The conservative Supreme Court has now lifted the floodgate of special interest money contributions to political campaigns. How does this sit with the tea bag rhetoric of returning the government to the people and following the constitution?
Or have the tea baggers just been a front for corporations all along?
The Taxpayer
Favorite Answer
Supreme court is not conservative.
There are conservatives and liberals that are uneasy about the decision. Democrats like the idea that unions can now give without limit, and unions can raise their dues. GE likes the democrats owing to defense contracts, and the prospect of green jobs.
Many businesses, unfortunately 77% of them, believe the current government is anti-business. This bodes well for republicans who have always been for smaller government.
It's an election year and the money is important.
However, the republican sponsored bill for campaign reform is out the window. I think both parties will want to see an amendment before too long. It puts us all at risk of having our officials being more corrupt than they are already.
mtlmnr49
For those that seem to think they only overturned restrictions on corporations, the restrictions that were lifted applied to Unions as well. There is nothing "activist" in this ruling. The activism that this type of ruling reflects is the Progressive Era interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause in the 1937 NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin case.
I don't see how they could have come to any other conclusion and still be within the parameters set forth in the Constitution. Individuals have freedom of speech. Individuals have the freedom to associate. Associated individuals retain the rights possessed at the time they associated. What form that association takes cannot matter. If legislation and legislators will affect groups, those groups have a right to defend themselves. Stevens' opinion reminds me of the thought process of Hugo Chavez and his ilk. If a foreign national owns property in this country and employs people in this country, their property rights can be violated by the government at any time for any reason. He is the activist trying to create an entitlement for "eligible voters" in which they can do whatever they want with the private property that does not belong to them.
If people don't want corporate influence on elections, stop allowing politicians to expand federal authority into the private sector. When the regulations, tax breaks, subsidies, etc are stopped Corporations have no reason to influence an election. Until people are willing to take control of their own lives and stop passing responsibility to the government they will have to accept that both sides affected by legislation have the right to lobby and influence the process.
The heart of the problem stems from the modern (and faulty) interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The founders were specifically addressing a weakness in the Articles of Confederation. They gave the federal government the ability to remove barriers to trade between states created by state governments. IE To keep commerce regular. The second the Supreme Court added to the scope of this provision, they opened up the can of worms that destroyed the integrity of our system by granting Congress a boundless field of influence that attracts every interest group seeking favors.
The bailouts undertaken over the last 2 years are far more dangerous than this campaign finance ruling. Capitalism requires a carrot (profit) and a stick (bankruptcy). Now that the bailout precedent has been set, I'm more concerned that it will be the norm going forward. Government has taken a financial interest in the stability and continuity of existing corporations. What effect will that have on barriers to entry for and regulations governing the growth of smaller, growing companies?
None of this would be an issue if the Supreme Court would over turn NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin, striking down all legislation that relied on it for its validity. Congress would be reduced to its pre-Progressive bounds with regards to keeping commerce regular (rather than regulating everything and anything that may or may not have an effect on interstate commerce) and Corporations, unions, and special interest groups would have far less incentive to influence policy.
?
What truly befell replaced right into a rallying factor for Romney and the structure replaced into thrown out the window. The left can now tax some thing is favor to regulate. So if yet another democratic Hose senate and a left wing president they are going to tax away the non-public sector and make usa right into a socialist usa. the different difficulty that really befell replaced into the 5 preferrred courtroom justices dedicated treason to the structure. So with the structure irrelevant the subsequent left wing authorities might want to be the perfect of our freedom. human beings in simple terms don't realize their freedom and now they would not in any respect understand what genuine freedom "replaced into".
Don M
You have unfortunately bought into the "us versus them" mentality regarding corporations.
Corporations are citizens banded together to produce something that people want. They are essential in a robust free market economy. If they quit serving us, their customers, a competing company will run them out of business.
The Supreme Court's decision was on target. People who come together to to meet public demands for goods or services should not be denied their First Amendment right of free speech.
D700 dug
Government for the people only means For People LIke us. Not for the rest of the liberal socialist immigrant unionist commie atheist scum.
More money for republicans mean the rich have more control and get richer what is the problem with that as long as you are rich ?