Law Professor Edward B. Foley has this dispassionate and well-reasoned column about the January 21 Supreme Court opinion, Citizens United v FEC. Foley is at Moritz College of Law in Ohio, and is an expert in election law.
Law Professor Edward B. Foley has this dispassionate and well-reasoned column about the January 21 Supreme Court opinion, Citizens United v FEC. Foley is at Moritz College of Law in Ohio, and is an expert in election law.
Since when do FICTIONAL INVISABLE persons (such as corporations) have constitutional rights ???
Answer – since 5 of the Supremes say so — who can and do say whatever they want 24/7 on all subjects A to Z.
P.R. and A.V. – to END the political – social – economic INSANITY in the U.S.A. regime in Dumb City.
Are political parties fictional and invisible?
in New York State in 2008 the DNC filed with the NYS-BOE a presidential candidate certification omitting the constitutional requirment language certification. The RNC certification included the constitutional certification language.
2 –
Foreign governments are not fictional or invisible, either. Should they be able to influence the results of American political elections with contributions to campaign committees? Purchase adverts in American media to advocate for one side of American political issues?
I’m sure Benito Mussolini made one or two “dispassionate” arguments for fascism, too. Perhaps you should publish them here as well?
I wonder what Barry Goldwater would have said about “dispassionate” arguments in favor of systematic suppression of individual liberties in America? I’m just guessing here, but how about something like…”Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice?” Sounds about right.
But really…we should give this a chance to work. I’m sure that as a result of this decision gobs and gobs of money will flow like a torrent from corporate treasuries to advocate for third party candidacies,
third party ballot access, and to support third party stances on major political issues.
So let’s all try to keep cool heads about this, shall we?
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with contributions to candidates. It only says corporations can comment about candidates. The federal law still makes it illegal for corporations to donate to candidates for federal office. I doubt there is any law that says foreign governments may not comment about candidates for U.S. federal office.
The Supreme Court ruling also applies to labor unions, but there seems to be little concern about that. It’s only free speech rights for the EVIL corporations that bothers some people.
In the scheme that this decision struck down, corporations that owned a radio station, a TV station, or a newspaper, e.g., COULD speak about candidates, but other corporations COULD NOT.
Richard –
Your last statement is perhaps the most astonishing example of political naivete I have ever read, and in American politics these are myriad.
OK, you Tosca villain, my last comment has 4 sentences. Which sentence are you referring to?
5 –
All four together are splendidly and comprehensively naive, but any one individually would do.
But here…here’s a hypothetical for you which may show you the light.
Say you’re a campaign manager. A CEO comes to visit one evening and offers you two alternatives in support of your candidate’s campaign. One is a $2,600 personal contribution. The other is a coordinated, $10 million television, radio and internet advert campaign, financed directly from his company’s treasury, which will “comment” favorably on your candidate.
Unfortunately, the CEO is offering one and only one alternative. Which one are you going to take?
Personally, I think you should take the $10 million. Really, I do. Not only will your candidate win, but you can stop wasting your time on this silly website. After all, once corporations can start openly purchasing our elected officials, we can all stop worrying about insignificant, irrelevant trivialities such as ballot qualification, third party ballot access, recount procedures, electoral fraud, etc. In fact, to hell with ballots entirely, I say. Just print the invoice and send it to Accounts Payable.
On a related matter – what would your advice have been for Tosca? Instead of plunging a dagger into Scarpia, should she instead have given some “dispassionate” and “well-reasoned” consideration to the benefits of being on the receiving end of a rape? Since you’re being fucked and seem not to mind very much, I think your advice would have considerable weight.
6 –
Enjoy your trip back to the late 19th century. I’m sure the GOOD corporations and the GOOD people who run them will take GOOD care of you and the rest of us – as they did back then.
Aha! The evil Baron has not read Citizens United v FEC. He thinks it is now legal for corporations to coordinate their independent spending with some candidate’s campaign.
#9: You mean the awful late 19th century, when there was no such thing, e. g., as the wonderful Federal Reserve and income tax? I suggest that you read Burton Folsom’s book on the “robber barons.”
Those who spend the most money don’t always win. Gov. Jon Corzine spent three times as much as his Republican opponent and still lost.
10 –
No, you are intentionally reading much more into what I’ve written to disguise your naivete, or perhaps your true political stripe, since I now have to wonder whether you are really naive, or just another run of the mill Bushie-Bushie pom pom girl who cheers the increase of corporate power over individual power in this country. Like, for instance…
11 – Yes in fact I do mean the awful late 19th century when there was no Federal Reserve Bank, no income tax, no Glass-Steagall Act, no Taft-Hartley act, no oversight of equity markets, and most of all, no middle class to speak of.
Enjoy your trip back to the good old days. I think I’ll pass. I’m not as sure I’d find myself living in the home of one of the robber barons as you apparently do. I might find myself living in the Five Points in a tenement with no running water, no heat, an outhouse in the back, and working 70-80 hours on the tenth floor of the Triangle Building where the boss locks me and the other workers in for the shift and the only escape from a fire is to jump from the window. You know – the “good old” tax-free days you and your greedy, conservative buddies long for.
As for your statement that sometimes candidates who spend the most don’t win…yeah? So what’s your point? .330 hitters sometimes strike out. Are you going to fill up your lineup with .330 hitters or .110 hitters?
Typical obfuscatory, conservative slop. Both of you.