stop asking busy business leaders for political cash.

I’m particularly moved to help those “busy business leaders.”

Somehow, though, I think they’d make space in those “busy, busy” schedules for a visit from their tin cup-toting Congressional representative(s).

And hey, isn’t that what lobbyists are for: gather the cash and do the “influencing”? Just how lazy ARE these “busy business leaders”?

Given this SCOTUS ruling, would not any subsequent public financing legislation that contained provisions restricting special interest money be deemed “unconstitutional” a priori?

The corporate personhood problem aside ( which is a huge evil recurring American problem) As long as there are no limits on how much a candidate can take in, why should the supreme court limit how much people can give them? pass public financing and place a cap on the TOTAL amount a candidate can recieve in an election cycle.

It seems as though the solidified SCOTUS majority principle now is that money is a direct proxy for constitutionally protected “speech.” So, “Congress shall make no law…” infringing on it (and that would include legislating any “caps”).

Maybe all manner of lobbying regulation will be struck down next.

I think Not, the ruling seems to be (like most of the rulings of the last 50 years or so),not that broad and kind of narrow in scope. I am in NO WAY an expert.

again, an expert can school me here, but i think the reasoning behind the majority opinion was, there are no limits on how much a candidate can take, so it is not fair to limit how much a “single” donor can give

I have to confess to not having read it all, but their broad-brush slippery slope arguments depicting absurd hypothetical scenarios wherein publishers could be forbidden to publish “political books” etc (various themed movies forbidden, and so on) absent this ruling gives me no comfort.

they are kicking it down to the politicians. LIMIT YOUR SELVES , you greedy bastards

Does that then strike down any current legal limits on individual campaign contributions (e.g. $2,400 to any candidate, etc)? e.g., could Warren Buffet now personally “purchase” his own Senator from Berkshire-Hathaway?

I thought “it” was all about “Free Speech” for a Corporate entity, aka a person… with constitutional rights to free speech and other rights.
What needs to be done is to reverse the ruling back in 1888(iirc) that gave “IT” personhood.
Just my understanding of “it”….

well no, its not comforting, especially since even if my iterpretaion is right, we would need the same politicians we have watched ignore the will of the people to cozy up to lobbyist money, we would need those same troglydytes to write an honest , well reasoned bill, placing limits on the amount of money they can grab.

that would be like asking a crack fiend in the middle of a crack binge, and with an unlimited supply of crack, to put down and walk away from it becasue thats the best thing for everyone.

Public financing cannot survive this SCROTUM I mean SCOTUS. They showed their true stripes with Bush v. Gore and they are not going to back down any time soon. The total per individual is going to be the next thing to fall. All we can hope for now is that Obama gets to replace at least one of the right wing on the court, then those laws can be revisited. I don’t think the average voter realizes the monumental shift that this ruling represents, but they will. Were I Exxon Mobile I would get an ad on the Super Bowl this year, exhorting everyone to vote republican.

And lobbying regulations are coming down too. Lobbying is the same as spending money, if there are no limits on what you can spend, there are no limits on what you can spend it on, the way I read this.

I’m confused. Even if there were mandatory public funding for the campaigns themselves, the SCOTUS ruling still allows outside groups to run their own ads. So what’s the point?

havent they already paid for one?

I dont think the scotus case applied to the activities of third party groups. correct

This may be a recognition of current finances. I read that Obama got 20 million from healthcare, to McCain’s 7 million. Jesse Ventura’s comment on larry King suggests that the cat has been out of the bag, in indirect ways

L. KING: You seem to look back, and look at both of these parties with askance look.

VENTURA: To me, Larry — and I have said it before, and I know I’ll get a laugh out of this. But I wish they would pass a law where all Democrats and Republicans had to wear Nascar racing suits, because if you look at the Nascar drivers, it tells who their sponsors are. And if they do that, we could then become informed voters, because we would know who owns them.
nov 3, larry king live; posted to youtube nov 4, 2009

We need to break this ‘money = speech’ equation. Every major corporation has a public relations/public information person who can issue all the ‘free speech’ statements they want and small corporations can always issue press releases. Problem solved.

Oh, if that isn’t enough “free speech” then the networks will need to provide free access to our public airwaves.

Oh, if you’re not a REAL person who is, or will be, eligible to vote, then maybe you have no business trying to influence elections with money.

Oh, how can my representative represent me if money is coming in from beyond my district?

Were I Exxon Mobile I would get an ad on the Super Bowl this year, exhorting everyone to vote republican.

Exactly… sooner the better … then start buying congresscritters lickety split!!!

I haven’t read the whole case but I will then I will start thinking. “how can we use this ruling against the very people and corporations we dislike.”
when your opponent is big and rich and powerful you need to think of david and goliath moves or ways that they will trip themselves up because of their size.
So for example the thing I hate about the initiative process in California it forces smaller groups to spend millions defending rights or stopping stupid laws. Why don’t we force them to spend millions stopping laws they don’t like?

So a bill to get rid of Corporate personhood. Sure it will fail but it will force them to spend millions to show how it is good for “small business.”

Also ask yourself who benefits from all the money being spent on ads. Then see about directing that money to friends.

When life gives you lemons use them to make a nice salad dressing with olive oil and lemon juice with some galic and mustard.

I won’t be giving any money to any candidates until the Congress does something about this ruling. Since they have made it fairly clear that they neither like us or respect us, they can do without my money.

And, the SC decision, as I understand it, allows everything short of a corporation handing a check to a candidate. Why not just remove that fig leaf of bribery and make it public and direct? (This question is directed toward Roberts, Alito, et. al.) Corporations wouldn’t be giving money if they didn’t think it wouldn’t return a ‘profit’ for themselves.

Glenzilla weighs in this afternoon.

While I’m initially and (frankly) emotionally opposed to the SCOTUS decision, Glenn does make some compelling arguments.

What is overlooked in virtually every discussion I’ve seen over the last 24 hours is how ineffective these campaign finance laws are. Large corporations employ teams of lawyers and lobbyists and easily circumvent these restrictions; wealthy individuals and well-funded unincorporated organizations are unlimited in what they can spend. It’s the smaller non-profit advocacy groups whose political speech tends to be most burdened by these laws. Campaign finance laws are a bit like gun control statutes: actual criminals continue to possess large stockpiles of weapons, but law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

In sum, there’s no question that the stranglehold corporations exert on our democracy is one of the most serious and pressing threats we face. I’ve written volumes on that very problem. Although I doubt it, this decision may very well worsen that problem in some substantial way. But on both pragmatic and Constitutional grounds, the issue of corporate influence — like virtually all issues — is not really solvable by restrictions on political speech. Isn’t it far more promising to have the Government try to equalize the playing field through serious public financing of campaigns than to try to slink around the First Amendment — or, worse, amend it — in order to limit political advocacy?

There are few features that are still extremely healthy and vibrant in the American political system; the First Amendment is one of them, and the last thing we should want is Congress trying to limit it through amendments or otherwise circumvent it in the name of elevating our elections. Meaningful public financing of campaigns would far more effectively achieve the ostensible objectives of campaign finance restrictions without any of the dangers or constitutional infirmities. If yesterday’s decision provides the impetus for that to be done, then it will have, on balance, achieved a very positive outcome, even though that was plainly not its intent.

Like I said, my initial reaction is “Yuck” and “Dammit!” But Glenn’s opinion is making me think more about it.

When life gives you lemons use them to make a nice salad dressing with olive oil and lemon juice with some galic and mustard.

Nah LEMON MERINGUE PIE!!!

My favorite.

Why not just give the Fortune 500 the seats in Congress and have their names put on them in brass. The truth is they’ve bought these seats and they’re names should be on them.

I can appreciate Glenn’s point of view. To me the part of all this that seem counter to our constitution of corporate personhood. How far do we take this thing? As one of the other commentors pointed out we have the govt actively stripping actual human beings of their rights. How does imbuing “rights” to corporations jibe with stripping individuals of rights and indefinite detention? In mind mind these two things are in contradiction. We are moving in a direction where corporations have more rights than individual humans which is what is most disturbing about this line of thought in general. We individuals already feel somewhat powerless in the face of corporate and governmental power. How do we regain our power and civil rights in the face of the potential of unlimited corporate resources accountable to no one?

Yesterday Ralph Nader used the metaphor “King Corporation” in his critique of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

All Kings depend on handmaidens.
All handmaidens serving this particular King are Republicans AND Democrats.
All Republicans and Democrats depend on our votes next November 2.

Why not FLUSH all Republicans AND Democrats running for reelection from Congress in the coming midterms?

All INCUMBENTS are either complicit in the systemic corruption that kills children for Wall Street profits, or they are impotent to stop the killing.

We can’t afford “antiquated pre-Internet pipe dreams” like believing a choice between Republican OR Democrat will save us.

That “choice” will leave us homeless on the continent our forefathers conquered or dead in Afghanistan.(Mexico?)

FLUSH the DC TOILET in 2010!
Fight the Rich: Not their wars.

Here I was thinking that it couldn’t get much worse than a GOP appointed Supreme Court selecting a president. Yesterday, they proved me wrong. Well, I keep hearing that peiople get the government they deserve. What a terrible thought!

Great post Swopa, thanks for sharing, I concur with it all.