Left and Right united in opposition to SCOTUS ruling.

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Source.

Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the Senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.
But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.
As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

The findings of the poll are a bit surprising considering the fact that the case split the Supreme Court, with the five conservative justices in favor and the four more liberal justices against it. The decision was almost universally hailed by Republicans in Washington, who saw it as a victory for the free speech provided for under the Constitution, while President Obama and prominent Democrats in Washington almost universally derided it as a dark day for American democracy.

However, Sen. John McCain, one of the original sponsors of the campaign finance law struck down by Court's decision and one of its few prominent Republican opponents, may have been prophetic when he predicted Americans would turn against the Court. McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there would be a "backlash" once awareness grew about "the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns."

Perhaps the new poll numbers show that McCain might have been onto something.
Click to expand...

Has anything like this happened before? Is hell freezing over? Is it bad or good that almost everyone disagrees with SCOTUS? What can, or should, be done about it?
 
Not much that can be done. Separation of powers are there for a reason, there are going to be times when one of the three branches does something the others vehemently disagree with.

It pretty much takes a supreme court ruling reversing this one to change it, so all that can be done is try to pass no campaign finance laws after some changes in the court and hope it gets over turned.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Has anything like this happened before?[/QUOTE]

Sure. Here's a good example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

[quote name='thrustbucket']Is hell freezing over? Is it bad or good that almost everyone disagrees with SCOTUS?[/QUOTE]

It's irrelevant. They're right because they get the final word. Either way, most voters have always agreed on campaign finance, I thought.

[quote name='thrustbucket']What can, or should, be done about it? [/QUOTE]

Depends on the basis of the decision (which I haven't read); if it's the Constitution, it'll require an amendment or the Court overturning itself. And if it's something that important, it may deserve an amendment. It's not like it's never happened before for less than dramatic (i.e. non-civil rights related) things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia (11th Amendment - sovereign immunity)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co. (16th Amendment - income tax)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_v._Mitchell (26th Amendment - voting age)
 
A poliltical candidate buying time from a corporation is a far different thing that a corporations shuffling millions of dollars to campaigns and giving them more sway that citizen's who can put out that kind of money.
 
[quote name='IRHari']@daschrier
this ruling allows more of the opposite, corporations funding political ads[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure this will happen. If Congress is smart and enacts laws that force full and complete disclosure of such expenditures, most companies will not want to alienate up to 50+% of their potential customers by pouring money into political campaign ads. Strangely, I see unions as being much bigger beneficiaries (if you can call it that) due to this ruling, given that they don't really have to sell themselves to the public at large in order to continue to exist.
 
If one person wants to use $1 Million to run an ad against Candidate X, then it's okay.

If 12 people get together to run an ad against Candidate X, it's still okay.

But if 12 people who already work together decide they want to run an ad against Candidate X, that's a problem?

Only very slightly related, and I wish I could find an online article to source from, but on the radio today they were talking about the Indiana Senate race and had a statement from one Republican hopeful who "promised" he'd spend just as much as one of the other candidates in his attempt to win the election. Really - that's the promise you're making? I guess it's better than making promises you have no intentions of keeping...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not much that can be done. Separation of powers are there for a reason, there are going to be times when one of the three branches does something the others vehemently disagree with.[/QUOTE]

That's why checks and balances exist within the government, fortunately. They are used very rarely, of course. In this case, it'd take passing an amendment to the Constitution. That would require 2/3rd of both Houses of Congress voting for it, and then 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.

Even with this decision being overwhelmingly unpopular with Americans, I sort of wonder if Congress will act on it (or there being enough votes). The whole thing is a conflict of interest. The people who have to vote for an amendment are the very people who potentially benefit from the SCotUS' decision.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If one person wants to use $1 Million to run an ad against Candidate X, then it's okay.

If 12 people get together to run an ad against Candidate X, it's still okay.

But if 12 people who already work together decide they want to run an ad against Candidate X, that's a problem?

Only very slightly related, and I wish I could find an online article to source from, but on the radio today they were talking about the Indiana Senate race and had a statement from one Republican hopeful who "promised" he'd spend just as much as one of the other candidates in his attempt to win the election. Really - that's the promise you're making? I guess it's better than making promises you have no intentions of keeping...[/QUOTE]

The difference is if 12 people individually get together and send their personal money to support Candidate X to support their personal beliefs that is fine

but

If 12 people from a corporation decide to use money made from the labor and energy of other people to support a corporate agenda that is not fine.
 
[quote name='gareman']
If 12 people from a corporation decide to use money made from the labor and energy of other people to support a corporate agenda that is not fine.[/QUOTE]

Do unions still contribute billions of dollars from the fees of their members, some of whom are involuntarily so?
 
So the question I have is: How long before we see the invention of the business suit covered with corporate logos (Nascar style) for our elected officials to wear?

Quite honestly I'd love to see a law passed that requires any elected official that received more than $100k in campaign funds from a corporation to wear their logo for the duration of their term. I think that would make watching C-SPAN more pleasurable. "Oh yeah, he is on team Mosanto, that's why he's saying that".
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's not involuntary as long as the worker has the right to choose where they work in a free market.

;)[/QUOTE]

You support right to work laws? :D

[quote name='thrustbucket']So the question I have is: How long before we see the invention of the business suit covered with corporate logos (Nascar style) for our elected officials to wear?

Quite honestly I'd love to see a law passed that requires any elected official that received more than $100k in campaign funds from a corporation to wear their logo for the duration of their term. I think that would make watching C-SPAN more pleasurable. "Oh yeah, he is on team Mosanto, that's why he's saying that".[/QUOTE]

Do you really want to see 80% of Congress-critters with "NRA" hats?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You support right to work laws? :D[/QUOTE]

Wha? P'raps it's the beer talking, but stating that in the market economy the US has, we get to choose where we work doesn't sound like a particularly radical left/right perspective.

What am I missing in your attempt to goad me into a certain perspective?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wha? P'raps it's the beer talking, but stating that in the market economy the US has, we get to choose where we work doesn't sound like a particularly radical left/right perspective.

What am I missing in your attempt to goad me into a certain perspective?[/QUOTE]

Right to work laws make it illegal to require employees join a union. They are popular in southern states (they are in place in my state, Virginia) but not so much in northeastern states (surprise). Many folks on the left are all for your common-sense spiel above until it actually takes funds away from the unions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top