• Guests:
    • Shannyn Moore, host, The Shannyn Moore Show on KUDO 1080AM.
    • David Cobb of Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County and 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate.
    • Amy Goodman, journalist; syndicated columnist; host-Democracy Now; author of several books including her most recent "Breaking the Sound Barrier". She's just back from Haiti.
  • Topics:
    • The Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United case.
    • Kudos on new show on KUDO 1080AM M-F 11a-2pm Anchorage time.
    • With the Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United case, did the gates of hell just get opened up?
    • What is going on in Haiti?
  • Bumper Music:
  • Today's newsletter has details of today's guests and links to the major stories and alerts that Thom covered in the show, plus lots more. If you haven't signed up for the free newsletter yet, please do. If you missed today's newsletter, it is in the archive.
  • Quote: ”The most perfect political community is one in which the middle class is in control, and outnumbers both of the other classes." -- Aristotle.
  • Case: Justice J Stevens, dissent, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    "It is the height of recklessness to dismiss Congress’ years of bipartisan deliberation and its reasoned judgment on this basis"

  • Case: Chief Justice Roberts., decision, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    "The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. ...

    First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy. ...

    The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer.".

  • Case: Justice J Stevens, dissent, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    "The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. Austin set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural persons, corporations have “limited liability” for their owners and managers, “perpetual life,” separation of ownership and control, “and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets . . . that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return on their shareholders’ investments.” 494 U. S., at 658–659. Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.70 Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been “effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society’s economic welfare”;71 they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. “‘[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation.’” "

  • Case: Justice J Stevens, dissent, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    "The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.55"

  • Case: Justice J Stevens, dissent, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    " Let us start from the beginning. The Court invokes “ancient First Amendment principles,” ante, at 1 (internal quotation marks omitted), and original understandings, ante, at 37–38, to defend today’s ruling, yet it makes only a perfunctory attempt to ground its analysis in the principles or understandings of those who drafted and ratified the Amendment. Perhaps this is because there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone believed it would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the corporate form. To the extent that the Framers’ views are discernible and relevant to the disposition of this case, they would appear to cut strongly against the majority’s position.

    This is not only because the Framers and their contemporaries conceived of speech more narrowly than we now think of it, see Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L. J. 1, 22 (1971), but also because they held very different views about the nature of the First Amendment right and the role of corporations in society."

  • Case: Justice J Stevens, dissent, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    "The majority seems oblivious to the simple truth that laws such as §203 do not merely pit the anticorruption interest against the First Amendment, but also pit competing First Amendment values against each other. There are, to be sure, serious concerns with any effort to balance the First Amendment rights of speakers against the First Amendment rights of listeners. But when the speakers in question are not real people and when the appeal to “First Amendment principles” depends almost entirely on the listeners’ perspective, ante, at 1, 48, it becomes necessary to consider how listeners will actually be affected."

  • Case: Justice J Stevens, dissent, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    "Corporate “domination” of electioneering, Austin, 494 U. S., at 659, can generate the impression that corporations dominate our democracy. When citizens turn on their televisions and radios before an election and hear only corporate electioneering, they may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy. A Government captured by corporate interests, they may come to believe, will be neither responsive to their needs nor willing to give their views a fair hearing. The predictable result is cynicism and disenchantment: an increased perception that large spenders “‘call the tune’” and a reduced “‘willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance.’” McConnell, 540 U. S., at 144 (quoting Shrink Missouri, 528 U. S., at 390). To the extent that corporations are allowed to exert undue influence in electoral races, the speech of the eventual winners of those races may also be chilled. Politicians who fear that a certain corporation can make or break their reelection chances may be cowed into silence about that corporation. On a variety of levels, unregulated corporate electioneering might diminish the ability of citizens to “hold officials accountable to the people,” ante, at 23, and disserve the goal of a public debate that is “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). At the least, I stress again, a legislature is entitled to credit these concerns and to take tailored measures in response.

    The majority’s unwillingness to distinguish between corporations and humans similarly blinds it to the possibility that corporations’ “war chests” and their special “advantages” in the legal realm, Austin, 494 U. S., at 659, may translate into special advantages in the market for legislation."

  • Quote:
    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
  • Case: Justice Kennedy., decision, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    "political speech does not lose First Amendment protection“simply because its source is a corporation.” ...

    The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” ".

  • Case: Justice J Stevens, dissent, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    "If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by “Tokyo Rose” during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."

  • Case: Chief Justice Roberts., decision, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION.

    "When Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy. If elected officials succumb to improper influences from independent expenditures; if they surrender their best judgment; and if they put expediency before principle, then surely there is cause for concern. We must give weight to attempts by Congress to seek to dispel either the appearance or the reality of these influences. The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.".

Comments

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Welcome our latest affiliate

Denver & Boulder, CO
Thursday 3.30pm MT
http://www.ringoffireradio.com


Thom Hartmann Radio Program

Live : Mon-Fri
Noon - 3pm Eastern
Live radio | Live TV | Podcast

Syndicated by Westwood One, Pacifica, and simulcast on Free Speech TV Network on Dish Network and DirectTV, and on radio stations, American Forces Radio, and Sirius/XM. Live in the US, Africa, Europe and across North America - more people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world.


The Big Picture
Live
Mon-Fri in over 50m American homes, and more than 500m homes in 100+ countries.
RT : 7pm & 10pm Eastern
FS TV : 7pm Eastern
Independent TV |

Podcast | TV Highlights


Thom's Free IPhone App

Blog Archives