Skip to main content

View Diary: What to Do When Liberal SCOTUS Justices Think Corporations are People Too (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It takes some immersion in legal scholarship (0+ / 0-)

    to confront the CU crisis. Current political leadership lacks an effective analysis of the type that, for example,  Lincoln provided after Dred Scott, or TR in his trust busting days. Popularizers focus on corporate personhood, which  CU did not rely on in its holding. Stevens was right, and corporate personhood is not what opened the door to the plutocratic coup d'etat. The blurring of political and commercial speech was accomplished in the Nixon Court's Buckley v. Valeo, ushering in a new era of corruption now locked in place by Arizona Free Enterprise. To acquaint yourself with the constitutional options going forward, I recommend the recent articles of attorney Robert Hager at Counterpunch, OpEdnews and elsewhere, his amicus brief opposing the American Tradition Partnership cert petition, also the scholarship of Larry Kachimba, moneyouttapolitics.org, and  the Eleventh Amendment movement website.    

    •  That is factually incorrect (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know where you are getting that from but corporate personhood comes from Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad. Buckley vs Valeo did base it's decisions on corporations having 1st amendment rights on the parts which come from that case. I would suggest reading my diary in full.

      It is true that new precedent involving FEC appointments were set by that case, but it did uphold some spending limits from  Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 for individuals but not groups.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law. The court also ruled candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

      Without the first amendment argument it has no legs and that also comes from Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad. If any of that is denied in those references, I'm not interested. It may not be the entire basis for everything in Buckley vs Valeo, but it's certainly a big part.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:17:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The 1st A. precedent relied on in CU (0+ / 0-)

        was from Buckley and progeny. Assuming you disagree with this line of precedent and seek effective election spending regulation, my comment references to research developed by the attorneys actively litigating the issue, such as in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court. This information should be valuable to you, given your commitment to curbing corporate control of elections.    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Media (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Spam (24)
  • Congress (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site