Politics
Out of context: Reply #10160
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- ukit0
Part of John Paul Stevens dissent:
"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.
The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Also the Supreme Court blog reports:
"The Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance upheld these requirements:
** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.
** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements."
LMFAO that Thomas thought no one even needed to KNOW who is paying for the bribes.
Not that it will matter, BTW. The ads won't say "this message brought to you by Exxon, Chevron and Saudi Oil Money" They'll say, "This message sponsored by Citizens United For Responsible Energy" or similar BS.