Political Action Committees
In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.
Let Them Drink Oil
“Citizens United”
| Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010 |
|
| Full case name | Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission |
| Docket nos. | 08-205 |
| Citations | 558 U.S. 310 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Reargument | Reargument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Prior history | denied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)[1]probable jurisdiction noted128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008). |
| Holding | |
| The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV) |
| Concurrence | Roberts, joined by Alito |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part) |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act | |
|
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
|
|
| Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990. McConnell v. FEC, 2003 (in part). | |
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010) is a landmark U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010 that freedom of speech prohibits government from restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.[2][3]
In the case, the conservativenon-profit organizationCitizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. This would violate a federal statute prohibiting certain electioneering communications near an election. The court found the provisions of the law that prohibited corporations and unions from making such electioneering communications to conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
However, the court upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.
The decision was highly controversial when announced and remains a subject of much discussion today.[4]
David Bossie at CPAC 2017 who actively promote the Trump agenda.
Pro-Trump super PACs have already spent $1 million on Election 2020 By
Technocrats
The top firms in California’s Silicon Valley carry more weight on the global stage than many countries, which makes building diplomatic relations with them increasingly important, the world’s first national technology ambassador said.
Chosen to fill what his country’s foreign ministry has dubbed the first “techplomacy” posting on the U.S. West Coast, Denmark’s Casper Klynge will be tasked with building direct ties between his country and the likes of Facebook, Apple and Alphabet’s Google.
“We are to continue doing traditional diplomacy with countries and organizations, but we also have to start looking into what relation you can have with these big tech companies,” Klynge told Reuters in an interview.
The aim was to help Denmark understand the impact of rapid changes in digital technology while promoting the country’s interests and values – setting up a channel of communication that would also benefit the companies.
“If you look at these companies’ involvement and significance for you and me, many of them have a much greater degree of influence than most nations,” he said in comments cleared for publication late on Friday.
In economic terms, the new partners are comparable.
Denmark’s 2016 gross domestic product was 2.06 trillion Danish crowns ($310 billion), sitting between Facebook’s current $437 billion market value and the $185 billion of Oracle Corp.
With tech companies under growing pressure to share encrypted information to prevent terrorism, Klynge also identified the ability of radical individuals or groups to exploit online platforms as a key issue.
“We saw what happened after the terror acts in London when Facebook came forward and said they are ready to discuss how we prevent terror organizations using its network to promote their actions,” said Klynge, who takes up his new role on Sept 1.
In May, Facebook was fined 150,000 euros ($166,000) by France’s data protection watchdog for failing to prevent users’ data being accessed by advertisers.
“If you look at what impacts us in our daily lives and how much data they can pull on all of us… (the firms) are truly influential players,” Klynge said.
Technological diplomacy is one of Denmark’s five foreign policy priorities alongside national security; Brexit; the Arctic region; and migration, instability and terrorism.
(Editing by Terje Solsvik and John Stonestreet)
Rock Democracy 
Leave a comment