Thursday, January 21, 2010

Liberty Wins! Liberty Wins!

That's my Harry Caray imitation.

The Supreme Court comes through. Stupid freakin' campaign finance law! Yay! Here's the ruling. I can't believe our side actually WON for once.

"My" amicus brief in the case, if you are interested....(Allison wrote it; I just signed it).

UPDATE: For you half-wits commenting (i.e., everyone who disagrees with me), check this!

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

One thing I'm not quite clear on; does this ruling allow for transnational corporations to donate to candidate or operate on their behalf?

As an American citizen (who doesn't have the resources of say, the Chinese government or the Saudi royal family,) I must confess, I'm at a loss as to how this buttresses the liberties of any single individual.

PeeDub said...

I'm still also shaky on the idea that corporations should have all the same rights as an individual. On some level it makes sense, but on a visceral level it seems wrong wrong wrong.

Podcast?

Anonymous said...

Transnational corporations can operate WITHOUT this law.

All this decision does is allow a level playing fields for small corporations, and non-profits.

You might a little WORK. It can be most rewarding. Read the decision.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous poster number 1 here, chiming in, in response to Anonymous #3.

You see, I do work a little, in a meaningful and rewarding (read: non-legal) profession, and consequently don't have an abundance of time to read & process literally scores of amicus briefs or paper-thin justifications of precedent overturning. Nor do I have time to proofread tart little retorts using dramata-CAPs.

This original question is an appeal to the site's hosts, who work in a profession that allows time for such indulgences, as well as capabilities and knowledge that I do not possess. Given your curt little response, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you don't, either.

Again, as a flesh and blood human citizen, can someone clarify what liberties (or hell, even licenses) were granted to other flesh and blood human citzens with this ruling?

Anonymous said...

How does allowing businesses to shell out oceans of money to support or oppose their chosen candidates "level the playing field"?

Anonymous said...

@ Anon 4

Nothing. It gave corporations (or "non profits" as the other anon seems to insist) the right to spend as much as they want to help (or hurt) a candidate.

David said...

I think corporations can already dole out money to PACs and other groups who do whatever it is those groups do. This in principle should make the whoring more transparent. Or not. I noticed that lobbying firms had a banner year last year, so it's not like the current system reigns in the excesses in any meaningful way.

Or maybe it does. I concede that I only scored 39 on that truth test months back.

Anonymous said...

Watched the video. Unconvincing.

Of course I may be biased because this seems to be the one and only area in which conservatives give a toss about the First amendment.

Tom said...

Anyone who has watched the recent shenanigans in Congress should know that Big Corporations have little trouble influencing government. Then remember that Citizens United is a little guy, a "corporation" organized for the purpose of helping still littler guys (individuals) get their opinions out to the public. It should be clear -- it WAS clear to the Supremes -- who is a target and who gets a pass.

This much is clear: if we don't stop GovCo's control of our "democracy" here, there is no bright line ahead where it could be stopped.

Anonymous said...

Hello there, it's Anon #1 and #4 again.

I don't mean to ruffle your feathers by being a half-wit, host. I will watch your video when I'm not on the company dime.

Please understand that, despite being a man with many responsibilities, I am a man of principles; ethics that I take to the polling station; ethics that compelled me to vote for one Munger (L) last Novemeber.

I'm hoping and presuming your half-wit comment is in jest, for if it isn't, and you take offense at the unwashed masses asking questions, pehaps it is for the best that your office window affords a view of a Dawson's Creek set and not Blount Street.

Anonymous said...

CU is a "Little guy"? Their main office is on Penn Ave! They spend millions to make and distribute movies to promote their viewpoint.

Sadly for them, they might have just priced themselves out of the "speech" market.

seslimuhabbet said...

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat