Results 1 to 30 of 61

Thread: Impact of the First Obama State of the Union

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #23
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Impact of the First Obama State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit View Post
    lied about what law was overturned (didn't he teach about the constitution at one time?)
    I'm guessing you got this from a sound bite or something? It appears that a lot of people like to comment on these things without actually reading them. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Obama's statement comes directly from Justice Steven's dissent:

    The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).
    (p. 89-90)

    So... does that mean Stevens and his fellow dissenters are lying too? Perhaps it would be better to characterize the situation as it actually is... a difference of opinion.

    If you want more background on the law, Stevens kindly includes 8 pages of discussion on the legislative history of campaign contribution restrictions since 1907. You can find it on pages 129 through 137.
    Last edited by TinCow; 01-28-2010 at 23:12.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO