, some corporations e.g. the Soros organization have an exceptional amount of influence over the population and they were not subject to McCain-Feingold. For this reason your analysis does in fact fail….. I hope you do not intend being a Constitutional lawyer because you would be another F'up like the present POTUS.
[...] United vs. FEC — Supreme Court Protects First Amendment Rights David Bossie, Big Government: A Resounding Defense of the First Amendment: “Congress Shall Make No Law” The Divine Lamp: The Supreme Court And Free Speech Frugal Café Blog Zone: Rush Limbaugh [...]
Your reasoning is as deficient as your manners. Equating nonprofits with TYCO is absurd, and the fact that GE already has such power is no reason to give it, and other corporations, more.
while It is true that not all liars are progressive elitists, It is true that all progressive elitists are liars. (just the thoughts of one allegedly stupid conservative on progressive utilitarianism)
I Hope what you say about the lesser S paying all these guys is true. it will help with the unemployment in america and i wont have to worry about having one of these fellows trusting a battered che' Coffey cup in my face outside of starbucks, begging for a spare dime to get a decaf latte fix.
lets call it the soros "trolls for cash program"
pinky, shes not "deficient in manners", shes writing with an Australian accent, shame on you Dawwg, how culturally insensitive can you be.
G'day
Tsk. First you chastise me for not being politically correct, then you assert that you are one of the stupid conservatives. Well, who am I to argue with your opinion of yourself?
Actually, I am a conservative: I just loath reactionary neoconservative fascists who assume they are true conservatives, but their name is legion.
Please pardon my ignorance, but what is, in your opinion, a progressive elitist? This would seem to be an oxymoron. And how can utilitarianism be considered progressive?
u are all fat