Posted on 09/07/2009 5:37:44 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Imagine power companies spending millions of dollars on ads in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections accusing congressmen who supported climate change legislation of trying to increase electric rates and urging votes against them, or unions buying airtime to support primary challenges to conservative Democratic senators who opposed the labor-backed Employee Free Choice Act. Or even healthcare companies saturating the airwaves with messages urging voters to deny President Obama a second term.
All those ads would be illegal under current election law. But the Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that challenges decades of restrictions on corporations and unions spending unlimited cash on just those sorts of ads. Even more broadly, the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, gives the court’s conservative majority a chance to fundamentally redefine the role of corp[[o]]rations and unions in American politics.
Campaign finance experts predict the court, which has demonstrated an inclination towards incremental loosening of rules restricting the flow of money into politics, will expand the types of ads corporations and unions can pay for. Their only question is just how much the justices will open the floodgates.
Depending on the contours of the decision, sources familiar with the political and legal strategies of unions, major Washington advocacy groups and trade associations expect a deluge of new spending in the 2010 and 2012 elections that likely would most benefit Republicans, since for-profit corporations and their non-profit advocacy groups tend to lean right and have more money at their disposals than unions, which typically support Democrats.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
If Republicans weren’t such ham fisted idiots, they would be running against government funding for abortion, eminent domain, and lots of other things Sotomayor is going to be voting for.
The only reason such ads are illegal is because this scenario is true. I see nothing wrong with any business targeting any politician based on how that politician's voting hurts or helps said business.
I’d really enjoy watching these arguments live....
More likely the power companies will use a right to advertise politically to support the Social Democrats. They fear that the SDs may win elections and if the power Companies did not support them they will be punished or taken over. If they advertise for the SDs and the Republicans win the Republicans will NOT punish the companies. The incentive is for money and air time to go to support the SDs.
More likely the power companies will use a right to advertise politically to support the Social Democrats. They fear that the SDs may win elections and if the power Companies did not support them they will be punished or taken over. If they advertise for the SDs and the Republicans win the Republicans will NOT punish the companies. The incentive is for money and air time to go to support the SDs.
Imagine power companies spending millions of dollars on ads in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections accusing congressmen who supported climate change legislation of trying to increase electric rates and urging votes against them, or unions buying airtime to support primary challenges to conservative Democratic senators who opposed the labor-backed Employee Free Choice Act. Or even healthcare companies saturating the airwaves with messages urging voters to deny President Obama a second term.
Imagine a media monopoly on political discourse during election seasons. Oh, never mind imagining that, McCain and Feingold already did that.
Imagine a Democrat presidential candidate laundering millions of dollars of illegal foreign campaign contributions ...
Oh wait, you don’t have to imagine it.
They fear what Dems would do to them if they are still elected.
They fear a boycott by liberals.
They fear the Dems' media allies will amp up their investigations of them.
Remember, these are the same corporations that donate millions each year to rackets such as OperationPUSH, ACORN, and numerous environmental groups just to keep the community organizers off their backs.
Considering how Republican Party officials reacted when conservative 527s tried to form in 2004, ie they spoke out against them, I can see lots of Republican Party "leaders," telling corporations to butt out of this and "leave it to the professionals" while the Dems and their union/media allies beat them over the heads.
It seems to me that most of the so-called "leaders" of the GOP, regardless of the level they operate at, care far more about being thought of as nice people and in going to cocktail parties than in actually trying to win elections.
The case has the Obama Admin saying they have the power to ban books, films and internet postings they think violates campaign finance.
Interesting Big Pharma and Unions spending tens of millions in favor of ObamaCare doesn’t seem to bug them.
For later.
Are 527’s still legal? Those can run ads whenever they want.
Remove ALL restrictions on everyone...except this: You must disclose your funding. You have to say where the money came from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.