Something to think about … “Citizens United”!!


Citizens

~~February 1, 2015~~ 

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations.

The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

In the case, the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or “BCRA”). Section 203 of BCRA defined an “electioneering communication” as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.

CU4

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and “electioneering communications”. The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).

~~GALLERY~~ 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

“As it appears in … full read”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

CU9Border1

~Keith Olbermann on on “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission”~

Almost prophetic. Uploaded in 2010. What has happened in five years?

~Uploaded on Jan 21, 2010~

Today, the Supreme Court, of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than “Dred Scott v Sandford,” declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th Century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate-beings spend their money on political advertising, are unconstitutional.

In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections.

None. They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service

Border1

#SomethingToThinkAbout #CitizensUnited #FederalElectionCommission #BipartisanCampaignReformAct #McCainFeingoldAct #BCRA #CampaignSpendingByOrganizations #HillaryTheMovie #pPohibitedCorporationsUnions #IndependentExpenditures #ElectioneeringCommunications #KeithOlbermann #ChiefJusticeJohnRoberts #FirstAmendment 

#WeAllAreOne #ItIsWhatItIs #DrRex #hrexachwordpress

CU13

We ALL are ONE!!

RexYinYang1