Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: Cain on January 04, 2012, 10:36:03 AM

Title: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Cain on January 04, 2012, 10:36:03 AM
Good news?  On my internets?

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20111231/NEWS01/112310303/Montana-high-court-upholds-ban-election-spending-by-corporations

QuoteHELENA — The Montana Supreme Court restored the state's century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations...

A group seeking to undo the Citizens United decision lauded the Montana high court, with its co-founder saying it was a "huge victory for democracy."

"With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy," John Bonifaz, of Free Speech For People, said in a statement.

This is far more politically relevant than the Iowa sideshow, not that anyone with a "serious" political writing gig would admit it.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Scribbly on January 04, 2012, 10:38:32 AM
Wow, that really is good news.

... I'm a little scared.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: LMNO on January 04, 2012, 01:00:25 PM
I'm just trying to figure out how this can be of use to the Plutocracy.

I know MT has a lot of anti-logging, preservationist groups that have actually made some strides against the destruction of the Blackfoot river.  Maybe this could be used against them?
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Cain on January 04, 2012, 01:12:33 PM
He's a Democrat with links to unions running for governor of Montana this year.

Hamstringing your oppositiion before they can make a move is a pretty canny and, for a Democrat, bold play.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: LMNO on January 04, 2012, 01:19:46 PM
Max Baucus has always seemed like a shrewd guy.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Cain on January 04, 2012, 01:28:28 PM
Oh, this isn't Baucus, this is the Attorney General, Steve Bullock.  Though I believe Baucus is heavily supported by the pharmaceutical industry...
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Cramulus on January 04, 2012, 02:23:35 PM
Heard Lawrence Lessig (one of my heroes!) on the Colbert Report in mid December talking about this kind of action. Apparently Connecticut offered a clean election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Elections) policy in 05. Lessig says that candidates have to choose to "opt in" to it, and surprisingly (to cynics), most do.

It's really refreshing to know that this energy current is still slowly gaining some toeholds. The Montana episode lays the groundwork for more progress.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 04, 2012, 06:57:26 PM
I've been thinking about moving to Montana for years.

Can't do it because of the kids, but I like to think about it.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: LMNO on January 04, 2012, 07:22:22 PM
Warning: Outside of Missoula, there isn't a whole lot of appreciation for smudgy people.  For the most part.  Barring small enclaves.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 04, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 04, 2012, 07:22:22 PM
Warning: Outside of Missoula, there isn't a whole lot of appreciation for smudgy people.  For the most part.  Barring small enclaves.

I'm only black legally, and Montana doesn't recognize Federal law, so...
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: LMNO on January 04, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 04, 2012, 07:22:22 PM
Warning: Outside of Missoula, there isn't a whole lot of appreciation for smudgy people.  For the most part.  Barring small enclaves.

I'm only black legally, and Montana doesn't recognize Federal law, so...

:alevil:
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Freeky on January 04, 2012, 09:51:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 04, 2012, 07:22:22 PM
Warning: Outside of Missoula, there isn't a whole lot of appreciation for smudgy people.  For the most part.  Barring small enclaves.

I'm only black legally, and Montana doesn't recognize Federal law, so...

Buh? 


Pretend that after that there was a little yellow guy with three question marks over his head.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: LMNO on January 05, 2012, 05:02:19 PM
Um.  Wow.  The judges in Montana are bad ass.

"Corporations are not persons," writes Nelson. "Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government." Just in case that wasn't crystal clear, Nelson goes on to add that "while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons."

And that's from the DISSENTING OPINION.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on January 05, 2012, 05:09:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 05, 2012, 05:02:19 PM
Um.  Wow.  The judges in Montana are bad ass.

"Corporations are not persons," writes Nelson. "Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government." Just in case that wasn't crystal clear, Nelson goes on to add that "while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons."

And that's from the DISSENTING OPINION.

wow
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Telarus on January 05, 2012, 05:12:29 PM
WOW
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 05, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on January 04, 2012, 09:51:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 04, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 04, 2012, 07:22:22 PM
Warning: Outside of Missoula, there isn't a whole lot of appreciation for smudgy people.  For the most part.  Barring small enclaves.

I'm only black legally, and Montana doesn't recognize Federal law, so...

Buh? 


Pretend that after that there was a little yellow guy with three question marks over his head.

It's a Montana joke.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on January 07, 2012, 03:53:55 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 05, 2012, 05:02:19 PM
Um.  Wow.  The judges in Montana are bad ass.

"Corporations are not persons," writes Nelson. "Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government." Just in case that wasn't crystal clear, Nelson goes on to add that "while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons."

And that's from the DISSENTING OPINION.

:banana:

I believe there are a few other states with similar measures in the works.
Title: Re: Corporations banned from direct political spending again
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on January 08, 2012, 02:32:38 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 05, 2012, 05:02:19 PM
Um.  Wow.  The judges in Montana are bad ass.

"Corporations are not persons," writes Nelson. "Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government." Just in case that wasn't crystal clear, Nelson goes on to add that "while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons."

And that's from the DISSENTING OPINION.

Yes.

Hell yes.

HELL FUCKING YES.