US Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Spending Limit
31 replies, posted
More here: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8473253.stm[/url]
[Quote=BBC]
[img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47160000/jpg/_47160133_supreme_court_226b.jpg[/img]
[B]US Supreme Court overturns campaign spending limit[/B]
The ruling could transform the way political campaigns are fought
The US Supreme Court has rejected long-standing limits on how much companies can spend on political campaigns.
The ruling is likely to change the way presidential and congressional campaigns are funded, including this year's crucial mid-term elections.
The court's 5-4 vote ends a 20-year ban on businesses using money from their own funds to pay for campaign ads.
But US President Barack Obama condemned the decision, pledging to work with Congress for a "forceful response".
He said the court had "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics".
"It s a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans," he said in a statement.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said the prohibition of direct contributions from companies and unions to political candidates was a form of censorship.
"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavoured speakers," he wrote.
His view was mirrored by that of Chief Justice John Roberts who said that upholding the limits on corporate campaign spending would have restrained "the vibrant public discourse that is the foundation of our democracy".
But Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed strongly, saying that the court's ruling threatened "to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation".
He was joined in his opposition to the ruling by the court's three other liberals, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.
The ruling also overturned part of a landmark campaign finance bill which banned unions and companies from paying for political ads in the closing days of an election campaign.
The Supreme Court also said that any campaign adverts that were not paid for by the candidate or their party must be clearly marked with the name of the sponsor.
The decision comes less than 10 months before the congressional mid-term elections.[/QUOTE]
Come on dude at least look at the front page.
[editline]07:42PM[/editline]
And knock off the ridiculously reactionary titles.
[editline]07:43PM[/editline]
Your article seems to be missing the fact that the people who fought and won this case were a private, amateur film group that was legally denied the right to air their documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton due to the law that was just recently overturned.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19771257]Come on dude at least look at the front page.
[editline]07:42PM[/editline]
And knock off the ridiculously reactionary titles.
[editline]07:43PM[/editline]
Your article seems to be missing the fact that the people who fought and won this case were a private, amateur film group that was denied the right to air their documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton due to the law that was just recently overturned.[/QUOTE]
I quoted BBC, calm down. Point is, this isn't good news. It could be the end of democracy.
[QUOTE=R3mix;19771289]I quoted BBC, calm down. Point is, this isn't good news. It could be the end of democracy.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't you fool, we've already had a thread about this. This is a good thing. Private citizens had their first amendment rights violated by this law, and the case was won not by corporations but by individuals.
It isn't the end of democracy. Bribery and perjury are still illegal. Direct contribution is still illegal. Collaboration is still illegal.
This simply gives citizens the right to air dissent or support independently of a campaign.
[QUOTE=R3mix;19771289]I quoted BBC, calm down. Point is, this isn't good news. It could be the end of democracy.[/QUOTE]
Or, it could be the end of Campaign spending limits.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19771300]No it isn't you fool, we've already had a thread about this.[/QUOTE]
I don't see anything in the News Discussion. So... links?
[QUOTE=R3mix;19771319]I don't see anything in the News Discussion. So... links?[/QUOTE]
Like halfway down the page: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=882934[/url]
[QUOTE=Daolpu;19771335]Like halfway down the page: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=882934[/url][/QUOTE]
Didn't notice it.
It's cool because BBC doesn't know what the fuck actually happened. So much for being a credible source of news. This article is reminiscent of something I'd expect from Fox.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19771373]It's cool because BBC doesn't know what the fuck actually happened.[/QUOTE]
Personally, they're the most unbias in my opinion.
[QUOTE=R3mix;19771384]Personally, they're the most unbias in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Except this article is an outright lie.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19771373]It's cool because BBC doesn't know what the fuck actually happened.[/QUOTE]
BBC doesn't know shit about the US.
[QUOTE=JDK721;19771395]BBC doesn't know shit about the US.[/QUOTE]
Nor can they apparently differentiate between spending limits and independent, indirect media support. They make it sound as though companies can just throw money at campaigns, even though that's STILL illegal.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19771421]Nor can they apparently differentiate between spending limits and independent, indirect media support. They make it sound as though companies can just throw money at campaigns, even though that's STILL illegal.[/QUOTE]
Does it really matter though? Most campaign money is spent on advertising, so it's not like that fact would make much of a difference.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;19771575]Does it really matter though? Most campaign money is spent on advertising, so it's not like that fact would make much of a difference.[/QUOTE]
I don't really care about campaign ads. This law violated the first amendment rights of individual citizens, there is no way in hell it shouldn't have been overturned. Crazy campaign ads will need to be solved some other way, if at all.
[QUOTE=R3mix;19771289]I quoted BBC, calm down. Point is, this isn't good news. It could be the end of democracy.[/QUOTE]
You're a fucking idiot.
[QUOTE=Lankist;19771611]I don't really care about campaign ads. This law violated the first amendment rights of individual citizens, there is no way in hell it shouldn't have been overturned. Crazy campaign ads will need to be solved some other way, if at all.[/QUOTE]
The law was not prohibiting private citizens from practicing free speech, the law was designed to limit the influence of giant corporations in politics, but now all I see way more campaign ads being paid for by oil companies and banks, which in my opinion could very easily sway political elections.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;19771695]The law was not prohibiting private citizens from practicing free speech, the law was designed to limit the influence of giant corporations in politics, but now all I see way more campaign ads being paid for by oil companies and banks, which in my opinion could very easily sway political elections.[/QUOTE]
Oh shit, not again.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;19771695]The law was not prohibiting private citizens from practicing free speech, the law was designed to limit the influence of giant corporations in politics, but now all I see way more campaign ads being paid for by oil companies and banks.[/QUOTE]
Uhh except it DID prohibit a group of independent activists from airing a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton.
[editline]08:07PM[/editline]
They were the ones who got this law overturned, not a giant corporation.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;19771695]The law was not prohibiting private citizens from practicing free speech, the law was designed to limit the influence of giant corporations in politics, but now all I see way more campaign ads being paid for by oil companies and banks, which in my opinion could very easily sway political elections.[/QUOTE]
:munch:
[QUOTE=Lankist;19771718]Uhh except it DID prohibit a group of independent activists from airing a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton.
[editline]08:07PM[/editline]
They were the ones who got this law overturned, not a giant corporation.[/QUOTE]
How did their movie get banned exactly, if they were a nonprofit organization?
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;19771794]How did their movie get banned exactly, if they were a nonprofit organization?[/QUOTE]
It was not banned. They were an activist group that made a film denouncing Hillary Clinton as a candidate during the election season, and they were attempting to find a small network to air it. However, when it reached the desk of the FCC they determined that it too much resembled a political advert and that it could not be broadcast.
Even though these people are a non-profit conservative activist group that had no affiliation to any candidate, and who had done absolutely nothing illegal therein.
They instead chose to sell their film on DVD, a format that this law does not encompass, and use the profits to take this issue to court.
Agree with them or not they had done nothing wrong or illegal and yet they were denied, not by networks, but by the government and law itself the ability to broadcast their film.
That is censorship, a vastly unconstitutional and illegal form at that.
I wish they would overturn Obama's budget.
This is unfortunate. My political beliefs are against big business and private funding, so this obviously isn't good in my eyes.
[QUOTE=Detective P;19771965]This is unfortunate. My political beliefs are against big business and private funding, so this obviously isn't good in my eyes.[/QUOTE]
Do your beliefs include your right to air your opinion?
[QUOTE=Lankist;19771851]It was not banned. They were an activist group that made a film denouncing Hillary Clinton as a candidate during the election season, and they were attempting to find a small network to air it. However, when it reached the desk of the FCC they determined that it too much resembled a political advert and that it could not be broadcast.
Even though these people are a non-profit conservative activist group that had no affiliation to any candidate, and who had done absolutely nothing illegal therein.
They instead chose to sell their film on DVD, a format that this law does not encompass, and use the profits to take this issue to court.
Agree with them or not they had done nothing wrong or illegal and yet they were denied, not by networks, but by the government and law itself the ability to broadcast their film.
That is censorship, a vastly unconstitutional and illegal form at that.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like the case has nothing to do with the law that was overturned, or I don't have the full picture. All I know is that I don't want big oil to start airing political advertisements. That would be awful.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;19771983]Sounds like the case has nothing to do with the law that was overturned then. Or maybe I just don't have the full picture. All I know is that I don't want big oil to start airing political advertisements. That would be awful.[/QUOTE]
No, you just simply do not know what law it was they actually overturned.
[editline]08:22PM[/editline]
Furthermore FoIA will make all information on the matter of funding and advertisements public. Their ploys would be entirely transparent.
fuckin' terrorists
This is a bad fucking idea. So corporations ultimately get the final say in who is elected? It comes down to that, doesn't it? Sadly, quite a significant percentage of American voters really do base their vote on who has the flashiest advertisements and the coolest posters.
Some Canadians went down to the USA and interviewed people on the street who supported Obama, then read them one of McCain's policies, told them it was Obama's, and asked if they supported it. The dull-witted interviewees often pretended that that was the reason they voted for Obama.
[QUOTE=archangel125;19772264]This is a bad fucking idea. So corporations ultimately get the final say in who is elected? It comes down to that, doesn't it? Sadly, quite a large percentage of American voters really do base their vote on who has the flashiest advertisements and the coolest posters.[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't.
The article is wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.