Bad Movies Make Bad Law?

The Supreme Court moves closer to allowing corporations to flood campaigns with cash.
It’s hard to believe that such a bad movie could cause so much trouble. When the right-wing advocacy group Citizens United tried to distribute its 90-minute “documentary” Hillary: The Movie in January 2008, it was hoping to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president. In that regard, the movie was irrelevant, as Clinton didn’t make it out of the primaries alive. But the group and its film may succeed wildly in another, unintended goal: destroying any semblance of restrictions on corporate money in federal elections.
Advertisement
Advertisement
On Wednesday morning, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in Citizens United v. FEC—again—to consider whether the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law violated Citizens United's rights to air its corporate-funded film on pay-for-view cable during the election season. It seems like a fairly simple question, and most of the justices appear to agree that the government has no business preventing Americans from watching Citizens United's dreadful movie. But the law is rarely that simple. Instead of sticking with the issues presented by Citizens United during arguments before the court in March, the justices asked the parties to re-argue issues not raised in the initial litigation, such as: do corporations have a free speech right to spend unlimited amounts of money on advertising to support or oppose a political candidate?
For nearly a hundred years, the answer to that question has been no. Corporations cannot pour money without restrictions into political races. But the Roberts court looks as if it is chomping at the bit not just to undo those limits (and potentially open up the floodgates for corporate political money) but to deal yet another blow to members of Congress, whose work it has regarded with disdain. In previous cases, this court has often refused to acknowledge thousands of pages of legislative record that in the past would have usually given the justices pause before trampling the work-product of the democratic process. That hostility imbues the Citizens United case, with Chief Justice John Roberts as its most prominent source.
The last time the court considered similar campaign finance issues, Roberts voted to uphold the old precedents and generally to preserve federal bans on corporate spending in elections. But during Wednesday's arguments in Citizens United, he looked ready for a change. He dominated the questioning of President Obama's new Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, who made her first argument at the court, representing the Federal Election Commission (Kagan wore a black suit, ending speculation about whether the first woman to hold the job would appear in the SG's traditional morning coat). Roberts and Kagan sparred over whether bans on corporate campaign contributions served a compelling public interest. Kagan argued the value of protecting corporate shareholders from having their money used for unapproved political purposes. Roberts suggested that shareholders were smart enough that they didn't need the government to protect them; Kagan smartly replied that she herself had trouble keeping track of her corporate investments, a problem most Americans with mutual funds suffer from.
Roberts' corporate defense was dramatically challenged by the court's newest member. Making her debut, Justice Sonia Sotomayor quickly proved that there's a lot more fire to her than is evident in her pedestrian written opinions. She jumped into the fray with pointed questions that were almost shockingly liberal, in stark contrast to her muted performance during this summer's confirmation hearings. In one instance, she made the surprising suggestion that the problems in this case had arisen because the court had previously erred in imbuing a corporation with human characteristics and granting it rights equal to those of individuals. Along with Justice Stephen Breyer, a former staffer to the late Ted Kennedy, Sotomayor mounted a passionate defense of the legislative process. This suggested a respect for Congress that contrasted with the sentiments of several of her fellow justices, who seemed to agree with attorney Ted Olson's argument that "you always have to second-guess Congress when it comes to the First Amendment." Sotomayor asked whether, if the court struck down the McCain-Feingold provisions that were crafted through many years of congressional deliberations, "would we be cutting off that future democratic process?"
Sotomayor's spunky performance foreshadowed future fireworks between her and Justice Antonin Scalia. While Sotomayor was questioning the wisdom of treating corporations like people, the conservative icon countered with the concerns of the "local hairdresser," a single-share corporation that he seemed to believe was most at risk of having its free speech rights violated by McCain Feingold. Scalia repeatedly insisted that most corporations are mom-and-pop operations rather than the "mega-corporations" described by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who noted that many of the corporations restricted by McCain-Feingold were comprised largely of foreign investors. Returning to his hairdresser, Scalia thundered, "There is no distinction between the individual interest and the corporate interest....Yet this law freezes all of them out."
Despite arguments over the nature of corporations, it was clear that many of the justices were struggling to find an acceptable way to accommodate the likes of Hillary: the Movie without completely gutting a century of court precedent. Justice John Paul Stevens often sounded like the president appealing to Republican moderates for a Third Way.
Perhaps the most persuasive argument against blowing up McCain-Feingold and its predecessors came from attorney Seth Waxman, representing Sen. John McCain. He finished the hearing by noting that no corporation had ever actually challenged the campaign finance law. Waxman's poignant observation spoke volumes about the chief justice, who seemed to be crusading for corporate rights that even corporations themselves haven't been seeking.
A decision in this case could come by the end of the year.
Comments
We have two collective
We have two collective problems here: First, corporations should NOT have defacto human rights--as they have no (and can not ever have) human responsibilities. Secondly, Hillary is no beacon of human kindness and decency. Sadly, she probably should have had a movie made about her and the real mystery is why it took so long.
Corporate (Bill of Rights) Dictatorship
This is what we have to look forward to if we aren't vigilant and careful, because, it's here and it's real.
We the people (Corporate America) hold these truths to be self-evident:
➢ We have the right to protect our profit margins and we have enacted laws that enable us to do so.
➢ We have the right to suppress, repress, and oppress our workforce (the powerless minority), aka the American people and foreigners in our employ.
➢ We reserve the right to control what the public sees and hears in all media: print, radio, and television. We have the right to out shout the public if necessary. We are expert at propaganda and fear mongering. No intellectual discussions please.
➢ We have the right to preserve our conservative views, and protect corporate entities. We have placed personnel on the Supreme Court to ensure things stay this way.
➢ We are above the law. We can commit fraud & embezzlement without fear of reprisals. Life is good. We have friends in high places.
➢ We will maintain a huge weapons arsenal that dwarves that of any other nation. No other countries will be allowed to possess this technology without our permission (e.g., Israel, India). If they try, they become our enemies (N.Korea, Iran).
➢ We are corporate dictators, but don’t tell anyone. The government is an ally when they do as bidden. If not, they’re twisted, evil men, and we’ll let the American people know (they’re stupid after all).
➢ The voice of the barely surviving poor, who daily line our pockets by paying and paying endlessly, will not be heard. We take no responsibility for their welfare – it might cost us something!
➢ We reserve the right to charge 500-5000% profit on our products. We have enacted laws that enable us to do so. That’s business. Ethics? What’s that?
➢ We reserve the right to relentlessly charge consumers more and more, after all, we’re untouchable.
➢ We will squeeze out small farms and dairies and incorporate food giants that control what is eaten, where, and when, and dictate quality standards in line with maintaining our profits. The public good? Don’t be a sap! No one cares about that.
➢ When all else fails we reserve the right to bash homosexuals, immigrants, and anyone else we consider morally and socially inferior (most of us mortals I’m afraid), and to blame problems on them.
➢ We reserve the right to discredit, defame and slanderize anyone who disagrees with us, especially political opponents, because, let’s face it – we’re bigger than them and we can get away with it. Who’s going to stop us?
➢ We will not allow Americans to have health care because we like controlling who gets coverage, and who doesn’t, and besides, it’s just not profitable. Socialized medicine? That’s for communist gooks!
We are corporate America, get used to it, or go to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. In fact, just stay there and keep quiet. We have become what we fought against way back in the 1770s - Oppressors and Keepers of Injustice and Intolerance. Shhh. Don’t tell anyone! Just look at what we’ve done to the constitution! We’re proud to be Americans all right – just keep that powerless minority quiet and maintain the status quo. Viva la riche!
This is the sad reality in 2009. Only we, the powerless minority, can stop it. Get active, write your congressmen, call them, and talk it up with friends. Except, we're the majority, outnumbered in resources only! Get empowered now.
corrected cliche
Ms. Mencimer used the phrase "chomping at the bit" in the third paragraph of this article. I believe it should be "champing at the bit." Great article!
Had I noticed this cut and
Had I noticed this cut and paste swipe of a book review had been written by David Korn I wouldn't have bothered to read it. One would think that it would be a good idea to read the entire work and reflect on it before writing a review for publication. Like all Korn's work opinion precedes production.
What happens next time, when the economy REALLY goes bust?
Any business, small or large, runs on money. If we either have a continuation or a repeat of what's happened this last year, you won't have to worry about corporations trying to unduly influence the political process. Dictators and drug cartels, maybe, or actual angry mobs, but corporations can 'go away' fairly easily, nobody buys their products, nobody has any money, pretty soon this store chain, that conglomerate, this other manufacturing entity, closed doors, see ya later.
Besides, in a way, corporate sponsorship is sort of a bellwether for which future potential candidate is going to be doing, or trying to do, the most railroading. Lots of deep-pockets sponsors? Key sign you should be listening...because business people aren't altruistic. They support a candidate in politics because they see a lucrative outcome from a successful campaign. They really don't honestly care about what the People think, just so long as the People don't get in the way of that next big business deal, and as long as it looks like Councilman/Governor/Senator/President so-and-so really supports it, or is in on it, being paid to look the other way, or dumber than a bag of hammers to begin with, these people will put the money on the table. But, hey, in a way, it's not all bad, it's also one way for corporations to pay their taxes, and support people like the Walters tax gang....
Klaatu marachas necktie
In the past we always
In the past we always counted on The Supreme Court to err on the side of free speech; if they can do that for porn, then why not for political speech? Isn't this exactly the kind of case the framers of our Constitution envisioned when they enshrined freedom of speech in the 1rst Amendment? Politically motivated speech should be unrestricted, and congress did err when they passed McCain Feingold... I hope it is overturned, not so I can see "Hillary, the movie" but so political speech will not be censored....
free speech is "for the people"
No “P.” The point is, no individual’s political speech is being censored by campaign finance reform. As an actual living breathing human being, the CEO of any Mega-corporation is free to express his or her opinion, as are the individual owners of Mom&Pop Inc.
When exactly do you believe corporations became human beings? Corporations were not created to be treated as actual human beings. Human beings have the right to political expression. Since corporations are not human beings, they should not. If individual members of corporations want to express themselves politically they are as free to do so as anyone else. What’s so hard to understand?
The rich have far more than their fair share of political influence. And doubly so with corporate lobbying groups. Of all the powerless, voiceless, and oppressed, your worried corporations aren’t getting a fair hearing!?!
Poor censored CEO's - the truly under-served. They never get a chance to voice their political opinions. They are never given the microphone, never allowed to donate to politicians, never get to meet with legislators, never get to influence public opinion. The most muzzled class. Good thing they have people like you to speak on their behalf. Maybe you can start a non-profit organization to help free them. Or maybe, just join one of their many Astroturf groups, if you aren’t a member already. Free the CEO’s!
WE THE PEOPLE must stand
WE THE PEOPLE must stand against this tyranny of corporations, who use the power of there financial resources, to influence the people whom we have entrusted to oversee the best interest of the AMERICAN PEOPLE of these United States.
Anyone running for office should fairly have the same access and limit to the maximum amount of funds that can be used for their campaign, this is truly democratic and equal.
Funny
The Hilary movie is so bad it actually makes Farenheit 9/11 seem like a decent film. Oh by the way, isn't Moore trying to cash again on with his new film on capitalism.
Recuse!
A corporate lawyer like Roberts predictably seeks to extend corporate power over ordinary beings. Roberts should recuse himself as should Scalia. Both are committing vast breaches of ethics by their actions in this issue. Of course neither of these guys will do so...A couple really severe car accidents would be very handy right now...
NEW GLOBAL ORDER
People what The Bush lawyer is trying to do is finish where Bush and Che-eny left off.America will no longer be america,foreign enity's will be able to buy the Whitehouse because they own major stock is some of these Corporations.This is a ATTACK on america and its constitution,JFK knew this was going to happen.Watch the speech he gave on Secret Societys in our Government, Go to (youtube) and watch (JFK WARNED US) and you will see,What is going on in this court room,People in 20 years America will no longer be America,But part of the NEW GLOBAL ORDER, Liz Che-neyy talked about it and said this is what her father,her and Bush pushed for the last 8 years. Now who is conspiring, I did'nt say it Liz Che-ney said it and confirmed what JFK was saying 40 years ago. If this court decides for them which they will,Because 2 of the supreme court justices that Bush chose are untrust worthy, Lets remember who chose them to office a SKULL AND BONES MEN, People if the media sits back and does nothing,to expose whats going on its very sad, CNN rick sanchez brought it to light on friday and played the tape of the Bush lawyer and what he said and is trying to do, is totally outragous he is saying "BIG CORPORATION" has rights as a natural born citizen of this country. You with a social security card and them "NO" card , And foriegners who own those businesses who where "NOT" born here with "NO" social security card gets to buy the whitehouse. AMERICA is under attack and all her rights ........!
"Greed, for want of a better word, is good!"
Along the lines of corporate control of our very democracy, easily extrapolated from the energetic proselytizing efforts of Roberts on behalf of those corporations, one shudders to think what the country would end up being--not under the venal political slitherings of Hillary, but under the CEOing of Mitt Romney.
Romney made all his bucks by creating and establishing his own company, a corporate take-over posse that would have earned the envy of the most jaded Gordon Gekko.
Under Romney, with the support of justices like Roberts and Scalia, America would proceed rapidly down the road upon which it is already on--buying America through privatization purchasing, breaking it up, and selling it off.
Romney
You are soo very right about Mitt Romney, a tool of the corporate cult that is the LDS "church". I remember from my childhood in the cult being instructed in Sunday school the ways and means that the Mormons planned to utilize in their evil plan to Take over the World. It sounds silly, "What are we going to do tonight, Brain" and all of that, but it is an awful truth, that the Mormons seek to extend their corporate hegemony over us all if allowed to do so. The agents of Mormon hegemony have infiltrated the FBI, the CIA and the State Department to the point that they interfere with the functioning of these agencies. Having Romney as governor was horrible (here in Mass. ) He is the one who foisted this wretched excuse for a Health care law in this state, that made buying heath insurance from the Health Extortion companies manditory and disisting punishable with fines! WE HATES HIM, WE HATES HIM FOREVER. (I actually met Romney when we were both teenagers, he was an ass and a stuck up prig even then.)
We must do whatever to prevent the Mormons from realizing their fiendish goals, they play the system to the nth degree, (that is why they have both a Republican and a Democratic Senator, to play both sides...). The Scientologists are bad enough, but the Mormons have a hundred and fifty years head start.
justice in America?
And I thought it was us liberals who used the courts to make laws in our interests.
If every corporation was single owner as justice Scalia says he would have half an argument.
What Roberts/Scalia would do is make it possible for CEOs, to use corporate money to leverage their political friends into office.
We recently went through a leveraging in the markets and we all know it turned out really well - NOT
If justices Roberts/Scalia and others have such a shallow depth in the realities of corporation/stockholder abuse then, then we "individuals" are in for a rough time to come.
Obviously the two justices have an agenda.
Waste of time. Period!
Without a doubt one of the biggest movie shockers of all time. We shouldn't even give it the time of day IMO
That Moore documentary dude is a moron, again only IMO
two cooperative troubles here
We have two cooperative troubles here: First, corporations should NOT have defected human rights--as they have no (and cannot ever have) human household tasks. Secondly, Hillary is no inspiration of human kindness and decency. Unhappily, she maybe must have had a movie made in relation to her and the real mystery is why it took so extended.
Speaking of bad movies,
Speaking of bad movies, there is a film that is seemingly, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, lousy. The movie reviews are atrocious – it gets less praise than Soul Plane. It's called Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (notice the pun I made there?), and like so many films released these days, it's a remake. It stars Amber Tamberlyn, Michael Douglas, and Jesse Metcalfe. The premise of the film is that a reporter tries to take down a crooked District Attorney (Douglas) with unexpected results. Fritz Lang directed the original, and it was his last American film. The reviews for the remake are terrible, so perhaps you don't want to talk to a personal loan company to go see Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. To read more: please visit this site: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/09/11/beyond-reasonable-dou...
You know, I'd personally
You know, I'd personally like to see the fabricators of this idiotic foolishness locked inside in the filthiest fiberglass portapotty to ever go uncleansed right before it is sealed shut and dropped into an active volcano! These neo-conniving right wing heels need to be ashamed of themselves for this crap. And, I'm not even a Hillary supporter. But, Good Lord! Exactly what sin against humanity has poor Hillary committed to deserve this much hatred and derrision from anyone? What's worst is that this crass, corporate-funded assassination of the woman's character has nothing to do with her political views and stances. It's just an all-out attack on Bill Clinton where Hillary is more or less used as the preferred weapon of offense by a bunch of clueless cowards.
This trashy movie is nothing but an obnoxious collection of incoherently spliced video clips documenting every vicious rumor, peice of unfounded gossip, all the licentious enuendo ever uttered, and every ridiculously outrageous lie ever told to any media source ever, only to achieve proving just how petulantly immature and crass a videographer can actually be and not be killed by an enraged audience of grossly insulted viewers. It's whole maddening narration is an annoying, droning, redundant directive to shamelessly hate Hillary Rodham Clinton with all one's might on the absolute flimsiest justification or evidence. The most shocking thing about this whole farce is it's unbelievable, unforgivable cheesiness. That, and that any corporation could ever stoop so low as to torture its own reputation to admit to having funded the generation of this craptacular skip mark. This flick is so bad until it no longer even qualifies as legitimate political assassination of the aobsolute worst quality. Crap like this is why Amerika is now the new global blond joke. This mocumentary is simply embarrassing on too many levels to count.
Twittering about how obvious
Twittering about how obvious it is that corporations aren't genuinely people and have no rights seems to be the populist idea of Deep Political Thought. What it actually is is the deliberate donning of blinkers so that the world is small and simple enough for intuition, for sensibility, to work in dealing with it. (Religion serves the same function on the right, by the way.)
I'll pop this balloon. If the court decides that corporations don't have the rights of a person, free speech or otherwise, corporations will simply have everything they would have issued themselves issued by one of their employees, undeniably a human being.
Gosh, what an accomplishment.
Have not watch this one yet.
Have not watch this one yet. Think i will try to do that this weekend
replica handbags,replica bags,replica lv handbgas
replica handbags
fake handbags
Louis Vuitton Handbags
replica Louis Vuitton Handbags
fake Louis Vuitton Handbags
Balenciaga handbags
replica Balenciaga handbags
fake Balenciaga handbags
BURBERRY handbags
replica BURBERRY handbags
fake BURBERRY handbags
CARTIER handbags
replica CARTIER handbags
fake CARTIER handbags
Celine Handbags
replica Celine Handbags
fake Celine Handbags
chanel handbags
replica chanel handbags
fake chanel handbags
chloe handbags
replica chloe handbags
fake chloe handbags
coach handbags
replica coach handbags
fake coach handbags
D&G handbags
replica D&G handbags
fake D&G handbags
Dior handbags
replica Dior handbags
fake Dior handbags
fendi handbags
replica fendi handbags
fake fendi handbags
GUCCI handbags
replica gucci handbags
fake GUCCI handbags
hermes handbags
replica hermes handbags
fake hermes handbags
jimmy choo handbags
replica jimmy choo handbags
fake jimmy choo handbags
Loewe handbags
Loewe handbags
Loewe handbags
Marc Jacobs handbags
replica Marc Jacobs handbags
fake Marc Jacobs handbags
miu miu handbags
replica miu miu handbags
fake miu miu handbags
Mulberry handbags
replica Mulberry handbags
fake Mulberry handbags
prada handbags
replica prada handbags
fake prada handbags
THOMASWYLDE
replica THOMASWYLDE
fake THOMASWYLDE
Valentino handbags
replica Valentino handbags
fake Valentino handbags
Versace handbags
replica Versace handbags
fake Versace handbags
Yves saint Laurent handbags
replica Yves saint Laurent handbags
fake Yves saint Laurent handbags
Are you still sticking to
Are you still sticking to wow gold play World of Warcraft? Since the release of Aion, lots of players converted to aion gold Aion, but I know there are numerous cheap wow gold gamers didn’t. They are the most honest wow power leveling gamers. Well, I am a WoW players, too. And I am a mage. Today I wanna share my aion kina experience with you here. I named it as wow mage leveling guide (wow power leveling guide for mage) which is to help you level aion kinah easier and faster from level 21 to level 30. We begin aion power leveling today's guide at the grand old aion gold level of 21.
Your aion time card mage is freshly bemounted and ready to take aion kina on the world. Chances are you're preparing aion kinah to move into your third major aion power leveling zone. From this aion time card point on, you have a great deal of freedom in choosing aion cd key where you want to quest aion cd key. I'd recommend an add-on like aion accounts Cartographer, or a aion accounts website like buy aion gold mapwow (just check the buy aion gold box that says "Show names for cheap aion gold zones") to see a cheap aion gold map that tells you the appropriate levels of the lineage 2 adena zones around you, so you can pick a lineage 2 adena place to make your lineage 2 power leveling home for the next 5-10 levels. Once you've selected a lineage 2 power leveling destination, mount up and head that lineage 2 accounts way.
When all else fails we
When all else fails we reserve the right to bash homosexuals, immigrants, and anyone else we consider morally and socially inferior (most of us mortals I’m afraid), and to blame problems on them.!
scarf scarves
scarf scarves wholesale
replica handbags wholesale
Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags
Replica Louis Vuitton Handbag
Gucci Handbags Replica
Hermes Handbag Replica
Burberry handbags Replica
replica watches wholesale
Replica Dior Handbag
Replica FENDI Handbag
China Clothing Wholesale
广州服装批发|广州春夏女装批发
replica handbags wholesale
Mulberry Handbags Replica
Burberry scarves scarf
Louis Vuitton Hermes scarves scarf
Replica FENDI Handbag
Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags
burberry bags replica
Replica Dior bags
FENDI Handbag Replica
fake louis vuitton handbags
gucci bags on sale
hermes belts
Replica Burberry handbags
Dior Handbags
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.


