• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Judge Rules Corporate Donations Ban Unconsitutional

CHillDeac

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
5,773
Reaction score
399
The beginning of the end of Democracy. This will end up before the Supreme Court and we can all be fairly certain as to how they'll rule.


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."




http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hFFXHfh0tnIHWKcr6uJHTpaLmuJg?docId=15e08682c72a44f786d8aee89f86a8e4
 
As many said when the actiivist Roberts Court changed over 100 vyears of precedent, our democracy was 100% put up for sale after Citizens United.

CU is probably the worst SC decision in a hundred years or so.
 
As many said when the actiivist Roberts Court changed over 100 vyears of precedent, our democracy was 100% put up for sale after Citizens United.

CU is probably the worst SC decision in a hundred years or so.

Unless "CU" is your jacked up way of spelling Korematsu, it isn't even close.
 
I like Roberts. I think extremely highly of him, in several regards. However, Chill's basic underlying position is correct. It will be interesting to see where the Court tries now to draw an arbitrary line attempting to rectify the damage CU has done.
 
76, they have no initerest in rectifying the CU decision. They want to EXPAND that decision's reach.

What's even more putrageous is that niether Scalia nor Thomas would recuse themselves from the case in spite of taking benefits from on of the supporters of CU.

In a similar situation last week on the AZ immigrant employee case, elena Kagan recused herself.

There wil lno excuse for Thomas if he doesn't recuse himself from all cases regarding the Obama healthcare bill in that his wife is currently being paid big bucks ot overturn it. She's been paid for multiple years. If he doesn't recuse himself from all such cases, it shows the contempt he holds for the law.
 
I don't think they can control what they have done, and that CU will have adverse effects they have not imagined. When CU plays out to some of its logical extensions, where it begins affecting adversely the property rights of even wealthy and influential individuals, and where corporations owned/controlled by foreign interests are exercising their new rights of free speech to influence effectively the results of our elections, Roberts et al are going to want to put it back into the box somehow.
 
I don't think they can control what they have done, and that CU will have adverse effects they have not imagined. When CU plays out to some of its logical extensions, where it begins affecting adversely the property rights of even wealthy and influential individuals, and where corporations owned/controlled by foreign interests are exercising their new rights of free speech to influence effectively the results of our elections, Roberts et al are going to want to put it back into the box somehow.

That's doubtful. These are smart people, especially Roberts. They know what they did.
 
I don't think they can control what they have done, and that CU will have adverse effects they have not imagined. When CU plays out to some of its logical extensions, where it begins affecting adversely the property rights of even wealthy and influential individuals, and where corporations owned/controlled by foreign interests are exercising their new rights of free speech to influence effectively the results of our elections, Roberts et al are going to want to put it back into the box somehow.

If the Founders had wanted paid speech to be the same as free speech they would have said so. With two of the new nation's most influential publshers as Founding Fathers they understood the difference.

As a lawyer maybe you should start a new divorce practice with a theory that money is speech not property and thus taking from the person who earned it is denying that party his/her constitutional rights.
 
What's even more putrageous is that niether Scalia nor Thomas would recuse themselves from the case in spite of taking benefits from on of the supporters of CU.

Thats racist. Not surprising, but racist nonetheless.
 
How is it racist to hold one Justice to the same standards as others?
 
Soon candidates will just wear logos like NASCAR drivers. They will be paid employees of their corporate interests (as if they weren't already).

I'm not usually a fan of RJ's political hyperbole, but I agree that CU is such a horrific decision, with such far-reaching consequences, that it ranks as one of the worst of our lifetimes, and perhaps ever. Are we being too hard on the Saudis? Perhaps a wholly-owned US subsidiary of theirs could throw fifty million at a candidate more to their liking. Is it cheaper to pollute? Just buy enough of Congress to make it so. And so on.

It's not like politicians working primarily or corporate interests is novel -- that's how it was even under the former, more sane rules -- but this opens a floodgate that is pretty astounding. The amount of cash that can be brought to bear basically makes unassailable the leverage that corporate interests can now amass.
 
I wish they'd wear logos. That's fine with me. The reality is that they're not and we as consumers and voters won't have the opportunity to change our behavior accordingly.
 
Soon candidates will just wear logos like NASCAR drivers. They will be paid employees of their corporate interests (as if they weren't already).

I'm not usually a fan of RJ's political hyperbole, but I agree that CU is such a horrific decision, with such far-reaching consequences, that it ranks as one of the worst of our lifetimes, and perhaps ever. Are we being too hard on the Saudis? Perhaps a wholly-owned US subsidiary of theirs could throw fifty million at a candidate more to their liking. Is it cheaper to pollute? Just buy enough of Congress to make it so. And so on.

It's not like politicians working primarily or corporate interests is novel -- that's how it was even under the former, more sane rules -- but this opens a floodgate that is pretty astounding. The amount of cash that can be brought to bear basically makes unassailable the leverage that corporate interests can now amass.

Wha'ts even worse than NASCAR type logos is the ability to have "issue ads" run with limitless funds without knowing who is paying for them.

Then GOP is even opposed to making these PACs and superPacs disclose their funding.
 
That's doubtful. These are smart people, especially Roberts. They know what they did.

This is probably true. I'm not always convinced that every justice is razor sharp, but I get the feeling that recent additions Kagan and Roberts are.
 
Back
Top