Go back almost a century, to the time when the modern corporation was created, and you’ll find laws that prohibit or limit the use of corporate money in elections. And yet this week, a 5-4 Supreme Court struck down the limits that Congress passed in 2002 in this tradition in the case Citizens United v. FEC.
The court’s main rationale is that limits on using corporate treasuries for campaigns are a “classic example of censorship,” as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
To get there, Kennedy depends on two legal theories that blossomed as constitutional principles in the mid-1970s: money is speech and corporations are people.
Both theories are strange, if not simply wrongheaded—why, according to the Constitution or common sense, would money be speech or corporations be people?
The court has also employed theories not uniformly but, rather, as constitutional cover for dominance of the electoral system by corporations and by the wealthy.
✄
But in subsequent cases, the conservative justices who had emphatically embraced the money-is-speech principle didn’t apply it to money solicited by speakers of ordinary means.
For example, the court limited the First Amendment rights of Hare Krishna leafleters soliciting donations in airports to support their own leafleting.
The leafleting drew no money-is-speech analysis.
To the contrary, the conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, found that by asking for money for leafleting—their form of speech—the Hare Krishnas were being “disruptive” and posing an “inconvenience” to others.
In other words, in the court’s view, some people’s money is speech; others’ money is annoying.
And the conservative justices have raised no objection to other limits on the quantity of speech, such as limits on the number of picketers.
Government is loathe to simply outlaw tobacco because they make splendid money off it in taxes. Governments are the real drug dealers. They hate street drug vendors as they undercut the government.
Just look where all that money went in the tobacco lawsuits. It was supposed to go for treating smoking diseases and smoking cessation programs. Instead, as soon as they got it, the states used it for their pet projects, which means kickbacks and graft to politicians and their relatives.
Why do politicians fight so hard to stay in office? Because it is a gravy train. The last politician who did not make himself rich off of serving in office was Harry Truman. The rest have raked in the dough not only in kickbacks and bribes and insider trading, but in valuable rewards of directorships and other sweet jobs after they retire from office from grateful industries who they supported. Former presidents rake it in on “speaking tours”, which is their reward for playing ball with corporate America.
‘Bribery’ is legalized in this country. We call it a ‘campaign contribution.’ The Supremes legalized it. Money is power. Money is ‘free speech.’ Our speech is free too, but we get what we pay for it.
BE THIS GUY over 4 years ago
I bet Mr. Butts briefcase is somewhat lighter coming out than it was when it when he went in.
Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus Premium Member over 4 years ago
Mr Butts has a smoking gun and is colored green .
Fishenguy Premium Member over 4 years ago
“And this, Kiddies, is how politics works!”
Silly Season over 4 years ago
Jan 22, 2010
Go back almost a century, to the time when the modern corporation was created, and you’ll find laws that prohibit or limit the use of corporate money in elections. And yet this week, a 5-4 Supreme Court struck down the limits that Congress passed in 2002 in this tradition in the case Citizens United v. FEC.
The court’s main rationale is that limits on using corporate treasuries for campaigns are a “classic example of censorship,” as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
To get there, Kennedy depends on two legal theories that blossomed as constitutional principles in the mid-1970s: money is speech and corporations are people.
Both theories are strange, if not simply wrongheaded—why, according to the Constitution or common sense, would money be speech or corporations be people?
The court has also employed theories not uniformly but, rather, as constitutional cover for dominance of the electoral system by corporations and by the wealthy.
✄
But in subsequent cases, the conservative justices who had emphatically embraced the money-is-speech principle didn’t apply it to money solicited by speakers of ordinary means.
For example, the court limited the First Amendment rights of Hare Krishna leafleters soliciting donations in airports to support their own leafleting.
The leafleting drew no money-is-speech analysis.
To the contrary, the conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, found that by asking for money for leafleting—their form of speech—the Hare Krishnas were being “disruptive” and posing an “inconvenience” to others.
In other words, in the court’s view, some people’s money is speech; others’ money is annoying.
And the conservative justices have raised no objection to other limits on the quantity of speech, such as limits on the number of picketers.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/01/the-misguided-theories-behind-citizens-united-v-fec.html
hawgowar over 4 years ago
Government is loathe to simply outlaw tobacco because they make splendid money off it in taxes. Governments are the real drug dealers. They hate street drug vendors as they undercut the government.
Just look where all that money went in the tobacco lawsuits. It was supposed to go for treating smoking diseases and smoking cessation programs. Instead, as soon as they got it, the states used it for their pet projects, which means kickbacks and graft to politicians and their relatives.
Why do politicians fight so hard to stay in office? Because it is a gravy train. The last politician who did not make himself rich off of serving in office was Harry Truman. The rest have raked in the dough not only in kickbacks and bribes and insider trading, but in valuable rewards of directorships and other sweet jobs after they retire from office from grateful industries who they supported. Former presidents rake it in on “speaking tours”, which is their reward for playing ball with corporate America.
prrdh over 4 years ago
I wonder what his ‘secret sauce’ was. Blanton’s? Pappy Van Winkle?
LAWRENCELAPOINTE over 4 years ago
Like the way Mr. Butts is practicing social distancing.Gloves and staying away as far as possible from anyone who has scruples.
vaughnrl2003 Premium Member over 4 years ago
Is is me or does it look like Butts is puffing a little harder after the ‘private’ meeting. I guess he needed to smoke a bit.
kd1sq Premium Member over 4 years ago
Today’s strip reminds me greatly of Crumb…
mistercatworks over 4 years ago
Looks like that took more than a couple of cartons of “death sticks” to resolve.
Frankfreak over 4 years ago
https://bulletin.represent.us/boehner-tobacco-lobby-checks/
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/mitch-mcconnell-fueled-by-tobacco-and-whiskey/
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/17/730496066/tobaccos-special-friend-what-internal-documents-say-about-mitch-mcconnell
sandflea over 4 years ago
Yep. All it takes is a nice, big juicy campaign contribution.
hnixudavmjirphoqkp over 4 years ago
‘Bribery’ is legalized in this country. We call it a ‘campaign contribution.’ The Supremes legalized it. Money is power. Money is ‘free speech.’ Our speech is free too, but we get what we pay for it.
Troglodyte over 4 years ago
Mr. Butts, you’re smokin’!
forester6291 Premium Member over 4 years ago
Liberate the white housesave the ConstitutionSave the people