Michigan Radio News

NPR News

« Essay: Zero Tolerance Nightmare - 1.25.10 | Main | Essay: One Cheer for Experience - 1.27.10 »

January 26, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In what state did this occur? I ask because I gather that Mr. Lessenberry's former students are located in many states across the country.

Are Michiganians receiving this solicitation?

By the way, Jack Lessenberry is being legally inaccurate and conceptually misleading himself when he suggests that, "the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there can be no limits on corporate campaign spending." No; in Citizens v. FEC, the Supreme Court addressed the question of corporate, non-campaign independent expenditures. There were, and are, valid limits on donations to candidates' election campaigns. Individuals, and corporations alike are limited on the maximum amounts they may donate to candidates' campaigns. Those limits remain in force. What was constitutionally prohibited by Citizens' United was spending on independent advertisements and other forms of speech in which candidates are not involved in the creation of the advertisement or are otherwise coordinating the message.

The Republican National Committee sent them out, so I’m sure people in all 50 states got them. According to the AP, “U.S. Census Bureau spokesman Michael Cook says he has received several complaints over the past week from voters who believed the letter was misleading. Cook says the agency is still deciding what steps to take.”

Nice spin, but you are wrong. According toe the AP, “The ruling was that the government lacks a legitimate basis to restrict independent campaign expenditures by companies. The ruling went well beyond the circumstances in the case before the justices, a dispute over a documentary film attacking then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

“Companies, which had been barred since 1947 from using general-treasury dollars in support of or in opposition to a candidate, now can spend millions of dollars on their own campaign ads, potentially punishing or rewarding lawmakers for their votes on legislation.”

The first comment is a typical paid blogger, getting paid by think tanks. Notice how it is Anonymous. I guess technically it is not campaign spending in a legal sense. Since it is not campaign spending, what if a corporation has some foreign members on the board of directors. Should they be able to have the corporation give money to ads that help elect candidates. What if these members are from a dreaded Terrorist group. If one corporation buys another one is this slavery?

Do persons have to die at some point? Have a person (corporation) register to vote after they are 18 years old, see how for that goes. If persons can lose their rights by being an enemy combatant, can corporations be labeled the same? This is just ridiculous, just solve this problem and publicly finance elections.

The difference betwee you and me, Kevin, is that you read an AP dispatch.

Whereas, I read the full text of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. Then, I read Justice Roberts' concurrence. Then, I read the separate opinions of Justices Scailia and Thomas. Then, I read Justece Stevens' dissent.

Original sources; the law. They are fascinating things. I recommend that you give it a try for yourself.

I wish I had that kind of time. Something about working and community gets in the way for me. Maybe I will do it though, so I can keep things civil and possibly say I was wrong. I only got to read a summery I found.

The difference between you and me, anonymous, is I’m willing to put my name to what I write instead of hiding behind an anonymous attack like you.

The difference between you and me, anonymous, is I read a natural to conservative source and put it up instead of putting my own spin on something.

I noticed you declined to try and debunk anything written, and all you did was attack me and the source. That really says it all.

Hey, Kevin. Here's your Two-Part morning beat-down, over easy, with a side of toast:

A quote from Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion:

" Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibited—and still does prohibit—corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, in connection with certain qualified federal elections."

What the court addressed was only the prohibition on "electioneering" that is done entirely separately from candidates. Justice Kennedy gave examples. Again, quoting his decision:

"The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship."

So there, Kevin. Just exactly what I had originally stated, and which you had doubted. Although, in truth, the AP quote that you had cited didn't really disagree with me; the AP story correctly mentioned "independent" expenditures. I gather that the AP writer understood the technical parameters of the ruling, but you simply did not. Which does not speak well of anyone, guru or not, involved in public communications or the media.

“A Two-Part morning beat-down? What the hell are you talking about? Hey, anonymous, you’re still full of it, and you’re still spinning. Like I said, the government lacks a legitimate basis to restrict independent campaign expenditures by companies. Everything about Mr. Lessenberry’s post is correct, especially the part about the deceptive mailing by the GOP, which was what the post was about.

Do you even watch tv during election year? All adds are bashing other candidates. The ruling said that the movie portraying Hillery Clinton in a negative respect was okay. That was what the case started as before they came back and argued it in a more broad topic. This ruling made the movie Okay

1(a) of the headnote:
Citizen United’s narrower arguments—that Hillary is not an “electioneering communication” covered by §441b because it is not“publicly distributed”

So, this ruling made this okay, and your little NRA and Sierra Club examples are illegal but if you twist it a little the message would be fine in the eyes of the court.

The comments to this entry are closed.

A Production of

***UPDATE 9/2/09: Read the user agreement, effective immediately.***

The Podcast


April 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30