if Supreme Court opens the floodgate of corporate donations to campaigns, should they be impeached?

[yurbud]

more specifically, should those who vote for the change be impeached?

It is already an uphill battle for working and middle class Americans to compete with donations from the execs and major shareholders, corporate donations to astroturf groups, and the high-paying jobs corporations give pols when they leave office as CEOs, do-nothing board members, lobbyists, lawyers, and consultants.

[iceman66]

1. Damn right they should be impeached!

Not that I expect such a bold move from the current Congress.

If the Supreme Court does this, which I fully expect, it should put the lie to the worn-out freeper talking point about "activist judges".

Extending corporate personhood to such a ridiculous degree is far more activist than anything that ever came out of the Warren court, and one could hardly think of a more egregious example of "legislating from the bench". Not to mention that the very notion flies in the face of the very concepts of democracy and individual rights enshrined in the Constitution.

This would show every one of the so-called 'conservative' justices to be no more than a liar and a partisan political hack, and they should be held accountable.

[TxRider]

32. No congress will simply need to pass a new law around it

[Angleae]

45. Which congress?

The one we have now or the hypothetical one everyone here wants. You know, the one with a spine.

[Statistical]

2. The case has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with donations.

Nothing what so ever.

Educate yourself. It is free.

Transcripts are available and so is audio.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. Then why is the FEC a party to the case?

[Statistical]

18. The question before the court is...

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_Appellant.pdf

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the prohibition on corporate electioneering
communications in the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”) can constitutionally
be applied to a feature-length documentary film
about a political candidate funded almost exclusively
through noncorporate donations and made available
to digital cable subscribers through Video On Demand.

2. Whether BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and
reporting requirements can constitutionally be applied
to advertisements for that documentary film
that the Federal Election Commission concedes are
beyond its constitutional authority to prohibit.

The FEC controls more than donations to candidates. A lot more. This case has nothing to do with donations.

Thus it is impossible the SCOTUS will make any ruling (one way or the other) about donations and the OP poll if flawed.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Dumb it down for me

If this isn't about defining donations, then why the concern about who funded it and how they plan to market it?

[Statistical]

26. The question is about advertising.

The specific question is can this non-profit corporation release a documentary (hatchet job against Hillary) or does the FEC have control over this form of speech.

The broader issue is can the FEC regulate independent SPENDING by corporations.
Both sides in oral arguments limited the issue to advertising.

I am not saying the issue isn't important but it has nothing to do with donations to candidates.

[Ruby the Liberal]

27. I gotcha -- it was the "donations to candidates" that you are referring to.

Yes, words have meaning, and I just glossed over that. I was looking at the overarching issue of who can throw money to swing a campaign without falling under FEC rules. I think we are on the same page. Just took me a little longer to get there.

[Igel]

19. Because the portion of the law under discussion

involves the FEC. So the FEC is involved.

Imagine this: Five days before the 2016 presidential election, some information comes to light.

The news is that Lackawanna "Lackey" Ignatius Wigglesbottom IV, the repub candidate for president who, by some miracle, is polling at 55% of likely voters, likes to hump cute, cuddly baby seals. Film at 11. Lackey loses, 3% to 97%, with all 3% coming from rural Kansas and Minnesota. The day after the election, the makers come clean--it was a spoof by Caltech students against Lackey, who had been an MIT graduate and had organized a great gag against Caltech during his MIT years (which activity consumed so much time that he flunked out in his freshman year).

In scenario 1a, it's a 20 minute news story broken by 60 Minute, complete with excerpts from a film helpfully provided by the witnesses (with the appropriate parts blurred out). FEC: It's ok.

In scenario 1b, it's a 20 minute documentary aired on U-rube.com, paid for by the Caltech students. FEC: It's okay, as long as the students didn't put in more than their maximum campaign contributions in producing or distributing it.

In scenario 1c, it's the same documentary, but it turns out that one of the Caltech student's parents used funds from Yummy-lube, LLC, a corporation owned entirely by that kid's parents, to pay for the film. FEC: It's an illegal campaign contribution. Had it been an unincorporated company, then the restriction from 1b would apply.

In scenario Id, it's the same documentary, paid for entirely by Toys R Us. FEC: It's an illegal campaign contribution. In 1c and 1d, a corporation has put in money--and that's illegal. One argument is that shareholders didn't agree--but what if, in 1c, the shareholders *did* agree? The law doesn't mention shareholders, it's a red herring.

In scnenario Ie, the film, properly under spending limits, is picked up and broadcast for free by a local tv channel, owned by MegaMedia Corporation. Did MegaMedia just make an illegal campaign contribution?

Now go to print media:

In scenario 2a, it's a story broken by the NY Times. It's ok. NYT is a generally accepted news source.

In scenario 2b, it's a story broken by the CommunistUnderground.net website. Does the FEC say it's okay? I have no idea, but would doubt it.

In scenario 2c, it's a story broken by the WeOwnU corporation's internal newsletter, routinely sent out to their customers with their monthly bills. Of course, that includes 90 million households. Does the FEC say this is okay? Probably not.

In scenario 2d, it's a story published in book form through Amazon.com's self-publishing service. FEC: Would the FEC says it's a private contribution, and if you've spent more than the allowable limit on it, it's an illegal campaign contribution? Or would they say it's a book and protected by free speech rights? Does it matter if revenues more than cover your expenses in, er, writing the book?

In scenario 2e, it's a book published by Mutton Press, Inc., an established purveyor of fine, uh, crap for 80 years. Clearly it's a book. But it's published by a corporation. Does it matter if the company makes a bundle--or, 2 days after the election, is hit with a massive libel and slander suit?

It's a classic slippery slope. The thing about slippery slopes is that the typically fail--except when you're so bound by precedent, analogy, and arguments that common sense doesn't carry much weight. Why would a book be different from a documentary? Why is a private newsletter different from a newspaper? The profits? The company's status? But the law doesn't make mention of these things. Logically, if the law applies, it applies to everything in a given class of speech.

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. Wow -- that was very creative!

Thanks for taking the time. That was an interesting read!

[yurbud]

13. since you imply you have, why don't you tell us? and answer Ruby's question as well

[armyowalgreens]

34. Few people understand what the court is actually ruling on.

[newfie11]

3. Seems like out and out bribery to me

The name has been changed to campaign donations.

[baldguy]

4. For that and the other things.

[iceman66]

5. Scalia, for one, should be removed for being mentally unfit

He actually seems to delight in the persecution of the innocent.

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Trying to impeach a Supreme Court Justice,

would make us look like fools, and would be an Epic Fail.

[yurbud]

7. what else could be done to reverse this, a constitutional amendment?

[Kaleva]

8. I think that would be the case.

[SIMPLYB1980]

9. Yes congress has the power to make law.

Good luck with that.

[Statistical]

11. Reverse what? Have you even read the case?

The case has as much to do with campaign donations as it does about water rights on Mars.

[Winterblues]

28. From what I gather the case is about a corporation paying for something considered to be political

Right now it is illegal for Corporations to spend corporate money on anything political. This documentary is a political documentary designed to impugn Hillary Clinton. What do you think the case is about?

[Statistical]

31. It is and that has NOTHING to do with donations.

The poll questions asked by the OP is should the SCOTUS be impeached if they allow unlimited donations by corporations?
Since that will not happen with this case mo matter the outcome the poll is flawed.

Should corporations be able to SPEND unlimited amounts of money? No I don't think so.
That doesn't change the fact that no matter what the outcome of this case it won't change prohibition on corporations DONATING to a candidate which is what the poll in the OP is about.

The OP wants to impeach the Supreme Court about a decision that is impossible given the facts of the case. It is about a relevant as a poll on impeaching SCOTUS for bringing back Slavery.

[Winterblues]

36. I believe you are wrong about this.

Funding a political documentary to be aired against a candidate is indeed making a political donation. If it is allowed there will be no reason any other donation could be not allowed.

[Statistical]

37. Well funny all 9 supreme court justices and the plantiff disagree with you.

The transcripts of the oral arguments are very clear. The plantiff is not asking remedy on donations. They are very clear to distance distance themselves from that issue likely because it is broader and reduces the chance of winning.

The Justices are very clear also on indicating free speech is not donations. The BoR protects no right to donate money to another person.

Even if you buy into corporate personhood even people have no right to donate.

Tomorrow Congress could make campaigns fully publicly funded and making donating to ANYONE by ANY person illegal and that wouldn't violate your constitutional rights.

If you don't believe me then GO TO THE SOURCE. It is all available for FREE online. Read or listen to the arguments of the case yourself.

[tammywammy]

10. Making a decision you disagree with isn't an impeachable offense. n/t

[yurbud]

14. Bush v. Gore?

[dysfunctional press]

15. who was impeached over that...?

:shrug:

[yurbud]

33. No one--but they should have been.

[dysfunctional press]

38. and yet they weren't- which should be able to tell you something...

about the idea of impeaching a supreme for how they decide a case.

[yurbud]

47. as long as their actions help those with money, they are invulnerable.

[dysfunctional press]

51. they are invulnerable, regardless.

[tammywammy]

22. Exactly

A decision many disagree with, yet none were impeached.

[Pab Sungenis]

16. No, instead Congress should invest their time

passing an Amendment to undo the ruling, much like what happened with the 24th Amendment.

We NEED an Amendment ending corporate personhood.

[Thothmes]

40. Or the 14th Amendment to overcome the Dred Scott Ruling

[Pab Sungenis]

41. I didn't use that one

because of the debate over requiring its ratification for Reconstruction. The 24th, we can all agree, was one clear example of Congress and the majority of the States overturning a bad Supreme Court ruling through Amendment.

[Thothmes]

43. True, but the XIV Amendment was a

much farther reaching reversal of a Supreme Court Decision than the XXIV. The injustices corrected by the XXIV were primarily limited to the Souther States of the old Confederacy, though some other states did impose some tests and taxes to vote. The main goal of these tests and taxes was to prevent black citizens from voting. Without the XIV Amendment, Blacks would not have even been citizens, therefore ineligible to vote, even if the could pay the tax or pass the tests. JMO. Either XIV or XXIV are examples of reversing a Supreme Court Decision through the Amendment process.

[billyclem]

17. Aieeeee....and we seem to have a barrage of posts

complaining that the teabaggers never had a civics class and don't know how our government works. Regardless of how much we might dislike what comes out of the Supreme Court, it is their opinions. Not crimes, opinions.

:banghead:

[Kingofalldems]

23. Robert's DU pal frantically unrec-ing this one

K and R

[ashling]

24. On what grounds?

While such a ruling would be unfortunate and, in my opinion, wrong, it would not be impeachable on its face.

[ShortnFiery]

25. If not Impeached now, when Stevens retires, Obama MUST replace him with

a true dyed in the wool liberal - akin to The Honorable Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). :thumbsup:

[Deja Q]

29. Corporate personhood. Let's all become corporations; our own little LLCs?

It should work both ways. And not this idiotic cherrypicking that some want...

[Unvanguard]

30. Certainly not. A wrong decision is not grounds for impeachment.

If it were, even the pretense of judicial independence would be quashed.

[TheKentuckian]

35. Technically no but pitchforks and torches are probably called for

There's no difference between being able to make a direct donation and simply skipping the middle man and putting your money behind the candidate by buying commercials, making movies, or doing infomercials for or against them.

The end effect is all the same, except it takes the responsibility for the material off the candidate.

[Vidar]

39. I'd prefer"executed", but "impeached" is good.

[anonymous171]

42. HELL YES! nt

[moondust]

44. Will ANY politician ever dare to challenge the corporations?

When their next opponent could have unlimited corporate funding?

[yoyossarian]

46. After the election debacle of 2000, I'd like to see MOST of 'em...

...sent off to Guantanamo for rendition, then waterboarded about 153 times in a row
while being asked why why WHY THE FUCK they chose to back Bush rather than Gore
those many horrible, terrifying, soul-sucking years before.
I'm sure the answer will be "money"... but I'd still like to see it happen.

I'm not being mean. You should hear the stuff I say when I'm being mean.
This shit's IMPORTANT, goddamnit!



Tee-shirts, buttons and other crap at
Laugh City!


President Evil Online has risen from the grave!

[kenny blankenship]

48. Pack the court and reverse it

If you let it stand, it will be like Bush v. Gore and Florida 2000 every two years in this country.

Forever.

[librechik]

49. Na Ga Happen--but we should push for public funding of elections everywhere we can.

That's the only thing that will slip a wedge under these conservative incumbents.

[yurbud]

50. I would go further and bar them from taking corporate jobs after they leave office

and if they do take those jobs, take away their congressional pensions.