Phew, I thought corporations were never going to be able to contribute directly to candidates

[Squirrlnutz]

Good thing they can now, it would have been such a hassle contributing ONLY TO PAC's and such acting on the candidates behalf!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/corporate-donations-ban-ruling_n_868085.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/27/judge-rules-direct-corporate-contributions/


[quote]LEXANDRIA, Va. -- A judge has ruled that the campaign-finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional, citing the Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United decision last year in his analysis.

In a ruling issued late Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris tossed out part of an indictment against two men accused of illegally reimbursing donors to Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns.

Cacheris says that under the Citizens United decision, corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals to contribute to campaigns.

The ruling from the federal judge in Virginia is the first of its kind. The Citizens United case had applied only to corporate spending on campaigning by independent groups, like ads run by third parties to favor one side, not to direct contributions to the candidates themselves.

Cacheris noted in his ruling that only one other court has addressed the issue in the wake of Citizens United. A federal judge in Minnesota ruled the other way, allowing a state ban on corporate contributions to stand.

"(F)or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech," Cacheris wrote in his 52-page opinion. "Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within (the law's) limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing."

In court papers, prosecutors defending the law said overturning the ban on corporate contributions would ignore a century of legal precedent.

"Defendants would have the court throw out a century of jurisprudence upholding the ban on corporate political contributions, by equating expenditures – which the Court struck down in Citizens United – with contributions. This is, however, equating apples and oranges," prosecutor Mark Lytle wrote in his argument to keep the indictment intact.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney in Alexandria, which is prosecuting the case against defendants William P. Danielczyk Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi, said Friday that the office is reviewing the ruling. Prosecutors have the option to appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond.

Defense lawyers, though, said the implications of the Citizens United case are clear.

"Corporate political speech can now be regulated, only to the same extent as the speech of individuals or other speakers," Biagi's lawyer, public defender Todd Richman, wrote in court papers. "That is because Citizens United establishes that there can be no distinction between corporate and other speakers in the regulation of political speech."

Danielczyk, 49, and Biagi, 76, who live in the Washington suburb of Oakton, Va., allegedly reimbursed $30,200 to eight contributors to Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign, and reimbursed $156,400 to 35 contributors to the 2008 presidential campaign.

Cacheris, in his ruling, allowed most of the indictment against Danielczyk and Biagi to stand. If the government does not appeal Cacheris' ruling on the constitutionality of corporate contributions, the case is scheduled to go to trial in July.[/quote]


Come on appeals court!

[Jamie_B]

*sigh*

[Jason]

If unions can make political contributions, corporations should be able to as well.

I just think all contributions need to be public information.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1306518503' post='995065']
If unions can make political contributions, corporations should be able to as well.

I just think all contributions need to be public information.
[/quote]


Or we could go the way of publicly financed elections and take the influence of both largely out of the picture. If political campaigns were being financed by the people, the politicians would be more apt to answering to the people again.

[Jason]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1306519186' post='995070']
Or we could go the way of publicly financed elections and take the influence of both largely out of the picture. If political campaigns were being financed by the people, the politicians would be more apt to answering to the people again.
[/quote]

Personally, I want:

1. Term limits, both by individual seat, and overall political career. Being a politician was never meant to be a career by the Founding Fathers.
2. All donations to politicians and parties are a matter of public record.
3. You can not spend your own money on the campaign.
4. Individual citizens of the US can contribute as much as they want to candidate or party. PACs, Unions, and corporations can only contribute to parties, and those contributions are limited.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1306519846' post='995073']
Personally, I want:

1. Term limits, both by individual seat, and overall political career. Being a politician was never meant to be a career by the Founding Fathers.
2. All donations to politicians and parties are a matter of public record.
3. You can not spend your own money on the campaign.
4. Individual citizens of the US can contribute as much as they want to candidate or party. PACs, Unions, and corporations can only contribute to parties, and those contributions are limited.
[/quote]


1. Dont disagree but I dont know that I'd make them too short of terms, its hard to get things done on a quick basis in Washington and if were constantly changing too much would make it hard for anything to really get done.

2. Dont disagree, I just think publicly financed campaigns is a better way to go.

3. Completely agree

4. How do you get around folks like George Soros or the Koch brothers just buying the candidates then?

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1306519846' post='995073']
Personally, I want:

1. Term limits, both by individual seat, and overall political career. Being a politician was never meant to be a career by the Founding Fathers.
2. All donations to politicians and parties are a matter of public record.
3. You can not spend your own money on the campaign.
4. Individual citizens of the US can contribute as much as they want to candidate or party. PACs, Unions, and corporations can only contribute to parties, and those contributions are limited.
[/quote]

I agree across the board.

And my perspective about point #1 has changed significantly from my younger days. I used to be a staunch opponent of term limits, reasoning that term limits were built in to the system; if the electorate didn't want them anymore they would simply vote them out of office.

Little did I realize in my youthful naivete that Americans are susceptible to marketing and soundbites (otherwise known as propaganda) on a level that still probably gives Geobbels a postmortem woody...


**Edit**

And Jamie brings up a very valid point on #4; forgot about those fuckers...

[Jason]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1306520298' post='995078']
1. Dont disagree but I dont know that I'd make them too short of terms, its hard to get things done on a quick basis in Washington and if were constantly changing too much would make it hard for anything to really get done.

2. Dont disagree, I just think publicly financed campaigns is a better way to go.

3. Completely agree

4. How do you get around folks like George Soros or the Koch brothers just buying the candidates then?
[/quote]

For one, there are massively rich people on both sides. Second, if it's a matter of public record, then people will know if a candidate is in someone's pocket. Thirdly, if there are term limits, then politicians will be a little more focused on doing the job they were voted in to do, and less on doing favors to get re-elected.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1306520977' post='995084']
For one, there are massively rich people on both sides. Second, if it's a matter of public record, then people will know if a candidate is in someone's pocket. Thirdly, if there are term limits, then politicians will be a little more focused on doing the job they were voted in to do, and less on doing favors to get re-elected.
[/quote]


Yes that's why I mentioned Geroge Soros.

You have more faith in the average citizen's ability to pay attention than I do.

Yes and No, we still run into the problem of politicians leaving to become lobbyists or their votes being bought so they could have a fat cushy job once they leave back to the real world. That is a [b]HUGE[/b] problem. Which is why I think publicly financed campaigns is a better way to go.

If campaigns were publicly financed it puts every voter on equal playing field and politicians much more likely to do for the people as opposed to the special interests.

[sois]

Publicly Funded Elections is the only thing that will fix this system.

[|Lucid|]

What if the "sides" are largely an illusion with trumped up emotional wedge issues that are pretty much stuck in political limbo and mindless rhetoric the only thing really separating them?

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1306521638' post='995091']
What if the "sides" are largely an illusion with trumped up emotional wedge issues that are pretty much stuck in political limbo and mindless rhetoric the only thing really separating them?
[/quote]

[sois]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1306521638' post='995091']
What if the "sides" are largely an illusion with trumped up emotional wedge issues that are pretty much stuck in political limbo and mindless rhetoric the only thing really separating them?
[/quote]

Publicly Funded Elections fixes this. Sides are no longer an issue when a candidate with good ideas can run for office and not worry about getting overspent in the campaign period.

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1306521954' post='995093']
Publicly Funded Elections fixes this. Sides are no longer an issue when a candidate with good ideas can run for office and not worry about getting overspent in the campaign period.
[/quote]

I agree completely... And it's simple logic, which doesn't even require a lot of thought to come to. Which is why it will never happen. Because if there weren't significant powers preventing it, it would have happened already.

Like a lot of things that are screwed up in this country. There is a rhyme to the madness.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1306521638' post='995091']
What if the "sides" are largely an illusion with trumped up emotional wedge issues that are pretty much stuck in political limbo and mindless rhetoric the only thing really separating them?
[/quote]


I dont think you need to ask what if on that.

[Jason]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1306521280' post='995085']
Yes that's why I mentioned Geroge Soros.

You have more faith in the average citizen's ability to pay attention than I do.

Yes and No, we still run into the problem of politicians leaving to become lobbyists or their votes being bought so they could have a fat cushy job once they leave back to the real world. That is a [b]HUGE[/b] problem. Which is why I think publicly financed campaigns is a better way to go.

If campaigns were publicly financed it puts every voter on equal playing field and politicians much more likely to do for the people as opposed to the special interests.
[/quote]

Not so much that individuals would pay attention, and more so that news outlets would be able to report it.

The fact is, political contributions have always been considered a matter of political "free speech", which is a constitutional right.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1306524586' post='995108']
Not so much that individuals would pay attention, and more so that news outlets would be able to report it.

The fact is, political contributions have always been considered a matter of political "free speech", which is a constitutional right.
[/quote]


eh maybe but i dont have a whole lot of faith in the MSM either

see I disagree with that decision, and dont view it as free speech.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1306524586' post='995108']
Not so much that individuals would pay attention, and [b]more so that news outlets would be able to report it.[/b]

The fact is, political contributions have always been considered a matter of political "free speech", which is a constitutional right.
[/quote]

The thing is, news outlets are capable of reporting the money trail now. There are plenty of "underground" sites that track the money being funneled through astroturfing PACs now...no one in the mainstream news cycle cares. Shocking stories and emotional controversy draw viewers and pay for advertising...boring stories about the Koch brothers funneling $30+ million dollars through the 2010 election cycle make our idiot populace change the channel to find the latest on Sarah Palin's misadventures.

Hell, I'd go as far as to say that even if we force-fed the information to people they still wouldn't be able to use the info to make an intelligent decision.