This case is a foregone conclusion. It was decided before they announced the special session, which is the only reason they announced the special session.

Capitalism as social policy.

You think shit is bad now, wait untill they decide this case. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

I'm sure the Republican party is already lining up its corporate sponsors.

This is the problem when money was declared by the Court to equal speech and that corporations were equal to human beings.

Roberts and the gang of four saw an opportunity to do what previously the court chose not to do: strike down all restrictions on campaign finance, period. Not just corporate and union contributions, but ALL contributions.

Roberts had shown time and time again his disdain for precedent and loves to use some judicial activism to move for the cause of capitalism.

I'm sure the Republican party is already lining up its corporate sponsors. Just like you sure that the Republicans were going to filibuster Sotomayor, sue to prevent her confirmation and something else so crazy I can't even remember?

"Vote Republican! They got what your body craves!" Paid for by the Brawndo Corporation.

Corporations do not have the equal rights as human beings. For instance, they don't have privileges and immunities of citizens, or various "liberties" that only full blooded people have. Corporations have an existence as given by corporate charter. A charter can be limited to specific purposes. This is not the name of the game for human beings.

-j

It's only just Republicans lining up, as evidenced by the percentage of money from the health care industry going to so called Blue Dog Democrats.

The money will flow to whomever is in power, no matter the party. So if ones goal is to make it even harder for incumbents to be unseated, by all means, rule that corporations have all the rights and freedoms as individuals and there's no restrictions on corporate money, because this case will open the floodgates like never before. And all the money will flood to the incumbents.

opus512:

It's not just Republicans....

Well, they don't have all the rights, and there will be limitations.

We can see the need for a bit of calm by seeing what this case is about. It is about some group, with some corporate money, putting out some anti-Hillary documentary. My immediate thought: "are we serious? we are making this illegal?"

Stop targeting this sort of thing, stop putting corporations and unions on the same level in federal campaign laws, and narrow things down to major corporate funding in cash to candidates and the like ... and when the Court knocks that down, which is not what this case is about, come back to me.

-j

I particularly like the whining about private campaign funding from all these backers of Barry "No, I'll skip the public financing so I can media-bomb everyone" Obama.

Exactly - these Republicans on the court think that strinking down campaign finance laws will get their guys back into power. I can't believe Scalia even came out and said that he thought this would favour challengers (ie Republicans). But as much as these guys would love to think that they are omniscient, omnipotent, bad-ass players (crowning a president obviously doesn't do much to tamp down your hubris) - they are dead wrong here. They are going to ensure a long (and deeply corrupt) Democratic one-party rule in America. Corporations have no interest in bribing the loser in an election and right now Democrats happen to be the safe bet. Lucky for them - unlucky for citizens, or should I say government consumers.

laughingchimp:

Exactly - these Republicans on the court think that strinking down campaign finance laws will get their guys back into power. I can't believe Scalia even came out and said that he thought this would favour challengers (ie Republicans). But as much as these guys would love to think that they are omniscient, omnipotent, bad-ass players (crowning a president obviously doesn't do much to tamp down your hubris) - they are dead wrong here. They are going to ensure a long (and deeply corrupt) Democratic one-party rule in America. Corporations have no interest in bribing the loser in an election and right now Democrats happen to be the safe bet. Lucky for them - unlucky for citizens, or should I say government consumers.

Scalia is certainly open to no small degree of criticism, but this is off base. I think Scalia was expressing a general skepticism of incumbents writing the rules that govern how elections will be run -- there should be little doubt that those rules would favor incumbents. That's really one of the core reasons behind the First Amendment: To prevent incumbent politicians to stifle speech critical of their performance. In this case, at least, Republican/Democrat has nothing to do with it. I'm pretty sure Scalia has been a consistent vote against campaign finance reform, even when Republicans were in power.

Yes. We are. This case should have never been heard. It had no reason to go past the Appeals court. They ruled, free speech or not, it violated the monetary reporting and time constraints of the FEC regulations, and thus, it could've and should've been blocked. These rules would apply equally to any corporation that made a political movie about a Republican, and didn't clearly claim it was a PAC. However, now that this court is hearing it, they clearly have an agenda. So much for Republiconservatives claiming that the Democrats somehow cornered the market on judicial activism.

The Supreme Court reversing a lower court is not judicial activism.

Yes it is, it always is. The process allows for them to simply say we don't need to even hear this - the ruling of the lower court is correct. In this case, the ruling of the lower court followed the law, laws upheld in earlier cases. They are hearing this strictly for the purpose of overturning it. That's judicial activism. Or it's not, but then quit screaming "judicial activism" just because you don't like the outcome from another judge. I could care less whether it's about the propiety of the system. I am getting at the fact that judicial activism is one of the most overblown, misused rhetorical weapons come election time. If this court is NOT be judicial activists, then don't come crying "liberal activist" the next time some judge rules in favor of AA or abortion or Miranda rights,etc.