General Discussion

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts) Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:43 PM Jun 2012

Supreme Court upholds Citizen United 5-4- .... breaking

High Court Says 'Citizens United' Applies To States
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

text size A A A June 25, 2012
The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its 2-year-old decision allowing corporations to spend freely to influence elections. The justices struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.

By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

The majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.

The same five justices said in 2010 that corporations have a constitutional right to be heard in election campaigns. The decision paved the way for unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions in elections for Congress and the president, as long as the dollars are independent of the campaigns they are intended to help. The decision, grounded in the freedom of speech, appeared to apply equally to state contests.

But Montana aggressively defended its 1912 law against a challenge from corporations seeking to be free of spending limits, and the state Supreme Court sided with the state. The state court said a history of corruption showed the need for the limits, even as Justice Anthony Kennedy declared in his Citizens United opinion that independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/25/155704776/high-court-says-citizens-united-applies-to-states

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court upholds Citizen United 5-4- .... breaking (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Jun 2012 OP

Corporate owned scum bags! L0oniX Jun 2012 #1

I think we may need sharp_stick Jun 2012 #2

I'd like to see those traitors thrown out of the country ...after being tar'd and feathered. L0oniX Jun 2012 #4

Good Luck With That... KharmaTrain Jun 2012 #12

Activist Judges running roughshod over states rights? Rambis Jun 2012 #3

I get it, but that claim always come bouncing back. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2012 #13

100 years of settled law in Montana upheld by State Supremes just thrown out KeepItReal Jun 2012 #5

Maybe it's time to re-think this 'lifetime appointment' system Siwsan Jun 2012 #6

American Feudalism, Here We Are! nt MrScorpio Jun 2012 #7

Only congress can impeach SCOTUS Justice fredamae Jun 2012 #8

That totally sucks. surrealAmerican Jun 2012 #9

I guess Kennedy didn't have his TV on during the Walker recall election. bluesbassman Jun 2012 #10

Although we're angry, they might be right. Mcubed1945 Jun 2012 #11

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)

1. Corporate owned scum bags!

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:45 PM

Jun 2012

sharp_stick

(14,400 posts)

2. I think we may need

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:45 PM

Jun 2012

a Constitutional Amendment to put this horrific ruling out of it's misery.

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)

4. I'd like to see those traitors thrown out of the country ...after being tar'd and feathered.

Reply to sharp_stick (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:46 PM

Jun 2012

KharmaTrain

(31,706 posts)

12. Good Luck With That...

Reply to sharp_stick (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:08 PM

Jun 2012

Firstly, more than 1/3rd of the legislatures in this country are controlled by rushpublicans...no way they're gonna give up such a big cash advantage. This horse is long out of the barn and you're asking those who stand to profit and benefit from it to disarm? Ain't gonna happen. The only hope is that people see all the spending as a negative on a candidate...

Rambis

(7,774 posts)

3. Activist Judges running roughshod over states rights?

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:46 PM

Jun 2012

Puzzledtraveller

(5,937 posts)

13. I get it, but that claim always come bouncing back.

Reply to Rambis (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:13 PM

Jun 2012

It's because we never call them activists when it's positions we agree with. Furthermore, if we want to trot states rights than we may have to concede Arizona. We want to have our cake and eat it too.

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)

5. 100 years of settled law in Montana upheld by State Supremes just thrown out

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:58 PM

Jun 2012

Someone lied to congress... And it ain't Eric Holder.

Siwsan

(26,272 posts)

6. Maybe it's time to re-think this 'lifetime appointment' system

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:00 PM

Jun 2012

It can be a recipe for disaster, as we now see.

MrScorpio

(73,631 posts)

7. American Feudalism, Here We Are! nt

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:16 PM

Jun 2012

fredamae

(4,458 posts)

8. Only congress can impeach SCOTUS Justice

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:20 PM

Jun 2012

so keep that in mind when voting-there is absolutely No way a R controlled anything will do whats right.
Give both senate and house a really big-filibuster proof Dem majority, put a mop and broom in their hands and clean up this mess the repubs have created. We need constitutional amendment to prevent this from ever happening in our country and to our people again!

We let this corporatization happen via complacency and its going to be "us" who fix it.

surrealAmerican

(11,362 posts)

9. That totally sucks.

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:33 PM

Jun 2012

k & r.

bluesbassman

(19,375 posts)

10. I guess Kennedy didn't have his TV on during the Walker recall election.

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:38 PM

Jun 2012

Blatant partisan bullshit. I am not surprised.

Mcubed1945

(9 posts)

11. Although we're angry, they might be right.

Reply to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:04 PM

Jun 2012

I'm not going to claim I know what the right answer is. It just seems to me that the SCOTUS might be right that corporations can spend lots of money on campaign under our constitution. The facts of the cases in Montana certainly demonstrate how that legal right can be abused by those same companies.

My point is that perhaps we shouldn't be railing against SCOTUS but discussing strategies to organizing voters and working on an amendment to the constitution doing away with that right. It will be very difficult considering the massive amounts of money that will be poured into congress to oppose that amendment. I am sure it will have to be a very well led grass roots movement organized on the web, perhaps?

Reply to this discussion