The Court has recognized that First Amen…
The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. [...] This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. [...] The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”
Supreme Court of the United States
mazsa 00:22 on January 27, 2010 Permalink |
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/25/citizen-uniteds-concept-of-the-u-s-constitution/
mazsa 01:17 on January 28, 2010 Permalink |
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
mazsa 14:34 on January 31, 2010 Permalink |
“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address
mazsa 21:05 on February 14, 2010 Permalink |
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) will introduce their legislative counterpunch to the Supreme Court’s recent decision on corporate campaign spending the week after the Presidents Day recess, the Democratic lawmakers confirmed on Thursday.
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED LEGISLATION: http://electionlawblog.org/archives/schumer-vanhollen.pdf
mazsa 07:39 on February 21, 2010 Permalink |
“The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on ads explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates, will worsen matters. The threat of unlimited amounts of negative advertising from special interest groups will only make members more beholden to their natural constituencies and more afraid of violating party orthodoxies.
I can easily imagine vulnerable members approaching a corporation or union for support and being told: “We’d love to support you, but we have a rule. We only support candidates who are with us at least 90 percent of the time. Here is our questionnaire with our top 10 concerns. Fill it out.” Millions of campaign dollars now ride on the member’s response. The cause of good government is not served.
What to do? While fundamental campaign finance reform may ultimately require a constitutional amendment, there are less drastic steps we can take to curb the distorting influence of money in politics. Congress should consider ways to lessen the impact of the Citizens United decision through legislation to enhance disclosure requirements, require corporate donors to appear in the political ads they finance and prohibit government contractors or bailout beneficiaries from spending money on political campaigns.
Congress and state legislators should also consider incentives, including public matching funds for smaller contributions, to expand democratic participation and increase the influence of small donors relative to corporations and other special interests.”
Evan Bayh: Why I’m Leaving the Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21bayh.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
mazsa 16:13 on April 24, 2010 Permalink |
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/opinion/24sat1.html
mazsa 06:35 on August 30, 2010 Permalink |
http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/obama-on-citizens-united