snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02 April 2014, 10:10 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,659
Icon605 Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has ruled that limits on the total amount of money individuals can give to candidates, political parties and political action committees are unconstitutional.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...bution-limits/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03 April 2014, 01:33 AM
Jay Temple's Avatar
Jay Temple Jay Temple is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 9,104
Default

I suggested a law a long time ago which would have made this unnecessary, but I suspect the Court would have struck it down on the same basis. Currently, it's illegal for foreigners to give money to U.S. political campaigns. I would extend that and prohibit donations from anyone who does not reside in the area where a referendum or candidate is appearing on the ballot.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03 April 2014, 02:08 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,363
Default

Where would corporations be considered to reside?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03 April 2014, 04:39 PM
Jay Temple's Avatar
Jay Temple Jay Temple is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 9,104
Default

in the state where they're incorporated
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03 April 2014, 04:45 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,659
Ponder

But a business can incorporate in a given state even though they may have no facilities in that state or do any business in that state.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03 April 2014, 04:45 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,687
Default

The thing that gets me is, even if corporations are people with all the rights of people, the right to free speech can be limited if such speech is considered harmful. Slanderous statements have long been prohibited in regular life and in politics. Cannot "speech" as unlimited money be considered as potentially harmful as lying about your opponent?

ETA: Doesn't a corporation need to have a "presence" in the state in which they incorporate, even if that presence is just a mail drop?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03 April 2014, 04:52 PM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,670
Default

I'm still wondering how a corporation gets it's right to firearms or to vote.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03 April 2014, 04:56 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,659
Ponder

You may have to demonstrate some nominal tie to the state in order to incorporate there, such as listing the name and address of a registered agent with a physical address in the state. But in practical terms you don't really have to physically be in a state, do any business within that state, or conduct any business activity at all within a state to incorporate there.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03 April 2014, 04:58 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,687
Default

Voting is a right granted to citizens, not persons. And a corporation isn't born or naturalized, so it isn't a citizen. And companies have the right to bear arms, they aren't guaranteed the ability to do so however.

ETA: I guess the registered agent is what I was thinking of with regard to the "presence". There is an urban legend about a building (site, location, etc) in Delaware that is nothing but mailboxes and someone to answer the phone that is the legal agent for some of the biggest financial and other corporations in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03 April 2014, 05:24 PM
landmammal landmammal is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2006
Location: California
Posts: 972
Default

GenYus, I just read an article related to that legend, although it's set in South Dakota, not Delaware:
Quote:
Don’t look for any heiresses in this former five-and-dime. Most days, the small offices that represent these families are shut. Even empty, they provide their owners with an important asset: a South Dakota address for their trust funds.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03 April 2014, 05:36 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,381
Baseball

In order to do a wide range of business in the US, any company must have a registered footprint there.

As was brought out in the Quebec Election campaign, many companies use Delaware as their basecamp as it is tax-wise, quite a bit easier than most of the country. Some even consider it a tax haven.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ions-1.2591317
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03 April 2014, 05:48 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
The thing that gets me is, even if corporations are people with all the rights of people, the right to free speech can be limited if such speech is considered harmful. Slanderous statements have long been prohibited in regular life and in politics. Cannot "speech" as unlimited money be considered as potentially harmful as lying about your opponent?
It could be, and is, by the minority of the court (led by Justice Breyer), but the majority only consider quid pro quo corruption to be worth restricting money-speech.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08 April 2014, 06:13 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
But a business can incorporate in a given state even though they may have no facilities in that state or do any business in that state.
But a business can only incorporate in one state.
So that would be an interesting change. A business that wants to donate to state politicians would have to choose one state in which to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08 April 2014, 06:21 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,687
Default

But subsidiaries can also be incorporated. I think that happens a lot with insurance as the laws are extremely varied from state to state. So each subsidiary could be "encouraged" to donate to their local politician.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are horses vicious? Connecticut supreme court to decide DawnStorm Moot Court 68 08 May 2014 08:15 PM
Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws snopes Moot Court 0 20 December 2013 06:48 PM
Supreme Court will take up new health law dispute Psihala Soapbox Derby 23 27 November 2013 08:44 PM
Supreme Court to Consider Fate of Rail-Trails A Cat Named Easter Moot Court 1 25 October 2013 08:56 PM
Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act rujasu Soapbox Derby 34 24 July 2013 02:54 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.