Chira numbuh wan!

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

-This could lead to erosion of press protections overturning this decision could weaken the First Amendment protections for the press, making it easier for public figures to win defamation cases.

-This could threaten investigative journalism like it has in European laws, this change could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as media outlets might avoid publishing critical stories out of fear of legal consequences.

-Holding public figures accountable for their actions is a key role of the media. Weakening press protections could lead to reduced accountability and transparency. Destroying the narrative with money is just a free pass for pushing propaganda.

-A free and robust press is essential for a healthy democracy. Limiting the press's ability to report freely could negatively impact public discourse and the public's right to know.

They denied cert in 2022 for a case involving the Sullivan precedent and the composition of the court has not changed.

Only Gorsuch was interested.

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They denied cert in 2022 for a case involving the Sullivan precedent and the composition of the court has not changed.

Only Gorsuch was interested.

I fear with the lean so far right and fresh faces the worst can happen.

[Reiwa]

Botten - since you're baiting.

(nobody else has to read this)

Summarize the history of campaign finance laws passed by Congress and court rulings upholding or invalidating them, including to focus on the precedents in Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United
Here's a summary of the history of campaign finance laws passed by Congress, with a focus on key precedents like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC:

Legislative History:
Tillman Act (1907):
Banned corporate contributions to federal candidates.
Response to corporate influence in politics.
Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1925):
Required disclosure of campaign spending by federal candidates.
Hatch Act (1939):
Prevented federal employees from engaging in political activities to influence elections.
Taft-Hartley Act (1947):
Extended the ban on corporate and union contributions to include primaries.
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) (1971):
Established comprehensive rules on campaign finance, including disclosure requirements, spending limits, and public funding for presidential campaigns.
FECA Amendments (1974):
Created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and set limits on contributions and expenditures.

Key Supreme Court Decisions:
Buckley v. Valeo (1976):
Upholding and Invalidating:
Uphold: Contribution limits were upheld as they prevented corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Invalidate: Expenditure limits were struck down on First Amendment grounds, arguing that spending money on political speech is a form of protected speech.
Significance: Established the principle that money equals speech in political contexts, leading to the differentiation between contributions (which can be regulated) and expenditures (which generally cannot).
Citizens United v. FEC (2010):
Ruling: Overturned part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, which had prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" close to elections.
Impact: Allowed unlimited independent political spending by corporations, unions, and other associations, leading to the rise of Super PACs (Political Action Committees) which can raise and spend unlimited sums provided they do not coordinate with candidates.
First Amendment Argument: The Court ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, extending the logic from Buckley but expanding it significantly to include corporate speech.

Other Notable Developments:
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) or McCain-Feingold Act (2002):
Aimed to curb "soft money" contributions and regulate electioneering communications, but parts were later invalidated by Citizens United.
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014):
Struck down aggregate limits on how much individuals could donate to all candidates, parties, and PACs combined in an election cycle, further liberalizing campaign finance laws based on First Amendment rights.

Implications:
These decisions have significantly shaped the landscape of campaign finance in the U.S., moving it towards greater freedom for spending while still maintaining some limits on direct contributions. This has led to debates about the influence of money in politics, the nature of political speech, and the balance between free speech and preventing corruption or undue influence.

This summary highlights how legislative efforts to regulate campaign finance have frequently been contested and shaped by judicial interpretations of the First Amendment.
Ask anything
No file chosen

Were there any other cases you did not mention above? Summarize their holdings.
Here are a few other significant U.S. Supreme Court cases related to campaign finance:

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978):
Holding: The Court struck down a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporations from spending money to influence the outcome of ballot initiatives unless the issue materially affected their business. The ruling expanded the right of corporations to engage in political speech, arguing that such speech is protected by the First Amendment.
FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL) (1986):
Holding: The Court carved out an exception for nonprofit advocacy groups from the ban on corporate independent expenditures. It ruled that the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which was not formed to amass capital but to promote political ideas, could make independent expenditures on behalf of candidates without violating the law. This case established that not all corporations (specifically, those formed to promote political ideas) are subject to the same restrictions as profit-driven corporations.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990):
Holding: Upheld a Michigan law that barred corporations from using general treasury funds for independent expenditures in candidate elections. The Court argued that the law was justified due to the potential for corporations to exert undue influence over elections through amassed wealth. This decision was later implicitly overruled by Citizens United.
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000):
Holding: The Court upheld state limits on contributions to candidates, affirming that states have the right to set their own contribution limits to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, similar to federal limits upheld in Buckley v. Valeo.

SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010) - This was a significant case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, not directly by the Supreme Court, but its implications are crucial:
Holding: The court ruled that contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures cannot be limited under the First Amendment, leading to the establishment of Super PACs. This decision was based on the logic from Citizens United that independent expenditures do not corrupt candidates.
McDonnell v. United States (2016):
Holding: While not strictly a campaign finance case, this decision narrowed the definition of "official act" under federal bribery and honest services fraud statutes, which indirectly affects campaign finance by clarifying what constitutes an exchange of favors for political donations. It potentially makes it harder to prosecute politicians for accepting bribes.

These cases reflect ongoing judicial efforts to balance the protection of political speech with the prevention of corruption or undue influence in the political process. They have incrementally shaped the legal landscape around campaign finance, often expanding the scope of First Amendment protections for political expenditures while setting boundaries on direct contributions.

[NopeNopeNopeNope]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This gives a combined total of 256 seats for parties with socialist or socialist-leaning ideologies out of 400 seats in the National Assembly.

Do Socialist or Socialist-Leaning Parties Have a Majority?
Yes, with a combined total of 256 seats, these parties do have a majority in the National Assembly, as this exceeds the 201 seats needed for a simple majority.

ANC and EFF are confiscating land. America does not cotton to that type of thing.

Yea but it is still some other country’s problem

I too find it very interesting that Trump all of a sudden cares after Elon gets his job

[Reiwa]

In other words, the courts have been damn well clear, but elected politicians still persist in passing unconstitutional restrictions on speech.

[Reiwa]

Context: The case arose from the nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanting to distribute a film titled Hillary: The Movie which was critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.

[arvidez]

the press has "immunity" for the same reason pharma does. the press says sorry

[Botten]

Originally Posted by arvidez [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the press has "immunity" for the same reason pharma does. the press says sorry

Too bad the gun companies don't.

And sorry Reiwa you are right more and more restriction are occurring on free speech while some restriction are very necessary.

The film was classified as electioneering communication restricting it from free speech under BCRA.

Interpretation in that case and others seems to be a factor and the party with majority in SCOTUS increasingly make the partisan decisions. The close split showed that the justices' political beliefs influenced their interpretations of the First Amendment and campaign finance laws.

Free speech shouldn't allow hate speech or speech that could endanger others. Obama said it best, adversaries might exploit free speech protections to spread misinformation or sow discord. This underscores the importance of finding a balance that upholds the principles of free speech while ensuring public safety and social cohesion.

And to keep up with the baiting... the orange voters find it perfectly fine if more pizzagate like stories get pushed.

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Free speech shouldn't allow hate speech or speech that could endanger others. Obama said it best, adversaries might exploit free speech protections to spread misinformation or sow discord. This underscores the importance of finding a balance that upholds the principles of free speech while ensuring public safety and social cohesion.

I can fight for myself and do not require a big brother to decide what is safe for me or not

You wouldn't understand, given that you are not an American.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[NopeNopeNopeNope]

Well calling for actual violence is already illegal to my knowledge

It’s a slippery slope for any speech beyond that because why not make the rule no one can ever say anything negative about anyone or anything else ever?

No more fights then