If money is "free speech" then why have bribery laws?

[Hello_Kitty]

Look, if I want to give a "donation" to the judge to persuade him or her get me off that felony rap, why shouldn't I be able to? Who are you to tell me I can't "speak" to the judge with my money?

[randr]

1. Good point!

If my local rep is not getting in lock step with my interests I could easily call them up and let them know I will spare no expense unseating them. Direct and simple. Soon they will be rolling over and I will not even have to spend any money to do it. The treat alone will work.
Now if I only had enough money to pull it off.
Excellent plan!

[ORDagnabbit]

2. Love it! what about "speaking" to the policeman to not give you a ticket?

[Demeter]

3. So Many Corporate Crimes Have Been "Legalized", not to mention War Crimes

this is the logical extension.

[Echo In Light]

15. Bingo - it's a lucrative, ideological aspect of predatory capitalism

[truedelphi]

26. I know. It is so very sickening.

I never get so pessimistic that I feel this is icon is appropriate, but this week's actions call for it:

:banghead:

[druidity33]

4. what a great point! nt. K&R

[Solly Mack]

5. Besides, it's not a bribe...it's an incentive bonus for a job well done

and you need bonuses to attract the best talent to get the best outcome justice

[humblebum]

6. If a corporation is a "person" then shouldn't they be treated like one?

I mean shouldn't a corporation have to spend time incarcerated for crimes and even face capital punishment for murder or treason?

[notesdev]

7. It's freedom of the PRESS

Read the First Amendment


Really, people are reacting like something dramatic happened... it really didn't. McCain-Feingold created MORE corporate ownership of our government, not less - ask yourself honestly have things progressed in the right direction since 2002 - we shouldn't miss it.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Do you think this decision will make things better? If so, please explain. eom

[notesdev]

9. Maybe, maybe not

It's tangential to the real issue, which is that our representatives under either past or present regimes are being openly bribed and nobody is doing a damn thing about it.

It doesn't matter what the law is if it is not enforced!

[LostInAnomie]

12. Might want to try reading the First Amendment yourself.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The decision did make a drastic change in campaign finance laws. It lifted even the meager restrictions that McCain - Feingold created and opened the door to unlimited corporate money in the political process.

[notesdev]

18. I did

What part of "Congress shall make no law" is hard to understand here?

[LostInAnomie]

19. To my understanding...

... the First Amendment applies to actual citizens, not corporations.

You're making the OP's argument for them.

[notesdev]

21. So the press

being run by corporations, the government may then censor as it wishes?

Think this through completely. There is no way to get around the "no law" clause that is consistent with the First Amendment. Congress simply does not have the power under the Constitution to legislate against any type of speech, and that includes legislating against the means of speaking (the press).

Bottom line: there is no good to come of censorship. The problem is not speech, but corrupt politicians, and the law in question which did censor speech had the exact opposite effect on corruption that we were told it would. Passing McCain-Feingold made our Congress more corrupt and more beholden to special interests, not less so.

[LostInAnomie]

23. There are plenty restrictions on speech.

I can't scream fire in a crowded theater. I can't encourage a run on banks. The press can't print the locations of US troops in the battlefield. I can't incite others to commit violence. I can't publish known falsehoods. I can't lie in court. I'm not even going to get into all the regulations on pornography, public indecency, public demonstrations, and broadcasts on network television. I could make a gigantic list of laws restricting free speech.

You're simply wrong.

The idea that this ruling doesn't change anything is laughable.

[FreeJoe]

10. I'm confused

I thought that the ruling allowed unions and corporations to "speak" during the period immediately preceding an election. I don't think that it gives them the ability to make donations to politicians.

My memory (not usually the best) tells me that we first limited donations to politicians. That shifted money to the parties. We then limited that. Corporations and unions then just ran their own ads. Then we banned that near an election. At that point, the SC said that the law went too far and repealed only the prohibition on speech for corporations and unions, not the limits on contributions.

I have to admit that I'm with the ACLU on this one. I'm not comfortable telling Michael Moore's production company that they can't show a movie critical of Sarah P. near an election. That's where this law had gotten us.

[leftstreet]

11. Actually you're not confused at all

:thumbsup:

[Hello_Kitty]

13. My OP is facetious. And you're exactly right about limits on contributions.

You and I can't contribute any more than we could before. The same limits on money as "free speech" apply to you and me. What this ruling means is that XYZ Corp can start an "independent expenditure" to flood the airwaves with ads in support or against a candidate or issue.

[FreeJoe]

16. If I'm not mistaken...

...there are not, nor have there been, any limits on what you and I can spend on independent expenditures. My preference is that we limit what anyone or any organization can give to a candidate or party, but that no one or organization should ever be restricted in their own independent speech. I think that's where this decision leaves us, so I'm OK with it.

[uponit7771]

25. Does making a commercial AGAINST a candiate mean "contributing" to said candidates opposition?

...That is the question the USSC answer 100 years ago and it was yes...that corps or unions can't poor tons of money into RESOURCE's (what ever they may be) for or against someone because then it makes the voices of the little person smaller.

[kentuck]

14. If money is free speech...?

Then I have duct tape over my mouth. Because I have no money. Isn't that against my Constitutional rights, 4th Amendment or such?

[TheKentuckian]

17. Hey, nobody said anything about EQUALLY free

:sarcasm:

[JDPriestly]

20. Actually, this decision pretty much made any laws against bribery

superfluous. In the future, outright bribery, clear quid pro quo agreements, won't be necessary.

John Roberts' children and Alito and Scalia's grandchildren (all of them) will pay dearly for this decision.

These are people who are used to benefiting from corruption. There children may not be so lucky.

But if they had the foresight to understand what this will mean for their children and grandchildren, they would not be conservatives in the first place.

I have read a synopsis of the decision. I hope to get time to read the whole thing next week. Here are my comments without having had time to read it.

I understand that persons, individuals have freedom of association and that corporations are made up of associations of individuals.

But when individuals join other associations such as partnerships or unincorporated clubs, they remain responsible, liable as individuals and can, in the case of partnerships other than limited partnerships, be financially and otherwise responsible for what they and the partnership or association do, especially if they are officers or leaders or decisionmakers in the association.

Corporations, LLCs and limited partnerships are specifically designed so that the principals in them are protected from their responsibilities and potential liabilities as persons. That's why this is a problem. Who do you sue? If the corporation commits libel and then folds. How do you pierce that corporate veil and make the persons behind the corporation answer for the libel? It's not so easy.

I am particularly appalled that Scalia supported this decision. He claims to interpret the Constitution according to its plain meaning and as it would have been interpreted at the time of the American Revolution. As I understand it, at that time, corporations were mostly non-profit. Schools like Harvard were non-profit corporations.

Corporations as we know them did not exist. They became commonplace much later.

James Madison must be turning over in his grave. I don't think that he or Jefferson would have been pleased with this.

Alexander Hamilton -- might have liked it, but James Madison wrote the first draft of the Bill of Rights. I do not think he would support this Supreme Court decision at all.

I am really saddened that Antonin Scalia once again abandoned principle to please his close friends on the right wing. He could have been a very independent Justice. He especially has failed Americans.

I know you will all jump on me for saying anything good about him. But this decision, I believe is inconsistent with his theories. I understand that the freedom of association is guaranteed, but the corporate form is not an "association." It was created and has become popular because it is not an "association" in the traditional sense.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Great post, seriously. You should make it an OP.

And yeah, laws against bribing judges are pretty much superfluous with this ruling. Lots of judges are elected so what's to stop a company from funding a massive effort to unseat a particular judge because they didn't like a ruling?

[uponit7771]

24. WTF didn't the decent ask the same question?!?!?!