So, no ObamaCare until Thursday, and the SB 1070 ruling is going to instigate some interesting fallout, but the Supreme Court did issue at least one ruling today that had me smiling.
In 2010, the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United v. FEC decision prescribed that corporations, like individuals, are entitled to free speech — and by extension, can spend mucho dinero in support of or opposition to political candidates in federal elections. The highly controversial 5-4 decision split down the conservative-liberal line, and many liberals were positively outraged with corporations’ confirmed newfound spending capabilities. President Obama was no fan of the decision, and plenty of people have pointed to the ruling as a huge factor in the outcome of the November 2010 elections.
Today, the Supreme Court essentially doubled down on that decision by ruling that the state of Montana may not use state laws to subvert the Citizens United case.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday followed up on its 2010 ruling that unleashed corporate spending in federal elections, reversing a decision that upheld a century-old Montana law restricting business political campaign expenditures.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled for three corporations – a political advocacy group called American Tradition Partnership Inc, a nonprofit that promotes shooting sports and a small family-owned painting business – that challenged the law for violating their free-speech rights. …
The Montana Supreme Court upheld the state law, ruling the 2010 decision did not control the outcome because Montana’s law was different and justified by the state’s interest in preventing corporate corruption and influence in politics. …
James Bopp, lead attorney for the corporations, said when he filed the appeal, “If Montana can ban core political speech because of Montana’s unique characteristics, free speech will be seriously harmed. Speakers will be silenced because of corruption by others over a century ago.”
Once again, the liberal justices were less than pleased with the outcome — back in February, Justice Ginsburg urged that the Montana case should be a chance to revisit the Citizens United decision, but nothing doing. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan were in agreement with Breyer’s dissenting opinion:
25 Jun
Supreme Court bolsters Citizens United decision by smacking down Montana
Mischaracterizing the Citizens United case as being primarily about corporate political spending is what the left is doing in order to argue against it. The fact is that the case has nothing to do with corporate political spending, or influence. What it has to do with is the simple idea that spending money, on political ads, equals free speech, and that neither Congress, nor anyone else, has a right under our Constitution to limit that kind of speech.
Now, the fact that the decision in the case has resulted in the formation of “corporate”-style groups spending massive amounts of money shouldn’t be blamed on the decision itself, but rather, the law that precipitated the lawsuits leading to the USSC case decision. That is, the McCain-Feingold law in the early 2000′s that essentially limited political free speech by everyone but select groups and individuals.
The root cause of the expanded increase in political spending escapes liberal/progressives. Why? Because they cannot take it upon themselves to admit when they were wrong about something.
@johngalt, #1:
Of course the corollary that immediately follows that proposition is the real problem: The more money you have, the more free speech you can now buy. To influence public opinion concerning policies that affect your ability to accumulate even more money, for example . . .
@Greg:
You mean like the unions, Greg?
@retire05, #3:
I mean any special interest having enormous supplies of cash. Those primarily concerned with the accumulation of money are the most dangerous, however, once the quantity of their money determines how much free speech they can buy.
Suppose, for example, that the largest profit-oriented corporations reached the point where they could buy essentially all television and radio advertising slots for a solid month preceding a national election. How much meaningful freedom of speech would anyone else have left?
@Greg:
You just don’t like the Citizens United ruling, Greg, because it leveled the playing field that the unions have controlled for so long. Now shareholders in companies can be just as equally represented as Richard Trumka’s goons.
I believe I’ve clearly stated what I don’t like about Citizens United.
The most dollars buys the loudest voice isn’t my idea of a level playing field.
@retire05:
because it leveled the playing field that the unions have controlled for so long
There’s still much work ahead. A good win nevertheless.
Chock full of factual goodness from a 1998 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Panel: “The Future of Unions in the Next Century”.
Lots of case law (I believe is the correct term, correct me if that’s wrong) and a gems like this: The unions have also gotten around the requirement of review by an impartial decision maker [arbitrator] … in concert with the American Arbitration Association … the arbitrator is selected by the AAA … but the arbitrator needs to have recommendations from four unions.
Here: http://www.nrtw.org/RJLFedSoc.htm
Goose = Gander (sic)
When money in politics buys complete plutocracy, corporatism, and ultimately fascism—and the liberals have been completely silenced—as the conservatives on this site begin to notice their rights really impinged upon, it will be too late, because all their guns and bullets will prove useless to defend themselves, and there will be no one to help them.
@Greg:
From 2010 Washington Post Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070602133.html
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
You seem to think that financial backed corporations hold the most power simply on the dollar factor. Then explain the tremendous power held by groups that represent the poor. If the poor hold no power, how do they manage to get Congress, and the federal government, to award them more and more largess, redistributed to them at the expense of the productive?
As a conservative, my rights were impinged on long ago. I am expected to fill the coffers of the IRS in order to support those who have no desire to work or be productive. I am expected to fill the coffers of my state treasury in order to educate those who are not legally entitled to any service guaranteed to American citizens and legal residents. I am expected (by progressives) to forfeit my 2nd and 4th Amendment rights in the name of a false sense of security. I am expected to carry “uninsured motorist” auto insurance so that if I am hit by an uninsured motorist, I can have my vehicle repaired.
And my guns and bullets are not designed to protect me from corporations, but to protect me from progressives like yourself who form an oppressive government.
@Greg:
Hmm. Funny. I don’t remember you denouncing the money spent recently in WI by the various unions, both local and national, in their attempt to ouster Gov. Walker. I don’t remember you complaining that the unions were spending massive amounts of money in that state at the various “protests”, the bussing in of “voters”, or the monetary support supplied to the Democrats in WI when the Dem senators “walked out” into Illinois.
Seems to me that you must have also been ok with McCain-Feingold prior to the Citizens United case that allowed unions to have such a major advantage, monetarily, over election influence, since you never complained about the massive amounts of monetary influence the unions had during the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, while non-union groups had their free speech limited.
To you then, I guess, it’s really about who has the monetary influence in elections, not that their is any. So then it follows that what you are really pissed about, in regards to Citizens United, is that the playing field was tilted back towards level, and that liberal/progressive politicians didn’t have as big an advantage as they had before.
So, in reality, you are a hypocrite when it comes to spending money for influential political free speech. It’s ok for groups that support liberal/progressive causes to be allowed free reign to spend as much as they want, but not ok when other groups not necessarily beholden, or supportive, of those same causes can do so as well.