Little-Acorn
01-21-2010, 11:03 AM
Another brick in the wall of liberal government control of speech, has been eliminated. Or most of it, anyway.
One of the longest-lasting legacies of any President, is the judicial appointments he has made. Under George W. Bush, the balance of the court has swung somewhat, with the two appointments he made to the Supremes voting to restore freedom of speech, against the efforts of Obama's only appointee and her cohorts.
Yes, this also means that unions can pay for more ads than they used to. We'll never have a perfect society until we have perfect people (which would mean, no more unions among other things). But the more freedom we have, the more society will tend to the good side overall... even with bumps in the road like unions trying to vote themselves more money and power thru campaign ads. C'est la vie.
But this is an overall step toward r3estoring the freeom so many leftists tried to deny. Recall that the latest attempt at so-called Campaign Finance "Reforrm" (aka McCain-Feingold law) came as a result of Democrats massively violating the laws that existed at the time, soliciting and receiving money from foreign sources, using supposedly "soft" money for ads directly boosting their candidate (Bill Clinton), and doing it so much that even Republicans started doing it in the last few weeks of the 1996 campaign. Congress's response to this massive lawbreaking, was to make more laws, which would have been humorous if it weren't so sad.
Now some of those misplaced laws have been rolled back.
----------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_campaign_finance
Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits
by Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – 32 mins ago
Jan. 21, 2010
WASHINGTON – 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.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
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.
The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.
The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.
One of the longest-lasting legacies of any President, is the judicial appointments he has made. Under George W. Bush, the balance of the court has swung somewhat, with the two appointments he made to the Supremes voting to restore freedom of speech, against the efforts of Obama's only appointee and her cohorts.
Yes, this also means that unions can pay for more ads than they used to. We'll never have a perfect society until we have perfect people (which would mean, no more unions among other things). But the more freedom we have, the more society will tend to the good side overall... even with bumps in the road like unions trying to vote themselves more money and power thru campaign ads. C'est la vie.
But this is an overall step toward r3estoring the freeom so many leftists tried to deny. Recall that the latest attempt at so-called Campaign Finance "Reforrm" (aka McCain-Feingold law) came as a result of Democrats massively violating the laws that existed at the time, soliciting and receiving money from foreign sources, using supposedly "soft" money for ads directly boosting their candidate (Bill Clinton), and doing it so much that even Republicans started doing it in the last few weeks of the 1996 campaign. Congress's response to this massive lawbreaking, was to make more laws, which would have been humorous if it weren't so sad.
Now some of those misplaced laws have been rolled back.
----------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_campaign_finance
Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits
by Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – 32 mins ago
Jan. 21, 2010
WASHINGTON – 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.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
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.
The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.
The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.