Supreme Court to Rule on Corporate Financing of Political Campaigns

Meanwhile, lower courts are also issuing rulings that diminish regulation of campaign financing:

(1) Is this a real possibility? (Obviously, a legal question.)
(2) Would this violate the idea of precedent in SCOTUS decision-making?
(3) Would this be damaging to democracy?

Ah, finally the dark days of the powerful being minorly inconvenienced when stacking the deck in their favor are coming to an end.

Deleted duplicate post…

Well, they rolled it back. Struck part of McCain-Feingold. I don’t really see how they could do much else. It’s pretty much core political speech at stake here.

One dollar = one vote

It was a nice peculiar experiment while it lasted.

Of course, but it would be a very good thing for plutocracy.

Can you explain why you think that? The decision was 5-4, so it doesn’t seem so cut and dry to me just on that basis.

The best argument against that I’ve yet encountered is in The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed):

They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.

From the same book, pp. 311-313:

I wonder what this means for the midterm elections. Would Goldman Sachs be able to spend a couple billion dollars to run non-stop propaganda from August to November?

To be very brief (deadline rapidly approaching) the right to join together to influence an election is a critical part of free speech, and has been historically. McCain-Feingold impacted that right. I’m downloading the opinion now and will say more later.

“…recent polls suggest that the incumbent, Senator Throckmorton (R-Citigroup) has a three point lead over his challenger, Jack Cough (D-Lockheed)…”

I am not particularly sold on money being tantamount to speech. I believe that is a court construction and I would be happy to see it reversed.

Let’s not forget about the unions. Hillary is probably very pissed.

That pretty much sums it up.

The unions have nothing remotely like the assets that corporations can throw at elections. If we forget about the unions, little information is lost.

Corporations aren’t always going to back Republicans. They tend to cover their bases.

But I was referring specifically to the last Democratic presidential primary. Hillary might well have had a financial edge of Obama if the unions could have gone whole hog. I don’t see the corporations coming to Obama’s aid.

Well, everybody knows that money talks. In America, it votes.

Really, its just a very originalist interpretation of the Constitution, quite a few of our Founders sagely held that the power of government was best kept in the hands of the monied and propertied, to ensure wise stewardship.

At long last, the iron grip of ACORN may be challenged, and the working class will be freed from the onerous task of making decisions.

At the grave of Tom Paine today, visitors and passersby were disturbed by an eerie cry of ghostly horror. WeSaySo Corp has generously donated earplugs to be freely distributed. Yes, they’re mandatory, badthink is pollution, and qualifies as a public health issue. You have the right to remain silent.

I don’t see why not. He’s not exactly a bomb-throwing anti-corporatist. He’s denied DLC membership before, but I don’t think he’s that far off from their mindset. He certainly hasn’t been setting the insurance industry on their collective ear over healthcare.

I’m talking about the Primary, where their choice is Hillary or Obama. Why would they favor Obama over Hillary?

Okay, you have a point about the primary. Both of them are basically New Democrats, i.e. corpsymps (to borrow a construction), despite Obama’s denial of membership. On the other hand, Obama was running further left in the primary than he did in the general, so he may have been seen by the corporate interests as less of an ally.


Actually, Part IV was 8-1, with only Thomas dissenting.