Supreme Court May Reconsider 'Citizens United'

They may go for it. So far the SuperPac money has been used to damage the reputations of Republicans. It's a big ho ho ho as far as I'm concerned. What did they think would happen once unlimited corruption was introduced into the system. I'll make a little bet. The PAC money will go to Obama. Business interests would be unwise to back losers and they know it.

Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

Not exactly your run-of-the-mill clerical error. Yeesh.

But sometimes that's whats needed to make progress. If there can be a fault found in the original reasoning, then sometimes you do get an overturn. I'm not holding my breath, but I am willing to pray for this one.

Door King

They may go for it. So far the SuperPac money has been used to damage the reputations of Republicans. It's a big ho ho ho as far as I'm concerned. What did they think would happen once unlimited corruption was introduced into the system. I'll make a little bet. The PAC money will go to Obama. Business interests would be unwise to back losers and they know it.

You saying Obama is for sale?

You saying Obama is for sale?

aka: not a moron.

No, the previous posters have been correct. The right-wing is all for unlimited money in politics, until those WITH money and power fight tooth, nail, and claw to keep Democrats in charge.

Democrats locked up one of the largest Industries that currently exists in the United States (the Healthcare/Healthinsurance Industry) through the passage of the Healthcare Reform Act.

While the Republicans certainly have a few die-hard stale warts...they won't last long (nor be enough to buck the tide).

You can take what I'm about to say anyway you like (good, bad, indifferent, etc) -- but eight months from now this country is going to change. It's going to change ever bit as much as it did in 1932, ever bit as much as it did in 1960, ever bit as much as it did in 1980.

AND just like those times, I know a lot of people who really thought they were something special in November 2010 who are going to left in complete and utter confusion as to how they ended up where they will find themselves come November 2012.

proglib

thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

No, that is NOT what that decision did. Corporations for the purposes of law, ARE a person in some aspects and are NOT a person in other aspects. The santa clara decision really didn't change all that much. Non person entities by the way are 'VIRTUAL persons', not natural persons. That means that in some aspects, a corporation can be considered a person (entering into a contract for example) and in other aspects (voting for example) a corporation is NOT the same and does not have the same rights as a natural person.

CU really doesn't get into one way or the other about whether or not a corporation is a person, it gets into whether restrictions are constitutionally valid. The problem with the decision is that it is extreme, it treats the issue as though it is a black and white issue, but the reality is that the state DOES have an interest in limiting the amount of money that goes into electioneering, and in my mind the mild limits that were imposed by the bill that was the primary law overturned.

Also, the non person entity really didn't really have a lot to do with the CU decision, but THIS supreme court case in the 70's DID have a very negative course of action. This is the decision that basically said that money is the same as speech. That has FAR more impact on CU than any of the myriad of decisions relating to corporate virtual personhood did.

They are not going to let two Justices just hang out there after having made that statement. I do tno believe they would have released this unless what they suggest is indeed coming to pass.

I think the court has noticed.

I would like to think that a hundred year old law would be upheld. That they lived with money interfering in politics that long ago should be a wake up call to what is going on all around us now.

Pat,

The money didn't really become that big of an issue until the 70's decision that equated money with speech, that made money a 1st amendment issue.

Not in Montana It was huge a century ago.

Those who controlled the copper mines stood to make billions of dollars, the prize sought by three men who fought for Butte’s mineral wealth with greed and generosity, cruelty and compassion, cowardice and courage. In this astonishing battle, they used their fabulous wealth to buy courts, newspapers, politicians, banks, police, and anything and anyone that could help them or hinder their opponents. To get what they wanted, their money flowed like snowmelt throughout the mile-high city and eventually reached the nation’s capital.

http://mhs.mt.gov/pub/press/warcopperkings.asp

and another to back it up. Montana had money problems 100 years ago and that is why they made this law.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/multimedia/125newsmakers6/copperkings.html

oh there is always going to be money in political corruption, it is just that the decision in 76 was what equated money as speech, whereas before that, the money was the end result of the corruption. I am corrupt so I can make more money, but now it is 'I am going to spend more money to show that I am corrupt so that I can make more money'.

That 76 decision changed the makeup of how that corruption was executed.

And it is all legal now.

I tend to think state made corruption laws will stand. We will see.

What is really interesting is that the whole thing about Montana and corruption leads to a lot of changes in our country. The whole issue about direct election of senators came from that same corruption (the 17th amendment I believe) issue, and that same person is who clark county (las vegas) nevada is named after, and his daughter just recently died in NYC (Huguette Clark) and on a more 'whimsical' note, him and his daughter I believe is currently the record for longevity between the birth of the father and the death of the daughter. (January 8, 1839 - May 24, 2011).

Now william clark was someone that literally bought his senate seat and the openness of it basically convinced the rest of the states that hadn't ratified the 17th to ratify it, allowing for direct election of senators.

That is a very interesting tidbit Jonathan. I did not know.

isn't it sad that this 'dumb @!$%#' canadian knows that hahahaha

And NO, I was not saying you called me that, it has just been the attitude I get from a lot of americans (most especially all my tea bagger neighbours). Damn, I can't wait until 2012 when Joe Deadbeat Dad Walsh is removed from my district.

Supreme Court Justices Attended Koch Brothers Party When They Were Deciding Citizens United
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e8BWL4B-_E

Corporations are protected from birth. Sadly many children on this planet and in America are not!!!

A fetus does not have money, silly.

That's a very good point. Efforts in other arenas should certainly continue despite this latest development.

It will take a constitutional amendment to truly undo corporate personhood.

Perhaps, but that process is a bit unwieldy.

Better yet, I suggest that corporations play by all the rules of "being a person." To wit:

• Contributions restricted to what a person can give to a political campaign.
• Pay personal income taxes as established rates, federal and state.
• Pay sales tax on everything they buy, without regard for intent of resale.

That's just a start. If corporations want to be persons, they need to be regulated and treated as persons across the line. Current interpretation of the Constitution may define corporations as persons, but they can be also be constrained by the same laws as people.

PACs are the real issue at play here, and they can be eliminated by law as they have no legal standing except by legislation.

I am not a brainiac but Roy, in a lot of ways yours almost sounds better. If it cannot be turned around, I think you have a viable alternative. Like it.

Perhaps the Corporations can be put to death for crimes against humanity, It would be a nice turn of events to apply that to the board members and/or trusties

Eh...corporations can't really be punished though... I'd rather they not have personhood. If it isn't born, doesn't breathe, pee, or poop, and doesn't die, its not a living person. If they are to be persons, then they should be taxed accordingly, above their corporate taxes. They can't have it both ways. One alternative to our current tax system is here: transactiontax.org

Perhaps the Corporations can be put to death for crimes against humanity...

I guess the equivalent might be to hand them over to Bain Capital so they can cut them up and sell all the little pieces.

That's what the Tp/Republicans wanted for GMC. so they would make money and get rid of the union too. Romney is right GMC would had been profitable after bankrupcy, there would be no penson to pay back to the workers who had paid into their penson for years. Don't tell me they didn't pay into their penson, it was part of their negotiated pay package

Corporations held accountable? That's a radical thought. Just think about Wall Street giants like Goldman Sachs that were involved in white collar crime to basically steal hundreds of billions of dollars from customers. It would boost morale in America to see them held accountable on the same level as PEOPLE. How about busting down the door at a board meeting and perp walking the white collar criminal corporate executives out in chains?

Why not? With blue collar crime, a guy mugs you in the street for a hundred bucks and gets sent to prison. A Wall Street executive basically steals millions of dollars, his corporation may have to pay an out of court settlement, nothing happens to him, he is still there on Wall Street and ready to do it all over again.

Do you think then that Unions will also be treated the same?

And Democrats are still in favor of overturning Citizens United, thereby blowing apart Republican silliness trying to tie Democrat positions with union positions. Democrats support union positions only when union positions support Democratic ideals. When union positions work against Democratic ideals, Democrats oppose the union perspective.

The exact same can be said about Santorum and his benefactor Foster Friess. Without Foster's money Santorum would be an afterthought, as he should be.

I think that the jury may still be out (pun intended). It would appear that the Super PACs have had an unexpected and somewhat negative impact on the GOP's "electoral process" thus far. That having been said, it seems likely that with the GOP candidate selected, Obama is likely to encounter a Citizen's United-based tsunami later this year.

What I find comforting is, Romney with all that money is not getting very far. The "establishment" want him but most of the people on that side do not. Delicious.

I just can't wait until someone has proof that one of the repub candidates is calling the shots for their superpac...@!$%#e meet fan!

Who would kow? More importantly what element of Government would intervien? The Justice department would have to be involved but what would they be able to do. Nothing.

The Campaign would simply say I did not ask the superpac to do that. It would have to be a specific act and not an intent or the Justice Department would be powerless. If the Obama campaign di it I don't think the Justice Department would be that interested in following up. If some Organigation SET UP a campaign committee with a sting how would know the details.

Big problem. The Court needs to fix it's screw up. It is not a Constitional issue.

Although I would like to see elections being publicly funded, I could live with donations being restricted to individuals only, with limits placed low enough so wealthy contributors would not have a significant advantage. No group should be able to gather huge amounts of money to donate to candidates.

Get all the money out. I agree.

Of course who ever is bankrolled by the rich will lose the most.

The Unions contributions were quite small compared to the rich and corporations.

http://getmoneyout.com/

Yep those Unions are not made up of Citizens.

Well, considering that corp. person hood is based on some corrupt little clerk making what amounts to a cheat sheet for lawyers, I do not see how things got this far to begin with. Disgusting.

yes union contributions have distorted the playing field for decades, all their money goes to one party even though their members(and non members in states that aren't enlightened enough to have right to work laws) may disagree with the agenda of the party the union is donating to.

The resultant all-time low rating for our obstructionist Congress should be enough to convince most folks that we can't afford to throw the baby out with the bath water again.

Yeah. It should be. But I don't believe it was enough. Most people--not the political junkies--get tunnel-vision during mid-terms. A national election with Super-Pacs dominating the airwaves is a different animal. If the court revisits now, without a huge groundswell of outrage, I'm afraid this court doesn't entirely reverse itself. They just put on a bandaid or two an call it good. I hope I'm wrong.

Unions are about 13.9 percent now compared to 24. something way back. Mega corps on the other hand with their non breathing, non heart beating, non tax paying/dodging welfare, lying cheating, slave waging....

Before unions, your (if you have one) could be 5 years old, working for a hay penny 12 hours a day. There would be no overtime, 40 hour work week, etc., etc., etc.

Give it a break. You have what you have now because of unions.

Yes, they were as corrupt as were the employers, at the beginning. Fight fire with fire. Yes, they became even more corrupt-like big business. Now we fight corporate corruption and out sourcing, not unions, unless you are a Republican trying to take out the last wall between the people and outright greed.

I would rather a body of people that fought for me, than a body that fought for the few.

Thanks prglib. I only knew that the numbers were way down.

And thanks to the lying of GOP and Corporate and know people blaming the union for everything that the Banks and Wall Street did. Union member make less in money then member in a private company. Union go away so will wages. Union are going down along with wages.

In theory, they are not supposed to listen to the people and are deliberately separated from politics for that reason; they are supposed to think in a Constitutional bubble....but you have to think that the tarnished image of their 'sacred' institution due to Citizens United decision will at least color their thinking if the case comes back.

In theory

Of the people, by the people, AND FOR The people.

I have got to wonder if it is just a mockery of...........Was any of it real?

Lmao.......so u think they interpreted the constitution correctly? Where does it say corporations are people? The SCOTUS was listening to someone when they made this Decisio

Thank you Montana! And lets work locally and state-wide to seriously recall anyone who disenfranchises another to vote- our fundamental right to have a say in elections. The mussel loving right needs to know the people do not subscribe to new laws to hurt another party/parties to have their voices heard. This is not and should not be a fascist run country.

I just wrote an article on Thursday talking about the possible need for a constitutional convention. It was interesting to see just how split people were on the idea.

As far as the SCOTUS reviewing their own cases, it is possible, though not usual. The justices generally take a similar case and then reinterpret their earlier decision. Many courts have ruled on the constitutionality of issues only to reverse at a later date. Brown v. Board of Ed. actually overturned a 1896 SCOTUS decision.

If there is new information/precedent that warrants a revisiting of a court decision, then yes, the court can revisit a decision.

This however, if it comes to be, would probably be the fastest revisit ever.

I would be very afraid of opening a constitutional convention, with all the nuts on far sides of the politcal spectrum, I do not feel we could come up with a better document. It has taken care of us for over 200 years with nominal revisions. Plus everytime a issue comes up, someone wants a constitutional amendment when at best a law or regulation would correct the supposed problem

The business of law making was designed to be a long and deliberate process, with a lot of give and take of all parties. Now with the I want it all and I want it now mentality, this long process is even more important than ever.

95% of America agrees with that. or is it 92%? Doesn't matter because the number is overwhelming.