Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Camapign Advertising

FoxNews.com ^ | Jan 21,2010 | FoxNews

[ColdOne]

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign

[ColdOne]

Wow!

[raybbr]

Looks like the SEIU and other union dues are about to go up - way up!

[JLS]

Thank you George W. Bush. Most expected McCain-Feingold to go down immediately when brought before the US Supreme Court, but it took Bush adding adding sound conservatives to the bench in each of his opportunities to get this done.

[ReagansRaiders]

Headline is incorrect. They still CANNOT make direct contributions TO campaigns, but they CAN now make corporate independent expenditures on behalf or opposed to candidates (which was permissible until about 20 years ago.)

[xjcsa]

The headline is categorically false; whoever wrote it doesn’t know what they’re writing about. The court struck down corporate and union direct spending on advertisements, but restrictions on corporate donations to campaign committees still stand.

Bottom line: if I’m running for office, a corporation can air an ad supporting me, but it cannot give cash to my campaign committee.

[etcb]

Or he could have just vetoed the bill instead of signing it.

[Truth is a Weapon]

This is good news. Congress should now pass legislation increasing the public disclosure of all political donations by all organizations.

I never objected to big money donors to campaigns as long as it is done openly. The voters can then make their own judgments about which politicians have been bought. Politicians can then accept or reject donations based on all donations being made public.

The only other regulation I would like to see is the public disclosure of all communications between campaigns, candidates and the various “independent” organizations set up to campaign on behalf of candidates or against candidates. We need to discourage campaigns from creating sub campaigns to hide their ties to big donors.

Full transparency should be what we go for. Let everyone exercise their free speech by giving what they will. But everyone should know who is exercising that right.

[workerbee]

Thanks for the clarification.

[cherry]

the same goes for the union thugs I assume.....but I assume that they at least have to put their name on the ads....

[cherry]

what about Pacs?....does this ruling make Pacs a moot point?

[kabar]

Bush signed McCain-Feingold. He could have vetoed it and the Reps had the votes so the veto would have been sustained. Instead, he punted.

[Don Corleone]

I still support a rule that says that “You cannot contribute anything of value to someone for whom you cannot vote.” Think about it.

[Retired COB]

Bush signed McCain-Feingold. He could have vetoed it and the Reps had the votes so the veto would have been sustained. Instead, he punted.

Yeah, he was trying to bury the hatchet with McCain because of the hard feelings caused during his election. This was the price of Bush's pandering.

[ColdOne]

Good rule.

[Steamburg]

This is a day for celebration of Freedom! I can’t wait until the real essence of this ruling is actually understood.

[Daveinyork]

“I still support a rule that says that “You cannot contribute anything of value to someone for whom you cannot vote.” Think about it.”

Even if that someone can affect your life if elected?

[Trajan88]

Awesome.

Does this mean that Tom Delay is now off the hook (because of this action by the Supreme Court... the case against the Hammer is now moot)?

If so, that P.O.S. Ronnie Earl (former Travis county TX district attorney) surely is wiping rotten egg on his bitter face AGAIN.

[JLS]

I agree and I think Bush should have vetoed it. But he made the political choice to sign it thinking the Supreme Court would clean it up. As much as I would like to see presidents I support not make such political calculations, I am not shocked nor offended when they do.

The mediots knew McCain-Feingold would increase their power and thus sold the public on it. I prefer that Bush sign it and we not suffer a President Kerry particularly since the US Supreme Court later invalidate it, than to suffer a President Kerry and we cut and run in the War on Terrorists. The election of 2004 was a near thing and Bush was such an excellent president, the best in my life time and I am 57 tommorrow, I will not quibble with him signing this bill nor his steel tariffs or other small quibbles I have with him.

[Buffalo Bob]

I still support a rule that says that “You cannot contribute anything of value to someone for whom you cannot vote.” Think about it.

I used to believe that also, before the Scott Brown election. Although I live in Texas, that MA election has a direct postive impact on me and my family.

Food for thought.

[etcb]

Thanks for the reply and happy birthday.

As far as President Bush, I agree he was very good in some areas but quite weak in others. My recollection of presidents goes back to FDR and I would place Bush at 5th behind Eisenhower, Reagan, Truman, and Nixon.