Because if there's one thing political campaigns need, it's more money.

Corporations are entities created by law for purposes of limited liability in economic endeavors.

They already have the power of "super-citizens", and this SC decision could increase their already dominant role in American politics.

Of course, this kind of "judicial activism" is A-OK with "conservatives" who pimp for their corporate masters in a wickedly humorous and gloriously ignorant abdication of their own self-interests.

Nothing short of ending the fiction of corporate "personhood" is going to keep corporations from owning the U.S. government, and that might not be enough.

I expect a push for campaign finance reform in year 6 of the Obama admin, lol.

I saw Bill Moyers interview Floyd Abrams on Friday. He's the attorney arguing for the corporations today.

The case began over a movie last year called Hillary: The Movie that had corporate funding.

Abrams was arguing that corporations have limited free speech rights. He was somewhat persuasive, but far from convincing.

"I expect a push for campaign finance reform in year 6 of the Obama admin, lol."
#4 | Posted by Corky

LOL? Shame. Obama was for it before he was against it, but you already know that.

Remember "back-end scrubbing"?

-I saw Bill Moyers interview Floyd Abrams on Friday.

God, are we ever dorks! I saw that, too, and the younger guy kicked Abrams all over the set.

Conservatives are, I think, trying a preemptive war on campaign finance reform with this wholly unconstitutional gambit within the SC.

I picked year 6, after his last campaign.

Here are the basic arguments, and a vid/trascript of the Moyers interview.

Abrams argues that the question before the court concerns more than campaign regulations, and that aspects of McCain-Feingold are inconsistent with the freedom of speech:

"If all you do is view this as a regulatory issue [...] then it's easy. [...] But that's not the situation we're confronted with. We are confronted with competing values here. And the values of speech are at odds in this area with the desire of well-meaning and very serious people to do what they think they should to make the system work better. And my view is that the speech interests here are very high, very important, very serious, and that when you take them into account you can't sustain the sort of statutes that we now have on the books and that the Supreme Court is, essentially, taking a second look at."

But Potter, who has defended the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (popularly known as "McCain-Feingold") in the lower and Supreme Court, argues that the founders never meant for the First Amendment to apply to corporations, which he considers "creatures of the state," not deserving the same rights as individual citizens:

"We do think speech is a good thing. The question though is should it be citizens, individuals, voters, who are speaking? Or should it be this artificial corporate entity, which we have, through law, given enormous economic power to? And what the court has said all along is there is a difference between the two. The court has never said that corporations have the right to unlimited independent political speech."

"God, are we ever dorks!"

Whenever I want to be alone, I throw on Bill Moyers and my wife walks out of the room.

She sticks around for David Broncaccio though.

Moyers is the best. His classic series with Joseph Campbell is a favorite of mine.

His classic series with Joseph Campbell is a favorite of mine.
#9 | Posted by Corky

The Power of Myth?

That surprises me.

Don't worry corporate honchos, your team of talking point propagandists will get the Teabaggers out in force to support this important "freedom of speech" issue.

Don't worry corporate honchos, your team of talking point propagandists will get the Teabaggers out in force to support this important "freedom of speech" issue.

Moyers is a Christian, too, and brought out the best in Campbell, who, though brilliant, comes to conclusions all his own.

Can we get BM to stop saying "Wershington"?

It's a Texas dialect thing... 'cept have you ever heard Nutty Newty say, "Warshington"?

If I can lose my NY accent....

When I was a 16 year old kid in Texas, I worked at a gas station for a couple of days.....until they fired me for gross insubordination.... and this young woman customer asked me where I was from.

I said I was a local and she accused me of lying because I had no drawl at all.

She said she had just spent several thousand dollars to lose her accent for a TV role, and was pissed that I had done it for free.

I'm pretty good at recognizing accents, though, and one of my favorites is "Noth Caolina", which is pronounced with no R's.

Presumably the R's are all used up by people who say, "Warshington".

Well, since we have so many Activist Judges on the USSC who favor a fascist government, I expect a nice Fascist ruling. Corporations will pull the strings of government even more in the future than they have in the past---which means, they will control all aspects of govenment.

one of my favorites is "Noth Caolina", which is pronounced with no R's.

Presumably the R's are all used up by people who say, "Warshington".

#17 | Posted by Corky

Now there's a worthy wisecrack!

You get one Grade A #1 Funny Flag....

Notice the lack of right wingers in this thread. They have to get their talking points and they haven't received them yet on this issue.
Let me try....
"They're trying to take away my freedom of speech!"

"The socialists want to prevent the capitalists from having freedom of speech."

"Why shouldn't the most successful have the loudest megaphone?"

Notice the lack of right wingers in this thread. They have to get their talking points and they haven't received them yet on this issue.

Well it is only fair. After all, Danni, it is obvious that you and Corky got yours by about 12:30PM.

Seriously though, talk about fear mongering. There is no reason to think that the USSC is going to reverse a trend of rulings that has held up for 100+ years or so. Now go change your underwear.

The US Supreme Court is going to rule on what's constitutional in elections? That's freakin' hillarious. I didn't realize it was time to appoint another Bush to office.

Maybe it is not such a bad idea. If corporations can spend on elections then they could just buy off the voters instead of having to buy off the elected officials.

Maybe people could move from state to state to state just to vote in special elections or perhaps could move to districts with a representative that is not friendly to a corporation.

This is the free market at work people!

Its nice to see the masters of stealing elections and using union dues pissing their pants on this thread cos the mean ole republicans might get a few contributions from some ole company.

Whats a matter leftshits can't you just hit up hollywood, Ben & Jerry or George Soros for some campaign cash to make it even stevens.

Be afraid democrats be very afraid cos the scary republicans are comin to git yu.

"Notice the lack of right wingers in this thread. They have to get their talking points and they haven't received them yet on this issue.
Let me try...." #20 | Posted by danni

They are still reflecting on your posts and shaking their heads while saying "WTF, is she for real". Wow!

Seriously though, talk about fear mongering. There is no reason to think that the USSC is going to reverse a trend of rulings that has held up for 100+ years or so. Now go change your underwear.

#21 | Posted by moomanfl

There is plenty of reason to think that an activist rightwing/corporate court will TRY to reverse the precedents.....

"During the earlier oral argument in March, a government lawyer in response to a hypothetical question told the justices that the FEC had the power to ban corporate-produced political books that urge the election or defeat of a particular candidate. The exchange may have triggered the high court's decision to re-hear the case and closely examine the underlying precedents.

"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," writes Theodore Olson, lawyer for Citizens United, in his brief to the court. "And it is a sure sign as any that a return to first principles is in order," he said.

Not so fast, counters Solicitor General Elena Kagan, in her brief. "Overruling the [two prior cases] would fundamentally alter the legal rules governing participation of corporations including the nation's largest for-profit corporations in electoral campaigns, and would make vast sums of corporate money available for overt electioneering," she writes.

Since 1947, federal campaign laws have barred corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds in federal elections, and corporate contributions to candidates have been banned since 1907. But the regulations have been difficult to enforce.

The 2002 campaign-finance law sought to close what reform advocates said were "loopholes" permitting corporations and unions to support candidates through sham issue advertisements.

Opponents of the legislation claimed the law was too restrictive of corporate speech.

Now the high court may be on the verge of declaring that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend their money and express a corporate viewpoint during elections, just like individual voters.

A few years ago in a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia sought to counter concerns by reform advocates about the potential corrupting influence of money in politics. Justice Scalia alluded to the signers of the Declaration of Independence as pledging their "fortunes" as well as their "sacred honor."

Solicitor General Kagan seeks in her brief to draw a sharp distinction between corporations, the nation's founding fathers, and individual voters. "John Hancock pledged his own fortune," Ms. Kagan writes. "When the CEO of John Hancock Financial uses corporate-treasury funds for electoral advertising, he pledges someone else's."