Citizens United Huge Step Forward for Free Speech
by Ken Blackwell and Ken KlukowskiOn January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court empowered ordinary Americans to speak out on an equal footing with millionaires and the media in U.S. elections. Threatened by people being able to freely speak their minds, the president of the United States deceived the American people when discussing this court decision in the State of the Union.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Court held that Americans acting together through a corporation or other type of group enjoy the same free speech rights that they enjoy individually. Noting that wealthy individuals can spend unlimited money on election ads for radio and television, the Court held that ordinary individuals could likewise pool their money together to engage in the same type of speech, striking down a federal law that made such corporate action a felony.
Writing the majority opinion, moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that in our free country, the First Amendment provides that, “more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” The Court wrote that this case involved a domestic corporation, funded and run by U.S. citizens, seeking to distribute a documentary on a presidential candidate to inform voters’ choices. The Court noted that the Constitution allows combating corruption, but that no one alleged any corruption or quid pro quo here, and so all this amounted to was people joining together in an organization to express their views during the election.
Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote a concurring opinion, in which he explained that although the Court had to overrule two cases to arrive at its holding, that such a move was necessary. Those older cases held that corporations could use vast wealth to drown out average citizens and distort public debate. In Citizens United the Court rejected this anti-distortion rationale as badly reasoned and as having been proved unworkable, as people consequently send money into other types of organizations to get around this corporate ban. The twenty-year attempt to regulate political speech under the anti-distortion rationale had completely failed and made it more difficult for American citizens to speak, and so it must be overruled.
In another concurrence, Justice Antonin Scalia proved how this holding is squarely in line with the Founding Fathers’ original meaning in the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects “speech,” not “speakers,” so that speech is protected whether it comes from a journalist at a newspaper, a wealthy individual paying for radio ads, or a group of average people pouring their funds into a corporate group to speak for them. Public-interest organizations such as Citizens United, the National Rifle Association and the Family Research Council are corporations that act as a megaphone for ordinary people to be heard.
In that context, it’s utterly pathetic how the Far Left has been nothing short of apoplectic over this decision, with ultra-partisan Senator Chuck Schumer calling the Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision “un-American.” Since when is it un-American to criticize the government or its candidates during an election? What vision of this country doesn’t allow people to speak out when casting their ballots?
Rather than denouncing these partisan screeds, the White House has joined in.
Even more than that, President Barack Obama did the unthinkable, using the national audience of the State of the Union to condemn the Supreme Court’s decision to the justices’ faces, surrounded by hundreds of irreverently-cheering congressional Democrats, crowding and leaning over the justices—who sat stone-faced and immovable as they were being pilloried.
All except for Justice Samuel Alito, quietly reacting to Obama’s claim that this decision allows foreign corporations to interfere in our elections by saying to himself, “Not true.” Indeed it’s not true, as pages 46 and 47 of the majority opinion expressly says that the Court’s holding in Citizens United does not extend to any foreign organization or funding.
The president deceived the American people to saying anything to the contrary. Either President Obama did this intentionally, in which case he must be called on it by the American people, or his team inserted this patently-false statement into the speech, in which case heads should roll both in his communications office and the White House counsel’s office.
The president is flailing here. The Supreme Court has made clear that businesses and corporations, both large and small, including unions and other groups, can all speak out on the issues affecting them during an election. The lopsided playing field is no more, as the First Amendment gives everyone an equal opportunity to express an opinion about political candidates. The people who create jobs can now fight back against policies that prevent them from creating jobs, and this endangers Obama’s agenda across the board, from taking over healthcare to enacting cap-and-trade taxes.
American groups had one hand tied behind their backs when they stepped into the ring against politicians. The Supreme Court restored the power of the First Amendment in Citizens United by untying those hands, and now all of us can wade into the fight.
Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and the former Ohio secretary of state.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
176 Comments
Thank you.
As Citizens, we all owe Citizens United, and the Supreme Court a debt of gratitude.
Communism. In russia, they set laws and taxes for the companies and collective farms. The businesses had no voice. We do. We can ask for tarrifs. We can ask our feds to stop cheating at a foreign competitotr.
If my government wants to make a law for my company, till now I can advertise my product, advertise my views and until McCain Feingold advertise who would work with what we do.
Hey Barry…YOU LIE!
Great article!
I think it was Rick Santorum who hinted at the fact that these next, these big corporations will want to marry farm animals.
Mr. Hugo Chavez, I'd be more than happy to vote for the candidate your American based company, Citgo paid for. After all….defending Americans is Socialism, defending you Mr. Chavez is patriotism.
The Citizens United decision was, along with Scott Brown's decisive victory, one of the very few bright spots in the last year. Things like that give me hope.
Dissent is Patriotic!!! Until we ban it!!!
Step right up folks and vote for your Chinese candidates bought and paid for by the American based Chinese companies like HSBC Bank.
You know how it works with these "patriots"…defending individual American's rights is Socialism, defending Chinese companies and their paid for candidates is Patriotism.
"HAIL TO THE CHIEF WHO WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY HUGO CHAVEZ!"
Enlighten me please. Not sure what you are saying here.
And now, will someone please explain why Arizona is about to re-elect McCain? And while your at it, why is Palin getting a pass for going out to campaign for him? This cross the aisle to appease at any cost useless man needs to retire. Please Arizona, read what Justice Antonin Scalia has put forth here, and get a grip.
Syn,
Now, there YOU go, again.
I hear Mr. Obama wants to change the don't ask, don't tell policy in the military. I am unsure how this will affect the livestock though. Consequently, if you are interested in a relationship with farm animals, I'd suggest you do it in a liberal state that accepts such behavior. Not condoning it, mind you, but if that is your particular kink,may God Bless you.
Ok stop with the sarcasm and explain point by point in a logical and constructive manner why you think this supreme court decision is incorrect?
And more will come!
I'm not sure if the "trolls" understand what we are fighting for. Do they even realize that we love them enough to fight for their unadulterated freedom? Imagine how ticked they would be if this site censored all their comments. But looking at the flood lately they are exercising their free speech quite well, and unhindered.
McCain is physically more able than another person in Washington that had to be brought in on a wheelchair just to vote….
neither is he.
LOL. "Logical" and "constructive" are not SG's strong points.
Are you mentally ill? [rhetorical question]
I just want to say that I hate Chuck Schumer SOOOOOooooooo much.
Perhaps if he worked on that then we could have a bit more constructive arguments in here ; )
" Anybody interested in some swamp land? "
No, just stay there and send pictures.
Who? Me, or Syn?
I can't answer for him.
Don't cowboy's have there way with farm animals ? Not condoning it, mind you, but if that is your particular kink,may God Bless you.
My personal opinion is both are neocons. I don't like or support neocons. I like Sarah as a person, and agree with her on a lot, but she is too zealous when it comes to all things military. I would rather support politicians who have more of a non-interventionist mindset. Like Ron Paul. Enough with the military industrial complex, on of our greatest threats to date.
Yes, I believe in the defense of this country, but being the gatekeepers, exploiters, and so-called saviors of other countries has caused much misery and suffering for the US.
Gee, I wonder why Obama would be against the court's decision. I think I remember Anita Dunn bragging how they were able to control the information that the media knew and reported about the Obama campaign. With attack and informative ads that are sure to be numerous and challenging to Barack Obama's 2012 bid they would rather stick to the "status-quo" of campaigning, because they can game it so well. This administration thrives on controlling the pace of information where their opponents are never able to make a direct rebuttal. They think that if they can control the pace then they can do it again. Well, this time the ole Constitution will keep pace, and hopefully the people will come to their senses and stop swallowing pure rhetoric as substance.
There is a proverb that explains the relevance of the Obama campaign's strategy: The first to plead a case can seem right, until another comes and questions him. The Obama campaign controlled information by staying a step ahead of examination. With the court's ruling there will be a flood of information, hopefully. And the MSM might actually be forced to do it's job.
Oh, and much misery and suffering to the other countries as well. Who do we think we are? The World Police?
[...] Supreme Court Protects First Amendment Rights Ken Blackwell & Ken Lukowski, Big Government: Citizens United Huge Step Forward for Free Speech David Bossie, Big Government: A Resounding Defense of the First Amendment: “Congress Shall [...]
The Liberals just can't win. If the SC had ruled differently, they would have hailed it as a victory for freedom of speech. When the ruling actually increases freedom of speech, the liberals condemn it. And with a voice brought to you by the first andmentment of the constitution and fought for by soldiers since the founding of this country.
If I shoot your neighbor should the police come after me?
Ah, capitalism at it's best. You can already order online a "Not True" apron for your next barbeque.
The Rick Santorum farm animal comment was a joke about how you all feel corporations are the immortal lords of being deserving of Constitutional rights at the expense of individual rights. Somehow, you all have been brainwashed into believing that our founding fathers wrote the Constitution for Exxon/Mobil and not for "We the people" but then, you people can be talked into pretty much anything as long as it comes from the Right-wing media bubble. World is flat. Moon is made of cheese and thugs are journalists.
"HAIL TO THE CHIEF BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY HUGO CHAVEZ!"
Wait so community organizers can band together for a cause, but we can't?
"Great article!" You all are just so dreamy!
Betcha a shiney new dime you never even read the ruling did you?
Nope.
Not there way.
Not even their way.
We leave the sheep wrasslin' up to you city slickers, and the goat ropin' to the Muslims.
The laws, those things that you're obviously unfamiliar with, remain that prohibit contributions from foriegn sources. It is rhetorical, I know, but tax funded NPO's with foriegn heads are still allowed to contribute, just like they have been even while job and revenue producers were not. Don't worry your little confused head, your fellow leeches will still have a voice.
Only if there from L.A. or N.Y. City
Syn,
Now, there YOU go, again.
I got the joke. You missed mine.
Truthfully Syn, you don't seem yourself tonight. You appear off balance, not at the top of your game. Are you sure this is the real Syn, or is this someone else using the moniker? Maybe there are a couple of y'all working in shifts?
Semper Fi "Comrade"?
OOH RAH!!
NO they should get Penny-less
Doubtful that you have read the 180+ page document yourself…
It depends on whether my neighbor was a pain in the ass, or not.
I don't know about ya'll
But where I come from if you make that big of a stink agianst something like this
It must have been the correct decision
And your friends and their funds use to be able to compete with the big corporations and special interests because of the limits put on the funding. Did you not hear anything Sarah Palin campaigned on last year?
"Wait so community organizers can band together for a cause, and we can't? " Who's we? Goldman Sachs? Exxon/Mobil? Citgo, HSBC, Nokia? Teamsters, Chrysler, UAW, Aetna, General Electric? MSNBC, Fox, CNN? Are those your "we"? If not, put on some sexy lingerie and go seel yourself to the first millionaire elitist you can find and then you can truly be a "we".
BINGO!
You just nailed it. The looney left has been screeching incoherently about this now for a week. Why? What is the reason? The Supreme Court just leveled the playing field. There were two huge loosers last week, and they both had one thing in common. The loosers:
John McCain
The Left
What did they have in common? Progressive.
No, it's me Mr. Logic. I'm just kind of dismayed at the support for this ruling when people like Sarah Palin, Doug Hoffman, Scott Brown and many many others campaigned against this kind of control and abuse being handed over to "Big money" and their lobbyists and special interests. A few short months ago, y'all were against this remember?
If the corporations are groups of people based in foreign countries, how is that going to work? I love the idea of groups getting together to pool their funds to spend money however they like, as long as they are American.
I also wish that these groups, if they commit illegal acts, can be prosecuted, and if found guilty – the people that comprise these groups should have to answer for the groups actions. As I understand it, by incorporating, people are actually not responsible for the actions of the corporations. As long as groups of people get the rights of people, they should also have to face the music like regular people.
Syn,
No. A few short months ago, I was never against this, if you were referring to the Supreme Court decision. I was always against McCain-Feingold. It was bad law, bad legislation. When enacted, from inception it was nothing more than a political ploy, posturing by John McCain, to "appear" on the side of the little man. All a precursor to his posturing for further political office; the Presidency.
It came back to bite him on the tookas.
And how many of those companies are union related? hmm?
So you mean to tell me, that before this decision, unions always held their tongue on who they supported politically. I bet they didn't even spend a dime on it either! >.>
WHO owns CNN?! For years they have had front page to the people of this country and spewing their opinion to us. All under the guise of "news" and heaven forbid if someone calls it biased to one candidate over the other.
Guys do you know what I'm trying to say here? I need help making my point so someone restate it please.
Anyway my point was if we get bombed etc we should go after them.. they keep trying to do it!
"It was a government plot!" Well them terrorists claimed responsibility so why not go after them.
It actually dissolved campaign legislation that's been in place for the past 63 years and went way above and beyond McCain/Feingold.
I think it's a fantasy and a sad illusion (and I mean no offense) to think these tea-partiers can raise more money through grassroots efforts and bake sales than Bank of America, Teamsters or Exxon/Mobil, A few weeks ago that would have been the case due to campaign restrictions and limits but that's not the case anymore. It's now all about Teamster money vs. Bank of America money. General Electric money vs. Exxon/Mobil money and you and I are lost in the rubble. And that's not including the ability of foreign countries and foreign special interests that have American based companies like Citgo or HSBC Bank.
I just can't believe people can support this. It blows my mind.
"Even more than that, President Barack Obama did the unthinkable, using the national audience of the State of the Union to condemn the Supreme Court’s decision to the justices’ faces, surrounded by hundreds of irreverently-cheering congressional Democrats, crowding and leaning over the justices—who sat stone-faced and immovable as they were being pilloried."
Thousands of depraved Romans sat in the bleachers yelling and shouting with glee as Christians were torn apart by the lions. They loved the bloodbath and the death. It infused them with more power. Thus the populace cheering and clapping as Nero Obamasama declared war on the scholars of the Constitution. Lucifer is smiling and We the People need to heed the warning signs.
First proof that foreign countries can do that as a result of this. Are there not other laws already in place restricting it? Proof dude, and give sources. If you are so correct then we need to know! I would put so much work into your post as if your life depended on it to get that truth out.
By the way… money does not = a good campaign. How much money has these these "tea party" people actually had to spend? 1 election has already changed, and they didn't need need any big corporation to help. You don't seem to understand the the power of the american people. Don't be the victim, we are not powerless.
"And how many of those companies are union related? hmm? " I mentioned a few and clearly expressed that it's wrong!!! Nice attempt to spin something back in my face I already pointed out is wrong you partisan hack. Unions, companies, foreign corporations…any special interests is wrong!
"unions always held their tongue on who they supported politically" — It has nothing to do with tongues. It's about the limits of funding you dumb f##k. What freakin' idiot can be convinced that outspending Americans to control an election is freedom of speech our founding fathers intended in our Constitution? YOU! YOU are that particular idiot!
"Who owns CNN?" — The same people who own MSNBC and Fox…CORPORATIONS!!! Corporations that can now put more money into a candidate in 30 seconds that a million tea-baggers can put into a candidate in a year.
Syn,
You probably won't believe it, but I gave you a thumbs up on this post. Matter of fact, I tend to do that on occasion, although I probably shouldn't admit it. There are too many folks here who give you a thumbs down, without reading your material.
You and I have developed an affinity for each other here. (No, that doesn't mean we are going steady). You are intelligent, and you and I tend to agree on occasion. That is an example of how life, and politics should work,if both parties give ground, and move to their respective centers
You are right: "Elections belong to the people. Period.
Not GE, or NBC, or MSNBC. Not to Chris Matthews, or Keith Olberman, or Rachel Maddow. Not even to Hugo Chavez and Citgo, or Halliburton, or Bechtel, or Floour Corp. or General Dynamics.
They belong to the people. The problem is eletions are big business. In the 24/7 news cycle, elections are now 24/7/365, and it will only get worse.
I miss read your post then dude! Then we somewhat agree. I did not try spin anything back into your face. I was just trying to point out that those big corps campaigned anyway regardless of what the laws say or did say.
I'll say it again that money does not = votes. Obama himself had special interest groups/lobbyists in the white house already so it was a bit of hypocrisy(?) for him to criticize the decision during his SOTU. Whether you agree or not I'm not sure, but again I'm just trying to make a point.
I'd rather just discuss than thumb +/- people and walk away.
Syn, not sure how you came out of that post and then chewed me up on mine lol. I think it was just a misunderstanding.
Oddly enough, it has been a week now since the Supreme Court decision, and two days since the SOTU speech and the ensuing brouhaha, yet nobody, anywhere has picked up on the REAL STORY.
John McCain was wrong. Dead wrong. He just lost, again.
Jihad Johnnie just pulled a kamikaze and crashed his jet (again) into the side of Mt. Rushmore.
This is for Syntax.
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
I dont' see the word "corporation" "union" "person" or any other form of speaker. The prohibition is on Congress and it's ability to regulate speech of any sort, and in this case, prohibiting certain speakers from speaking in a defined time frame before an election. You cannot yell "fire" in a theater for safety, but political speech is the most highly protected. Also, because there are many, many avenues by which you can fact check and determine the truth or falsity of any political speech, you can make up your own mind if it is propoganda or advancing a cause that you may deem legitimate, others may not – but the freedom to make the speech must be assured. Again, Congress shall make no law……..
Whats the real story?
Where was John McCain wrong? I need to pick up on that story. Not sure what you guys are referring too.
I read these comments and wonder in what fantasy world you are all living. Serioiusly, Citizens United will allow GE, Bank of America, CIGNA, Exxon, and any other corporation to spend as much as it wants to elect politicians to do their bidding. If you think that Bank of America's goal is to make you happy, prosperous and free, then you haven't been paying attention.
The authors' thesis, the this decision somehow frees American's to group together, incorporate, and spend hundreds of millions of dollars, is simply dishonest.
On McCain-Feingold – the subject of the Supreme Court case that was overturned.
Oops, posted to the main thread. Was answering you.
On McCain-Feingold – the subject of the Supreme Court case that was overturned.
Why should the media enjoy freedoms that my company cannot?
"Citizens United Huge Step Forward for Free Speech"
…for corporations!
For American citizens?! No.
There is a prohibition against foreign corporations or foreign individuals making campaign donations. In fact, under the Supreme Court's decision, there is still standing a prohibition against corporations making direct campaign contributions to individual politicians. They are just allowed to state their own position on issues and therefore, on politicians. But not direct contributions.
Know what? Get NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, HuffPo, DailyKos, MediaMatters to STOP DONATING ANY MONEY to candidates.
After you've done that, then we can talk about the other corporations.
Corporations ARE people. They are people banded together for common purpose, whether making something or doing something. Some support Democrats (like teachers' unions) because of the favorable legislation which may arise, others favor Republicans because of hoped-for lower taxes and eased restrictions.
It all balances out. The old way, people had to funnel through PACs. There is no change. The money will still get to candidates, it will NOT be foreign money, and ads have to show who is paying for them.
Laws can be changed! In the mean time just follow the money…hehe
After hearing the arguments on both sides for this i can definitely see where the controversy is.. but golly day if people think corporations didn't do this beforehand they are blind imo.
Personally, and this is solely my opinion, McCain-Feingold was a farce. It was passed in 2002, after Bush trounced him in the primaries in 2000. McCain, being the consummate politician and opportunist, wanted a good piece of legislation to posture himself in front of the little man, for a future run, in 2004, or 2008, so he jumped on the Campaign Finance bandwagon. His own legislation came back to haunt him, and allowed Obama to raise more money than he did. The rest is history.
Whether it is flying jets, dodging SAM's, or passing legislation, that man is slap full of bad luck.
I'll give you a + too for saying "tea partiers" instead of "tea baggers".
SG PLEASE take time and read the article at the top of this page. It explains the ruling pretty well.
That's pretty much my litmus test too.
The louder and longer the Left screams, the better (whatever just happened) is for America.
Don't forget that W looked at that piece of legislation and pretty much said "I dunno why I'm signin' this thing, but why not?"
If we're gonna knock one guy, let's do both, and throw Feingold in there as well.
What prevented the media from doing just that during the last presidential election???
And corporations don't "elect" politicians. Individuals do. Don't expect a corp. to demand that all 2000 of its employees go vote for X, and for all of them to do it. I don't care if Exxon spends all it's profit with ads for X, if I don't like X, I'm not voting for her.
And it's not the "author's thesis", it's an accurate assessment of what the ruling means. Please take time to read the article in its entirety.
Yes.
You are right. We need give credit where it is due. It was Feingold's only claim to fame, and as far as GW is concerned, bless his heart, he'd sign anything as long as they told him it would help him.
At leas he isn't chasing me for the moment, THANK GOD…!
You can read, I assume…?
Where does it say that…?
I saw, "Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote a concurring opinion, in which he explained that although the Court had to overrule two cases to arrive at its holding, that such a move was necessary. Those older cases held that corporations could use vast wealth to drown out average citizens and distort public debate. In Citizens United the Court rejected this anti-distortion rationale as badly reasoned and as having been proved unworkable, as people consequently send money into other types of organizations to get around this corporate ban. The twenty-year attempt to regulate political speech under the anti-distortion rationale had completely failed and made it more difficult for American citizens to speak, and so it must be overruled."
Sorry, no go for you…try again…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ
America Rising – must see video on youtube – pass it on to everyone
No, but I'd be willing to give you a ride.
Again:
"Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote a concurring opinion, in which he explained that although the Court had to overrule two cases to arrive at its holding, that such a move was necessary. Those older cases held that corporations could use vast wealth to drown out average citizens and distort public debate. In Citizens United the Court rejected this anti-distortion rationale as badly reasoned and as having been proved unworkable, as people consequently send money into other types of organizations to get around this corporate ban. The twenty-year attempt to regulate political speech under the anti-distortion rationale had completely failed and made it more difficult for American citizens to speak, and so it must be overruled."
I'm an Arizonan. While I've not been as taken with Palin as have others, I sure as Hell can't imagine why she would be seen in the same room as Cap'n Crunch. He somewhat mistreated her and he deliberately threw the election just so he could be a part of history and abet the electing of our first gray president. She's terminally soiled, now, and might as well go back to Alaska and enjoy the money she's made lately on the Also-ran Tour. For McCain, I guess recognizing Obama for the spacetaker he is and trying to stop him wasn't as important as allaying his own "white guilt." Handwringing can be haarrrddd. Mr. Reach-across-the-aisle, I'm afraid, is a spacetaker in his own right.
Excellent…
Cowboy up, lock and load….
Objective One: November, 2010…
Objective Two: November, 2012…
Objective Three: November, 2014…
Thank you both for this invaluable piece. Everyone should read it and understand how completely unfounded the lefty outcry against this ruling really is. President Obama either knowingly mislead the American people or he simply was arrogantly jabbering on something he knew nothing about. Either way, he wins my most feckless American president award.
true.
"Get over it…"
We are supposed to "get over it" as America takes its democratic principles to the pawn shop?
While I appreciate John Mcain's service to our country as a Navy Pilot, his "service" to our country as a lawmaker is dubious at best. He is a progressive. Period.
I say: make law according to the constitution or get the F**k outta the way!
hey Syntax…nice pic!
First Joe says, "you lie!" and now Roberts saying, that's just not true…. The score is now Prez 0 – Attendees 2
Oh, COME ON, even YOU aren't this STUPID…and I have noticed over time you can do stupid inordinately well…
You even agreed with the previous poster that people were getting around it…so, if the 18th Amendment was as stupid, (and it was), as this "Corporate money ban", you'd have kept it…?
CD, get a grip…it even means your fave lefty libtard corporations are free…Ben and Jerry can flood the world with Cherry Garcia and kumbaya liberalism…but I don't have to watch it…and you don't have to pay attention when Boeing builds some new terrorist killer and 60's flattop haircut engineers brag about it…
Give it a rest…unless what you are really after is protecting UnionSpeak…
Kevin,
I had forgotten about the Anita Dunn video about controlling the information to the point that the media were never able to question…they just reported the releases they were given. THAT does color ObowMao's indignation a lot.
hope the court upholds the 10th ammendment
Excellent article. This is probably the most thorough a easily understandable summary of the meaning of the decision I've yet seen. Thank you.
I am somewhat disappointed in the decision. I'm disappointed that it only passed with a 5-4 vote. It is really sad that our liberties are protected by so thin a margin.
One by-product of McCain-Feingold that has received way too little press is that it drastically tilted the playing field to incumbents making it difficult, if not impossible, for new blood to come in an challenge seated incumbents.
"…Unless McCain-Feingold is repealed, Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves…"
McCain-Feingold banned political ads that mentioned candidates by name, beginning 60 days prior to the election.
http://www.examiner.com/a-256840~Editorial__McCai...
The FEC lawyer argued before SCOTUS that this ban also extended to books that endorsed one particular candidate. That's what made SCOTUS sit up and take notice.
"'Enough is enough.'… When the government of the United States of America claims the authority to ban books because of their political speech, something has gone terribly wrong and it is as sure a sign as any that a return to first principles is in order."
http://www.CUvFEC.com/documents/case-08-205/CU_Br...
The FEC lawyer argued before SCOTUS that this ban also extended to books that endorsed one particular candidate. That's what made SCOTUS sit up and take notice.
"'Enough is enough.'… When the government of the United States of America claims the authority to ban books because of their political speech, something has gone terribly wrong and it is as sure a sign as any that a return to first principles is in order."
http://www.CUvFEC.com/documents/case-08-205/CU_Br...
One more and ObowMao is just going to quit throwing those little soirees!
Corporations are not people, they are should not be entitled the same rights. It is the individual responsibility of citizens to elect candidates that will represent their interests. An individual has numerous concerns that they expect their elected officials to address. Citizens concern themselves with crime, national security, environmental policy, human rights, as well as matters that affect their financial situation. A corporation's objective is only to make money. Corporations compete with other corporations to make money. In this competitive environment, a corporation's primary political objective is to facilitate its own financial position, despite the external moral consequences. To grant such an entity the same right as a human being is not what the founders intended when they drafted and approved the first amendment.
The SCOTUS should have marched out at that point. BO and the rest of his minions are nothing more than schoolyard bullies. BO's resorted to "telling the teacher" on the SCOTUS while the supporting crowd of demorats looked on approvingly. This is how they reprimand their beloved law creating branch of the Democratic party. These rats deserve all the scorn we can lay on them.
This law was unfairly biased to allow unions to continue to influence voting. It should have been applied to all entities except individuals to have been fair. I believe it was not constitutional.
Ditto
I cannot log in. Intense debate is not working. Sighhhhh.
Hmmmm…and there I am…geez..except I have to log in for every comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.