Supreme Court Overturns Ban On Corporate Political Speech And Part Of McCain-Feingold

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
...The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

Expect more throughout the day but my initial take is regardless of how the corporate decision cuts for one party or another, more freedom and more speech is generally good.

As for overturning the blackout period on issue ads...nice to see the Court realize the First Amendment doesn't have an expiration date. The idea that ads couldn't be run precisely at the time when most people are paying attention and the right of groups to promote their message was most important was a travesty and nothing more than legalized protection for the political class.

More:

The 5-4 decision had Kennedy siding with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. "Wise Latina" Sonia Sotoymayor shockingly sided with the anti-free speech "liberals" (as not doubt would have Souter).

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."
"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
...
"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided,"(Justice John Paul) Stevens wrote for the others.
"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.

Thankfully AMK's coin landed on the right side the day this case was decided.

Seems like a good time to take another shot at McCain-Feingold in general. Now that O'Connor is gone, SCOTUS might be willing to take another look at McConnell v. FEC. Any smart legal types know if there's a case out there that might fit the bill? If there isn't one, I'm sure there will be by the end of the month.

Posted by: DrewM. at 10:58 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Freedom of Speech? Never heard of it...

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at January 21, 2010 11:00 AM (Vu6sl)

2 Trying to read through it. First impression: good on eliminating the late period ban, go on telling the FEC you can't have an 11 point test on what speech is and is not acceptable. Bad- Stevens wrote a 90 page dissent.

Posted by: Mallamutt at January 21, 2010 11:00 AM (V9SYy)

3 One Corporation or Union....one vote. Or am I just being cynical here?

Posted by: torabora at January 21, 2010 11:00 AM (fkNZG)

4 Does this mean we don't have to suffer through the endless, "I'm John McCain, and I approve this message" crap?

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 21, 2010 11:00 AM (zgZzy)

5 I don't know all of the facts of this case but I think the Supreme Court acted stupidly.

Posted by: Mord at January 21, 2010 11:01 AM (tTj19)

6
Yes We Can

eliminate healthcare 'reform' after it's passed

Posted by: This is boner at January 21, 2010 11:01 AM (UUkhk)

7 Bad- Stevens wrote a 90 page dissent.
Posted by: Mallamutt at January 21, 2010 11:00 AM (V9SYy)

He is a crotchety old man who probably just spent 90% of what he has left in him.

Posted by: rightzilla at January 21, 2010 11:02 AM (rVJH4)

8 Stevens wishes he had 90% of his colon. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 21, 2010 11:03 AM (zgZzy)

9
OT, but this is important.

Do you know why unemployment unexpectedly increased?

The White House said it was because of the MLK holiday. You see, the holiday created a backlog of claims.

Posted by: This is boner at January 21, 2010 11:03 AM (UUkhk)

10 Does 'corporations' include PACs and whatnot, too?

Posted by: nickless at January 21, 2010 11:03 AM (MMC8r)

11 Bring on the boatloads of evil corporation cash to funnel into the ad campaigns of theevil republicans! The bad news is that unions can do the same, but they have ignored the law anyway.

Posted by: Vashta.Nerada at January 21, 2010 11:04 AM (NYsdu)

12 But ordinary individual American citizens are still fucked, right? Our Freedom of Speech is still abridged, but that's OK, because that what was in the First Amendment.

Posted by: TexasJew at January 21, 2010 11:04 AM (dcKUM)

13 I just heard some Common Cause cocksucker whining about this so I'm ready to break out the Val-U-Rite.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 21, 2010 11:04 AM (VGeGl)

14 From my layman's perspective: I think that this is the Supreme Court telling Congress that if they don't like the First Amendment as written, then they need to amend it, not force the courts to bound it. And the fact that it is (yet another) 5-4 split means that much of our Constitutional law is now predicated on whether Justice Kennedy's hemorrhoids are acting up that morning or not.

Posted by: Monty at January 21, 2010 11:05 AM (4Pleu)

15 12
But ordinary individual American citizens are still fucked, right? Our
Freedom of Speech is still abridged, but that's OK, because that what
was in the First Amendment.

First Amendment? To what?

Posted by: kansas at January 21, 2010 11:06 AM (Wwi5M)

16
The White House said it was because of the MLK holiday. You see, the holiday created a backlog of claims.

Considering the holiday was only a few days ago, what week does it pertain to? How could a holiday create an increase in last week? If last week includes this Monday, it would create a drop.

If last week runs to Tuesday (two days ago), the 'backlog' would still be in last week.

Doesn't fit.

Posted by: nickless at January 21, 2010 11:07 AM (MMC8r)

17 12 But ordinary individual American citizens are still fucked, right? Our Freedom of Speech is still abridged, but that's OK, because that what was in the First Amendment.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 21, 2010 11:04 AM (dcKUM)

HEY!I TOLD you the first amendment was overrated. Get over it!

Posted by: Rahm-a-long-a-ding-dong at January 21, 2010 11:08 AM (rVJH4)

18 "Expect more throughout the day but my initial take is regardless of how the corporate decision cuts for one party or another, more freedom and more speech is generally good."
Agreed. It's hard to tell how this will all shake out as both sides try to use the rule to gain advantage, but when in doubt, more free speech and more transparency is probably the way to lean.

Posted by: RM at January 21, 2010 11:09 AM (1kwr2)

19 -1 Incumbents

It's a really bad year to be holding a Federally elected office.

Posted by: WTFCI at January 21, 2010 11:09 AM (GtYrq)

20 The election free speech restrictions seemed like crap when I was in law school -- rank result-oriented hypocrisy. Political speech is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect. Glad to see the Supreme Court has woken up to that fact.

Posted by: NYCcon at January 21, 2010 11:09 AM (jLXdE)

21 I cannot wait to see the Veridian Dynamics ads. This one still makes me laugh and laugh. Too bad ABC didn't have the balls (dipped or not) to run it during an ep.

The White House said it was because of the MLK holiday. You see, the holiday created a backlog of claims.

Wasn't that the same excuse for the Thanksgiving numbers?

Posted by: alexthechick at January 21, 2010 11:09 AM (8WZWv)

22 Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo? A: Bo has papers.

Posted by: rightzilla at January 21, 2010 11:09 AM (rVJH4)

23 So AIG, GM and Chrysler will now be able to donate tax payer money to the Democrat of their choice with no limits? Awesome.

Posted by: CDR M at January 21, 2010 11:09 AM (8X9tr)

24 Good one Rightzilla.

Posted by: Moon Doggy at January 21, 2010 11:11 AM (P0pMu)

25 "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of
speech." If our publik skools were teaching civics like they did back in the day, most Americans would realize that the 1st Amendment was written to protect political speech, not crucifixes in a jar of piss.

Posted by: Reiver at January 21, 2010 11:12 AM (Yi1Sk)

26 My friends, <redacted> you too.

Posted by: Jonny McMaverick at January 21, 2010 11:14 AM (GwPRU)

27 Looks like Bambi's reign has moved into phase 2 -
"Mope and Change"

Posted by: joemomma at January 21, 2010 11:14 AM (3c1P1)

28 Ha-ha, fuck McCain sideways.

Posted by: Scott J. at January 21, 2010 11:15 AM (NY7mQ)

29 So AIG, GM and Chrysler will now be able to donate tax payer money to the Democrat of their choice with no limits?

It's not like they were particularly hindered before. They just had to hide the donations behind various facades. All this means is that they now have to do it up-front. Frankly, it's a good thing -- transparency is better than bullshit subterfuge any day. (I, for one, would love to know exactly how much cash was funneled to the DNC and Obama by the various Wall Street brokerage firms and banks.)

Posted by: Monty at January 21, 2010 11:15 AM (4Pleu)

30 If corporations aren't members of our society with rights and representation, how is it legal to tax them?

Posted by: Guest at January 21, 2010 11:15 AM (eRsMQ)

31 This was a no-brainer. Draw you own conclusions as to why four certain people couldn't figure it out.

And Stevens 90 page dissent - I guess it takes a lot of work to explain why the 45 words of the First Amendment don't mean what you think they mean based on the commonly understood meanings of words defined in any bona fide dictionary of the English Language.

Posted by: SlaveDog at January 21, 2010 11:15 AM (H6Jyg)

32
President Copenh�gen

Posted by: This is boner at January 21, 2010 11:16 AM (UUkhk)

33
OT,

One way to really kill my productivity at work would be for AoS HQ to have RSS feeds. This way I can have access to comments w/o getting blocked by the IT nazi's.

My work around is to hop on the innertubes via my blackberry modem.

Posted by: Moon Doggy at January 21, 2010 11:16 AM (P0pMu)

34 The decision sticks it to McCain and hispet bill. Good times. Not quite pudding-good, but I'll take it.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at January 21, 2010 11:16 AM (PReJ3)

35 And this, ladies and gents, is why the Senate shouldn't confirm candidates who say in public that the Court is "where policy is made".
The Senate has at least 68 Senators who have ruled themselves unfit to follow the Constitution. 31 of them may or may not have made the right choice by accident.

Posted by: Zimriel at January 21, 2010 11:18 AM (9Sbz+)

36 So do "truth in advertising" laws, if there really is such a thing, cover these types of ads? If so, is the punishment for lying and or misleading ads stiff enough (have fun with that one morons) to keep the hounds in line?

Posted by: teej at January 21, 2010 11:19 AM (QdUKm)

37 I, for one, would love to know exactly how much cash was funneled to the DNC and Obama by the various Wall Street brokerage firms and banks

41 million to Dems in 2008 cycle.
22 million to GOP in 2008 cycle.

But Lawyers/Firms gave 99 million to Dems in the 2008 cycle.

It takes a more detailed analysis, but any lawyer that's working for the Securities/Finance industry is someone I'd put in the Securities/Finance donations table. Open Secrets separates them.

Posted by: WTFCI at January 21, 2010 11:22 AM (GtYrq)

38 Reiver 1st Amendment was written to protect political speech, not crucifixes in a jar of piss.,
Nah, it protects crucifixes in pee-pee too.
One could argue thatthe First Amendmentbans subsidising that speech, at the expense of (say) a big Catholic cathedral with thecrucifix mounted in the usual place.

Posted by: Zimriel at January 21, 2010 11:22 AM (9Sbz+)

39 Watch what you wish for here. An American corporation may have a majority of foreign owners. If it puts money behind an American political candidate, that is 'legal'. But if the foreign owners try that on their own, that not legal round eye....Unless you are the Obama campaign where you allow anoymous credit card contributions...

How do you keep Chinese money out of DemocRATick politicians coffers? The corporate/union cash loophole is back in play.

Posted by: torabora at January 21, 2010 11:22 AM (fkNZG)

40 Thomas dissents from the part upholding the disclosure stuff, noting the hate and intimidation campaign against Prop 8 supporters. Quite right.

Posted by: someone at January 21, 2010 11:23 AM (njJQD)

41 Any smart legal types know if there's a case out there that might fit
the bill? If there isn't one, I'm sure there will be by the end of the
month.

I'm not sure but I think there are still some cases working up through the lower courts that could be used as an attack. That's all based on super vague recollections though, those may have been dismissed based on prior rulings. But it wouldn't be that hard to get a case going.
One way to really kill my productivity at work would be for AoS HQ to
have RSS feeds. This way I can have access to comments w/o getting
blocked by the IT nazi's.

I'd love a kindle feed. I would totally subscribe to that newsletter.

Posted by: alexthechick at January 21, 2010 11:23 AM (8WZWv)

42 So McCain's own legislation lived just long enough to fuck over his own presidential bid.

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Posted by: nickless at January 21, 2010 11:25 AM (MMC8r)

43 From the ruling:

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

KENNEDY,
J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and
SCALIA and ALITO, JJ., joined, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all
but Part IV, and in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SO-TOMAYOR,
JJ., joined as to Part IV. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion,
in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion, in
which ALITO, J., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined in part.
STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in
part,in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Posted by: Vic at January 21, 2010 10:58 AM (QrA9E)

Wow, makes Congress look positively chummy.

Posted by: Rocks at January 21, 2010 11:26 AM (Q1lie)

44 So can a company owned by the government like AIG, GM, Chrysler, etc that is only surviving based on taxpayer money be allowed to give money to political campaigns?

Posted by: CDR M at January 21, 2010 11:27 AM (8X9tr)

45 I am willing to bet real money that John Paul Stevens wrote nothing. His clerks on the other hand...

Posted by: AmishDude at January 21, 2010 11:28 AM (T0NGe)

46 How do you keep Chinese money out of DemocRATick politicians coffers?
Disclosure. Such a requirement makes so many of the campaign finance regs unnecessary.

Posted by: CJ at January 21, 2010 11:28 AM (9KqcB)

47 The White House said it was because of the MLK holiday. You see, the holiday created a backlog of claims.

Posted by: This is boner at January 21, 2010 11:03 AM (UUkhk)
Whoa. I never thought I'd see that. From Bush's fault to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s fault.Ah, well, everybody goes under the Obama bus sometime.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 21, 2010 11:29 AM (T0NGe)

48 First let me say that I'm in no way a supporter of McCain-Feingold and lean toward unlimited contributions with requirement of full disclosure but I also believe that unrestricted money / ads by coporations can also be a limiting factor for other's free speech in that it has the capability to drown out those without the financial means. Free speech should not mean that those with the most money get to be heard and those that don't , tough luck, get ya some money. I admit I am in a theoretical quandry.

Me too. I just can�t defend limiting speech because others have more money than I do.

Hopefully, internet ads can help balance the power. Keep in mind the Ds outspent the Rs in the Brown race about�3-1?

Posted by: CJ at January 21, 2010 11:31 AM (9KqcB)

49 31
This was a no-brainer. Draw you own conclusions as to why four certain people couldn't figure it out.

They're lawyers. They are either (a) stupid (b) dishonest or (c) corrupt.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 21, 2010 11:31 AM (T0NGe)

50 Free speech should not mean that those with the most money get to be heard and those that don't , tough luck, get ya some money.
Posted by: polynikes at January 21, 2010 11:23 AM (m2CN7)

Really? My understanding of freedom of speech is you were allowed to say what you want but you aren't guaranteed that anyone has to listen.

Hasn't substantive due process done enough damage without somehow trying to write in into the 1st Amendment?

Posted by: DrewM. at January 21, 2010 11:32 AM (UAnTc)

51 My feeling is that ALL campaign finance rules were unconsitutional. I also think that when you combine this with the previous cutbacks that not mush is left.
In McLame-Fiegold it looks like the only thing left is disclosure which I have been fore. But after reading Thomas's dissent on Part IV of the ruling which upheld disclosure I think I now agree with him.
Perhaps we can still have disclosure without what heppended in CA with proposition 8 in which the radicals got hold of names and addresses and published them for the purposes of making threats (one wonder if anyone was ever prosecuted for those threats and harrassment).
For those who thought that campaign finance laws were good I have only one thing to say. They do NOT do as advertised. They only aid incumbants. That is what this will kill. The incumbent protection racket here is ending.
On that note Chuckie Cheese (C-NY) is going to hold a presser this afternoon to discuss how the congress can recover from this. That should tell you right there how bad this crap bill was.

Posted by: Vic at January 21, 2010 11:33 AM (QrA9E)

52 I think any disclosure regs would have to be extended to require full authentication of credit card user info on all internet donations.

And probably bar 'gift card' type credit cards, to boot.

There's no chance our lilly-white politicians would do this, however.

Posted by: nickless at January 21, 2010 11:33 AM (MMC8r)

53 Mallamutt 2 Trying to read through it..... Bad- Stevens wrote a 90 page dissent.
Don't bother reading it. No-one else ever will.

Posted by: Zimriel at January 21, 2010 11:35 AM (9Sbz+)

54 guess i'll have to disagree on this one

the first amendment protects the rights of real people, not imaginary people. corporations are imaginary people, their rights are legal fiction, and only exist on the sufferance of the people, whereas our rights are innate and god given

corporations already buy enough politicians and write enough laws to the detriment of the people, this can't be a good thing

Posted by: errhead at January 21, 2010 11:35 AM (gk3vm)

55 So McCain's own legislation lived just long enough to fuck over his own presidential bid.
Karma is a bee-yotch.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 21, 2010 11:35 AM (CoKwa)

56 someone 40 Thomas dissents from the part upholding the disclosure stuff, noting the hate and intimidation campaign against Prop 8 supporters. Quite right.
Limbaugh used to say that if he could replace his brain with anyone else's, it would be Scalia's. For me, it's Thomas's.

Posted by: Zimriel at January 21, 2010 11:37 AM (9Sbz+)

57 "Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections."

As opposed to what, exactly?

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at January 21, 2010 11:38 AM (8stTn)

58 Posted by: polynikes at January 21, 2010 11:23 AM (m2CN7)

BTW- I get struggling with those competing impulses but one thing I
like about conservatives is we often recognize and accept that bad
things can be constitutional and good things unconstitutional.

It's one of the things that makes us grown ups who respect the limits of governments, unlike liberals who tend to be childish and authoritarian.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 21, 2010 11:38 AM (UAnTc)

59 Hatchet 56 [to "So McCain's own legislation lived just long enough to fuck over his own presidential bid".] Karma is a bee-yotch.
That's assuming that McCain wanted to win.

Posted by: Zimriel at January 21, 2010 11:38 AM (9Sbz+)

60 G.O.O.D.

Posted by: The guy who says good not to be confused with the guy who used to say en fuego at January 21, 2010 11:39 AM (DIYmd)

61 This only effects the ability of corporations to air ads and spend money - not to donate money directly to a candidate. So corporations still are not full citizens; just regulated, oversighted, and taxed ones that can now speak freely.

Posted by: Jean at January 21, 2010 11:39 AM (7K04W)

62 Speaking of the Supreme Court, guess 41 votes is going to stop any more brave latinos?

Posted by: Kemper at January 21, 2010 11:40 AM (qvT/A)

63 Free speech is only for we wise Latinas you racist pinheads.

Posted by: Sonia Sotomayor at January 21, 2010 11:44 AM (pZEar)

64 46 I am willing to bet real money that John Paul Stevens wrote nothing. His clerksthe dumbercommenters at BalloonJuiceon the other hand...
FIFY

Posted by: Zimriel at January 21, 2010 11:46 AM (9Sbz+)

65 #66
Hey you little fat spick, suck the barbed cock of satan.
Did I fuck you too? I was drunk.

Posted by: Geraldo at January 21, 2010 11:49 AM (qvT/A)

66 The big beneficiary of this ruling -- the media, as they will be the ones cashing all of those checks.

Posted by: Jean at January 21, 2010 11:49 AM (IcVGZ)

67 errhead 55 guess i'll have to disagree on this one/ the first amendment protects the rights of real people, not imaginary people. corporations are imaginary people, their rights are legal fiction, and only exist on the sufferance of the people, whereas our rights are innate and god given / GREEDYCORPORAYSHUNZ!!!11
(I may have altered the last, a bit.)
The reason corporations are "imaginary people" is because they are semi-sovereign groups of people. The state of Delaware is, also, a "legal fiction" subject to US Constitutional law. "innate and god-given" is a phrase full of mush in your context, and insofar as it bears any formal meaning that meaning is "axiomatic".

Posted by: Zimriel at January 21, 2010 11:50 AM (9Sbz+)

68 the first amendment protects the rights of real people, not imaginary people.

Fine -- by that same reasoning I can limit the free speech of churches, advocacy groups, PACs, and Unions. Some you may agree with and some not, but it's still an aborgation of speech. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Also, if I'm a business owner and wish to advance my candidate of choice through my business, isn't that still an "individual" choice? My employees aren't being forced to advocate for my candidate, but I own the business and can use its resource for whatever purpose I choose, yes?

Posted by: Monty at January 21, 2010 11:51 AM (4Pleu)

69 So we have a law passed by the people's representatives, with full debate, and on the whole supported by the public. And the Supreme Court made a declaration and vacated the law. Yay judicial activism!

(I'm actually in favor of the decision - but amused that the conservatives are so pleased at the Court taking decisive action in overruling legislation while liberals are outraged at the run-away Court ignoring the will of the people.)

Posted by: GadgetDon at January 21, 2010 12:01 PM (qCQ/r)

70 Wow. I�m truly happy that the corporations will now be able to freely buy elections instead of skulking about behind phony pseudonyms.

Posted by: JEA at January 21, 2010 12:06 PM (XZu3c)

71 74 [to "Fine -- by that same reasoning I can limit the free speech of churches, advocacy groups, PACs, and Unions. Some you may agree with and some not, but it's still an aborgation of speech. I prefer to err on the side of caution."] Respectfully disagree. Those entities you listed are not similar to the structure of a corporation, both legally and membership wise.
The internal structure is irrelevant. The corporation is still an organisation of people, the shareholders; with a collective voice of those shareholders.

Posted by: Zimriel at January 21, 2010 12:07 PM (9Sbz+)

72 So we have a law passed by the people's representatives, with full debate, and on the whole supported by the public. And the Supreme Court made a declaration and vacated the law. Yay judicial activism!
Who says that the "people" support this. This was a BS law passed to benefit the BS politicians.
And conservatives have always beleieved the court SHOULD strike down laws that are plainly unconsititional. We just have a problems with pnenumbras and other bullshit that allow them to go after stuff the liberals don't like while totally ignoring stuff the consertvatives don't like.
Judicial actiovism is the invention of law, not the inforcement of it.

Posted by: Vic at January 21, 2010 12:07 PM (QrA9E)

73 @72 yes to all, unlimited free speech to human beings, quite limited to nonhuman entitites be they corporations or unions or churches.

human beings can be called to defend the state, human beings have an interest in the continued functioning of the state they live in. human beings can willingly subsume their best interests to the greater good of the community. corporations exist solely to maximize the profits of their shareholders, and to do anything to limit that for the betterment of society is to be in violation of their fiduciary duty.

corporations are great at competing, and can usually outcompete people in the market, which can be harnessed for the good of the country. when allowed to compete in the political sphere they maximize their profits via regulation and control to the detriment of the market and society

Posted by: errhead at January 21, 2010 12:09 PM (gk3vm)

74 JEA I don'tknow if your #75 was snark or not.If elections could be "bought" by campaign contributions, Coakley would be in the Senate by now. If you were semi-serious, it IS good that corporations can now fund their shpiel directly and formally. It's more honest.

Posted by: Zimriel at January 21, 2010 12:10 PM (9Sbz+)

75 @50

Do I have to pick just one?

Posted by: NJConservative at January 21, 2010 12:17 PM (/Ywwg)

76 73
So we have a law passed by the people's representatives, with full
debate, and on the whole supported by the public. And the Supreme Court
made a declaration and vacated the law. Yay judicial activism!

Well, you see, it's actually unconstitutional, what with it violating actual stuff written in the actual constitution. By your logic, nothing could be unconstitutional. In this case there are no emanations, no penumbras, nothin' like that.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 21, 2010 12:20 PM (T0NGe)

77 Posted by: polynikes at January 21, 2010 11:23 AM (m2CN7)

The underlying case -- Citizens United -- concerned a small group trying to air an anti-Hillary film on a Pay-per-view cable channel. Only a small portion of their contributions came from corporate entities, but they were banned from airing the film.

Scalia has a response to Stevens' dissenting opinion that's a hoot. According to Scalia, it's full of "corporation-hating quotations" meant to prove that the Founders meant to exclude corporations from free speech. I haven't read the dissent, but judging from Scalia's comments, it was an attack on corporations worthy of Obama.

Posted by: JBean at January 21, 2010 12:23 PM (rWxUK)

78 FUCK

Posted by: George Soros at January 21, 2010 12:35 PM (qyKoF)

79 In Soviet America, free speech limits YOU!

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at January 21, 2010 12:38 PM (pZEar)

80 (I'm actually in favor of the decision - but amused that the
conservatives are so pleased at the Court taking decisive action in
overruling legislation while liberals are outraged at the run-away
Court ignoring the will of the people.)
It is the legislative branch's job to express the "will of the people." The function of the judicial branch (in constitutional cases) is to determine whether the "will of the people," as expressed by a legislative enactment, is permitted or prohibited by the constitution. Judicial decisions made based on popular sentiment or the mood of the country is anathema to the role of the judiciary, and the very definition of judicial activism.

Posted by: angler at January 21, 2010 12:44 PM (SwjAj)

81 ...Me too. I just can�t defend limiting speech because others have more money than I do.
...

Posted by: CJ at January 21, 2010 11:31 AM (9KqcB)
Exactly. Just like I cannot see whysomeone takes my money to give to somone who works less andmakes less. Ihave two jobs to get through this economy without losing my house. I know several people scrambling and taking in extra work. Why can we find the work but the unemployment rolls keep growing? Congress wants more of MY money to give to dead beats! But I degress.

Posted by: rightzilla at January 21, 2010 12:53 PM (rVJH4)

82 LIBTARDS believe that McCain-Feingold helped limit campaign cash.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: gus at January 21, 2010 12:53 PM (Vqruj)

83 23
So AIG, GM and Chrysler will now be able to donate tax payer money to the Democrat of their choice with no limits? Awesome.

Posted by: CDR M at January 21, 2010 11:09 AM (8X9tr)

They were doing that already, legally or not.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner At Large at January 21, 2010 01:04 PM (erIg9)

84 Huh. When I was growing upbig money in politics was seen as a bad thing. Guess that's changed.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 21, 2010 01:06 PM (P33XN)

85 89 Huh. When I was growing upbig money in politics was seen as a bad thing. Guess that's changed.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 21, 2010 01:06 PM (P33XN)

When I was growing up, having money was a good thing. Using it to elect your politicians was also a good thing. Thelib-otomies act like it is a bad thing....EXCEPT when it is Soros spending.

Posted by: rightzilla at January 21, 2010 01:10 PM (rVJH4)

86 One of our friends over at D Kos has a question which you might be able to help answer:
"Can't Obama change the number on the Supreme court.

If Bush can take us to war and torture people over our screams, then
surely Obama can appoint 2 more Supreme Court judges this week over
Republican screams.

Anyone know the procedure for this?"

Posted by: alwyr at January 21, 2010 01:16 PM (w2++y)

87 Anyone know the procedure for this?
Yes, that is par for the liberals. FDR tried that in the 30s when SCOTUS balked him. He tried to ram it through cobngress and they told him to fk off.
Congress can pack the courts but the pres has no say-so.
And yes the libtards thought they were "limiting money" even in the face of ever increasing records for the amount of money spent in every election. It just makes you wonder how stupid those people can get.

Posted by: Vic at January 21, 2010 01:28 PM (QrA9E)

88 WASHINGTON � President Barack Obama is condemning a decision by the Supreme Court to roll back restrictions on campaign donations by corporations and unions.
In a written statement, Obama says the campaign finance ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics." Obama declared that his administration will work with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a "forceful response" to the high court's action.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
Obama called it a big victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.
Barry is having one hell of a week to celebrate his 1st anniversary

Posted by: TheQuietman at January 21, 2010 02:43 PM (1Jaio)

89 A whole bunch of Wall Street bundlers just lost their jobs. Cry a tear for them.

Posted by: sexypig at January 21, 2010 03:40 PM (0t7L8)

90 Sorry but I don't agree with this decision. The gov of the USA is for/of/by the people. Not GM, not Exxon, and not McDonalds. The bill of rights is for citizens not corporations. 1 vote, 1 voice. Not ... the board has determined that your candidate does not represent our interests or the union has decided etc...

Posted by: atadoff at January 21, 2010 06:13 PM (lCgzs)

91 The vision that came to mind when I read that was Rush Limbaugh doing cartwheels around his studio .... in a light blue and whiteflannel bunny suit.

Posted by: Guest at January 21, 2010 06:18 PM (ITzbJ)

92 [يوتيوب]يوتيوبمنتدياتموقع يوتيوبمقاطع يوتيوبدردشةمدونة يوتيوبd,jd,fيو تيوبyoutubeيوتيوباليوتيوبخريطة يوتيوبفوريوتيوب طيور الجنهيوتيبشبكة يوتيوبموقع اليوتيوبمون لايتمنتديات يوتيوبيوتيوب فيديويوت يوبيوتوبترافيانيوتيوب منوعيوتيوب ياسر القحطانييوتيوبدليل يوتيوب
يوتيوب اسلامييوتيوب الشعريوتيوب افلام كرتونافلامالعابالمرأةمسلسلاتبرامجتفحيط سياراتازياءبلوتوثالويب سايتاستضافهالارشيفدردشة صوتية -خليجي كام
بلياردو- بروكسي -بروكسيات -اغاني -طرب -trailer - avatar - nokia n97 -paranormal activity -2012 - xbox 360 - n95 8gb
مسلسل عاصي -ون بيس 423 - كيف تجعل الشخص يحبك -ترجمة قوقل -برنامج يفتح المواقع المحجوبه - طريقة كسر البروكسي -golden eye - photo manager
برنامج يشغل اكثر من مسنجر - تحميل ماسنجر بلس - يلا كورة - Yallakora - حيلهم بينهم كمان - vmware -الراجحي - dreambox 8000 - جريدة الرياضبلوتوث,برامج, افلام,صور, ازياء, منتدى ,توبيكات , صور سيارات - microsoft office 2009 - audio mixer - أجمل نساء العالم - سبق -لعبة باب الحارةديكور ,حواء ,خواطر ,اخبار الفن , نكت , قصص , العاب , -خواطر 5 - -internet security 2010 -غرف نوم -realplayer sp - حلقات خواطر 5نوكيا 5800 -معرفة البيج رانك-adobe photoshop cs4 extended -سعودي لاير -سكربت اتصل بنا - w.cn - فرونت بيج 2003dns - عيد ميلاد سعيد -cproxy - ام بي سي -زواج نانسي عجرم -فيس بوك -تردد قناة طيور الجنة - كلمات حب -صور قلب - هوتميل

Posted by: qwq at January 22, 2010 03:49 PM (pR5zT)

93 UGG Bailey Button Fancy BootsUGG Classic Argyle Knit Bootsdiscount MLB JerseysMLB Jerseys on sale

Posted by: UGG Bailey Button Fancy Boots at June 30, 2010 01:36 PM (kXO47)

94 Thank you for visiting fadeaway23.com! We are the best online retailer to find all of the latest styles in footwear, clothing, and accessories. We are based in Chicago, IL and have been providing great products and excellent customer service for over four years. We specialize in Authentic Jordans ,Michael Jordan Shoes,Jordan Sneakers for men, women, and kids. Our Custom Nike Air Force Ones are available in many different painted and glitter styles for every outfit and every budget. Not only do we create top of the line Custom Nike Air Forces, but we offer many stock shoes as well including Nike Air Force Ones, Air Jordans, Nike Dunks, Bape Stas, Chanel, Ed Hardy, Timberland, Prada, and UGG Australia. We have clothing from Bapesta Bathing Ape, Billionaire Boy's Club, Ed Hardy, Gino Green Global, Christian Audigier, Coogi jeans, Evisu, Greedy Genius, Ice Cream, Lacoste, LRG, and 10 Deep hoodies! With fluid lines that are organic in nature ,Authentic Jordans,real jordan shoes,real jordan shoes for sale,air force ones shoes,authentic jordans for sale,nike warehousethe Jordan Dentro makes for a great looking and performing shoe.. But it was an underrated basketball shoe for the 08-09 season. ,retro jordans,shoe basketball,michael jordan shoes,wholesale nikes,real jordans,wholesale jordansI think this basketball shoe missed the team mark. ,real air jordan shoes,cheap jordans shoes,real jordan sneakers,real air force ones,exclusive jordan shoesWith teams trying to cut costs many overlooked the Jordan Dentro and went to the lower price point Nikes and adidas. This is a well built shoe with minimal ,wholesale jordan shoes,cheap jordan shoes,wholesle nike shoes,jordan shoes basketball,shoes kicksstyling and great court traction. From a distance the Dentro looks pretty plain but up close the use of high quality materials ,wholesale jordan sneakers ,michael jordan shoes,wholesale retro jordans,wholesale air force ones,custom jordans,fly kicks,Exclusive Sneakersand small details make this a cool team basketball shoe. The Jordan Dentro midsolehas a full-length,encapsulated Nike Air® unit for cushioning,,wholesale nike dunks,wholesale nikes,exclusive jordan kicks,custom jordans,custom jordan shoes,custom michael jordan shoescupsole sidewall for great ankle protection and support.How to Purchase Air Jordan Shoes,and definitely a action above other air jordans.,exclusive jordans,Cheap AJF Shoes,Nike Air Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,air jordans,Retro Air Jordan ShoesThey are collector status shoes that will take your design to another planet. The issue is that you can��t just stroll into a shoe store and,custom jordan sneakers,custom nike dunks,nike air jordans,Exclusive Air Jordans,custom retro jordans,
custom nike shoesstroll out with uncommon oxygen jordans.Check out these image enhancing suggestions that are sure to match you up with some uncommon air jordans.,custom air force ones,Cheap Retro Jordans,cheap custom jordans,cheap air jordans,cheap retro jordans for sale,cheap retro shoesAir Jordan 22 XXIIauthentic nike shoes (white varsity red black) Step1 Your surest chance for discovering and locking down some rare oxygen,Air Jordans,Nike Air Jordan Shoes,Nike Air Jordan on sale,cheap retro jordan shoes,wholesale jordans from china,wholesale jordans free shippingjordans would be to locate a nearby fashion boutique that collects vintage clothing and give them a shout and ask if they have any rare oxygen jordans in their inventory.,cheap jordans,jordan kicks,shoes kicks,wholesale jordans paypal,wholesale jordans from new york,wholesale jordans cheap Most most likely they will simply because they are a well-liked vintage item and more than a few people are attempting to get their hands on them.,exclusive kicks,custom jordan kicks,jordan kicks,jordan kicks,exclusive kicks for cheap,exclusive kicks for saleStep2 If they��ve some rare oxygen jordans in stock go check them out, and if you such as the looks of them then do not waste time considering and buy them.,exclusive kicks for kids,exclusive air jordans,exclusive jordansneakers,Jordan Shoes for sale,authentic jordans for sale,cheap exclusive kicksThese shoes aren't just laying around and if you like them and hesitate they may be gone the next day.,michael jordan basketball shoes,new jordans for sale,jordan sneakers,new jordans,jordan shoes,custom jordan kicks,jordan kicksStep3 In case you aren��t happy with the uncommon air jordans you discovered at the first boutique don��t give up or get discouraged. Maintain looking at ,jordan kicks,cheap jordan shoes,bathing apes shoes,cheap nike shoesother vintage style shops till you discover one that has which has the uncommon Nike Air Jordans Sneakers that you��ve been dreaming of. If you have to pull out a ,nike air force one,
nike air dunks,nike air max 95,Nike Air Jordan Hoodys,jordan shorts telephone directory or pop about the net to find some much more stores to check then so be it, but don��t quit. Step4 Whenever you are following some thing which has any collector value or is uncommon like uncommon air jordans you have to prepare your self for a miniature quest, and do not stop until you find them. The road might not be simple however it will be well worth it within the end when you��re sporting uncommon air jordans that nobody else could even envision.

Posted by: jordan shoes for sale at July 15, 2010 10:11 PM (4hULv)

95 cheapuggbootsonsale.comprovide <A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/">Ugg boots sale</A>nbsp;sale and <A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/">Cheap ugg boots</A>, you can find <A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/">UGG Classic Boots</A>nbsp;with High quality and competitive price include ,<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-bailey-button-5803-c-37.html">Ugg Bailey Button</A>,,<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-classic-tall-5815-c-7.html">UGG Classic Tall</A>,<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-classic-cardy-5819-c-3.html">UGG Classic Cardy</A> ,<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-classic-short-5825-c-6.html">UGG Classic Short</A>,<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-ultra-short-5225-c-12.html">UGG Ultra Short</A>,<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-ultra-tall-5245-c-8.html">UGG Ultra Tall</A>,<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-classic-mini-5854-c-10.html">UGG Classic Mini boots</A>,<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-nightfall-5359-c-11.html">UGG Nightfall boots</A>.
<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/">Ugg boots sale</A>nbsp;<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/">Cheap ugg boots</A>nbsp;<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/">UGG Classic Boots</A>
<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-bailey-button-5803-c-37.html">Ugg Bailey Button</A>,
<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-classic-tall-5815-c-7.html">UGG Classic Tall</A>,
<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-classic-cardy-5819-c-3.html">UGG Classic Cardy</A> 
<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-classic-short-5825-c-6.html">UGG Classic Short</A>
<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-ultra-short-5225-c-12.html">UGG Ultra Short</A>
<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-ultra-tall-5245-c-8.html">UGG Ultra Tall</A>
<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-classic-mini-5854-c-10.html">UGG Classic Mini boots</A>
<A href="http://www.cheapuggbootonsale.com/ugg-nightfall-5359-c-11.html">UGG Nightfall boots</A>

Posted by: zzf at August 31, 2010 03:54 AM (vv8Ot)

96 ��Ãr�f�I
�A�_��g�r�f�I

Posted by: 5e334s4toia at September 09, 2010 11:59 PM (D89t8)

97 breitling replica watchesuk replica watchesreplica watchesLaptop Batteryomega watches ukAcer TravelMate 2310 BatteryAcer Aspire 5510 BatteryAcer Extensa 3000 BatteryAcer Extensa 4100 BatteryAcer Aspire 3100 BatteryDell Inspiron 8200 BatteryDell Inspiron 1520 Batterydell xps m1330 batterydell latitude x200 batteryIBM Thinkpad R32 BatteryThinkpad T30 Batteryibm thinkpad t60

Posted by: laptop battery at September 10, 2010 02:01 AM (yZt2i)

98 show me an honest politician......please

Posted by: EF 70-200MM at September 16, 2010 11:08 PM (PT20Q)

99 reform in whos intress do you think this?
<a href="http://www.clownsilver.com">clown alleinunterhalter Visit us</a>

Posted by: silver billy at September 29, 2010 04:24 AM (d7S8T)

100 http://clownsilver.com

Posted by: silver billy at September 29, 2010 04:26 AM (d7S8T)

101 2010 new arrivals!

Posted by: ugg boots at October 18, 2010 01:25 AM (TVzW4)

102 Have buy ugg boots you ever thought that the carbon offset company probably has ugg boots sale a board of directors that don't ugg boots on sale all live local to the buy alexander wang shoescompany's physical location? So, where buy alexander wang boots do they have the quarterly and annual discount alexander wang shoes meetings. UGG Romantic Flower-5802UGG Classic Argyle Knit5879UGG Classic Tall 5815Ugg Delaine Style 1886UGG New Arrival 5899-HOT

Posted by: UK UGG Boots at October 29, 2010 04:55 AM (Ct/r+)

103 Women's Ugg Boots have become a necessary commodity in fashion .it is becoming easier to buy an off-brand womens Ugg boots . Ugg boots women seems to be wanted by every woman .there are so many cheap ugg boots for women.they have the quarterly and annual discount alexander Women's Winter Boots shoes meetings.
Ugg Classic Tall Boots
Ugg Classic Short Boots

Posted by: ugg boots sale at November 15, 2010 10:59 PM (em5hS)

104
I like it and I have an evening dresses online and we have evening dresses on sale . you can find different evening dresses ,like long evening dresses and short evening dresses and evening dresses 2011 here.

I like it and I have an evening dresses online and we have evening dresses on sale . you can find different evening gowns,like evening dress 2011 and cheap evening dresses

I like it and I have an evening dresses online and we have evening dresses on sale . you can find differentdesigner evening dresses,like prom evening dresses and evening wear dresses and evening gowns dresses

I like it and I have an evening dresses online and we have evening dresses on sale . you can find different prom dresses,likecelebrity dresses, casual dresses,cocktail dresses,holiday dresses and formal dresses

Posted by: evening wear dresses at December 27, 2010 01:24 AM (3K8MK)

105 Great posts on this blog! You have a ton of interesting stuff here!

cure tennis elbow

Posted by: joe d at January 08, 2011 02:44 PM (HcCj/)

106 These kind of post,Tod's Sito Ufficialeare always inspiring,Tod's Outlet and I prefer to read,Tod's Scarpe quality content ,Tod's Ballerine Scarpe so I happy to find,Tod's Borse many good ,Tod's Gommini Scarpe thankpoint here,Tod's Scarpe Nuove nicein the post,Tod's Sneaker you,Tod's Stivale writing is simply great.Tod's i love it.

Posted by: Tod's Sito Ufficiale at June 09, 2011 08:56 AM (t+Sv6)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0395 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0223 seconds, 115 records returned.
Page size 83 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.