What's Happening?
Aimee Clark

SCOTUS and the Campaign Finance Ruling

Posted Friday, January 22, 2010, at 11:02 PM
View 18 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Money is the root of all evil.

    -- Posted by jusamom on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 10:14 AM
  • Corporation = person. This is where the first Common Sense Alarm ought to be going off! As I see it this debate started in 1886 with a ruling by the supreme court in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). That case was fairly unremarkable. The railroad didn't want to pay taxes. What was remarkable was what the court didn't write. In these procedings a court reporter, in this case, J.C.Bancroft Davis, is charged with writing a header to the courts descision. It just summarizes what was decided. In it he wrote ""The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

    Chief Justice Morrison Waite looked it over and said it was substantially correct and let it go at that. What just happened? Corporations were given the status of 'legal persons', as opposed to 'natural persons'(that's you and me) and were afforded the rights (mostly) of a natural person under the 14th ammendment to the constitution. This is called an obiter dictum, or a passing remark.


    Common sense alarm?

    I do not think this was the intent of our founding fathers when they framed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As a matter of fact some of them warned against this very thing.

    Al Gore argues that, because of the 1886 decision, "the monopolies in commerce' that Jefferson had wanted to prohibit in the Bill of Rights were full-blown monsters crushing competition from small businesses, bleeding farmers with extortionate shipping costs, and buying politicians at every level of government".


    Note: Three of the judges, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas were on the majority side that stopped the recount in Florida in 2000.

    Want to see Obama chipped off. Watch this flic.


    Why isn't the GOP? We're all in the same pool and big business just peed in it. Nobody wants fascism, right? When big business controls the government, that is a pretty good definition.

    Well if I'm going to talk about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, I should at least listen to what they have to say. So, I went to their site.


    The big letters said, "Citizens United-Dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control".

    The small letters said, "Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise,strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens".

    American Sovereignty Project

    American Sovereignty Project ("ASP") is the grassroots lobbying arm of Citizens United that

    works to protect American sovereignty and security. ASP's major objectives include complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations, defeat of the treaty to establish a permanent U.N.-

    controlled International Criminal Court, and rejection of one-world government."

    That little voice of mine that has saved my bacon soooo many times was saying "It's time to go now."

    So I watched the movie that started the most recent round of fighting. It's called "Hillary, the movie" Got a couple of hours?


    This movie really does a number on the Clintons, especially Hillary. I mean this sucker drew blood. It's a little dated. It has John Edwards asking why Hillary doesn't just go into 'tell the truth mode'. And it has that delicate little rose pedal Ann Colter in it. It doesn't really matter what they say about them. I didn't like them anyway. How can I look up to an impeached president? Many people don't even know that he was impeached and what he did to the office of President was no big deal. Those people are kind of disappointing too.

    I would just like to say that the decision of the Supreme Court the other day was really scary. This is not a partisan issue. Everybody should be alarmed.

    -- Posted by Lee51 on Sun, Jan 24, 2010, at 5:35 AM
  • First of all, I must say that it's the love of money that is the root of all evil. A conservative acquaintance of mine accused Branstad of being only about money. Yes, he talks about the budget, but that's because it's in a mess. And yes he will receive millions of dollars in support and that's because he has a face and a name people recognize. I disagree that he now can receive those millions from corporations. No one should be able to do that. The only way I would agree with that is if corporations ran their own commercials showing their corporate support for candidates. I don't agree with writing anonymous (or at least not publicized) checks to politicians. I want a politician that is willing to stand up to certain corporations (i.e. drug companies) not take handouts from them. It's a very dangerous game that will now commence, and at a very critical time. By the way, thanks Lee for doing your research. Many people are willing to ramble away in a message board or blog but very few actually look things up and go into meticulous detail as you did. I wish more people would do more research and think more before they speak. Those are my thoughts.


    -- Posted by Gabe Licht on Tue, Jan 26, 2010, at 11:34 AM
  • Money is far from the root of all evil. If I put a $100 bill on the table, it will just lie there. It is the person who possesses the $100 bill that decides if it will be used for good or evil. Everything is personal choice - money has no will or decision making ability.

    As for campaign finance reform. A person can spend his or her money however they choose, but I have a problem with corporate sponsored candidates, especially when those corps are using profits to buy politicians rather than create jobs or increase pay and benefits to hard working employees.

    -- Posted by randy cauthron on Tue, Jan 26, 2010, at 4:26 PM
  • Money is the root of evil. If it wasn't we would not have children dying over the sneakers they wear, or 'good neighborhoods' or homeless. Money feeds greed and the need for more money. Anytime that money can influence anything it will not have a good outcome.

    If you leave that $100 said dollars on your table it might sit there for you, but others may see it and do anything in their power to obtain it. It might not be your idea of evil but to others it is. You take away all money and have to trade or barter for things and you will see a whole new USA.

    -- Posted by jusamom on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 11:07 AM
  • You can not blame money, guns, or any other object for the actions taken by people. We better do away with rocks because someone might pick one up and hit somebody with it. You better outlaw cars because a drunk driver might get behind the wheel of one and hurt somebody. No humans and their actions determine good and evil - not objects.

    -- Posted by randy cauthron on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 2:06 PM
  • You can not honestly sit there and deny that if money were taken out of our lives that there would be a lot less hate in the world. A lot less crime, and a lot more love and respect and getting along. I think you missed the word GREED in there. Humans are just that-human and are succumbed by temptation. Without the money they would not have the temptation. Plain as that.

    When you start letting corporations give whatever they want to one politician over another it is a big money game. And how can this be favorable for our people? The more money you have the better the chances of your guy winning. And once again, money is the key factor. Not always the solution nor the best for the USA in my eyes.

    -- Posted by jusamom on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 7:38 PM
  • Actually "The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10, KJV)is the real quote. I believe it refers to greed. Profit is not a dirty word. If a business goes out of business for lack of profit, how does that help anybody. But greedy corporations or people frequently put money over their morals. That can get pretty ugly.

    -- Posted by Lee51 on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 11:09 PM
  • jusamom, if money were taken out of our lives, people would be greedy and fight over possessions, land, politics, etc. Money is just a piece of paper. The meaning behind it- the ability to gain power, necessities, etc- and the things greedy people will do to acquire those things is the root of all evil. Tribal societies who exchange goods and services for other goods do not use money and they still experience problems. Humans were human long before someone invented the printing press.

    -- Posted by notinia on Thu, Jan 28, 2010, at 10:49 AM
  • USA, Inc.

    The only thing stopping a corp run country is a strong, effective gov't. Nobody or nothing else can stand up to big business on behalf of the individual. That's why big business is always trying to get us to vote to weaken and shrink the gov't. Think about it, and always, always, follow the $.

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 5:33 PM
  • You get rid of money and someone will still have more "goats and chickens" then everyone else. There's always going to be a person "wealthier." That's just part of us as humans. Maybe it's the desire to be wealthy is the root of the evil here. Doesn't really matter what it is.

    When the rich wage war it's the poor who die.

    -Jean-Paul Sartre

    -- Posted by _Samantha_ on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 3:27 PM
  • Down, Please educate yourself with facts before posting. Corporations have always been able to give to campaigns in the form of PACs. They regularly ask all employees to join their PAC, I know I get the requests and have for years. Now, the corporations don't need to even do that. They can just take from their general fund accounts. Also, they don't even have to be American owned companies, just incorporated in America.

    How has that "letting corporations look after you" and "we all get richer if the rich get richer" working out? Health care costs out of control, economic meltdowns, unsafe consumer products of all kinds, etc. Believe me, corporations are not about blue or red but green. Give me any example and I'll show you how the corporate decision is tied back to increasing the bottom line. In terms of real dollars, the average workers income has been stagnant at best for the last 30 years, while expenses increased. Since it takes American consumer spending to run the world economy, the shortfall had to come from somewhere and corporations gladly offered it in credit.

    As far as SCOTUS goes, the 5 that voted to overturn 100 years of precident all stated in their congressional questioning that they believed in Stare Decisis. So, they must have lied and now qualify to be accused of writing the law from the bench and being an activist court.

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Feb 8, 2010, at 9:31 AM
  • Profit is good. How it's made is the issue. Some of the recent record profits made by the banks came from taking the TARP $ that was supposed to be loaned to small businesses (which provide more jobs than big business) and instead was used to buy TBills, which the Federal Gov't then pays interest on. Free Federal $ to the banks with no risk of the banks own capital.

    Non partisan accounting organizations have stated that Tort Reform will only lower health care costs by 2%. There are states that have already done that and costs have not decreased. And the insurance companies have stated that they still would not lower their malpractice premiums to doctors.

    Why are insurance companies the only industry exempt from anti trust laws?

    I probably pay more in taxes than you earn in a year. And gladly do so. I want to live in a healthy educated caring productive society. Those that strive to be the sickest, poorest, stupidest can do so on their own.

    People that can help themselves but don't shouldn't expect support. But what are your answers to what to do for those that can't help themselves, like kids, elderly, disabled, war victims, disaster victims? Ignore them? What about those that worked for 30 years and are now btwn jobs and have no health insurance? Why are there so many fund raisers to pay for medical bills for people that have health insurance.

    As far as name calling, it speaks for itself about you.

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 10:48 AM
  • Glad to see you can cut and paste. So you honestly believe that the majority of people receiving aid don't need it....hmmmm. Is that based on empirical evidence or real data? I can go dig up hundreds of critical facts about Republicans and complimentary facts about Democrats but that doesn't solve anything. Why are you so angry? Don't you get tired of being outraged and pessimistic all of the time?

    America is the best. We've dealt with much worse than what you're complaining about. Sure there are problems in every type of organization like religion, the military, businesses, etc. So, identify and fix the problems. Don't just adovate walking away from all the good that is done for people that deserve to be helped.

    If you pay 55% in taxes you need a new tax guy.

    -- Posted by helped_myself on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 9:02 AM
  • You don't think that people on Welfare should have the ability to call 911? Why the problem with them having phones?

    -- Posted by stafinois on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 2:48 PM
  • If only this were a place of leftish priorities! I often feel that I'm a Smurf drowning in the Red Sea.

    -- Posted by stafinois on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 4:26 PM
  • Nah, my parents taught me, and I am teaching my child, to share. You know, "Sharing is Caring?" Barney is such a commie.

    -- Posted by stafinois on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 9:51 AM
  • Your comment about liberals fending for themselves made me think of this funny that was passed around extensively a few years ago: http://bit.ly/bIImbM

    -- Posted by stafinois on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 10:49 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: