Why would this be a problem, unless the donor had reasons to hide?...a California law requiring charitable organizations to disclose the identities of their major donors to the state attorney general’s office...
The US Supreme Court
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73015
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- L'Emmerdeur
- Posts: 5700
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
- About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
We may well speculate as to the true motivations of the plaintiffs, but their argument is:
Those un-named hypothetical vicious entities who will enact 'reprisals' on the innocent charitable organizations and their donors are carrying a lot of weight here. Even if we accept that hypothetical, it's not the government that would be interfering with the free speech of the plaintiffs, but private entities exercising their own constitutional free speech rights. What the right wing money machine 'Americans for Prosperity Foundation' is doing (with a strong assist from the US Supreme Court) is placing money as a form of free speech--a shit precedent, but in the books now--above actual free speech.[T]he compelled disclosure requirement violated their First Amendment rights and the rights of their donors. Disclosure of their Schedule Bs, [tax document listing names of major donors] the petitioners alleged, would make their donors less likely to contribute and would subject them to the risk of reprisals. Both organizations challenged the constitutionality of the disclosure requirement on its face and as applied to them.
[source]
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 40340
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
Given that the giving of money to organisations, charitable or otherwise, in in and of itself an expression of first amendment rights, it should be only correct to ensure that such expressions are made public. People have a vested interest in knowing where this or that outfit get their money.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73015
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
Transparency is anathema to the big end of town...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 40340
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
That's why the rich always have smoked class in their car windows.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- L'Emmerdeur
- Posts: 5700
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
- About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
More along the same lines. Fucking shithead senators Manchin and Sinema and those who hide behind them are likely to scuttle any voting rights bill that gets to the US Senate. Meanwhile the handily wrapped up 'conservative' majority on the US Supreme Court is busy making sure that the 'free speech rights' (read money) of corporations are given primacy over the voting rights of the citizens.
Libertarian dingleberrys should applaud this one. After all, freedom for corporations is what really matters. I'm not giving the future of democracy in the US very good odds right now. Also, more joy for the 'what democracy?' fucking anti-American bigots. May they choke on it.
'According to US Supreme Court, Right to Buy an Election More Protected Than Right to Vote in One'
Libertarian dingleberrys should applaud this one. After all, freedom for corporations is what really matters. I'm not giving the future of democracy in the US very good odds right now. Also, more joy for the 'what democracy?' fucking anti-American bigots. May they choke on it.
'According to US Supreme Court, Right to Buy an Election More Protected Than Right to Vote in One'
Earlier this summer in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Republican majority held an Arizona election law did not violate the federal Voting Rights Act, because it discriminatorily abridged the voting rights of only a few thousand voters of color. Prior to Brnovich, in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett, its Republican majority found Arizona’s campaign finance law did violate the First Amendment, because it enabled candidates relying on public campaign funding to spend as much on their campaigns as their privately financed opponents.
Taken together these cases show the Court’s Republican majority understands the right to purchase an election warrants considerably more protection than the right to vote in one, at least more than the right to vote of people of color.
...
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a five-member Republican majority, found the law violated the First Amendment rights of private campaign contributors and their candidates. Citing the court's prior fantastic holding in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, that campaign contributions are speech, Roberts observed that unrebutted speech often is more effective than rebutted speech, and that outspending one's opponent can make it possible for a candidate's speech to be unrebutted. Roberts reasoned that by allowing the publicly financed candidate to spend as much as the privately financed candidate, the law deprived privately financed candidates of the possibility of advantaging themselves by outspending the publicly financed candidate, and speaking without rebuttal. In so doing, Roberts explained, the law reduced the efficacy of their speech, which he declared to be a violation of the First Amendment.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73015
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
The rule of the wealthy is propped up by a vast array of legal and political machinations and structures. They have the game sewn up...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- Scot Dutchy
- Posts: 19000
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
- About me: Dijkbeschermer
- Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
Very much so Jim especially in America where charitable donations are only used for tax deductions and smoke screens.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 40340
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
Alright, so people of color can legally be deprived of their franchise. what's the fucking motivation for that?L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:10 amMore along the same lines. Fucking shithead senators Manchin and Sinema and those who hide behind them are likely to scuttle any voting rights bill that gets to the US Senate. Meanwhile the handily wrapped up 'conservative' majority on the US Supreme Court is busy making sure that the 'free speech rights' (read money) of corporations are given primacy over the voting rights of the citizens.
Libertarian dingleberrys should applaud this one. After all, freedom for corporations is what really matters. I'm not giving the future of democracy in the US very good odds right now. Also, more joy for the 'what democracy?' fucking anti-American bigots. May they choke on it.
'According to US Supreme Court, Right to Buy an Election More Protected Than Right to Vote in One'
Earlier this summer in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Republican majority held an Arizona election law did not violate the federal Voting Rights Act, because it discriminatorily abridged the voting rights of only a few thousand voters of color. Prior to Brnovich, in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett, its Republican majority found Arizona’s campaign finance law did violate the First Amendment, because it enabled candidates relying on public campaign funding to spend as much on their campaigns as their privately financed opponents.
Taken together these cases show the Court’s Republican majority understands the right to purchase an election warrants considerably more protection than the right to vote in one, at least more than the right to vote of people of color.
...
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a five-member Republican majority, found the law violated the First Amendment rights of private campaign contributors and their candidates. Citing the court's prior fantastic holding in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, that campaign contributions are speech, Roberts observed that unrebutted speech often is more effective than rebutted speech, and that outspending one's opponent can make it possible for a candidate's speech to be unrebutted. Roberts reasoned that by allowing the publicly financed candidate to spend as much as the privately financed candidate, the law deprived privately financed candidates of the possibility of advantaging themselves by outspending the publicly financed candidate, and speaking without rebuttal. In so doing, Roberts explained, the law reduced the efficacy of their speech, which he declared to be a violation of the First Amendment.
Is there any way to get back at the SoBs who so abridge the rights of citizens, and even more so of citizens belonged to protected minority groups?
Are there any ways to send Eowyn and Merry at those Nazgûl who approve of such manifestly tyrannous legislation?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- L'Emmerdeur
- Posts: 5700
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
- About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
US Supreme Court justices have life tenure. The option available to change the current domination by 'conservatives'* is to expand the court, but I think there is practically no chance of that happening.
* I put conservative in scare quotes because they've shown time and again that they only make a point of their supposedly conservative principles when it's convenient for their particular agenda, and will readily overturn precedent when that's the convenient route to getting their way.
* I put conservative in scare quotes because they've shown time and again that they only make a point of their supposedly conservative principles when it's convenient for their particular agenda, and will readily overturn precedent when that's the convenient route to getting their way.
- Brian Peacock
- Tipping cows since 1946
- Posts: 37953
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
- About me: Ablate me:
- Location: Location: Location:
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
If your going to buy a judge them the least you can expect is a favourable hearing.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 40340
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
If the Nazgûl can't be deprived of the powers of their Rings, then it's time to reinstate the Jackson doctrine, I guess...L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:47 pmUS Supreme Court justices have life tenure. The option available to change the current domination by 'conservatives'* is to expand the court, but I think there is practically no chance of that happening.
* I put conservative in scare quotes because they've shown time and again that they only make a point of their supposedly conservative principles when it's convenient for their particular agenda, and will readily overturn precedent when that's the convenient route to getting their way.
And I don't get your thing about "conservative" supposedly not being compatible with readiness to overturn inconvenient precedent. I thought the GOP had manoeuvered to get them in place precisely so they could have opportunity to reverse precedents they don't like. I'm actually surprised they've not nullified Roe vs Wade already...
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- Brian Peacock
- Tipping cows since 1946
- Posts: 37953
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
- About me: Ablate me:
- Location: Location: Location:
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
Sometimes they'll overturn, sometimes they'll reinstate, because, as Tero might say, "Guns, babies, and Jesus" ( but we know it's actually because, "Power, money, and race" ).
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
- Tero
- Just saying
- Posts: 47197
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
- About me: 15-32-25
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The US Supreme Court
.,
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late
Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late
Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...
- Scot Dutchy
- Posts: 19000
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
- About me: Dijkbeschermer
- Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests