Citizens United Poll: 80 Percent Of Americans Oppose Supreme Court Decision

ABC News:

Memo to the Supreme Court: President Obama isn't the only one who's annoyed.

Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court's ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he's got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who "strongly" oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

Read the whole story: ABC News

Comments

[DemocraticStraits]

04:53 PM on 02/18/2010

Good news!!!!!!

According to the new liberal argument of "implied powers", which says that the government can pass any damned law it wants that enables it to do its jobs, the Patriot Act is 100% Constitutional!!!!!!

Because their duty is to protect us and since the Constitution isn't what it says, but whatever Congress wants it to say, they can make us wear helmets in a car or stop us from eating a cheeseburger or ANYTHING to help preserve our life. They can even keep us in a brain-dead coma or make us attend church. Whatever they want!!!!!

Viva La Acta Patriota!!!!!!

[EWeiss]

02:48 PM on 03/14/2010

You can't be pinning the Patriot Act on liberals. Nobody is that brazen.

[Martel]

04:14 PM on 03/14/2010

Excuse me. 'Brazen' is the single most indispensable quality required in order to be a wrong-wingnut in good standing. With an extra strong dose of 'brazen' all lies can be injected directly into the brain unnoticed.

The wrong-wing has determined that if they truly believe that the world blinked into existence 30 seconds ago, then everyone else can be convinced to believe it too. It is their most important campaign platform. The example of St. Ronnie of Alzheimers convinced them of that. Of course, he also taught them that dementia equals genius and lower taxes for the most wealthy equals more for the rest of us because we'll feel the golden trickle, but those concepts just can't thrive alongside that unfortunate tendency to know that there was a 'yesterday', whatever that might be.

[FZliveson]

12:27 PM on 02/18/2010

We're mincing words her Timny.
Please watch the film "The Corporation," which clearly teaches what the nature of a "corporate person" is and how it is a threat to what's left of our Republic.
Cheers!
FZLO

[biggduude]

10:04 PM on 02/17/2010

This poll is BS. The question said the decision would allow corporations and unions to "spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections." This clearly implies that the ruling addressed campaign contributions, which it did not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_021010.html

[Martel]

04:36 PM on 03/14/2010

Is the phrase 'campaign contribution' a fount of special wingnut magicks for you? Look, the ruling clearly addressed campaign contributions. ALL money spent for the purpose of electing a candidate is a campaign contribution. HOW that money is spent, specifically, is not actually relevant in this instance. A corporation still has to follow SOME minimal rules when handing over money directly to a political campaign. However, that same corporation can now have as many meetings as they want with people associated with a political candidate or Party and then spend as much as it wants to promote that candidate or Party. No limits at all. None. And no restriction on spending right up to the end of voting on election day. And no restriction on a gang of, say, 300 corporations which organize together for the purpose of spending money to promote a candidate or Party.

The result of the Court decision is a nuclear attack on the free speech of people who can't afford to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to elect people who will be doing their bidding. Drowning out the speech of all but those who can afford to be heard is a program intended to give right-wingers and apologists for the corporate welfare state the upper hand in government for generations to come. It's simply the Plan B which the right-wingnuts have been forced to use because their Permanent Majority wasn't honored by the American people.

[daisydukes]

09:56 PM on 02/17/2010

We should be concerned about this ruling. The mere fact that wealthy foreigners can use their wealth to decide America's presidency is frightening and could open doors for terrorists to get in. What were they thinking to open this door?

[DemocraticStraits]

08:32 PM on 02/17/2010

A mini lesson on the Constitution from Thomas Jefferson -

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S." that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased.

[loria]

08:45 PM on 02/17/2010

I mini lesson from you? I think I'll pass.

[DemocraticStraits]

09:13 AM on 02/18/2010

Not me, one of the guys who wrote it.

And I shrunk it down so it would fit in your head.

But sure, if you want to remain profoundly ignorant of the law, be my guest. It's a prerequisite for a liberal.

[Martel]

04:57 PM on 03/14/2010

It's nice that you can quote Jefferson and then put words in his mouth. Congratulations, you've achieved true wingnut status.

Here's another quote:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Pretty damn 'conservative', right? And he means what he says, right? Wrong. On both counts. It's radical in the extreme and would produce wildly varying results over time, for no discernible reason. AND, he changed his mind about that opinion later.

Look, the Congress was intended to be that branch of government which defined how the government functions. The president was intended to be the officer who carried out the laws of Congress, while the primary task of the Supreme Court was to be an intermediary which adjudicated differences between the two and determined whether or not laws passed by Congress and signed by the president were Constitutional or in inferior conflict with other laws. There is absolutely no good or clear argument to be made that the Constitution does or does not permit the Congress and president to pass laws and/or levy taxes which provide for the 'welfare' of the nation's citizens as opposed to, say, simply preserving itself for its own benefit, as you argue.

[CanadianBeef]

07:09 PM on 02/17/2010

It has become clear that, to this court, rights are absolute when applied to corporations, but relative where they apply to individuals.

[oafishcad]

07:01 PM on 02/17/2010

Why do corporations exist? They exist at the will of the people and exist to serve society. The USSC decided we exist to serve corporations.

[bannorhill]

09:52 PM on 02/19/2010

What kind of Communist BS are you spreading?

[EWeiss]

02:57 PM on 03/14/2010

*drink*

[kennymac]

06:45 PM on 02/17/2010

This decision unites all political pursuasions because it strikes at the heart of what "We the People " means. Perhaps inserting the word "natural" before "persons" in the 14th Amendment would solve the problem and effectively overturn this odious decision. Alternatively, making corporations pay individual income tax rates and eliminating their limited liability (i.e., if they kill someone they could get the death penalty) might also bring them more in line with us common folks.

[CanadianBeef]

06:57 PM on 02/17/2010

I agree. We have to attack the special rights that corporations enjoy. If they are persons like us, let's see how they like living by the same rules we do. If free speech is the same not matter the speaker, then all income is income no matter the earner. I would love to see Scalia bend the law pretzel-like to over-rule THAT argument.

[supergenius02]

06:23 PM on 02/17/2010

What do public opinion polls have to with Constitutional Law? I am sure that a majority of the American people probably opposed the Supreme Court's integration ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka but thank goodness the SCOTUS was right. The real problem is not lobbysists and ad firms throwing money around, its the politicians who take the money.

[CanadianBeef]

06:53 PM on 02/17/2010

Right, giving bribes should be legal but accepting them not. Interesting argument. It certainly would allow corporations to offer bribes without fear of repercussions on them. I should also be able to attempt to buy my way out of a speeding ticket. The cop would be committing a crime but not me. Sounds great.

[bam2010]

06:03 PM on 02/17/2010

As an addendum to my last comment, how many people reading this would vote for someone who had the biggest billboards, the biggest signs, the best ads, etc.? You know, the one who clearly had the backing of a corporation? Would you vote for that person because of all the $ he's been given and all the ads you've received? Or would you vote for someone whose stance on various issues was in line with what you yourself believe? If it's the latter, then the Court's decision is not going to change the way you vote in the future. All you can be worried about is how it might affect the voting habits of people you don't know. And do we want our Supreme Court to speculate on what could happen, or do we want a court who looks at the law and decides, "I can't guess what the founding fathers meant. It didn't say any certain class could be restricted. The First Amendment just says no laws restricting free speech. We have to strike down this law."

Of course, I know if you disagree with me, my comments mean nothing and you may (or may not) want to tell me how wrong I am. Feel free to use your freedom of speech.

[loria]

08:38 PM on 02/17/2010

If you know anything about CA you would know that that there are several propositions on every ballot. An intelligent, educated friend of mine once said that he never saw a proposition he didn't like (or hate). He meant that after seeing the ad for one side it was clear everyone should support the proposition and after seeing the opposing ad it was clear the proposition was no good. Considering the lies that are told about candidates which certainly have the power to affect the results of an election (Swift Boat Veterans ring a bell?), I am concerned that a corporation can simply buy the airwaves to put forth whatever serves their purpose. I guess there are many here that are okay with the voice of the individual being squelched. I'm not.

[binksmom85]

02:36 PM on 02/20/2010

Americans have proven themselves to be swayable, manipulable and gullible. The most money available is presumed to the one factor deciding elections, and has been for a long time. A single voice crying in the wilderness will be drowned out.

[bam2010]

06:00 PM on 02/17/2010

For everyone who says, "The First Amendment applies to people, not corporations!", the First Amendment actually reads, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Not the speech of the people. Just no law abridging the freedom of speech. It's doesn't state "just the speech of the citizens." For those who argue, "Well, that's not what the founding fathers meant. They meant just a citizen's free speech," please tell me where your time machine is so I can go back and talk to them myself. The fact is, one can only "guess" at whether the free speech clause of the First Amendment applies to citizens or to all. Since it is not explicit in the First Amendment, the Court decided any law that abridges the political speech of anyone, be it corporation, partnership, or citizen, must be unlawful. Some people are pointing to the dissenters who really went after the majority for failing to follow stare decisis, that is, to follow earlier decisions of the Court. This is a perfectly valid argument. I can certainly see one's point, given the case law the Court had to overrule to reach its decision. Ultimately though, certain decisions need to be overturned.

[paganmist]

06:13 PM on 02/17/2010

The founding fathers prohibited corporations from spending money on politics for the first 100 years of American history, amongst many other severe restrictions.

The fact that they banned corporations from political spending FOR ONE HUNDRED YEARS (until a clerk misrepresented a court ruling) is all you need to know. OBVIOUSLY, they didn't think that corporations should be allowed to spend money on politics.

[bam2010]

06:23 PM on 02/17/2010

Oh, my bad. I didn't realize the founding fathers lived that long ONE HUNDRED YEARS after the founding of the nation. My mistake.

[DemocraticStraits]

02:36 PM on 02/19/2010

Citation?!?

[CanadianBeef]

07:05 PM on 02/17/2010

The amendment does not say "political speech" as you claim, it says the freedom of speech. Therefore, to use your (and Scalia's) absolutist approach, no speech can ever be banned. I am free to threaten people with violence, for example.
Of course, that's silly, as absolutist arguments usually are. All rights have limitations. We are left to argue about the extent of the limitations. Which you and Scalia refuse to do.

[EWeiss]

03:01 PM on 03/14/2010

Oh, I'm quite sure the second any private citizen attempts to "defame" an industry, Justice Scalia will suddenly discover a world of nuance in the first amendment.

[Roxanna]

05:29 PM on 02/17/2010

Don't you just love all the oozing of Rot that is coming out of Congress?

American the country that loves .... Not Love.... but Money, Self interest.... Me and Mine and You are on your own!

[Runruff]

05:24 PM on 02/17/2010

The so called third leg of our checks and balances system of government is owned by private interest! How much overt proof do we need?

The intellectual bully on the court, "Tony the Terrible" led the push to appoint Bush, look were we are? It is OK to blame the 5 people who forced this incompetent "Inspector Clouseau," W upon the planet!

We need more control over this out of balance checks and balance system that is obviously broken!

[Desmo]

05:24 PM on 02/17/2010

If corporations don't have the right to freedom of speech how do the governments? There are striking similarities between the two.

[ananair]

05:16 PM on 02/17/2010

The Supreme???Court's decision is another example of a broken political system which is bad need of a total overhaul.
some of the changes that might be considered
Term limits on representatives and senators and, considering the actions of the "Supreme Court" (George Bush selected by 534 votes while thousands of ballots were disqualified or annulled, this horrendous example of pandering to moneyed segments) term limits also need to be applied to these nine judges..eight to twelve years should be more than sufficient for "public" service
Free access to TV so all candidates can provide the public with their programs and ideas and less time spent on fund raising.
A third political party which can compete with the Republicans and Democrats which are , if this is possible, becoming more corrupt and for a long time do not represent the people
General Elections on Saturdays or Sundays rather than on Tuesdays
Simple majority, 50 percent plus one vote,wins instead of the electoral vote system
A uniform modern voting system instead of the current mess. if we can boast about sending a man to the moon, why can't we have a reliable, simpler , unified system?