DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on February 03, 2010, 11:04:00 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?hp=&pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)
February 4, 2010
Justice Defends Ruling on Finance
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.
And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court’s decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan.
Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.
“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”
The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.
He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”
Justice Thomas would not directly address the controversy over Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s mouthed “not true” in response. But he did say he had stopped attending the addresses.
“I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”
“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”
-
The whole issue is whether a corporation should have the same rights as an individual, and i'm not sure that it does. If for the only reason, that on paper, corporations are immortal, and individuals are not. In that sense corporations have an unfair advantage.
-
Are corporations made up of persons?
-
Are corporations made up of persons?
Yes, but those persons already have rights individually.
I'm not sure whether an entity (corporation or union for that matter) not entitled to vote should be able to donate to political campaigns.
The argument that corporations are associations of people with common interests in my mind really isn't a good argument as the association is more about money than public policy.
-
Well, as Justice Roberts pointed out, what the the 1st Amendment protects is the speech itself, it doesn't make any distinctions as to the speaker. Framed that way, congress has no power to restrict speech regardless of whether the origin is persons, corporations, labor unions, newspapers, foreign nationals, dogs, cats, etc.
The 1st isn't a grant of individual rights, it's a restriction on the authority of the government to legislate.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate)
Right, but my point here is that "personhood" is extraneous to the issue. The 1st doesn't make any mention of persons:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It simply states that congress shall not make any laws abridging freedom of speech. The question doesn't revolve around the rights of "persons", but the authority of congress to make laws.
-
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_10323851 (http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_10323851)
-
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_10323851 (http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_10323851)
Chris Crawford, who chaired the “No on Measure T” committee, called the ordinance “patently unfair on its face” and said it was really special interest advocacy cloaking itself in finance reform.
”Measure T said, 'This group can't contribute, but this group can,'” Crawford said. “It applied to businesses but not unions or nonprofits.”
O & M Industries estimates that roughly 75 percent of its employees reside in Humboldt County, while Mercer-Fraser Co. says roughly 98 percent of its workforce resides within county lines. Under Measure T guidelines, both companies are considered non-local.
“To me, it makes no difference. I don't care if none of them live in Humboldt County,” Crawford said. “But don't tell me that unions can contribute (to campaigns) and businesses can't.”
Seems to me Crawford has it right. And so does Religious Dick. And do does Ilya Shapiro, http://tinyurl.com/yhhubpc (http://tinyurl.com/yhhubpc).
-
Precisely. If legislation targets corporations, but gives unions and so called "non profit" organizations like the NAACP, which are also simply made up of "individuals", its bad legislation. Either target everyone or no one
-
Either target everyone or no one
Exactly.
But then the debate turns upon whether a corporation is protected by the 14th amendment where personhood is the issue..
-
The whole issue is whether a corporation should have the same rights as an individual, and i'm not sure that it does. If for the only reason, that on paper, corporations are immortal, and individuals are not. In that sense corporations have an unfair advantage.
I am assuming you feel exactly the same way about Unions?
-
Either target everyone or no one
Exactly.
But the legislation in question does address that, does it? IIRC, this ruling by scotus lessens the restrictions on everyone, but everyone is having a huff on how it "helps corporations". Where's the critical guff on how its helping unions??
-
As far as i am concerned unions are corporations. So are non profits 501-c's etc.
They are creations of the state.
-
I can agree with that. But no one that I'm aware of is calling this an outrageous or even improper decision benefiting unions and non-profits. I sense a bit of unfairness in such critiques of the ruling aimed at how it helps "corporations"....present compnay excluded of course
-
Are corporations made up of persons?
Yes, but those persons already have rights individually.
So what is the limit for one of those persons to use the resorces of the company for his individual free speech?
-
So what is the limit for one of those persons to use the resorces of the company for his individual free speech?
I'm not sure one of those persons can use corporate resources for his individual free speech.
-
Either target everyone or no one
No, simply target no one, because the Constitution prohibits the government from doing so.
-
So what is the limit for one of those persons to use the resorces of the company for his individual free speech?
I'm not sure one of those persons can use corporate resources for his individual free speech.
Doesn't that describe the editorial page of a newspaper or Magazine?
Lets you and I found such a company , I will let you use the company jet for skywriting political messages on Mondays , Wendsdays , Fridays and alternate Sundays .
But I want to use it election day , I will rent it from you if this happens on one of your days.
Maybe over Braves home games too, when they are playing the Dodgers or Twins especially.
-
I'm beginning to think that public finance of campaigns needs to be the way to go.
-
Not with the MSM bias that currently permeates the American landscape
-
I'm beginning to think that public finance of campaigns needs to be the way to go.
Then we will need a panel empowered to choose the canadates.
Unchosen canadates will have no finances, little chance to be elected.
For a Government to choose its own members is incestuous.
-
Then we will need a panel empowered to choose the canadates.
Why. That's what primaries and elections are for.
Unchosen canadates will have no finances, little chance to be elected.
Depends on what level of government you start at. Palin leveraged the PTA to a Council seat.
For a Government to choose its own members is incestuous.
The governed choose the government. Where the funding comes from shouldn't matter. What would make a difference is the need to sell votes in exchange for election or reelection.
-
Where the funding comes from shouldn't matter.
It does if you plan on forcing people to pay for election campaigns.
-
It does if you plan on forcing people to pay for election campaigns.
Last i saw on the 1040 the check box for campaign finance was voluntary.
-
Will it still be voluntary if you eliminate private financing of campaigns?
-
Will it still be voluntary if you eliminate private financing of campaigns?
Don't see why not.
-
And when the government decides it's not bringing in enough money to pay for the campaigns?
-
And when the government decides it's not bringing in enough money to pay for the campaigns?
=========================
They would simply divide the money received equally. It is pretty easy to do that.
We have way too much advertising during campaigns now. The price goes up with the demand. Less demand would mean a reduction in prices.
I favor telling the media companies that they must donate airtime equally to all candidates in return for using the public airwaves.
-
And when the government decides it's not bringing in enough money to pay for the campaigns?
They raise the amount in the check box. They have done it before. But what they haven't done is force anyone to contribute.
-
Right. And the government would never consider making it mandatory. Sure.
-
They might, who knows. But they haven't yet and Presidential Election Campaign Fund has been around in its final form since 1976.
-
They also haven't eliminated private funding of campaigns yet. I think guessing that would change the situation is a safe guess.
-
They also haven't eliminated private funding of campaigns yet. I think guessing that would change the situation is a safe guess.
Why?
What do you think it costs to run for local office?
-
I haven't the foggiest. Are you suggesting the federal government would handle financing for local politics?
-
Are you suggesting the federal government would handle financing for local politics?
I think local governments could handle that. Same check-box different tax.
But just to clear the fog, my filing fees were higher than my campaign expense.
-
In 2008 the advrage spent by winning congressional campaigns was 1.4 million.
Small in comparison to laundry soap or hamburgurs.