Talk to me like I am slow, what is the SCOTUS decision today about

[uppityperson]

I am tired. I just worked a long shift and am beat. What is the SCOTUS ruling about? Make it simple please since I just can't process a lot but want to understand this. Thank you

[Bonobo]

1. As I see it...

Under the principal that corporations SHOULD have all the legal rights of individuals, the SCOTUS removed all limits on their contributions to politicians, campaigns, advertising, etc.

Clearly it will even further place power into the hands of corporate interests -interests NOT aligned with the interests of us regular folks.

Consider the implications.

This is a SCOTUS decision. It ain't going away easily.

Any other questions?

[uppityperson]

3. Thank you. I am tired, will read this through tomorrow, you give me a quick idea about it, thanks

[pnwmom]

4. Actually, it's even worse than that, because individuals have set limits on their

contributions, while the SCOTUS just ruled that corporations can spend anything.

[MercutioATC]

8. You're 100% wrong.

Individuals have NO limit on advocacy spending (commercials, etc.).

Corporations, before this decision, did.

All this ruling does is give corporations (which have legal personhood) the same advocacy spending rights as individual people.


It does not change direct contributions to candidates one whit.

[pnwmom]

9. Very few individuals can buy commercials. It sounds like you like this ruling. n/t

[MercutioATC]

13. I neither like nor dislike it...but it's a sound legal decision.

...and any person or group of people can buy airtime.

My biggest concern is people who have no understanding of the decision posting wild claims and whipping the masses into a frenzy.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. Yeah, because I have exactly the same dollars to spend on "advocacy" as Pfizer

"All this does" --- what a complete load of crap you are peddling!

Here is a succinct and REAL summary of what it does.
*************************************************
quoting Joe Conason here-
http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=...

For establishment Republicans like columnist George Will and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the court's decision is simply an overdue recognition of the First Amendment right to free speech. (Or what in fact is more aptly described as "paid speech.") But to understand its actual impact, listen to Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, who drew this pithy comparison: Under the old dispensation, which prohibited direct corporate expenditures on elections for nearly a century, Exxon Mobil could spend only what its political action committee raised from executives and employees. In 2008, said Waldman, that was roughly $1 million. Under the new order, the world's biggest oil company can spend as much as its management cares to siphon from its earnings -- which in 2008 amounted to $45 billion. ...

All the ultra-wingers and tea partyers who agitate constantly over U.S. sovereignty should recall again how little loyalty the multinational corporations and banks have displayed toward the United States in their drive for profit. Now, in effect, the Supreme Court's "conservatives" have opened up the American electoral process to a new, potentially limitless source of foreign influence.
**************************************************

[MercutioATC]

14. The post I responded to is factually incorrect.

How big a deal anybody believes this is is their own choice...but that choice should be based on facts, not wild (and false) claims.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. They didn't remove limits on contributions to actual politicians, I don't think

They still can't donate money to the actual candidate, if I read the ruling right.

But there, a corporation would have been limited to the amount an individual could donate to a candidate, anyway. Hell, I'd swap what they have now for their being able to max out an individual campaign contribution in the name of the corporation.

[Jamastiene]

2. Now, instead of corporations influencing campaigns behind the scenes,

they can openly use as much money as they want to influence campaigns.

The SCOTUS ruling removed the rule that forced corporations to use loopholes to do what they've always been doing anyhow. So, they don't really need the loopholes any more now.

That is basically it.

[jobycom]

5. Scotus ruled that corporations could not be prohibited from running ads

to endorse or oppose a candidate, as long as they clearly identified themselves as the sponsor of the ad, and as long as they did not collaborate with a candidate or the candidate's campaign. They are still prohibited from donating to a candidate or that candidate's campaign.

Previously, corporations could run issue ads, but could not endorse a candidate in those ads, and the ads could not run less than 60 days before the election. Now they can run ads up to the election, and can endorse candidates in the ads, as though they were a real person.

The rule also applies to special interest groups like the Sierra Club or the NRA, and to labor unions, all of whom were prohibited in the same ways before.

[krispos42]

6. The people that wrote the 14th Amendment screwed up

They didn't specify "natural persons", just "persons". And corporations are considered artificial persons for legal reasons. Therefore, an amendment intended to free the slaves has been morphed into a way to make corporations more powerful. Now corporations have constitutional rights just like actual people.


Thom Hartmann must be livid over this. :-(

[Overseas]

10. Reclaim Democracy dot org has lots of background on Corporate Personhood.

The decision is pretending that corporations (conglomerates of private interests including non-U.S. citizens) should somehow have the same rights as individual U.S. citizens, even though they do not have the same liabilities as individuals. We can't throw the seller of Vioxx in jail for life for murder, even though that Corporate Superperson killed hundreds of people.

The conservative judicial activists on our Supreme Court have ruled that corporations should have no limits on their political speech rights. They can spend as much as they want on political campaigning because they are somehow equal to individual US citizens.

FOR SCHOLARLY BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE:

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

[Overseas]

11. Sign the petition to revoke corporate personhood.

“I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816


Motion to Amend

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

http://www.movetoamend.org/motion-amend

[Overseas]

15. Here's a great summary by another DUer. "The Arsenal of Kleptocracy" he calls the article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=512084&mesg_id=512084