NRA sez Citizens United Decision Repealed Unconstitutional Legislation

imported post

Supreme Court Hands Down Key Campaign Finance Decision--
Repeals Unconstitutional Restrictions on Political Speech



Friday, January 22, 2010




NRA praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that removed unconstitutional restrictions on NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time.



The late Sen. Paul Wellstone had said during the originaldebateover this legislation that it was his intention to silence groups like NRA. While the author of this measure had singled out NRA, this law delivered a clear message to all American citizens: “Keep your mouths shut and stay out of our political debates.”

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, said, “This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us. The majesty of free speech is that any American can roll out of bed and speak as freely as The New York Times, NBC or politicians. This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom. Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”

The case originally centered on the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) denial of Citizens United’s attempt to broadcast a film about Hillary Clinton through on-demand cable services in January 2008, but had broader implications in protecting the First Amendment rights of organizations like NRA during elections.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox, said, “This decision today returns sanityto our political system. The First Amendment doesnot allow Congress to make laws denying Americans the right to speak out on issues, the right to assemble or organize on public policy issues, or the right to petition our government for redress of grievances.”



[align=left]








Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact [/align]:uhoh:

imported post

"Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."

In this case I see:
The NRA, Phillip Morris, the ACLU, etc as a group of persons assembling and speaking with the intent to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Due to the TYPE of association (assembly) and the INTENT of the speech (which is specifically protected), Congress has ventured to make a law to regulate and essentially ban this activity (speech and assembly) in flagrant disregard for the 1st Amendment.

I welcome any pathetic arguments claiming what I just said to be false.
How much more clear could the Constitution be on this issue? Let me ask another way, what would the framers have had to say, to convince you that political groups, corporations and unions would be ALLOWED :uhoh: to engage in this, now protected, activity?

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

"Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."

In this case I see:
The NRA, Phillip Morris, the ACLU, etc as a group of persons assembling and speaking with the intent to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Due to the TYPE of association (assembly) and the INTENT of the speech (which is specifically protected), Congress has ventured to make a law to regulate and essentially ban this activity (speech and assembly) in flagrant disregard for the 1st Amendment.

I welcome any pathetic arguments claiming what I just said to be false.
How much more clear could the Constitution be on this issue? Let me ask another way, what would the framers have had to say, to convince you that political groups, corporations and unions would be ALLOWED :uhoh: to engage in this, now protected, activity?

Click to expand...

Nothing stopped these groups from Petitioning for redress of grievances before. Hence the fleet of lobbyists, the industry PACs, and the "issue ads" that bombarded the airwaves during the last election cycle (and during the health care debate)urging folks to "call your Congressmen."

What was prohibited for the last 100 years -- and successive Supreme Court rulings--but is no longer -- is corporations, unions, and the like directly electioneering.

These groups have the ability to buy elections wholesale out of petty cash. Moneyed interests can outspend individuals and politicians alike and bury any voices who would dare take them on.

With the possible exception of a few out-gunned groups like the NRA andthe ACLU, these groups don't give a flying flibagibbet about individual rights. Wonders what kind of priorities politicians will have when theyare routinely bought and paid for by corporations. Doubtful that self-defense -- against BGs or tyrrany -- will be high on the list.

Our founders recognized that there was a difference between people and associations. They railed against the "mischief of factions." Up till now, the law also recognized a distinction between theelectoral rights of real individuals and fictional ones. A constitution which permits such distinctions to be drawn is the stronger.

imported post

Nice misdirection Donkey. Let's define some of your terms:

"Directly electioneering" = speaking freely on any day you want (including the day before elections) about an issue central to your purpose.

"Bury any voices" = speak a lot and often, over mediums reaching lots of people. Ooooh, dangerous to ... Liberty? Try again.

We're stronger than this and our Founders knew that. If we're not strong enough to read and inform ourselves about each candidate, outside of what the boob-tube tells us, then we don't deserve Liberty!

And you're right, our Founding Fathers did "rally against the 'mischief of factions.'" But you see, they never outlawed the speech of those factions. That's what King George would have done...

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

Nice misdirection Donkey. Let's define some of your terms:

"Directly electioneering" = speaking freely on any day you want (including the day before elections) about an issue central to your purpose.

"Bury any voices" = speak a lot and often, over mediums reaching lots of people. Ooooh, dangerous to ... Liberty? Try again.

We're stronger than this and our Founders knew that. If we're not strong enough to read and inform ourselves about each candidate, outside of what the boob-tube tells us, then we don't deserve Liberty!

And you're right, our Founding Fathers did "rally against the 'mischief of factions.'" But you see, they never outlawed the speech of those factions. That's what King George would have done...

Click to expand...

Advertising does significantly influence elections, but that does not mean that you and I "don't deserve liberty." We can recognize reality. Trouble is, in the aftermath of Citizens United, we can no longer recognize laws that recognize reality.

As to the founders, some of them voted topass the Alien and Sedition Acts. Those same founders may have opposed the Federal Election Act and McCain-Feingold . . . . Power views open public forums with suspicion, and these laws stopped the public airwaves from being open only to the highest bidders.

King George would have bought all the revolutionary printing presses in the colonies if they were offerred to him for sale.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

These groups have the ability to buy elections wholesale out of petty cash. Moneyed interests can outspend individuals and politicians alike and bury any voices who would dare take them on.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those poor out-spent folks like John Kerry, Jon Corzine, John Edwards, Michael Bloomberg, etc, etc, etc...

No matter what chaff you have to throw at this issue, you will never get past the absolute mind-numbing fact that four justices of the US Supreme Court voted to uphold, and all the left-leaning liberal tools that support and put them there, are screaming and pulling their collective hair out in support of a law that would allow the US Government to ban books for no other reason than their content relates to an election.

May God grant us what ever mercy it takes to prevent us from ever becoming a country that allows its government to ban books and jail authors solely because of the content therein.

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

These groups have the ability to buy elections wholesale out of petty cash. Moneyed interests can outspend individuals and politicians alike and bury any voices who would dare take them on.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those poor out-spent folks like John Kerry, Jon Corzine, John Edwards, Michael Bloomberg, etc, etc, etc...

No matter what chaff you have to throw at this issue, you will never get past the absolute mind-numbing fact that four justices of the US Supreme Court voted to uphold, and all the left-leaning liberal tools that support and put them there, are screaming and pulling their collective hair out in support of a law that would allow the US Government to ban books for no other reason than their content relates to an election.

May God grant us what ever mercy it takes to prevent us from ever becoming a country that allows its government to ban books and jail authors solely because of the content therein.

TFred

Click to expand...

The decision guarantees that we will have more representatives with pockets as deep as Kerry, Corzine, Edwards and Bloomburg, and fewer like you and me. (I should just say me, because Iknow nothingabout your pockets. Buton the chance thatyou find yourself in that rarified company, TFred, I would appreciate it if you would spread some this way).

I agree with much of what you say about books. But the FEC has never attempted to ban a book: if it had, the attempt would have failed without Citizens United on the basis of a First Amendment"as applied" challenge. Book banning in this context is a straw man in search of a fire.

imported post

ufcfanvt wrote:

"Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."

In this case I see:
The NRA, Phillip Morris, the ACLU, etc as a group of persons assembling and speaking with the intent to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Due to the TYPE of association (assembly) and the INTENT of the speech (which is specifically protected), Congress has ventured to make a law to regulate and essentially ban this activity (speech and assembly) in flagrant disregard for the 1st Amendment.

I welcome any pathetic arguments claiming what I just said to be false.
How much more clear could the Constitution be on this issue? Let me ask another way, what would the framers have had to say, to convince you that political groups, corporations and unions would be ALLOWED :uhoh: to engage in this, now protected, activity?

Click to expand...

Gotta agree with ya there.

The Donkey wrote:

Nothing stopped these groups from Petitioning for redress of grievances before. Hence the fleet of lobbyists, the industry PACs, and the "issue ads" that bombarded the airwaves during the last election cycle (and during the health care debate)urging folks to "call your Congressmen."

What was prohibited for the last 100 years -- and successive Supreme Court rulings--but is no longer -- is corporations, unions, and the like directly electioneering.

These groups have the ability to buy elections wholesale out of petty cash. Moneyed interests can outspend individuals and politicians alike and bury any voices who would dare take them on.

With the possible exception of a few out-gunned groups like the NRA andthe ACLU, these groups don't give a flying flibagibbet about individual rights. Wonders what kind of priorities politicians will have when theyare routinely bought and paid for by corporations. Doubtful that self-defense -- against BGs or tyrrany -- will be high on the list.

Our founders recognized that there was a difference between people and associations. They railed against the "mischief of factions." Up till now, the law also recognized a distinction between theelectoral rights of real individuals and fictional ones. A constitution which permits such distinctions to be drawn is the stronger.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, can't disagree here either.

Didn't the SwiftBoat Vets defend their right to run their revealing ad about Kerry under the 1A?

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

I agree with much of what you say about books. But the FEC has never attempted to ban a book: if it had, the attempt would have failed without Citizens United on the basis of a First Amendment"as applied" challenge. Book banning in this context is a straw man in search of a fire.

Click to expand...

Woulda, shoulda, coulda... Did you read the oral arguments?

To quote Chief Justice Roberts: "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats"

The FEC lawyer essentially admitted that the FEC could ban books, but the author would have a good chance of winning in court because they hadn't ever banned books before.

To quote Scalia this time: "So you're -- you are a lawyer advising somebody who is about to come out with a book and you say don't worry, the FEC has never tried to send somebody to prison for this. This statute covers it, but don't worry, the FEC has never done it. Is that going to comfort your client? I don't think so."

TFred

imported post

This is as it should be. If Brother Donk thinks that "corporate machines" or some other imaginary unstoppable juggernaut cannot be shuted down by the People, all he need do is look what the Tea Party movement and grassroots orgs like this one have done to Ubama's precious "filibuster proof" majority.

McCain-Fiengold was just full of mischief waiting to happen. Now it's a dead letter. Cue "terpsichore": Ding, dong the witch is dead.

imported post

I remember seeing a John Stossle special on the McCain-Feingold act. The paperwork required under the act for a non-encumbent candidate to run for office was as long as a basketball court! literally, but the paper work for an encumbent was 1 page? Yeah, clearly a law made to benefit the little guy. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

imported post

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the decision is that it does away with the electioneering and corporate/organizational funding restrictions in McCain-Feingold, but that the challenged reporting/disclosure requirements were found to be constitutional.

(Edited to eliminate geezerhood)

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

ufcfanvt wrote:

"Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."

In this case I see:
The NRA, Phillip Morris, the ACLU, etc as a group of persons assembling and speaking with the intent to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Due to the TYPE of association (assembly) and the INTENT of the speech (which is specifically protected), Congress has ventured to make a law to regulate and essentially ban this activity (speech and assembly) in flagrant disregard for the 1st Amendment.

I welcome any pathetic arguments claiming what I just said to be false.
How much more clear could the Constitution be on this issue? Let me ask another way, what would the framers have had to say, to convince you that political groups, corporations and unions would be ALLOWED :uhoh: to engage in this, now protected, activity?

Click to expand...

Nothing stopped these groups from Petitioning for redress of grievances before. Hence the fleet of lobbyists, the industry PACs, and the "issue ads" that bombarded the airwaves during the last election cycle (and during the health care debate)urging folks to "call your Congressmen."

What was prohibited for the last 100 years -- and successive Supreme Court rulings--but is no longer -- is corporations, unions, and the like directly electioneering.

These groups have the ability to buy elections wholesale out of petty cash. Moneyed interests can outspend individuals and politicians alike and bury any voices who would dare take them on.

With the possible exception of a few out-gunned groups like the NRA andthe ACLU, these groups don't give a flying flibagibbet about individual rights. Wonders what kind of priorities politicians will have when theyare routinely bought and paid for by corporations. Doubtful that self-defense -- against BGs or tyrrany -- will be high on the list.

Our founders recognized that there was a difference between people and associations. They railed against the "mischief of factions." Up till now, the law also recognized a distinction between theelectoral rights of real individuals and fictional ones. A constitution which permits such distinctions to be drawn is the stronger.

Click to expand...

Jeez; seeing that most big businesses are run by conservatives, that must just have you quaking in your lefty boots? Bet you can't wait for Nov. and the elections eh?

imported post

Get over it Donkey.
The 1st Amendment won this round.
If you don't want corporate corruption, fine, but don't stomp on the right to speak.

Until you can refute this argument, save face and bow out:
The NRA, Phillip Morris, the ACLU, etc as a group of persons assembling and speaking with the intent to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Due to the TYPE of association (assembly) and the INTENT of the speech (which is specifically protected), Congress has ventured to make a law to regulate and essentially ban this activity (speech and assembly) in flagrant disregard for the 1st Amendment.

imported post

Where we part company, UFCFANVT, is on the "assembling" and "petitioning". Your definition of these concepts isfar more liberal than the Courts'.Nothing in Campaign Finance law stopped anyone from assembling or petitioning for redress of grievances: you can see this from all the issue ads. It did, however, stop corporations, unions and the like from a particular form of speech, namely electioneering.

To me, curtailing that speech was necessary to promote a compelling state interest in guaranteeing fair access to communications media, and preventing corruption of the political system. The Court used to agree, I think, with the latter proposal, but seems tohavechangedits mind.

I am not "comfortable" with curtailing any speech. But with this development, corporations have the ability, means and every incentive to flood public fora with speech that is designedto serve their very narrow interests. These interests are not necessarily American interests.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

To me, curtailing that speech was necessary to promote a compelling state interest in guaranteeing fair access to communications media, and preventing corruption of the political system.

Click to expand...

I cannot agree with curtailing any speech under any circumstances. I must agree with ufcfanvtthat being against corporate corruption is all well and good but we must NOT allow the protections of the 1st amendment to weaken in our fight against corporate corruption.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

I am not "comfortable" with curtailing any speech. But with this development, corporations have the ability, means and every incentive to flood public fora with speech that is designedto serve their very narrow interests. These interests are not necessarily American interests.

Click to expand...

Yet they still can't trump the corporations of mass media, in influencing elections and public opinion with out right deception and lies often times.

imported post

The only electioneering that should be legal is that done by people, not corporations. Organizations set up by people for the express purpose of making their voices heard as a group shouldbe okay too.

I call out corporations as they are a fictional entitity that gets to act like a person but is NOT a person. I don't like the idea that a megacorporation can act just as freely in the electoral process as any individual. That corporation has far deeper pockets than any one person. Makes for an easy way to silence your critics or at least drown them out with your money buying up all the advertising time.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

...But with this development, corporations have the ability, means and every incentive to flood public fora with speech that is designedto serve their very narrow interests. These interests are not necessarily American interests.

Click to expand...

Then they share a common basis with Obamas presidency.

So long as all parties are American, they are indeed "American Interests". So long as Americans can reasonably think for themselves, no matter of false or focused campaigning should be an issue anyways. Personal accountability is paramount to the success of our form of Government. You don't spend $500 on knock-off Rolex watches because the guy gave a great sales pitch, do you? If so, I see the problem.

Let's all jump on the bandwagon and join others in being individually responsible, and accountable Americans. Less government, more freedom. I heard that somewhere once...

Oh yeah, although I do understand how politicking could be bad in a country where people should not ever feel even slightly inclined to vote for any purpose other than their individual choice, it's not like our country or government has a giant "reset switch" should we the people even accidentally make a incorrect decision..

Oh wait we do! It's called the 2nd Amendment....

:celebrate

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

To me, curtailing that speech was necessary to promote a compelling state interest in guaranteeing fair access to communications media, and preventing corruption of the political system.

Click to expand...

I cannot agree with curtailing any speech under any circumstances. I must agree with ufcfanvtthat being against corporate corruption is all well and good but we must NOT allow the protections of the 1st amendment to weaken in our fight against corporate corruption.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine

Click to expand...

Be a little careful about "not curtailing under any circumstances." Do not curtail speech in any public (redress of gov'nt, etc) circumstances, yes but certain private circumstances (e.g. a privately funded speaker event) the organizers have the right as the private party who paid the bills to decide the content -- speech if you will -- of the event.

Though I think that's what you mean, I recently read an interesting perspective about that in reference to a couple of "free speech" incidents at privately funded speaker events.

More on topic: This is a good thing. It really boils down to "We're either equal (in opportunity) or we aren't." (just remember that Equal Opportunity != Equal Outcome).

The highest bidder will have their voice heard on the broadcasts -- last I knew, broadcasters are in the private sector and in the business of making a profit...
That's capitalism for ya. You have a different message? Find an alternative method of communication, or convince enough people who share your opinions to chip in.

Edited for grammar