Supreme Courts Says No To Arizona Campaign Finance Regulation - New England Patriots Forums

***IcyPatriot*** · 06-27-2011, 07:01 PM

Oh well - we should be used to this by now - Goliath will never be slain. Sometimes our Constitution is on the side of the little person and sometimes it is against.

NationalJournal.com - Supreme Court Strikes Another Blow at Campaign Finance Regulation - Monday, June 27, 2011

Quote:

A closely divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that allows the state to level the financial playing field for candidates running against wealthy opponents, a decision that advocates of tighter campaign finance regulation describe as a blow to efforts to limit the influence of money on politics.

Quote:

Chief Justice John Roberts read the Court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

The majority concluded that the "substantial burden" the Arizona law places on the First Amendment rights of candidates and independent spending groups who opt out of public financing outweighs any interest in helping candidates combat better-funded opposition.

"We have repeatedly held that leveling the playing field is not a legitimate government function," Roberts said.

Quote:

In a blistering dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the Arizona law was focused on eliminating political corruption, a legitimate government interest. Arizona's matching-funds system is "necessary to break the stranglehold of special interests on our system of government," she said.

wistahpatsfan · 06-27-2011, 10:04 PM

PatriotsReign · 06-28-2011, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

Oh well - we should be used to this by now - Goliath will never be slain. Sometimes our Constitution is on the side of the little person and sometimes it is against.

NationalJournal.com - Supreme Court Strikes Another Blow at Campaign Finance Regulation - Monday, June 27, 2011

If "Leveling the playing field is not a legitimate gov't function" then why does our gov't employ a progressive income tax system?

They're talking out of both sides of their mouths.

***DarrylS*** · 06-28-2011, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

If "Leveling the playing field is not a legitimate gov't function" then why does our gov't employ a progressive income tax system?

They're talking out of both sides of their mouths.

That is why the playing field is not "level"....

***patsfan13*** · 06-28-2011, 07:08 AM

Interesting part of Kagan's dissent:

Quote:

In a blistering dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the Arizona law was focused on eliminating political corruption, a legitimate government interest.

So in Kagan's view politicians can restrict political speech if they say it is to eliminate political corruption? Just WOW........... These people only want the First amendment for porn and flag burning not for political speech.

wistahpatsfan · 06-28-2011, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Interesting part of Kagan's dissent:

So in Kagan's view politicians can restrict political speech if they say it is to eliminate political corruption? Just WOW........... These people only want the First amendment for porn and flag burning not for political speech.

Technically you're right.

Problem is (for me) that corporations and unions have been granted "personhood" by the Supremes. This is an insult to many people, including myself, who see it as an inherent contradiction as far as a level playing field goes. I can't go to the government and ask for subsidies that ensure my profitability. The government won't bail me out when I perform poorly. I can't have laws passed that enable me to make more money, or that take land from people to give to other people who can make more money with that land. I can't write off any expense incurred due to operating expenses. No amount of money I give to a Senate candidate will have much of an influence over his votes.

Yet the corporations, with the help of their carefully-duped fans, can get all of this AND enjoy the priviledges of personhood and all the protections that the Constitution and Bill of Rights have to offer. Those protections were intended for the People, not our Owners. I guess that's why they're the Owners, though, huh?

The Brandon Five · 06-28-2011, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Technically you're right.

Problem is (for me) that corporations and unions have been granted "personhood" by the Supremes. This is an insult to many people, including myself, who see it as an inherent contradiction as far as a level playing field goes. I can't go to the government and ask for subsidies that ensure my profitability. The government won't bail me out when I perform poorly. I can't have laws passed that enable me to make more money, or that take land from people to give to other people who can make more money with that land. I can't write off any expense incurred due to operating expenses. No amount of money I give to a Senate candidate will have much of an influence over his votes.

Yet the corporations, with the help of their carefully-duped fans, can get all of this AND enjoy the priviledges of personhood and all the protections that the Constitution and Bill of Rights have to offer. Those protections were intended for the People, not our Owners. I guess that's why they're the Owners, though, huh?

I think that can be fixed. The reason behind the concept of "a corporation is a person" was to ensure that companies were legally protected and also held legally accountable. If we can concoct an alternative legal mechanism that provides accountability and legal protection, we can do away with the idea that "companies are people too".

***patsfan13*** · 06-28-2011, 08:47 AM

Individuals can buy stock in public corps. When you look at the regulatory world they have to deal with they are forced to speak on behalf of the shareholders to protect their interest.

The issue is still the government doling out too much money and the power they get through the tax code and regulatory favors.

As long as the government is so powerful people need to pay for protection. Think of the government as the mafia in the 1920's shaking down the local grocer and other businesses.

I would rather have the First amendment than 'well meaning' government regulating who has political speech and who doesn't. Because that will be a corrupt process (the party in power will have free speech for their supporters and limit speech of their opponents.

wistahpatsfan · 06-28-2011, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Individuals can buy stock in public corps. When you look at the regulatory world they have to deal with they are forced to speak on behalf of the shareholders to protect their interest.

The issue is still the government doling out too much money and the power they get through the tax code and regulatory favors.

As long as the government is so powerful people need to pay for protection. Think of the government as the mafia in the 1920's shaking down the local grocer and other businesses.

I would rather have the First amendment than 'well meaning' government regulating who has political speech and who doesn't. Because that will be a corrupt process (the party in power will have free speech for their supporters and limit speech of their opponents.

A corporation is not a "who". It is an "it". I don't need a middle man to protect me from the government. And even if I did, it wouldn't be the freakin corporations. They do no better job at ensuring my Constitutional rights than the government does.

You have the First Ammendment! It is there for you!

What makes you think "the party in power will have free speech for their supporters and limit speech of their opponents"? When has that ever happened? You're providing cover for corporations because of something you think "might" happen?

You are right about one thing, though. The tax code is a horrible tool the government wields without any impunity whatsoever. The IRS and the current tax code needs to be abolished and a new system needs to be implemented. No doubt.