Breaking: Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits

[flpoljunkie]

Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press

Thursday, January 21, 2010; 10:11 AM

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 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.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html

[Deep13]

1. The most pressing problem in America is getting big money ...

...out of politics and this fucking court has put us back to square one.

[ClassWarrior]

3. +1

NGU.

[WeDidIt]

2. It was a nice experiment while it lasted

But this is the end of the republic.

2012 wlll see billions of dollars spent by the corporations and the Republicans will have enough of a majority at every level to amend the constitution at will.

[Clio the Leo]

4. And there goes a lot of the President's campaign mojo..

.... since he could out raise the GOP. Hopefully there'll be time to pass some fix by the next election.

[Clio the Leo]

19. But there will STILL be limits on PERSONAL contributions!

UGH!!!!!

[Bleacher Creature]

5. This is very troubling, but also completely expected. NT

[BeyondGeography]

6. Corporations don't have enough power; I'm glad the Court has moved to address this problem

:sarcasm:

[flpoljunkie]

14. Corporations outspent unions 4-1 during 2008 election cycle on PAC contributions, 61:1 on lobbying.

The report states further, "If the Supreme Court lifts the ban on using corporate profits for political spending, corporations would likely spend vastly more than labor unions. During the 2008 election cycle, corporations outspent organized labor 4:1 on political action committee (PAC) contributions, but 61:1 on lobbying."

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10540

[rfranklin]

7. This is number one for a constitutional amendment....

No more corporate personhood. Virtually everyone hates the fact that corporations (and unions) can buy off politicians. It needs to be permanently stopped.

[jasi2006]

8. We have just undone what little bit of "democracy" we had left.

How did the vote go

[asjr]

9. The Felonious Five at it again. Corporations

have been picking our pockets for a long long time. Now it will be even easier.

[quantass]

10. Oh...My....God....The rats have just taken over the bakery.

A new era has just begun. Grassroots financing has possibly been buried alive.

[S_E_Fudd]

11. It's finally official...we are no longer the USA...we are now USA, Inc.

eom

[Deep13]

12. Some of those judges are old and senile.

We should appoint new judges for every one over the age of seventy to help ease the load.

[freddie mertz]

13. We are finished as a republic.

Time to hit the streets, I guess.

[DisgustedInMN]

23. Sadly..

.. I think you're right. See ya on the front lines.

[jasi2006]

15. The only thing left to us, the working class is to vote with our purchasing power.

Where possible, we must ban together and not purchase from those who would corrupt our govenment even further. These are the afteshocks of Bush SCOTUS appoitments. Tell me again why it's not important to have a Presidet on your side. Every Senator who did not oppose these appointments needs to be unelected and turned out next time around. The GOP never would have given up on filibutering who they didn't want. They know they can brow beat a liberal Dem because the know the Dems have a conscience and they don't.

[stevenleser]

25. We have no power there either in this plutonomy.

If 1% have a stranglehold on the wealth, our money being spent or not being spent doesnt mean jack. That's why the stock market can go up with 20% of us out of work.

[Vidar]

16. More corruption we can believe in.

[Milo_Bloom]

17. So.. what is the practical difference?

Instead of funneling funds through PAC's via straw men, they now can buy the ads directly?

I love the way the article tries to spin it as some claim that the unions will now have more power?!?

I don't like the decision, but the campaign finance laws were shite anyway, as they were easily circumvented, so practically speaking, it doesn't make much difference.

[Clio the Leo]

18. Mitch McConnel was SITTING in the audience when the decision was announced!

per MSNBC

Nothing wrong with that but gosh is it SMARMY.

Now I know why he wasn't meeting with Scott Brown. I thought that was odd.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Mitch McConnell filed an amicus brief in support of the appellant, Citizens United.

[uponit7771]

21. When it rains....

[mrgorth]

22. It's

over.

[high density]

24. 5-4

Thanks again Bush for Alito and Roberts

We need to expect to suffer under this crap for many more decades.

[mzmolly]

26. Then we need smaller corporations and less concentrated

corporate power.

What an f-d up day.

[classysassy]

27. If we lived in a true democracy

the funky five would be driven out of town.