Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary

[Heidi]

Source: New York Times

Published: August 29, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will cut short its summer break in early September to hear a new argument in a momentous case that could transform the way political campaigns are conducted.

The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March. Just six months later, it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates.

The case has also deepened a profound split among liberals, dividing those who view government regulation of political speech as an affront to the First Amendment from those who believe that unlimited corporate campaign spending is a threat to democracy.

At issue is whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates. Re-arguments in the Supreme Court are rare, and the justices’ decision to call for one here may have been prompted by lingering questions about just how far campaign finance laws, including McCain-Feingold, may go in regulating campaign spending by corporations.

The argument, scheduled for Sept. 9, comes at a crucial historical moment, as corporations today almost certainly have more to gain or fear from government action than at any time since the New Deal.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30scotus.html?hp

[aquart]

1. So what do those bastards plan to do?

[laughingliberal]

2. I hate to even think what they might do n/t

[krkaufman]

8. They've gotta find some way to counter the fundraising methods ...

... demonstrated by the Dean and Obama campaigns. Expect the precedents to be overturned and corporate cash to flood political campaigns.

[rumpel]

3. Corporate personhood has to be undone n/ t

[lib_wit_it]

7. Agreed! Huge push needed. Most people don't even have a clue this is law.

[Downwinder]

11. They can't have both ways when it suits them.

If a Corporation is a person, subject them to criminal prosecutions and penalties.

[UpInArms]

17. and the death and dismemberment of any corporation

with a "guilty" for products that kill

[northernlights]

15. you beat me to it. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

It doesn't involve the 1st amendment, which pertains to *citizens* not corporations.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. Thom Hartmann has often mentioned this case

Unfortunately, he expects a 5-4 court decision in favor of the corporatists, and if that is the case, there won't even be the McCain Feingold law anymore, let alone any other restraints on corporate power.

If I were Pat Robertson, I know what I'd be praying for right now. But since I'm not, I'll settle for Justice Anthony Kennedy to make the sane and logical choice, and oppose corporatism (Fat Tony, Clarence the Clown, and Chimpy's appointees are obviously lost causes)

[saigon68]

5. N0ooo--- that's Clarence "Long Dong Silver"

[maglatinavi]

6. Supreme Court re-hearing?

Boy, they are scary, specially the Clown aka the Dumb who never speaks ...

[No Elephants]

9. Sotomayor is a corporatist and a law and order judge. And I think the old white men in her

confirmation may have scared love of diversity out of her.

[rurallib]

12. probably 4-4 going in. And Kennedy

there are so many ways this whole case is setting up to be one of the most controversial ever.
Let us start with the fact that the SCOTUS is meeting in special session to hear this case. Normal session begins the first Monday of October.
Then there is the fact that has been upheld in several challenges.

[No Elephants]

10. Not at all optimistic about this.

[depakid]

19. Nor am I -

My guess is that the case is going to be another BIG step in America's inexorable decline into corruption and banana republic status.

The only possible silver lining is that it might provide the impetus to reinstate the fairness doctrine and equal time provisions... that is, if the "free" corporate speech types can be convinced to stop cutting off their noses to spite their ignorant, absolutist faces.

[Roland99]

13. Corporate personhood needs to be revoked. We have a corrupt form of Capitalism

that stacks the deck against individuals in the name of stock prices.

[dotymed]

14. PUBLICLY FINANCED ELECTIONS

is, to me. the only sane and fair way to hold elections. We
demand that media "donate" the same amount of
air-time to each candidate. We limit the amount of
advertisings and mailings. We insure that you don't have to be
wealthy in order to be elected in this country. Take ALL money
out of politics and then OUR representatives will not owe
anyone. Please go to bradblog.com and watch the Sibel Edmond's
testimony, then you will all understand what money has done to
our political process and the necessity of removing money from
politics. If this ever going to be a "free country",
then there is no choice. If not, pack your bags....If
President Obama had to only implement 2 issues in America in
his first term, I would say it is publicly financed elections
and universal health care.

[madokie]

16. I agree

otherwise it is not a representative democracy. I have friends who only watch fox news and they have their facts all wrong as I see it and I get my sight from the many other news sources I take in. If all the masses hear is lies propagated as fact how the hell can they have an opinion based on reality and if their opinions aren't based in facts then how is it that they are contributing to our democratic process I ask?

[defendandprotect]

22. Yes . .. and citizens have to dictate the terms . . . how, when, where, how long . . .

and, of course, we have to be able to use public TV/radio and

demand time from networks for public service --

[rug]

18. No free speech for corporations.

[on point]

20. Only Registered voters should contribute!

I think a simple finesse around the problem of corporations being considered persons is to pass a law that says only voters registered in the district of the candidate or issue (for initiatives) should be able to contribute to the campaigns. That deals with outside money, reduces the overall spend and I would like to see a corp register to vote!

[defendandprotect]

21. Well, of course, free speech and $$$$$$$$$$$$ are two different things . . .

Granted we don't all own newspapers, but that aside . . .

the soap box has to be generally available -- and those with the $$$$$ to buy TV

time and radio time are paying for something beyond free speech!

I was shocked when originally the ACLU supported this concept of corporate rights --

but they did reverse themselves later.

Corporations should be barred from any participation whatsoever in our elections -- !!!

[MasonJar]

23. If a corporation is a person then it should be limited to the maximum

donation an individual can give. Fair is fair. I'd say that we will never get election reform because the incumbents like their corporate cash cows. It keeps them in DC...and they are the ones who vote for any legislative changes. And the fact that this Supreme Court will rehear this topic is a very bad sign. The fact that it was an anti-Hillary movie is just a ploy to do away with any reform.

[fascisthunter]

24. corporate personhood=fascism

[Honeycombe8]

25. Why is this even in court? It seems clear that the law was broken...

corporations are prohibited by law from spending over a certain amount of money to push a particular candidate. So...why is this in court?

[happyslug]

26. Look how Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm. was decided

Actual opinion for Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm., 494 U.S. 652 (1990):
http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/652/case.html

The majority vote was the following:Marshall, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens.

Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor were the dissent.

[RogueBandit]

27. Sen. Wyden Town Hall meeting...

At a Senator Wyden town hall meeting in Medford, Oregon, a well dressed, nice looking, well spoken woman started reading her comments about health care from a printed page. She repeated twice that I remember the phrase, "...corporations are people..." yes, you read that right. I guess she was working on us to have sympathy for the poor corporations and how they are being pushed around by big government.

I thought I detected a break in her voice when she first came to that phrase "...corporations are people...," almost like she knew is was pure bs.

Considering this case is coming, again, before the Supreme Court and my experience at the town hall meeting I guess the corporations are in a big push from grass roots level to the big players to reaffirm their "rights without responsibilities."

[CRojas]

28. Shame

It's hard to believe of how far can go republicans on the destruction of a publlic person as Hillary.