5 ms·

Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns

17 points by blasdel 17y ago

pmichaud 17y ago
I posted a day or two ago that I'm leaving the US, and I'm not kidding.
- jhancock 17y ago
  Where are you planning to go?
  - hga 17y ago
    Some place with less freedom of speech, since that to the best of my knowledge describes every other country in the world. It makes a certain amount of sense: pmichaud is appalled by an increase in the freedom of speech (really, a return to the pre-1990 normal state of affairs) and wherever he goes, there will be less of it.
  - pmichaud 17y ago
    I'm considering New Zealand.
Herring 17y ago
>The court split 5 to 4 over the ruling, with its conservative members in the majority Can't say I'm surprised.
jcnnghm 17y ago
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," the court said in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." Seems like a fairly compelling argument to me.
- mbreese 17y ago
  This is actually a very interesting argument. This turns the normal argument on it's head. Usually the thinking was money = speech, and if a company is a legal "person" then restricting contributions is restricting the speech of the company. However, this is framed from the point of view of a hypothetical person (voter), not the company. In this case, he is arguing that by restricting the speech of the company, we restrict the sources of information for a person (voter). In other words, it isn't the act of restricting the speech of the company that is unlawful, but the limiting the ability of the voter to hear the speech that is unlawful.
- blasdel 17y ago
  I don't really disagree, but this is a way for corporations to pay politicians hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that at the very least they should just apply the restrictions on the campaigners directly to the special interest groups instead of doing so transitively: "We're ExxonMobil, and we approve this message"
- robotron 17y ago
  Corporations and unions are not sentient beings.
  - jcnnghm 17y ago
    No, but they are composed entirely of sentient beings.
    - logicalmind 17y ago
      Yes, but corporations are a way for sentient beings to skirt liability. A corporation cannot go to prison for life. A corporation is designed with the goal of producing profit for its sentient owners/shareholders. It has no interest in leading a "healthy" life, only a profitable life.
      - hga 17y ago
        A corporation can be put to death, and with no due process. See e.g. Arthur Anderson, which was eventually exonerated by the Supreme Court. But long after it was dead. And that threat can get them to do crazy things, e.g. that's what wrecked AIG a few years before the financial crisis.
lurkinggrue 17y ago
Fine, can we jail a few corporations now? I would also like politicians to wear sponsor tags like nascar drivers. I may as well be asking for a pony.
mieses 17y ago
It's not a problem as long as politicians are required to report their funding sources. One politician receiving a million dollars from a corporation is free publicity for the opposing politician.
- hga 17y ago
  This doesn't change anything about what companies can do with politicians, e.g. "coordinating" let alone contributions, both of those are still forbidden.
nfnaaron 17y ago
I'm speechless, and the result of this decision will make that more so, relative to rich non-person corporations.
- mieses 17y ago
  you're not entitled to equal power of speech or equal anything for that matter. just freedom of speech. you can say anything you like. you have to earn being heard.
  - pmichaud 17y ago
    Yes, apparently with wads of cash instead of something like, oh I don't know, rationale or expertise.
    - mieses 17y ago
      I am an infallible bureaucrat working at the Ministry of Justice in Communications and have judged that your comment should be deleted. Let me remind you that while the system is not perfect, it is better than nothing. Never mind the fact that I've worked out a deal to go work for R. Murdoch once my stint at this shitty job is over.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

17 points by blasdel 17y ago

pmichaud 17y ago

I posted a day or two ago that I'm leaving the US, and I'm not kidding.

jhancock 17y ago
Where are you planning to go?
- hga 17y ago
  Some place with less freedom of speech, since that to the best of my knowledge describes every other country in the world. It makes a certain amount of sense: pmichaud is appalled by an increase in the freedom of speech (really, a return to the pre-1990 normal state of affairs) and wherever he goes, there will be less of it.
- pmichaud 17y ago
  I'm considering New Zealand.

Herring 17y ago

>The court split 5 to 4 over the ruling, with its conservative members in the majority Can't say I'm surprised.

jcnnghm 17y ago

"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," the court said in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." Seems like a fairly compelling argument to me.

mbreese 17y ago
This is actually a very interesting argument. This turns the normal argument on it's head. Usually the thinking was money = speech, and if a company is a legal "person" then restricting contributions is restricting the speech of the company. However, this is framed from the point of view of a hypothetical person (voter), not the company. In this case, he is arguing that by restricting the speech of the company, we restrict the sources of information for a person (voter). In other words, it isn't the act of restricting the speech of the company that is unlawful, but the limiting the ability of the voter to hear the speech that is unlawful.
blasdel 17y ago
I don't really disagree, but this is a way for corporations to pay politicians hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that at the very least they should just apply the restrictions on the campaigners directly to the special interest groups instead of doing so transitively: "We're ExxonMobil, and we approve this message"
robotron 17y ago
Corporations and unions are not sentient beings.
- jcnnghm 17y ago
  No, but they are composed entirely of sentient beings.
  - logicalmind 17y ago
    Yes, but corporations are a way for sentient beings to skirt liability. A corporation cannot go to prison for life. A corporation is designed with the goal of producing profit for its sentient owners/shareholders. It has no interest in leading a "healthy" life, only a profitable life.
    - hga 17y ago
      A corporation can be put to death, and with no due process. See e.g. Arthur Anderson, which was eventually exonerated by the Supreme Court. But long after it was dead. And that threat can get them to do crazy things, e.g. that's what wrecked AIG a few years before the financial crisis.

lurkinggrue 17y ago

Fine, can we jail a few corporations now? I would also like politicians to wear sponsor tags like nascar drivers. I may as well be asking for a pony.

mieses 17y ago

It's not a problem as long as politicians are required to report their funding sources. One politician receiving a million dollars from a corporation is free publicity for the opposing politician.

hga 17y ago
This doesn't change anything about what companies can do with politicians, e.g. "coordinating" let alone contributions, both of those are still forbidden.

nfnaaron 17y ago

I'm speechless, and the result of this decision will make that more so, relative to rich non-person corporations.

mieses 17y ago
you're not entitled to equal power of speech or equal anything for that matter. just freedom of speech. you can say anything you like. you have to earn being heard.
- pmichaud 17y ago
  Yes, apparently with wads of cash instead of something like, oh I don't know, rationale or expertise.
  - mieses 17y ago
    I am an infallible bureaucrat working at the Ministry of Justice in Communications and have judged that your comment should be deleted. Let me remind you that while the system is not perfect, it is better than nothing. Never mind the fact that I've worked out a deal to go work for R. Murdoch once my stint at this shitty job is over.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]