On Payola: Stevens, Ginsburg, Beyer and Sotomayor Dissent

by Karen Hatter | January 23, 2010 at 06:35 am

627 views | 43 Recommendations | 10 comments

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Steven Beyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote the 90 page dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission.

The Supreme Court essentially ruled corporate entities were afforded the same rights as individuals in relation to contributing and participating in making campaign contributions to candidates in the election process.

Justice Stevens wrote in part:

“the Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 06:43 on January 23rd, 2010

The 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court is troubling. I hope Congress does something to correct this.

nanute

at 06:47 on January 23rd, 2010

Karl,

It is doubtful, but possible that Congress might try and mitigate the ruling. I think the only possible way to do so, would be to pass legislation making all campaigns financed publicly. The "free speech" argument may still prevail, but one could argue that limits on speech that have a compelling state interest are not per se unconstitutional. The current "conservative" majority on the court would probably find a way to negate the argument.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 17:11 on January 23rd, 2010

The right leaning judges have an interest not to negate it though as well. After all the unions have a ton of money to finance campaigns and push their candidates. To my thinking, either way nobody wins. Elections should not be based on who can buy more ads but should really boil down to the issues. The electorate hasn't been served well for a long time.

Even a candidate with good intentions will not rely on public funding alone when he can see an advantage with corporate or union funding.

tikun

at 07:00 on January 23rd, 2010

However, I think that the congresss will do very little since this also applies to the ability of the unions openly using their funds, rather the unionists funds, for political ads and endorsements. This is really opening pandoras box. I just can't understand their thinking on this one.

marianmo

at 08:03 on January 23rd, 2010

if the supreme court is not to make laws but interpret them, it is the duty of the legistlative branch to create laws to protect the integrity of the election process

Hugh Askew

at 12:32 on January 23rd, 2010

I agree 101% (if that is possible). That said, it has been a loooong, long time since the Supremes felt that way, or have decided cases that way.

tikun

at 10:36 on January 27th, 2010

Hi Karen,

It appears to me that corporate monies fly into the coffers of both parties pretty effectively without this terrible decision by the court. Now this decision frees up Union monies and other organizations that had difficulty getting there money to candidates, the opportunity to freely do whatever they want with the funds. This will also create other problems. But for now it will be a free for all by all interest groups.

Mike McGee (not verified)

at 05:31 on January 28th, 2010

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Congress is empowered to create laws that define allowed and disallowed speech in order to protect the election process? I read something beginning "Congress shall make now law" once somewhere. Could that be what you all mean?Wow. Corporations and Unions now have the opportunity to do whatever they want with their funds. Imagine. The indignity!Instead of complaining, start an interest group. Incorporate, raise funds, and create more speech.

tikun

at 02:32 on January 29th, 2010

Hi Mike,

Actually I am not complaining at all. After reading the actual Supreme Court account their decision has been totally distorted by the President as reported in today's WSJ. I appear to be quick in my assumptions.

sherman crockett (not verified)

at 08:52 on January 29th, 2010

This has to be the worst decision since Dred Scott in 1857 . . .if you follow the money trail you'll see that CJ John Roberts is carrying the water of big corporations . . .but liberals should be careful about judging this decision too harshly because if they are too strident about exactly what comprises an individual they'll get trapped in their own pro-choice abortion argument . . . the same logic which holds that a fetus is NOT a person is now being used to assert that a corporation IS . . . careful my liberal friends . . . careful . . .