Where's the $2,400 limit? Corporations now have greater free speech rights than individuals.

[Frank Booth]

On Edit: Per post #2 below, it appears that SCOTUS left the ban on corporate $$ to actual candidates. So, while it's still a horrible decision, my original post is wrong. Please ignore it.

On Edit Again: It turns out "Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That limit dates to 1907." However this looks to be a distinction without a difference. So while Xe can't contribute directly to the Sarah Palin '12 campaign, it's free to run a 90 second Superbowl ad entitled "Sarah Palin: The Greatest American Hero"

This actually makes more sense. Roberts/Scalia/Kennedy are too smart to blatantly declare that corporations have greater rights than individuals. This decision actually does ensure that corporations have greater power, but conservatives are left with the ability to argue that corporations are still prohibited from giving directly to political campaigns.

--------



I haven't read the decision in full yet, but I've searched, and it appears that the $2,400 campaign contribution limit, per this decision, does not apply to corporations.

The synopsis of the decision states, in part:

Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Individuals, meanwhile are limited to contributing $2,400 to any candidate and $30,400 to any national party committee, per year.

Given the make-up of the Supreme Court, I'm not surprised that they found that corporations can make campaign contributions. But to expand the rights of corporations beyond the rights of individual American citizens is a travesty of justice shocking even by the standards of this Supreme Court.

[KittyWampus]

1. sadly recommended. It seems we will have to focus on Unions.

[Deep13]

2. SCOTUS left the ban on corporate $$ to actual candidates.

The decision was really directed toward issue ads. So Walmart can now make a 2-hour TV special about the evils of what the right calls socialism.

[anigbrowl]

7. Well...that cuts both ways

Basically I am against this ruling, though I'm still reading it. On the other hand, consider that it would equally affect the ability of someone on the left to publish, say, a documentary or book about Palin during election season. Suppose I make such a documentary over the next 2 years and she is the GOP candidate in 2012, would it be OK for me (or more specifically, the corporation I set up to make and own the film) to spend money promoting that movie during the campaign?

[Deep13]

12. If someone can afford to make that movie and if...

...a major network agrees to run it and if anyone will take it seriously after the RW noize machine discredits its producers. Bush was "reelected" with movies showing in cinemas telling people how much he sucked.

[anigbrowl]

13. You seem not to have answered the question. nt

[Deep13]

14. You figure it out then. nt

[On the Road]

3. I Think There's Another Constitutional Challenge There

If the court is going to hold to corporate personhood, they should at least hold corporations to the same standards as individuals.

[Roland99]

8. EXACTLY!

[asjr]

4. We may be plagued by 5-4 decisions for years to come.

[CrispyQ]

9. That is the most depressing thing I've read all morning.

The gift that keeps on giving. Bush's legacy.

[LiberalFighter]

11. I think I heard that Kennedy might be the next to go.

Replace him with the right one and we are at 6-3.

[kenny blankenship]

5. It isn't just that. Even if they have a donation limit

this ruling means they can form PACs and spend unlimited monies on their own TV ads attacking candidates they don't like, boosting ones they do.

[tridim]

6. Xe, Halliburton, KBR, NewsCorp and Clear Channel are probably already cutting new ads.

I guess the only hope is that they go way over the top with their ads.

I still want to know if they are required to tell the truth in these ads. Faux is already exempt, so I assume the other corporations will be as well.

[CrispyQ]

10. And now that we're basically always in campaign mode,

I see a lot more Netflix subscriptions!

This is such an awful decision, but not unexpected.