Supreme Court refuses to stop Minnesota disclosure law

[wellstone dem]

Source: St. Cloud Times

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to block a Minnesota law requiring disclosure of corporate political spending.

The high court without comment turned away a request for an injunction from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.

The Supreme Court earlier this year freed businesses to spend company money on elections, overturning state restrictions on corporate political spending. Minnesota lawmakers responded by enacting disclosure requirements so that corporate campaign spending would be public.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and a travel agency sued, saying the reporting requirements amounted to a ban on free speech. They want the law stopped while they appeal.

Read more: http://www.sctimes.com/article/20101029/NEWS01/110290049/Supreme-Court-refuses-to-stop-Minnesota-disclosure-law

---

This Minnesota law is the reason that we found out about Target Corporation and Best Buy Corporations donations to benefit Tom Emmer Right, right, wing republican candidate for governor in Minnesota.

[mediaman007]

1. Yay for us! Ask Target how that disclosure thing works.

It sure levels the playing field. Corporations can still spend, but they run the risk of offending shareholders and customers.

The law was a good, first step.

[dodger501]

3. From my point of view, it hurt Emmer more

than it did Target/Best Buy. Quite a ruckus here.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. But I was told the corporate Supreme Court was against us?

I'm so confused.

[McCamy Taylor]

5. Corporate Supreme Court is scared. There is talk of impeaching Scalia.

They just want us to forget they started the whole mess---possibly in collusion with Republicans.

[24601]

6. Best laugh of the night - the USSC scared. LOL! Thanks. n/t

[Hekate]

18. I don't think anything scares the SCOTUS. Factions sought Earl Warren's impeachment for years

Chief Justice Earl Warren ran afoul of racists by ordering the desegregation of public schools, among other things. Billboards and bumper stickers across the South demanded "Impeach Earl Warren!" from the time of the Brown vs Board of Education decision until he retired in 1969.

I doubt Scalia, that arrogant little toad, feels in the slightest danger -- despite our feelings about him.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_warren.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

Hekate

[madmax]

17. May I join you. nt

[glinda]

24. But this is the MN. Supreme Court dear one.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. I am dumb.

[DFLforever]

27. No. It's the US Supreme Court

[glinda]

28. OK. Missed that it had gotten that high up. Sorry.

[elleng]

4. Would just love to hear their argument that reporting amounts to ban on free speech

That's a real laffer, imo!

[No Elephants]

21. NAACP v. Button says being required to report names of members = violation of 1st amendment.

Put that together with Citizens' United and it's not a huge leap.

:shrug:

[elleng]

23. I'd like to work on that one.

Names of members of NAACP could be a problem, one can imagine; names of contributors, for campaign purposes, differs. Whatever it is, Supremes didn't think there was a 'likely success on the merits.' I like it!

But thanks for the cite.

[Maineman]

7. Hurray for Minnesota

Let's all do that !!!!!

[bluerum]

8. A bit of good news. Perhaps they r feeling some heat.

Legal money laundering aka Roberts money for political campaigns is a highway to hell.

[rpannier]

9. Their argument is laughable and it's a major reason why it got kicked

"...the reporting requirements amounted to a ban on free speech."

There is nothing in the law that prevents you from donating, it just requires you to be named as a donor.

[elleng]

10. Yes, as I've said, I'd LOVE to read their argument!

[MadLinguist]

13. I laughed too. Free and anonymous are not even close to synonymous

Even on strict "originalist" interpretation of the constitution. Speech emanates from SOME throat or another, even when coerced. Money is the anonymous thing. Ipso Facto, Money IS NOT Speech. I suspect however that this absurdly easy argument is not what stopped the SCOTUS from taking on the case -- it's some state's rights stance, or even more likely, they have stacked their docket with even nastier blows to the polity..

[EmeraldCityGrl]

11. Minnesota has often been a ray of hope in an otherwise

dark landscape. Minnesota is the only other state I would love to live in.

[glinda]

25. Well Emerald City Girl...c'mon over! We have nuts but also have some wonderful libs.

Just be careful where you land. lol!

[truthisfreedom]

30. Yay! Been here all my life.

We have plenty of homes for sale!

[Thor_MN]

12. If a corporation is a person, it should be held to the same limits as a person

[Stumbler]

14. I wonder...

I wonder if the SC might have heard the case if the groups claimed a violation of privacy-rights rather than the free-speech claim...

[myrna minx]

15. K&R n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. Why?

Probably, even the catholic mob on the USSC realized that they created a monster with a citizens united, and hoped this might help the slightest bit to bring some sanity to elections. The overwhelming hundreds of millions spent by business have been disgusting and vile.

[The Uncola]

19. K&R

[indepat]

20. The Minnesota law is the reason, then, why neither Target nor Best Buy will be seeing any of my

green. :)

[No Elephants]

22. The SCOTUS warned us not to draw any conclusions from its refusal to hear a case.

Still, I got happy.

[Odin2005]

29. YAY!