Share

Supreme Court Weighs Lifting Ban on Corporate Funding of Candidates

Wednesday 09 September 2009

by: David G. Savage  |  The Los Angeles Times

photo
US Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor outside the US Supreme Court after an investiture ceremony. (Photo: Getty Images)

    The court, joined by new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, hears a special argument on whether companies should have the same free-speech rights as individuals.

    Washington - President Obama's top courtroom lawyer strongly defended the nation's campaign funding laws in the Supreme Court today and warned the court's skeptical conservatives against striking down the historic ban on corporations directly supporting candidates for Congress and the presidency.

    Big companies "will invest in incumbents" who do their bidding if the court throws out the rules against corporate funding of candidates, Solicitor General Elena Kagan said.

    The stakes looked to be high today when the newly constituted court met to hear a special argument on whether corporations should have the same free-speech rights as individuals.

    The showdown over the campaign funding laws could mark a turning point for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Until now, Roberts has regularly joined with fellow conservatives, including Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but he has avoided broad rulings that overturn precedents and reshape the law. Now Roberts must decide whether to make a major change in the campaign funding laws that would surely be denounced by critics as conservative activism.

    Read the rest of this story by clicking here.

  

»

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Corporate personhood is an

 Thu, 09/10/2009 - 01:11 — Anonymous (not verified)
Corporate personhood is an ugly and brutal concept. It destroys the individual rights of employees at a stroke. It should be thoroughly destroyed. Free speech has nothing to do with an entity and everything to do with individual citizens.

The fiction of corporate

 Thu, 09/10/2009 - 02:24 — Anonymous (not verified)
The fiction of corporate personhood should be strictly limited to its liabilities. In fact, the liability limitation of a corporation can be handled without any need for the fiction of corporate personhood at all. Corporations should not be allowed to promulgate political speech, only biz stuff like marketing.

Is America a corporate

 Thu, 09/10/2009 - 03:37 — Anonymous (not verified)
Is America a corporate welfare state? Here is one story to follow that will help us all see. Can you imagine a president or senator brought to you by....

If the escalation of

 Thu, 09/10/2009 - 14:59 — mysterioso (not verified)
If the escalation of corporate "funding" is o.k.'d, it would amount to the corporate "sponsorship" of our people in Washington. The next logical step would be for these officials to wear the names or logos of these corporations on their clothing, like NASCAR. The bigger the donation, the bigger the logo. In a news article that mentions a senator or representative the letters D or R is places next to their name so we can see which party they represent and their political belief system. Now why shouldn't their "sponsors" names be listed as well so we can understand just how they are influenced to vote on matters that effect us all by how much money they've been paid for their vote.

A court can't get much more

 Thu, 09/10/2009 - 15:26 — Anonymous (not verified)
A court can't get much more 'judicially active' than, say, finalizing the stolen election of 2000, or pretending that corporate bribery is the same thing as free speech. But since 'judicial activism' is a euphemism for 'not right-wing enough' we won't hear the right ranting and raving for a change.

In sports this would be

 Thu, 09/10/2009 - 16:17 — Anonymous (not verified)
In sports this would be tantamount to the famous "Black Sox Scandal". Taking money to throw the game is the worst thing an athlete can do. In boxing its called taking a dive. Even the slightest hint of money being involved in gambling has kept Pete Rose out of the hall of fame. It seems that in Washington its business as usual.