Short Quiz - Supreme Ct. on Corporate Campaign Contributions

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2033
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Short Quiz - Supreme Ct. on Corporate Campaign Contributions

Post by johnkarls »

.
SHORT QUIZ - THE SUPREME COURT ON CORPORATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Question 1

What does the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment actually say regarding "free speech"?

Question 2

How many opinions (main, concurring, dissenting) were filed in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

Question 3

Were there prior Supreme Court cases regarding "free speech" by corporations?

Question 4

How have "media corporations" always been treated (including "the press" which usually comprises corporations and for which the First Amendment requires "freedom of")?

Question 5

Should General Electric enjoy greater "free speech" than its competitors simply because it has owned NBC since 1986 when G.E. acquired NBC's then-parent, RCA? Should the sale of a 20% minority interest in NBC by G.E. in 2004 insulate G.E. from any restrictions on exercising its "free media speech" through its now-only-80%-owned subsidiary?

Question 6

Have personal expenditures by wealthy candidates (such as Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, New York Governor and U.S. Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, Sen. Ted Kennedy, U.S. Presidential Candidate John Kerry, etc.) on their own behalf ever been regulated? If not, why should their views be permitted greater financing than those of anyone else?

Question 7

In John Kerry's case, should gifts destined for his U.S. Presidential campaign from his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry (primary owner of the Heinz food empire), have been subject to campaign finance laws? Or should gifts from spouses be exempt and, if so, why? Especially considering John Kerry and his wife refused to disclose her financial affairs during his Presidential campaign.

Question 8

If personal expenditures by wealthy individuals have never been regulated, what about expenditures by wholly-owned corporations of wealthy individuals? After all, each could simply have her/his wholly-owned company pay a dividend and then s/he could make the expenditure as an individual.

Question 9

Was the Supreme Court in "Citizens United" dealing with legal provisions that apply to both corporations and labor unions?

Question 10

What is a "political action committee" ("PAC")?

Question 11

If a labor union's members can each decide whether to contribute to a PAC sponsored by the union, and a corporation's employees and shareholders can each decide whether to contribute to a PAC sponsored by the corporation, why do labor unions and corporations have any need for "free speech" of their own?

Question 12

Is there any reason why foreign corporations or foreign-owned corporations need "free speech"? How would the determination be made whether a corporation is "foreign" or "foreign owned"?

Question 13

What did the Supreme Court say about the legal requirements for disclaimers and disclosures regarding the "speech" of labor unions and corporations?

Question 14

If disclaimers and disclosures can be required for anything being aired on television by a corporation or labor union, what about cable and satellite? What about internet blogs?

Question 15

What did we learn at our February 2008 meeting from reading "Homo Politicus" by Washington Post Columnist Dana Milbank and "The Squandering of America" by New Republic Senior Editor Robert Kuttner?

Question 16

Isn't the real problem NOT whether corporations can be censored (and, if so, how and to what extent), BUT RATHER that in the view of Dana Milbank and Robert Kuttner, every governmental decision is "for sale" to all comers and the sales price rarely rounds up to a single digit, much less ever breaks into double digits?

Question 17

And, in fact, didn't Dana Milbank and Robert Kuttner believe that national politicians are more often guilty of extorting "campaign contributions" than accepting bribes (aka "campaign contributions")?

Question 18

Indeed, with the insight of Dana Milbank and Robert Kuttner regarding extortion of "campaign contributions" vs. accepting bribes (aka "campaign contributions"), why do you think that so many different Congressional committees asserted jurisdiction over health-care legislation last year and why do you think that the Democratic majority excluded Republications from any of the decision making? And why do you think they took so long in their "deliberations" (aka "campaign contribution" extortion) that they ultimately jeopardized passage of any bill? And, having extorted maximum "campaign contributions," do you think they even care whether a bill was passed?

Question 19

Are there any amendments to the U.S. Constitution that we should consider recommending?

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments - U.S. Supreme Court 1/21/2010 Decision on Campaign Contributions by Corporations - March 10”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest