The consequences of Citizens United vs. FEC

[Locutus]

  Remember how the Republicans cried about activist judges.  Well look what the 5  Catholic Republican Supreme Court judges did.

                                                                      CITIZEN UNITED

                                                         

I think Y pointed out that it's only judicial activism when they don't like the decisions being made.  But it's also like I said, if there was ever a case of justices legislating from the bench, this case was it. 

[Henry Hawk]

Guys, I cannot get past a very simple part of this whole case...it is this.  The first amendment says that it prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech.  That is very clear.  Telling a corporation in the United States, consisting of American PEOPLE..that they cannot spend money to voice their opinion....violates that amendment.
I understand YOUR frustration, but the court ruled correctly! 

If WE the PEOPLE thinks it needs to be changed, then an amendment to that rule needs to be applied.  Judges are NOT to be deciding and making NEW rules and laws....they are to interpret the ones we have in place.

Where in our constitution does it say corporations are to be treated differently?

[Exterminator]

Did a single justice in the majority even imagine a world of super PACs and phony corporations set up for the sole purpose of disguising a donor's identity? Did they think that a presidential candidacy might be kept alive largely through the generosity of a Las Vegas gambling magnate with important financial interests in China?

There is a point in here that people like Henry conveniently overlook.  Citizens United has made it possible for corporations to have a major influence over the outcome of elections even if those corporations are wholly owned by people who are not U.S. citizens and not eligible themselves to vote in those elections.

[Henry Hawk]

There is a point in here that people like Henry conveniently overlook.  Citizens United has made it possible for corporations to have a major influence over the outcome of elections even if those corporations are wholly owned by people who are not U.S. citizens and not eligible themselves to vote in those elections.

think again....and prove me wrong if you can.  Regarding foreign nationals and foreign corps....they are STILL banned from participating directly or indirectly to any American Elections....they are still part of the rules intact by the FEC regulations. CU's decision did NOT over turn it...it was not even under consideration by the courts.


and let's see what happens during this next election....if Obama has the economy under control, he will win.  If the economy is still in turmoil he will lose.........despite the amount of money that is being spent by any corporation.

[Exterminator]

think again....and prove me wrong if you can.  Regarding foreign nationals and foreign corps....they are STILL banned from participating directly or indirectly to any American Elections....they are still part of the rules intact by the FEC regulations. CU's decision did NOT over turn it...it was not even under consideration by the courts.

All foreign governments, corporations or individuals have to do if they want to be allowed to influence elections here is to incorporate in any U.S. state or territory.  Perhaps you don't have a problem with, for example, communist Chinese influencing our political process.  I do.

[Locutus]

There is a point in here that people like Henry conveniently overlook.  Citizens United has made it possible for corporations to have a major influence over the outcome of elections even if those corporations are wholly owned by people who are not U.S. citizens and not eligible themselves to vote in those elections.

Right.  And remember, the original case was in regard to the very narrow issue of whether Citizen's documentary Hillary: The Movie was "electioneering communication" under McCain-Feingold.  A district court ruled that it was and, hence, could be regulated.   The SCOTUS, in a baffling decision, broadened the scope into a corporate "free speech" issue.  That's the very definition of judicial activism and legislating from the bench if I ever saw one. 

[Locutus]

All foreign governments, corporations or individuals have to do if they want to be allowed to influence elections here is to incorporate in any U.S. state or territory.  Perhaps you don't have a problem with, for example, communist Chinese influencing our political process.  I do.

Henry must have missed the part about "shell corporations" in that piece. 

[Henry Hawk]

All foreign governments, corporations or individuals have to do if they want to be allowed to influence elections here is to incorporate in any U.S. state or territory.  Perhaps you don't have a problem with, for example, communist Chinese influencing our political process.  I do.

The citezins united had NOTHING to do with the outcome of that....the ruling did not change anything regarding that...it was not even discussed in this case.....it was like that before this case.

[Exterminator]

WTF?

[Locutus]

"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."  -- Justice John Paul Stevens. 

[Locutus]

"I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." - Chief Justice John Roberts

[Henry Hawk]

Guys, I cannot get past a very simple part of this whole case...it is this.  The first amendment says that it prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech.  That is very clear.  Telling a corporation in the United States, consisting of American PEOPLE..that they cannot spend money to voice their opinion….violates that amendment.
I understand YOUR frustration, but the court ruled correctly! 

If WE the PEOPLE thinks it needs to be changed, then an amendment to that rule needs to be applied.  Judges are NOT to be deciding and making NEW rules and laws….they are to interpret the ones we have in place.

Where in our constitution does it say corporations are to be treated differently?

[Exterminator]

Guys, I cannot get past a very simple part of this whole case...it is this.  The first amendment says that it prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech.  That is very clear.

And you merely support that freedom even for communists seeking to influence American elections; we've got that.

Telling a corporation in the United States, consisting of American PEOPLE..that they cannot spend money to voice their opinion....violates that amendment.

As noted previously, there is nothing preventing any foreign entity from incorporating in any U.S. state or territory.  Once they have done so, they are legally an American corporation with the same rights and priviledges as any other.

Where in our constitution does it say corporations are to be treated differently?

I don't know; where in the Constitution does it say that fucking frogs should be treated differently either, for that matter?  Should we let them vote, too?  I'm sure the founding fathers, in their wildest dreams, never anticipated this level of stupidity.

[Henry Hawk]

As noted previously, there is nothing preventing any foreign entity from incorporating in any U.S. state or territory.  Once they have done so, they are legally an American corporation with the same rights and priviledges as any other.

AND YOU ARE WRONG:


Federal law bans all foreign nationals from contributing either directly or indirectly to any candidate or political party "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." It also bans all foreign nationals from making "an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

Thus, foreign nationals are banned not only from contributing directly to candidates, but also from making any political expenditures of any kind. This ban includes foreign corporations, since the term "foreign nationals" is defined to include individuals, foreign governments, foreign political parties, and corporations "organized under the laws or having their principal place of business in a foreign country." The punishment for violating this provision can be severe: In addition to civil penalties, knowing and willful violations that aggregate $2,000 or more in a calendar year can result in up to one year in federal prison, and violations aggregating $25,000 or more can result in up to five years in federal prison.

There is an exemption for foreign nationals who are lawful permanent residents of the United States. The FEC has implemented congressional intent in this exemption with regard to corporations by issuing regulations that allow only American domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations, not the foreign corporations themselves, to establish PACs. The regulation specifically provides that a "foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities." Such PACs can operate only if their donations and disbursements do "not come from a foreign national" and "no foreign national participates in making decisions" on the PAC's election-related activities. Under current law, there are multiple layers of protection to prevent foreign influence on U.S. elections.

This exemption makes perfect sense. Foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in American elections, but their American subsidiaries that employ American workers, have American officers, and pay American taxes are able to participate in the American election process to the same extent as other companies as long as all of the money comes from, and all of the decisions are made by, Americans.

source:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/02/citizens-united-and-the-restoration-of-the-first-amendment

[Exterminator]

Try to get this through your thick head: Nothing in our current laws explicitly prohibits foreign companies from creating American subsidiaries or getting control of American companies and using them to flood the airwaves in support of their preferred candidates. The Citizens United ruling gives companies unlimited power to do that - and does not distinguish between American companies and companies that are owned or controlled by foreign interests.  Senate Bill 2959, the American Elections Act of 2010, addressed this issue specifically but your fellow fucking Republicans failed to act to close this gaping hole.

Admit it, you're all a bunch of fucking communists who want your fellow communists to have access to our political process so you can pervert it even further.