Well, so long as its reasonable…
What other kind of precedent is there? 
And another thing: reasonable, reasonable, reasonable.
I’m redundant. Sue me.
“Big Business” is hardly the only group that would benefit from a ruling overturning current law. It would also allow union funding of political advertising, and the AFL-CIO has filed an amicus brief in support of the appellant.
Also, Sotamayor has a reputation as a First Amendment purist, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see her voting to overturn McCain-Feingold.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/ It did not go well. Roberts appears to be leaning to overthrow recent rulings . He likely has Thomas and Scalia with him.
Thank you, Bricker and Richard Parker. The thing that gives me pause about calling it a campaign ad, rather than a documentary, is that it is being marketed as a movie. That is, they’re not showing it to everybody for free.
Too simplistic?
I think so, simply because the movie (if reviews are to be believed) is one long stream of reasons that the viewer should not vote for Hilary Clinton, in much the same way that Farenheit 911 was a long string of reason to reject George W Bush.
And the Lord said to the Devil “If you don’t, I’ll sue you!”
And the Devil laughed and said “Where are you gonna get a lawyer?”
But, unless I missed something, Fahrenheit 911 was not suppressed as a campaign advertisement. Was it?
If they were both bona fide commercial endeavors to release and distribute motion picture industry-type product and make a profit, they should both be treated the same by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Corporate “personhood” is entirely a creation of SCOTUS’s interpretation of what? Not the US Constitution nor its 27 amendments in which the word “corporation” does not appear once .
Before the Civil War, southern agricultural capital gave counterweight to northern industrial and the South had a fair hand in composing the SC. The question of corporate personhood began to arise post-bellum after the USG was firmly in the hands of northern banks and industrial interests and in 1889 the SC finally ruled that corporations are people.
Oh, the irony of it all. The corporation “lost” the suit but for the price of 3 hogs, ($24 … where has that number appeared before?) corporations were awarded personhood.
Bad link.:smack:
For SCOTUS’s timeline on corporate personhood, it’s here.
Money talks, and I can live with that. Money votes, and that sorta gets on my nerves. Chaps my hide. Pisses me off, bigtime and downtown.
I would very much like to move in the direction of minimizing such power. Quite soon, actually. If its not too much trouble.
If passing the 28th amendment,
Congress shall pass no law recognizing corporations as human beings, previous judicial rulings aside.
is too much trouble, then we’re out of luck.
Well, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, some are just more entertaining than others.
Nuke DC?
No, no, that’s too radical. A few carefully chosen trips to The Wall, perhaps. Pour encourager les autres.
I’m much to old for this sort of thing and decry any illegality whatsoever. But, whatever it takes.
She didn’t seem to lean that way in arguments. She had difficulty accepting that corporations are entitled to all the rights of people.
McCain and Finegold were adamant that if corporations had these rights ,they could overpower the rights of people. . The reason they passed the legislation named after them was due to the corruption that they saw with corporations and politicians. this case could put us right back where started from.
In case anyone wants to listen to the arguments: Link.
The Court ordered re-arguments on the treasury issue – whether or not the constitution prohibits laws regulating how corporations spend their treasuries on elections.
I hope the Court only decides the movie issue and doesn’t strike down the precedent allowing the government to regulate corporate spending on elections, but that doesn’t seem likely at this point.
Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas are all against such government regulations. If Roberts and Alito join them then the Court might just as well overrule its past decisions.