High court ruling gives big money an even bigger say (Howry | Ventura County Star)

[struggle4progress]

... It was a bold and significant move by Kennedy and the four justices who agreed with him. Not only did they repudiate the idea, dating back more than 100 years, that unlimited corporate spending in elections had a corrupting influence, they also signaled a more activist court that no long felt obligated to honor previous court rulings or precedent.

That is an unsettling thought. An activist court untethered from precedent is concern enough, but a court majority seemingly out of touch with reality is just plain scary. It is one thing to argue whether a corporation or labor union in the legal sense should be considered a person with all the rights that go with that; it’s quite another to argue that unlimited spending by these entities does not have a corrupting influence on the process.

Yet, in his opinion Justice Kennedy dismissed the corruption argument that has held sway since Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907 that banned corporations from donating money directly to federal candidates. “This court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

If that were true, why then did the justices, in an 8-1 vote, agree to keep in place the restriction that banned corporations and unions from contributing directly to candidates, or the portion of the McCain-Feingold Act that bans unlimited corporate and union donations to political parties? ...

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jan/23/high-court-ruling-gives-big-money-an-even-bigger/

[Hekate]

1. KnR

[CJCRANE]

2. “This court now concludes that

independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Did they cite any evidence to back this up?

Or is it another case of the Neocon Mind Trick?

[struggle4progress]

3. You can download the slip opinion here. The more people that have read it, the better

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09slipopinion.html

[CJCRANE]

4. Thanks.

In fact the enormous outcry over this decision has already proven that there is an "appearance of corruption".

[olegramps]

5. I will lay odds that Chief Justice Roberts is a member of the fascist Opus Dei cult.

I would also include Antonin Scalia and Silent as a Clam, Clarence Thomas as members of this secret society that dominated the cabinet of the fascist Spanish dictator Franco.

[struggle4progress]

6. Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory

Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory
Court Nominee Said He Has No Memory of Membership

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 25, 2005

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory ... Roberts has not amassed much of a public paper record that would show his judicial philosophy. Working with the Federalist Society would provide some clue of his sympathies. The organization keeps its membership rolls secret ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html

[Demeter]

7. Fascism Is as Fascism Does

and this decision is a prime example.