E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSHanding out the final decisions of the current term, the Supreme Court issued two -- one of which is related to politics.
It invalidated, by a 5-4 vote, a 1998 Arizona law that gave a financial boost to publicly funded candidates if their privately funded opponents spent more money.
Under the law, candidates who declined to accept campaign contributions could participate in the public financing system, which gave them a lump-sum grant for the campaign. But if an opponent, who was not publicly funded outspent the amount of the state grant, the publicly funded candidate received more money from the state to bring the candidates into rough spending parity.
The system was challenged on First Amendment grounds by several privately funded candidates, who claimed that they reined in their spending to avoid triggering the matching funds for their publicly funded opponents. The law, they argued, acted as a restraint on their campaigns and thus violated their free-speech rights.
Leave a Comment:
This is a surprise, how?
The mere fact that this corrupt court brought us the Citizens United ruling reveals they are not about a level playing field!
They find nothing wrong with anonymous, foreign contributions!
Why isn't a corporation required to get a social security number?
Feisty you are so funny.
Are you suggesting that corporations should apply for and receive benefits?
Are all the justices corrupt old gal, or just some, cause see they keep lining up in different ways on different issues.
The regulation of money, which allows access to AMPLIFIED speech, is not an infringement on Free speech. A candidate is still free to speak, just not in an amplified, mass media, way.
Money is not speech.
PPSSSTT Old Gal - google "tax-payer identification number."
Come on Feisty, knowledge is power, you really could use some.
Good point, Paul
It's also not protected speech to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, or to broadcast cigarette ads, or to use obscenity on the airwaves...the Supreme Court (or 5-4 of them) are off their rockers.
Feisty, I doubt you have ever read the Citizens United decision. If you did you would realize that it gives voters that want to exercise their right to associate together, via the corporate form, and raise money to have their voice heard the freedom to do so. The parties in Citizens United were not corporate giants, as so many of you on the left want every one to believe. If Unions are free to pool their money and advertise, why shouldn't those that are not unionized be free to do so? If major networks can act as campaign central for a party or candidate (like NBC and MSNBC for Obama), than why shouldn't we be allowed to band together to pool our resources to have our voices heard? Or is that too much free speech for you?
From an earlier thread:
Nice to see the NY Times has determined the unethical dealings of Justice Clarence Thomas needed to be brought to the light of day.
Let’s not forget his wife Ginny receiving 600+K from the Heritage Foundation & Justice Thomas failure to disclose this income as required by law for the time span of 2003-2007.
Then, there’s the all expense 4 day junket in Palm Springs, which Clarence & Ginny attended & WAS paid for by the billionaire Koch Brothers who use those billions to finance conservative causes. Keep in mind the explanation offered by Clarence was this was a ‘brief drop by’. Really? Most of the working poor today call that a VACATION if they can manage to swing it!
Although the Supreme Court is not bound by the code, justices have
said they adhere to it. Legal ethicists differed on whether Justice Thomas’s
dealings with Mr. Crow pose a problem under the code. But they agreed that one
facet of the relationship was both unusual and important in weighing any
ethical implications: Justice Thomas’s role in Mr. Crow’s donation for the
museum.
The code
says judges “should not personally participate” in raising money for charitable
endeavors, out of concern that donors might feel pressured to give or entitled
to favorable treatment from the judge. In addition, judges are not even supposed
to know who donates to projects honoring them.
Read the
entire story @ http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2011%2F06%2F19%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F19thomas.html&ei=LcIHTqj1OIHdgQfR6IDEDQ&usg=AFQjCNFlRxL4MGVlvegNNKrB8vtuI82WWg
The more that is discovered about Clarence, the more apparent it becomes this man isn’t fit to serve on the highest court in the land – let alone open a law office in a strip mall with a phone number of 1-800-SO-SUE ME!
I think this says it ALL in a nutshell and the disgrace that Clarence has brought to the court needs to continue to be front page news until he does the ‘honorable’ thing and steps down OR is forced to resign!
There
have been alarming reports of justices – most notably Justices Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – attending political events and using their
position to fundraise for organizations. These activities would be prohibited
if the justices were required to abide by the Judicial Conference Code of
Conduct, which currently applies to all other federal judges. On
these issues the code is quite clear. Canon 4C states that “a judge should not
personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any
organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office
for that purpose.” Additionally, in Canon 5 the code states, “[a] judge must
refrain from all political activity.” While we understand that the Supreme
Court is unique by its very nature, we do not believe there should be one set
of guidelines for Supreme Court justices and stricter standards for all others
judges.
The
Supreme Court possesses the incredible power to interpret or even strike down
laws they deem inconsistent with the Constitution. America trusts them with
this power because justices must come to each case without a personal or
financial stake in the outcome. Recent revelations about Justice Thomas
accepting tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of gifts from individuals and
organizations who often have an interest in matters before the courts calls
into question the Court’s impartiality. Canon 4D of the Code of Conduct
incorporates regulations providing that “[a] judicial officer or employee shall
not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing
business with the court.” Yet
Justice Thomas received a gift valued at $15,000 from an organization that had
a brief pending before his Court at the very moment they gave him the gift.
Incidents such as these undermine the integrity of the entire judiciary, and
they should not be allowed to continue.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/23/252255/murphy-letter-thomas/
Feisty is right...why shouldnt corporate donors be required to give their SS numbers?? everyone else has to when they donate on their tax forms. If we got to give our names when we give donations so should they if they want to be the same as regular "people". I also believe everyone should know exactly who is donating. Why should the corporations care who knows who they are supporting if they have nothing to hide?
Paul-977599,
I disagree with your conclusion the money cannot be speech. If you decide to give money to the candidate of your choice are you not amplifying your own speech by supporting a candidate that has views that you agree with? Is that not the point of your donation to a campaign, to help get out the message you want to be broadcast? What is advertisement and why does it cost to advertise if not paying to put your speech in front of people you want to hear your message.
On another point. Does the Left deny thatthe decision by the 4 had not political motivation at all? If so it would be interesting to hear why not. (not necessarily a question directed ot you Paul, but chime if if you like.)
Are you kidding me? That turns logic completely on its head. The candidates' decision as to whether or not to spend more money in order to avoid triggering more public funding for your opponent either is not "speech" at all, or if it is speech, it is the essence of free speech -- which by extension, includes the right to not speak.
No one made them shut up. They made that decision strategically.
Gotta love a court that consistently votes AGAINST leveling the playing field.
But democrats have no one but themselves, and a little thing called Buckley v. Valeo, where money was ruled to be speech, to blame for this.
@ Touchdownplay ~ You are correct. Money is not speech. Money is "content neutral," as is the amount that you spend. It is the DIRECTION of the money, and only that, that constitutes speech.
For those who will reply that the Supreme Court is infallible, that always depends on what side you're on. For your side, I give you Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas as cases that many of you would agree were wrongly decided. For the rest of us, I give you Dred Scott.
Spanky,
<<Are all justices corrupt... or just some cause see they keep lining up in different ways on different issues.>>
Seriously? All anyone would need is a rudimentary 10-minute understanding of how any ruling would impact corporate America, industry, or politics, and they could have had somewhere above 90% perfect prediction rate (including which ones would be split 5-4) with ALL the cases they've decided in the last decade... LOL... Why even bother...?
To All:
Corporations can give unlimited amounts of money anonymously to entities, usually PAC's registered under section 501(c)4 of the IRS code. These entities which allows donors anonymity, but also restricts the aggressiveness of the group’s ads.
It's perfectly legal and both sides are doing it.
Oh...corporations have EIN numbers, not Social Security numbers. No difference thought. These entities do not need to disclose donors or amounted contributed.
this supreme court is out of control....we need to find a way to add more justices and/or get rid of the ones on it like scalito and thomas...they are not for America or americans, or for the state of arizona to have the right to publicly finance thier own state candidates....jesus h. christopher what is wrong here?
I'm aware corporations have EIN numbers, I used Social Security as an example to distinguish between a citizens vote vs. a corporation.
That's right Libs, only Republicans accept corporate money, eh? I guess our President is going to collect a BILLION dollars from those paper routes, eh Feisty?
Whether it's "perfectly" legal is the part that's certainly open for debate. And if Republicans get their way and destroy ALL the unions, both sides won't exactly be doing it any more.
If you REALLY want to forward that argument, then perhaps you should oppose the current Republican campaign to destroy public sector -- and private sector -- unions. By your calculus, they're a good thing in that they level the playing field for both sides. There's no dispute that corporations give overwhelmingly to Republicans.
No. I acknowledged that earlier, but you obviously didn't see it. And that's exactly what's wrong with the system. And now he'll have to solicit corporate money even more, given the Republicans' concerted effort to destroy the unions. But that's A-OK for people who don't WANT a level playing field, isn't it?
real michaud,
What is wrong here is that you would like to shut up people that you disagree with without any other reason than you don't like what they say.
real michaud :this supreme court is out of control....we need to find a way to add more justices and/or get rid of the ones on it like scalito and thomas...
Just that Pesky little Article 3 of the Constitution to deal with to get things the way you want them, and then get congress to effect exactly what you want, huh michaud?
Good point, Feisty, and very apropos. A corporate executive who makes a decision as to which candidates to support and which not to support on behalf of the corporation actually gets TWO chances to speak, instead of one.
To illustrate that corporations are not people, all you have to do is to propose giving a corporation a vote. Who would make the decision how to vote? The Board of Directors, in all probability, each of whom already has his/her own vote, thus giving each of them two votes. I never can understand what there is about this that people can't understand, although I do understand why they ignore it. Instead of trying to persuade them, however, I think I'll just form a corporation and argue that it should have the right to vote.
So Feisty tells us the NY Times doesn't like Thomas. Huh.
I did so enjoy reading the Times Friday - calling for the continuation of the Libya war, cause it just wouldn't be right to pull out prematurely.
The NY Times! Balls of steel they must have. Or maybe we are all just supposed to have forgotten what the NY Times said about Iraq way back when Bush was around.
But I have to ask out esteemed legal scholar Anna M - if Thomas is such a corporate whore, and his assault on judicial ethics so clear cut, why haven't you, or someone like minded filed a complaint?
Heck I bteen Feisty could get the ball rolling. So, gitty up, times a wasting.
Donating money does not equal voting. Has someone said something about letting corporation vote? Must have missed that.
But maybe you are on to something AM - maybe we should take away a corporation's ability to donate anything to anyone.
So AM what have you done to fix the law that allows the corporations to make contributions? WHi is in charge of that one?
Seems to me the supreme court is stretching interpretation for politics. How can Arizona allowing public funding for elections be a hinderance on a candidates freedom of speech? The candidates decision to not spend more money was entirely their own.
I'd like to see all campaigns publically funded....enough of giving the election to the highest bidder.
Anna Molly :
To illustrate that corporations are not people, all you have to do is to propose giving a corporation a vote. Who would make the decision how to vote? The Board of Directors, in all probability, each of whom already has his/her own vote, thus giving each of them two votes. I never can understand what there is about this that people can't understand, although I do understand why they ignore it. Instead of trying to persuade them, however, I think I'll just form a corporation and argue that it should have the right to vote.
AM, Replace the word Corporations with Unions and what's the difference?
Anna Molly
You wrote:
"Whether it's "perfectly" legal is the part that's certainly open for debate. And if Republicans get their way and destroy ALL the unions, both sides won't exactly be doing it any more."
Anna, this is about PAC contributions not about unions or the American way of life. Both sides have a right to contribute money to these 501(c)4 entities. It's the IRC that permits it. Don't like the rule, then help get it changed. Until then, it's the law. Maybe a bad law in your view, but the law.
Democrats also bundle money and contribute to their own PAC's through fundraisers, etc. You just don't hear about it as much. Millions and millions are raised by Democratic activists.
Not taking sides here, just trying to clarify some misconceptions that are being bantered about.
Please don't kill the messenger.
It's not one sided and it's not going to determine the outcome of the election. Issues and votes are.
Because the Supreme Court has no rules of its own and I don't think Thomas is licensed to practice law in Wisconsin. But it's a good idea, isn't it, in the state where he DOES live? Just like Arkansas yanked Bill Clinton's law license.
Problem is, however, that he doesn't even need a law license to be on the Court. What a wonderful world, isn't it?
Okay, so why don't you name a few of those non-union organizations, and how they stack up against the corporations? Because you KNOW that the non-union PACs are relatively minor, and that it's mostly the union PACS who provide "big money" funding to Democrats.
And since the system is fine the way it is, then what did you say to all those folks, including Spanky, as I recall it, who insisted it wasn't right for public workers to use "taxpayer funds" for union dues? According to you, that's just the way it is, and it's just fine because both sides do it.
Now, would you please straighten out all the right-wingers here who apparently don't get that?
Too easy. The difference is that people like YOU are arguing to reduce the voice of unions, while at the same time increase the voice of corporations. YOU'RE the one who argues that union contributions are not fair. That's the height of hypocrisy.
But thanks for highlighting it.
Pay attention, White Collar. I'M the one FOR public financing, remember? It's the only solution that actually addresses the problem from BOTH sides.
I don't know AM - it's almost like you are saying there is absolutely nothing that can be done to remove Thomas. IF true, then you all should stop complaining about him and just deal with it.
If not true, and I highly suspect that it is not, then put up or shut up. DO SOMETHING.
Or not, because complaining can be fun too, right?
Oh and hey - congratulations on that ruling in WISC. Looks like you can go get a CCW permit. Good for you.
Anna Molly, we agree on the Public Financing point. I just don't see how it's going to happen, Unions and Corporations are too interwoven into the fabric of politics today.
And maybe you need to pay attention, I never said I was for limiting the voice of Unions, I just think that if Unions have no restrictions on where the donate, then neither should the companies that pay their salaries. Equal playing field, no?
I seriously think that judges shouldn't have law licenses....more often than not it leads to a conflict of interest.
Anna Molly..
First: I looked all over my posts and did not find anything resembling
"And since the system is fine the way it is, then what did you say to all those folks, including Spanky, as I recall it, who insisted it wasn't right for public workers to use "taxpayer funds" for union dues? According to you, that's just the way it is, and it's just fine because both sides do it."
Wrong guy.
Second, I'm not talking about small non-union Pac's either. Why do you assume that only republicans have money and are rich? Why do you assume that all corporations only give to the GOP, that's simply not true. Unions are now free to give unlimited amounts of money to these entities. Aren't Buffet and Gates good friends with the President and can now give huge amounts to PAC's. Look at the liberal Hollywood crowd. Just some obvious and simple examples everyone knows about.
Again, it's not one sided and I'm not saying I like the ruling or the law. I'm saying it is the law and until it's changed there is no recourse.
I will say again, this election will come down to issues, candidates and votes. Obama is not going to be outspent, not even a chance.
Groucho, lately I have noticed that Anna Molly has gotten pretty loose with the "People like YOU" or "Your the person who wants" statements, without ever actually being able to attribute any comments I have made to a particular subject in the manner in which I am being painted.
Don't know why. I have noticed, what I sense, is a quiet desperation in her recent posts. I have been reading here for a long time, and lately many of the Libs seem to be clutching at straws to deflect the real problems that the President is facing. How else do you explain the obsessions with Thomas, Palin (and her family), Bachmann, Voter ID and the Republican candidates in general?
I understand why the Left is a bit disheartened, President Obama has let them down on many fronts that they thought he would lead on.
On the federal election level, there IS a way to control this spending....join the Popular Amendment movement to pass the Election/Campaign Finance constitutional amendment. Go to www.faircampaignreform.us to get involved. This amendment will restrict all individual contributions to $200/individual and $500/family living in the same residence. It bans all corporate, union, PAC/super-PAC, non-profit, etc. donations and all third-party campaign ads (for or against a candidate.) Those are just a few of the eleven sections of the amendment.
"I don't know AM - it's almost like you are saying there is absolutely nothing that can be done to remove Thomas."
The only remedy is for him to resign or be impeached. He won't resign, and there's no way on this planet that the GOP-controlled House is going to impeach him and give President Obama another nominee to the high court.
You seem to forget. Unions are required to disclose. Corporations are not. The playing field is already not even. Leave the unions alone and require corporations to disclose, and I'm all in.
Otherwise, I'm all out.
Don't know why. I have noticed, what I sense, is a quiet desperation in her recent posts.
Totally funny. I'm hardly desperate, or even a bit disheartened. I don't even post about half the things you mentioned. Republican candidates and voter ID, which just passed in this state, are certainly fair game for comment. But thanks for playing.
And from now on, I'll remember not to lump you together with all right-wing posters, if you remember not to lump together all 38 members of the LibsRUs group. We're every bit as disparate as you and your friends are, and many of us did not participate much at all, much less in the activities your side has accused us ALL of.
Remember that next time you try to characterize me. You're just as bad at that as I am.
Exactly so. But whoever made that remark -- was it Spanky? -- already knows this.
AM...Unions are only required to disclose the amounts that the donate...not where those funds come from.
Sorry, Groucho. I must not be making myself clear. I never said that corporations give only to the GOP. Au contraire, and I'm just as upset about the money they give to President Obama as anyone else. However, the FACT is that corporations give overwhelmingly -- something like 80 or 90 percent -- to Republicans. Most of the rest is just hedging their bets where they think it might be necessary.
Unions are free to give money only as long as there are unions. If you believe that the system works because the playing field is level, then you should favor preserving unions, if only for that purpose. Once unions are gone, the playing field will no longer be level -- non-union PACs cannot make up that difference, which is why corporatists want to get rid of the unions so badly. When there are no more unions, there will be no reason for Republicans to give to both sides, and pretty soon, there will be only one side -- the one bought by corporations. Elections will become meaningless, as they already are in some places.
If this is what you crave, then keep going down this path. If not, then acknowledge the REAL need to make a change. That's all I ask.
Ummm ... Joe, I think that's pretty obvious. The funds come from their members, who CHOOSE to give to the PAC. Unions don't give directly, and they don't launder outside money, like the Chamber of Commerce does. They give through PACs. I believe that PACs are required to disclose who gives how much. But even if not, it doesn't make much difference because individual donations are limited by dollar amount, which is determined by law.
Feisty and others of her ilk have proven once and for all just how dimwitted they are. They're castigating the Supremes for knocking down an Arizona law that increases public funding to candidates when privately funded candidates outspend them. I wonder how she would have reacted if the Federal election committee has given the McCain campaign a big bump in funding because Obama, who violated an agreement to accept public funds, was collecting and spending private donations like mad. Obama has decided to go the private route again for his re-election campaign and estimates are that he will raise a billion $$. So, if the Republican only raises $500 million, I'm "sure" that Feisty will be demanding an increase in public funding to level the playing field.
Under the current system, corporations are allowed to anonymously give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates. In vote after vote after vote, members of congress vote the way that their special interest contributors want. I fail to see any meaningful difference between that and bribery.
It's just a fact that, these days, the candidate that spends more money almost always wins. In a world where Exxon Mobile can donate millions to a politician and the average citizen struggles to afford a donation of $50, this situation puts virtually ALL of the political power into the hands of corporate special interests.
The question is this: why would ANYONE want that situation to continue?
I can't speak for Feisty, but here's one democrat that would. I am arguing from a principled belief that the current campaign finance situation is disastrous for our democracy.
I would support campaign finance reform even if it mean getting stuck with President Sarah Palin in 2012 because I think the current situation is even more disastrous for our country than President Palin would be.
By golly, you're right, Spanky. I'll quit blogging and get right on that. See you later.
Anna Molly,
To your point, here’s some additional information that should shed some light as to what’s going on. Perhaps I wasn’t making myself clear, I did not like the Citizens United Ruling and I believe that most 501(c)(4) organizations are shams. Here’s why and some solutions:
501(c)(4) organizations are groups set up under the Internal Revenue Code that are supposedly devoted to social-welfare activities. For example, Crossroads GPS, describes itself as "a policy and grass-roots advocacy organization that is committed to educating, equipping and mobilizing millions of American citizens to take action on the critical economic and legislative issues that will shape our nation's future in the years ahead." Nothing about elections in that credo.
501(c)(4)s are able to spend money in political races as long as their primary activities are educational and social.
Campaign finance reformers have asked the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize 501(c)(4)s to see whether they're really political committees by another name that allow corporations and other groups to contribute anonymously to political activities.
Better policing by the IRS might reduce the use of 501(c)(4)s as political fundraising engines. But a more reliable remedy would have to come from Congress, which should require that 501(c)(4)s focus exclusively on nonpolitical activities. If corporations and individuals want to subsidize independent political advertisements, that is their right, but even the conservative Supreme Court has said that disclosure has a legitimate public purpose.
Congress this year is expected to consider legislation designed to blunt the effects of the Citizens United decision. The DISCLOSE Act would require that political ads identify the unions and corporations behind them and would require the leaders of corporations and unions to appear in the ads to vouch for their message. To those proposals should be added a reform in the tax laws to prevent organizations supposedly devoted to education and welfare from functioning as banks for political money — and concealing the identities of their "depositors."
Hope this helps clarify my position.
Junicon said:
Please point to where in the law it allows a corporation, out of a corporate account, to donate directly to a candidate.
The problem with the way the media delivers a message today is that they don't tell the whole truth. The Citizens United ruling did not allow for donations directly to candidates from corporate funds. However, in reading so many comments here and if you didn't pay too close of attention, you would be lead to believe that GM could donate $1,000,000 directly to President Obama....they can't.
The lack of in-depth reporting, mostly TV, is also evident regarding the health care reform bill and pre-existing conditions. I would bet most people think that an insurance company can no longer deny a claim for pre-existing conditions. Guess what, they can. Health care reform did not change the claim rules in HIPAA, but most people thing that is what was done.
Interesting comment, Junicon. If Palin was elected President the number of heart attacks on the left would overwhelm all the emergency rooms in the USA.
We need campaign finance reform. We need to remove power from special interests. We need capped public funding for all -- No private private donations, period. Then we need to pay staff to write legislation instead of lobbyists writing it.
We need to be willing to use tax dollars, i.e., spending to have a government that represents the people and doesn't waste all it's time raising contributions. Other countries, countries not as rich, are able to do this. Legislation has been submitted to reform campaign finance, but congress never passes it. We need to find a way around this.
AM...for the 2010 elections, 6 of the top 10 spending PAC's were union PAC's. In fact, the the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees donated 87.5 million to elect democrats.
Unions don't give their members choices on what campaign to contribute to or whether or not they would like part of their dues to go toward campaigns. Your second charge of not laundering money is also false. The democrats tried everything to prove the the Chamber of Commerce comingled foreign funds and came up empty. When they were countersued, the international unions failed to provide the same documentation.
Danno ~ You're right, of course. For now. The reasoning of Citizens United could apply equally to direct contributions (subject to those limits). It's only a matter of time. Why they're holding back now must be some sort of strategic issue. There's no legal impediment that I can see.
Danno ~ You're right, of course. For now. The reasoning of Citizens United could apply equally to direct contributions (subject to those limits). It's only a matter of time. Why they're holding back now must be some sort of strategic issue. There's no legal impediment that I can see.
You've lost the thread of this argument. That's my point exactly. That's the way unions give. Non-union PACs do not give in nearly the same amounts. Corporations give in different ways, not through PACs. When the unions go away, so does their PAC money. That's exactly what Republicans want. Corporation spending will be unmatched from the other side. Now do you see it?
I hope to god for your sake that by "claim rules" you mean how a claim is handled in order to remain private, because if not you're going to look pretty silly coming on here and lecturing people about getting their information right.
For the sake of getting it off my chest, I'm fairly sure that you believe the HIPAA laws to be something of a system for determining coverage, which they absolutely are not.
HIPAA (the acronym standing for: Health Information Portability and Accountability Act) is a set of laws concerning the expectations of the government on how interested parties handle medical records or other related pieces of protected health information (PHI).
I'm sure you're going to get on here and regale us all of how you meant something to the extent of how medical records are handled, but in the context of your argument, I will stand by assuming that you have no idea what you're talking about. Why? Because HIPAA was only flawed in the way it addressed electronic storage and communication of health-related records, and I'm pretty sure that you were digging for more gold than to point out that the HIPAA laws as they were before were somewhat weak in the knees in their implementation.
HITECH also expands the liability of those working with health records to include the expansion of civil and criminal liabilities in order to rightfully punish those who disclose records willfully.
Where HIPAA was flawed in the areas of electronic transmission (i.e., billing services, clearinghouses, etc.), HITECH was passed to pick up the slack. HITECH was passed as part of the Recovery Act, took effect in 2011 for most organizations, and completes integration to all in 2013.
I really don't understand how you could possibly think that the news incorrectly conveyed the basis of HIPAA anyways. Every American who has ever had medical care or health insurance is given a brief definition of the HIPAA laws and what those laws afford them in relief against the improper disclosure of said records. I have never heard another person incorrectly state the purpose of HIPAA until I saw you cement your words into this vine.
Dustin, the P in HIPAA is for portability. It governs what plans must accept as creditable coverage and how breaks in coverage affect the covered person. If a person has a break in coverage of over 63 days, ERISA governed plans can elect to deny any services related to a pre-existing condition (one for which treatment or diagnosis was received within six months of the effective date).
There is more than one part to HIPAA so before castigating me and lecturing on the rules regarding privacy, which I did not mention, please do a little more research into the law because it is MORE than just about privacy.
Since you were unaware of the portability aspects of HIPAA, I would continue to say the news does incorreclty portray PPACA in that it doesn't fully explain that services for pre-existing conditions can still be denied.
I'm pretty sure the only thing I got wrong with the acronym (out of haste) was the "I," which is insurance rather. I covered portability in great detail...did you miss that part?
Portability has absolutely nothing to do with what you think. The portability section has to do with the transmission of health records and related claims information which, since it directly contains procedure-related information, is covered under the law as protected information.
You're referring the amendments made by COBRA, not HIPAA. HIPAA only amended ERISA in that it guaranteed the portability of health coverage so as to guarantee rights under COBRA/ERISA as well as guarantee the secure transfer of coverage history from one insurer to another.
The only other part of HIPAA is HITECH. ERISA and COBRA are separate legislation and only related in that HIPAA defines the parameters by which we can share and transmit PHI. Period.
I know far more about these laws than you think. As an analyst in the benefits data center of the world's largest benefits administrator, it is my job to ensure that every action we take is in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws regarding the offering, administration, and delivery of health care. I receive innumerable amounts of training annually on these laws, how they are implemented, what controls we have in place to follow them, and the consequences of violating them. Being in control of the sum of all benefits data for my employer, it is not a responsibility that allows for a flippant understanding of those laws.
Unaware? I'd say you're pretty bold in that statement. HIPAA has nothing to do with the delivery of health care or benefits, it is simply a framework by which we can store, transmit, and share PHI. There is absolutely nothing in the HIPAA legislation that deals with the accessibility of healthcare. The HIPAA legislation was made separate and well defined so as not to leave any ambiguity as to it's purpose or goals.
Again...COBRA and ERISA have absolutely nothing more to do with HIPAA than the fact that HIPAA guarantees the ability of insurers to securely transmit your benefit information in a timely manner in order to avoid apparent lapses in coverage that would render the insured incapable of relief under COBRA/ERISA laws regarding pre-existing conditions.
You are REALLY barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for a debate on any healthcare related legislation...I spend more time becoming educated on these laws than most lawyers do.
The bad thing about 5-4 rulings is that in a world that is really shades of grey, 5-4 transforms that into black and white without the necessary consensus. For all the Tea Party's cries, we are quickly passing from a Jeffersonian-Jacksonian model of democracy to return to a 19th century model of rule by oligarchs.
Scott, "There are several other cases that don't make the media machine that lay out a strong case that current Justices are for sale"
Then it will be easy to fire them. They can be held accountable for their Oath of Office and not being Constitutionally correct as per the intentions of our forefathers who drew it up. That alone is simple to prove (forefathers intent). They put safeguards for "We the People..." within the US Constitution for corruption within the government was expected (they had been through it). Remember our government consists of three branches: Executive - President, Legislative - congress/senate, and the Judicial.
The safeguards was for all of our government if the corruption was allowed to go so deep by the American Citizen. That the corruption we have today is within all three branches is very evident. All three are not doing as they took Oaths to do: "will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"
All three branches can be held accountable, fired, and prosecuted by the American Citizen. We are the last safeguard for the US Constitution, but it is up to us to implement it.
Accountability.
Article VI requires an oath by all government officials from all three branches, the military, and the States swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution establishes our system of government, plus it defines the work role for Federal employees which is "to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty".
The second part addresses their future performance, that is, what they swear to do in the future int whatever position or office they take. It establishes a clear, publicly sworn accountability through the Oath of Office.
President: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
5 U. S. C. § 3331. This oath is now taken by all federal employees, other than the President: "I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Justices take that oath plus 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads: "I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ________— under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The history of the Oath for Federal employees can be traced to the Constitution, where Article II includes the specific oath the President takes - to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article VI requires an oath by all other government officials from all three branches, the military, and the States. It simply states that they "shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support the Constitution."
Remember that the second part addressed their future performance, that is, what they swear to do in the future in the office or position they are taking. It establishes a clear, publicly sworn accountability to "We the people ..." which we can use to fire them
If you read Article III of the Constitution, Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices can only be removed by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. And do you honestly expect Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor to give this President the ability to appoint another Justice by impeaching any of the ones on the bench?
The best Justices money can buy!
Wish I (and the other 300+ million Americans like me) had enough money to buy a few too . . .
What do you disagree with regarding the ruling? If you are claiming they are bought, it would be nice to see why you disagree with the decision?
Just another thumb on the scale, to widen the gap between the big money corporate interests and "we the people"... Why do we even waste time arguing the cases, when it's a foregone conclusion, how they'll rule...? Were we hoping for a fit of conscience from the majority...? Bawwahhhahahaha...
It is a pattern of (dare I co-opt a R. talking point?) judicial activism and decisions based on political ideology by the Roberts Court. They are not shy about overturning long-upheld precedent or expanding a case to be able to strike down an unaddressed point.
I have not yet read the opinion rendered in this case - but will. The underlying case (Citizen's United) was an amazing "activist" decision by the majority. I could expand on that - but I think that argument/presentation is readily available out there in other places. There are several other cases that don't make the media machine that lay out a strong case that current Justices are for sale. Check out Thomas, Alito, and Scalia ethics via google. Pretty blatant . . . imo.
Poorly decided by the courts in my opinion.
The system was challenged on First Amendment grounds by several privately funded candidates, who claimed that they reined in their spending to avoid triggering the matching funds for their publicly funded opponents. The law, they argued, acted as a restraint on their campaigns and thus violated their free-speech rights.
The law did not limit their speech they self limited in order to prevent their opponent from getting additional funding. They in effect limited their opponents access to media by self regulating themselves. They are complaining because they could not develop a decisive advantage over the publicly funded candidate. This ruling just makes it all the harder for citizens who are not wealthy or backed by big money to get into politics. No more Citizen Legislators, just Corporately Sponsored Legislators.
Scott has not yet read the decision but automatically opens with "they are bought". He does not look at the reasoning given for the decision but assumes, since it appears to not favor his way of thinking, that it is because the justices are bought by corporations.
By the way, Citizens United does not allow corporations to donate directly to candidates. They can donate to PACs who do not run direct adds supporting any one candidate.
The Supreme Court has turned into a Kangaroo court for sale by the biggest PAC. This activism from the bench threatens to undo much of what we hold dear about America... just like Rome America is collapsing from within.
If anyone here has real proof the supreme court has been bought and paid for, please contact the news channels to do a complete investigation. That will pressure congress. If you don't and you just like to say that because it sounds good....stop because it is irresponsible.
People like Overlord would like us all to believe only the "conservative" justices are bought and paid for. He/she does not seem to want to implicate the four descending justices as pandering to their side of the aisle.
I deleted it!
Book'em Danno, "If anyone here has real proof the supreme court has been bought and paid for, ..."
Actually we don't need any proof that they are bought and paid for, but only that their decisions are not Constitutional (based on our forefathers concept when it was written. Ex: if they now make it constitutional that we all have to be microchipped so that our whereabouts can be monitored - GPS) we can overturn that, fire and prosecute them for not upholding their Oath of Office, actually two oaths for the Justices.
"We the People..." can do this, and being not Constitutional, the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, the Military, etc all have to back it or break their oaths which is '... support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" before anything else that they swear to do.
It is hard to get the US citizen out of the mindset that we can do nothing, are helpless before our government. Many years have gone to get us to that type of mindset.
Section 4, Republican Government "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
So to you the Constitution is stone dead.
Better call the United States Army and tell them they need to disband (as the Constitution only permitted Congress to raise an Army, as the Founders did not want the government to have a standing, regular armed force). In fact, the keeping of Standing Armies was one of the grievances levied by the Continental Congress against King George III
To Spanky and Paul and whoever else is an advocate for shadowy, free-for-all spending during elections: How is this a partisan issue? Can't you concede that our democracy is better off with a level playing of $$ pitting politicians against each other based on their ability to speak to the electorate instead of outside groups pushing their agendas? Both sides do it.
Why can't Republicans get behind fair elections? I wish Obama hadn't pushed into the realm of Rove style super PACs, but it's the law of the land...unless we speak up for a democracy free from corporate influence!
Not really in favor of rewriting the US first amendment. Seems more likely it is a question that relates to the voter being able to seperate the wheat from the chaff in political rhetoric and reality.
ProgressiveNow - tell you what. How about you take KingK's advice to Feisty above.
Go read the decision, than come on back here and I would LOVE to discuss it with you.
The problem is, none have actually read the decision. Corporations have always been treated as legal entities. Our system is based on their abilities to be treated equally. It is fundamental, yet for some reason you all [libbies] just don't get that.
So go ahead and rread it. I suspect you will be very surprised.
This court will be a blot on our history.
More likely, a skidmark on the national shorts!!
A brown skidmark!
Interesting how conservatives cherry pick what Big Government is (spending) and is not (warrant-less wiretaps), or how they distrust government (spending) but trust it (SCOTUS ruling in the 2000 election), or how state's rights are good (until gay marriage is made legal).
Providing more tax-payer money to candidates because the opponent has raised more privately is not the answer. Capped public funds for all is the answer. However, to allow corporations the same rights as an individual (separate ruling) is a right-wing court legislating from the bench. We can't have anymore conservatives appointed to the Supreme Court at this time, or it will tip completely to the far-right. Obama/Biden - 2012!
Even thinking about the assassination of JFK (and Bobby), in which I believe it was an inside government job (Republican CIA/military fascism), and despite the Patriot Act in which anyone can be taken in the middle of the night to an undisclosed location for an indefinite amount of time (Republican fascism), I still trust government more because we elect them. Corporations are motivated by profit only and answer to no one.
There is a clear attack against labor in this country (per Grover Norquist himself) in favor of a plutocracy. Democracy and plutocracy don't mix. Whether you are a conservative or liberal, you should be against additional shifts in power to corporations compared to the working-class voters. It's not a partisan issue, it's a preservation of democracy issue.
Why do I suddenly have a feeling that 2008 may have been the last free and open election our nation will ever have...?
Toasty
You mean the one that Obama bought? He lied about taking public funds didn't he?
Got any evidence to back that up with, JH?
@JH: Don't think Obama bought the votes. The R's lost em. And at least Obama got the votes by hook or crook, not like the old "Sock in the Pants" W who had to beg the Court of The Supreme Beings to puppet him in.
Toasty
You must not have followed the election of Obama. He started our saying he would join McCain in accepting federal funds and then changed his mind. HE LIED. I also read right here on MSNBC a couple months back that the so-called small donations were not the majority of the total he claimed. HE LIED.
Barry - Get over your hatred for Bush. He won that election. Did you ever hear any group that counted the results say that Gore received more? No you didn't. Who in their right mind would've wanted Al Gore to be President? That man is a kook.
1/20/2013 - The end of an error
barry-barry libcom:
Bush won by a vote of the overrun "Supreme Court". - Gore won the popular election.
The "Electoral College"; a relic of oppressive european regimes, was created by our oligarch Founding Fathers to protect their ruling class from direct popular vote...
JH-479998: - YOU are a LIAR!
ALL US government Federal Records PROVE Gore won the US election by popular vote! - I call out LIARS!
Joe, because this is a republic, the electoral college gives each state within the union a voice in the election of our leaders. Otherwise, we would only need to hold elections in NYC, LA, and a couple of other cities that do not represent the entire United States. Thankfully, we do not live in a democracy.
Bookem' Danno: - you are correct -
We live in a fascist infested Republic Capitolist State. - You have no knowledge of the purpose of the electoral college.
From your comment on 'democracy' it is fair to deduce that you yourself are a fascist.
joe - I am not a liar. You are a sicko. Bush won the presidental election of 2000. You need to get over it or seek help.
Joe, please explain to me in your ever so vast wisdom what the purporse of the electoral college is. Oh wait, I bet it is so that corporations (which weren't an issue when it was implemented) can rule the world.
Joe, from your comments, it is fair to deduce you know nothing about democracy. Since this is the case, let me give you an example of what can happen in a democracy that you would probably not like (and I'm not saying I would either). You happen to be a person of Chinese dissent who is not allowed to walk on the sidewalk because the majority (democracy) decided you are not worthy of using a sidewalk.
In a democracy, the majority rules regardless of whether it infringes on the freedoms of one person in favor of the desires of another.
Really?! What cities would you say DO represent the country? Waterloo, Iowa? Madison, Wisconsin?
Seriously?!
You would then propose that the issues that affect Iowa or Kansas should not be represented because they are not big enough to make a difference, fielden? I bet you were for the majority ruling in slavery too.
No, bookem, I propose that EVERYBODY be represented. You were the one that started down this slope by proposing that certain portions of the country were not really representative of the country. I strongly disagree.
JH-479998: - "Liar, Liar, pants on fire! Stick yore tongue on a telephone wire!"
— The Federal Government — 2000 Official Presidential Election Results _
— updated dec. 2001— — source: - State Election Results:
— BUSH: 50,456,002 — — — GORE : 50,999,897
Read 'em and Weep, Creep! - My being a sicko is not relevant...
Bookem' Danno: — Descent: D.E.S.C.E.N.T., - descent.
Sorry, I do not engage in discussions with 3rd graders.
A court that was not corrupt, would have allowed only registered
voter to contribute. That would rule out businesses, labor unions and foreign
countries. The voice would be that of citizens and no one else. The way it was
meant to be when the Constitution was written. This court has decide to make
laws, rather than interpret them.
ceno181
Gee Whillikers, ceno, nothing is wrong with it... People are VERY greedy and territorial and some form of regulated capitolism best suits the human psyche (excuse please freudian term) at present.
It is NOT without QUESTION! - You have made certain crass assumptions... I DO NOT necessarily believe in ANY systems and I AM NOT a weak kneed liberal!
I wish you Luck with your avarice... - joe
fielden, I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly or not so I'm going to try and see if I have it right:
You are saying that the people in LA, NYC and the rest of the top 10 most populous cities in the United States are completely representative of the entire country. Is this correct? I question because you disagree that "certain portions of the country were not really representative of the country".
Do you really think the cabbie in NYC is representative of the rancher in South Dakota and that rancher's values? Do you think the actor of professional ball player in LA is representative of the barber in Tennessee? It would appear to me that you do, but I may be misinterpreting your statement.
So, whoever has the most money stands the best chance of winning? What could be more frightening and more American than that? Repeat after me: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the CORPORATE STATES OF AMERICA..."
I completely understand, joe, why you would not engage in discussions with 3rd graders. They are much more intelligent than you and you would not be able to keep up with the conversation.
Bookem, you are twisting my words to your narrative. And yes, you are misinterpreting my statement.
I think we agree on representation. Where we may disagree is on how the current system should work.
The electoral college was created in a time when transportation, communication and access were not what they are today. The concentration of voters in the larger cities had a disproportionate amount of influence. That is no longer the case. The electoral college has outlived it's reason to exist.
Certainly the big cities by themselves are not representative of the country as a whole. Neither are the farms and rural areas. In a country the size of ours there will always be regional issues that seem important locally but are not as important nationally.
But communication is much improved. TV, internet and other forms of media mean that messages and points of view can be rapidly diseminated. We don't need electors to represent our votes. We are each perfectly capable of doing that for ourselves.
fielden, thank you for the clarification. I was not trying to twist your words but better understand your position.
As to the need for the electoral college, I will still disagree with you. The population centers would have a higher amount of influence, in my opinion. It would also create more incentive for parties to engate in voter fraud.
joe
Who won Florida? That would be the winner of the election. Al Gore tried to steal Florida but he lost. Sicko.
JH, you are incorrect.
Bush was assigned the presidency by the courts which I and others vigorously fought. I may not have liked the other candidate, but I believe in the US Constitution and the Justices in the court that made that decision plus Bush should be prosecuted for that.
If you want to know why America and it's citizens are in the bad position we are in today, it is because of our corrupt government (all three branches) not upholding their Oath of Office and selling America to the "World Order" (Free Trade, NAFKA, IMF. etc).
WE are actually at a crossroads;Either the Constitution Of the United States of America is still OUR law or is isn't. If it isn't, then the United States of America is no longer, if we keep the name or not.
The only way the US Constitution still is "... establishes our system of government... " is if US Citizens step in, fire this corrupt bunch. Then their replacements will respect the US citizen and actually represent them,plus they will "... will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion..."
It is up to us to fire them, then prosecute them, and uphold our US Constitution as defining our government and to still be the Highest law of this land. When "we" go "World Order" we will be under those laws (world), they (largest and most powerful nations) will define what role the US will have in this world. We are hated by many at this time.
So basically, JH... You answer is "no Toasty, I do not have any evidence to back up my claim."
If the Democrats DON'T use the super-pacs - they are toast. Whether they want to or not.
I think that there definitely needs to be better control over the massive amount of money that is spent on politicians trying to get elected or re-elected. Talk about wasting money. How about we ask them and their Corporate/Foreign supporters to just kick it in to the "Lets Pay Off the Deficite" fund. It just seems like such a waste of money to me. And the "Freedom of Speach" argument only goes so far, just to the point where they are Free to tell us who their contributers are...then for some reason...all you hear are crickets...Our Supreme Court is political and they suck at their jobs...they are given too much power...
Just because the Oligarchs insist money is free speech doesn't make it so. The Oligarchs adore Supply Side Economics too, but still doesn't mean SSE is adorable.
"SSE" comes right between Sh!t and Syphilis!
Joe, SSE is worse than that!
Well, the BBC (bull-headed bloody clap) was pretty bad...
Wonder what the romans did??
Had orgies?
Got their asses handed to them by the Huns?
Served one year terms and fed the poor to avoid riots. By the way, the Huns lost. It was the Vandals and the Visigoths that went all muckety muck through Rome.
Stabbed each other in the back? - Wiped their asses with sponges? - Or not at all?
Let's all give a big cheer for government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich! Anything worth something (an election for instance) has a price. I'm waiting for the day when "elected" positions are filled through auctions on eBay.
I prefer to call it government of the corporation, by the corporations and for the corporations :-).
Al - I have been saying that for years. Funny.
Donald Trump may mow move to Arizona....................
Wonder why the Court of the Supreme Beings didn't arrive to a decision where, if Privately Funded Candidate X raised twice as much as Publicly Funded Candidate Y, that X's extra funding would then be evenly divided among--aw, nevermind. This whole campaign funding thing is really weird. Odd too.
Just another ruling from the Roberts Five that turns big corporate bucks into more speech for spreading their lies and buying off politicians. Plutocracy, USA.
So, if two people are debating on a street corner and one gets a 120 decibel megaphone and drowns out his opponent, that is OK? Sort of like what is going on now -- if you have lots of money to flood the media with your ads you can drown out your opponent. No give and take on issues, just one person being so loud that other can't really be heard. Way to SCOTUS!! Imagine if they held your proceedings that way -- one party gets all of the time.
Life is not fair and not everyone was truly created equal. If people like the message of one person over the other and want to give more to them, that is their prerogative.
An interesting statement considering that is one of the "immortal declarations" contained in the Declaration of Independence...
We should have equal opportunity, but not equal outcomes.
If everyone were created equal, I would be on the big screen because I would have the looks of George Clooney and the acting ability of DeNiro. I have neither.
Just had a flashback:
Funny thing about that book....it was supposed to be criticizing Stalinism/Communism, not the American way of life. Ain't life just a sh!tload of irony!
Danno - Seriously, since when did a corporation become a person. And if you want to reference the SCOTUS decision - a corporation has only 1 purpose, to make money. So they have no SOUL - that is the problem.
You posters don't get what really happened in this case. I live in AZ, and the complaint was about the politician who was richly funded claiming that his opponent's speech (funded by the state) was a violation of his 1st amendment.
This ruling allows the rich to claim that any opposition speech is a violation of their 1st amendment. Since I now have no 1st amendment rights (per the Supreme Court), I take personal offense on this ruling.
To paraphrase Sharon Angle - maybe it is really time to exercise our second amendment rights and take back our country from the rich and the special interest groups.
They can be fired by us, the American citizen
I don't think I've been so pissed off about a SCOTUS decision in, well, forever.
This is complete @!$%#ing bull@!$%#. It's as though any and all efforts towards making campaign finance reform a reality in this country are being shot down with impunity by monied interests. I cannot imagine HOW levelling the playing field at all infringes on someone's right to campaign and make their voice known.
@!$%#in' balls, man. Total @!$%#in' balls.
Do the big unions have a social security number? Do the workers who are forced to pay union dues have any say as to who these unions give donations? So, corporations are evil and wicked because they donate anonomously but unions should just be allowed to donate whatever the hell they want anonomously and everything is cool, right? LOL Yeah, right. What is good for the union is good for the corporation. Eat it.
Jessie L Obviously you haven't noticed how the newly elected Republican Governors in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and New Jersey are trying to break the Unions - plus making it harder to vote
Why do you think that is?
For Real Michaud, I agree with you completely. Some of the justices should be changed. Since the vast majority of Americans consider themselves right of center, I think Ginsberg, Sotomayer, and Kagan be thrown off. I wonder if I sound nearly as stupid as you and others who think like you.
It's all about making sure that only millionaires, or people who have the backing of Chamber of Commerce and all those right wing billionaire PACs like Rove's and Koch's etc., can run for office. Insuring the state governments, also, will be bought and paid for--like in Wisconsin.
The greatest threat to individual liberty in America clearly comes from corporatism, not socialism. We have a system that favors the very rich and allows them to avoid paying taxes in THE country that made them rich through the magic of corporate tax law.
The free market is a illusion formulated and repeated daily by right-wing ideologues like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and the bulk of talk radio. Show me an example of a supposed free market commodity (drugs, food, oil, clothing, weapons) and I will show you a system of laws and controls that clearly favors large corporate players over individuals and enable wealthy shareholders to avoid paying taxes. Why given the current political climate should the desimination of propaganda (advertising) be any different?
The U.S., mostly under Republican administrations, has been the largest re-distributor of wealth in history since the WWII (and especially since 1980) Successive republican administrations and their congressional lackeys have funneled trillions of dollars to the defense establishment, the financial markets, pharmaceuticals, and big agriculture, through direct spending as well as regulation. (The gutting of the FDA and repeal of the Glass Stegall Act come to mind here).
All this being said, we have moved from the "fairness doctrine and one man one vote" to 1 dollar 1 vote.
Then again the only difference between democrats and republicans is that the the democrats allow the poor to be corrupt too.
I find it hilarious to see the words "campaign funds" and "free speech" used in the same sentence. If free speech is everyones right, then why do they all need this money? Think about it twice. What is happening now is that free speech isn't free anymore but you can say about anything you want as long as you can pay for it whether it is truth or fiction. Because of the " super wise" decision by SCOTUS, they have essentially declared our political system for sale. So the "free speech" thingy and the"campaign chest" thingy are words for fools to hear.
The activist, Republican dominated court has done nothing but elevate the rights of big corporations and the ultra-wealthy over those of the common citizen.
How anyone can think the Citizens United ruling or this ruling is a good thing is beyond me. I guess some of you must be in the pockets of corporations or the uber-rich to like this crap.
It was an 1800's Supreme Court that gave First Amendment rights to corporations to begin with and where in the Consititution does it say that corporations are citizens?
Just reenforces that we have the best government money can buy. If you think your congressman or senator has your interests foremost in his/her mind then I've got bridge I'd like to sell ya'.
You have to be an idiot to think this is a good ruling.
Madden,
So right! Whether it is right or wrong, go ahead and say it. If it is wrong, but you say it enough, the public will believe it to be true. Or at least hold a doubt, which proves to be sufficient. The right wing is soooooo good at that tactic. Show me your birth certificate! Geez, gimme a break. I believe we have opened the door to an unfairly financed demagoguery that is very much like a boxer in the ring with lead in his gloves. Fair game? All is fair in love, war, and politics, it seems. That's the way the right wing wants it. And with the way they have seeded the courts, that's the way they have it. At least for the moment.
Verring off topic - The blog noted that there were two decisions the SCOTUS handed down. I read elsewhere that the other one was about free speech and the rating/selling of video games of a mature level to children.
I wonder what the precedent was used to conclude that it would now be OK to sell this type of material to children. It was 7-2 majority decision. As a parent I understand and take my role seriously of monitoring what I will allow in my house. However, isn't there also an extra protection that we need to offer to our children to certain products until they are of an age (adult). How is this different than keeping them from selling children adult material?
I don't see how a campaign making a tactical decision to spend less makes it the law that is curtailing the speech. That campaign does not have to curtail it's spending, it is not being prohibited to spend money in any way.
Let's just make this analogy.
This law no more curtails a campaign's right to spend any amount of money they want to than requiring adhering to drug and alcohol tests requests as a condition of a driver's licence curtails an individual's 5th amendment right against forced self-incrimination.
Once again, the Supreme Court's Conservatives votes to assure money decides the election and who the elected are indebted to.