Gallup polling on SCOTUS decision. (all over the place)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The Gallup headline "Public Agrees With Court..." is problematic. This polling set is a spinmeister full-employment program... the data is so all over the place that there is almost no propositon that cannot be argued from one result or another.

But, for what it is worth...

Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech"
But have mixed views on other issues at heart of new Supreme Court ruling

January 22, 2010
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.






The free-speech question elicits uncommon agreement across party lines. More than 6 in 10 Republicans and Democrats believe campaign donations are a protected form of free speech, but fewer than half of independents (48%) agree.




Public attitudes about the issues involved in the court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision come from a nationwide Gallup survey sponsored by the nonpartisan First Amendment Center. The poll was conducted Oct. 1-2, 2009, shortly after the high court heard concluding arguments in the case.

Americans Favor Limits on Contributions

While corporations and unions are still barred under a 1907 law from making donations directly to federal candidates, the court's decision Thursday allows organizations to run ads in direct support of or opposition to specific candidates; it also overturns 2002 McCain-Feingold restrictions on how close to elections corporate-sponsored ads can run.

...snip... There is a bunch more at the link ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx

[Frank Booth]

1. The public's not necessarily wrong that election spending is free speech.

That issue was decided by the Supreme Court well before this decision.

Even if it is free speech, however, the government has the right to limit if it has a substantial interest in doing so. Like everyone else here, I think it's clear that the government has an extremely strong interest in limiting campaign spending by corporations, and that corporations should not be given all the rights afforded to flesh and blood citizens.

[dorkulon]

4. Money is property. Speech is speech. nt

[Frank Booth]

7. You could be right, but there's a long line of Supreme Court precedent holding

that political spending is speech. And that includes decisions made by pretty liberal justices.

The biggest problem I have with this decision is that the majority held that corporations and other entities hold the same First Amendment rights as individual citizens. It's an extremely radical position that has no basis in the Constitution. But as we all know, Scalia and Roberts are very smart, and manage to consistently legislate from the bench under the guise of originalism and judicial restraint.

This is really an amazing decision. Roe v. Wade used to be cited as an extreme example of judicial overreach, but I think this case takes the cake, at least by modern standards.

[ThomWV]

2. This is a distraction. The question isn't is money free speech, its if Corporations are people.

Is a corporation a person entitled to rights at all? The answer is a definite hell no.

[onehsaquestion]

10. To use your logic the NAACP would need to be silenced as well.

If you don't see the direct connection between what you are arguing for and how that would be reuqired, read the court opinion.

[dorkulon]

3. Public opinion is irrelevant when they don't understand the issues at hand.

This is a constitutional issue, and what the public thinks is really not important. Money is property, not speech.

If the public thinks that airplanes fly on God-power, should the airlines fire their engineers and hire a bunch of priests?

[reformist]

6. Wrong. Popular opinion ALWAYS matters.

If they get brainwashed into thinking that corporation dollars = 'free speech", that would be a disaster.

[Leopolds Ghost]

8. Well, they already have been.

[reformist]

5. I suspect that popular opinion on this is not well-formed yet.

They can be swayed either way, imo. It is urgent that people upset by this start an ad campaign denouncing the decision and explaining how ridiculous the opinion was. It is a good sign that 76% of the public favor limits of corporate contributions to candidates. Any ad campaign should use this as a starting point.

[otohara]

11. I Dunno About That

they went from supporting health care, to not, to maybe, to whatever it is now.

And since the GOP along with Corporate MSM controling the dialog, you can bet your booty - the numbers will tick upwards, cuz the American peeple are easily manipulated.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Never asked "Should Corps have Constitutional Rights of Personhood"

99% WTF.......