Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling Overturns Campaign Finance Limits

The Supreme Court campaign finance decision came down today. In the end, the Supreme Court campaign finance ruling all but ended spending limits. For the likes of Citizens United and other conservatives, the decision is a win for free speech. For some on the left, it is another blow to

Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling Overturns Campaign Finance Limits

 democracy and more proof of corporate rule over America. But the Supreme Court campaign finance decision also means that 2010 election mudslinging will be through the roof.

The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was over a 2008 film against Hilary Clinton. Citizens United is a company 'dedicated to restoring our government to citizen's control' and to that extent, they produced an anti-Hilary Clinton movie during the 2008 primaries.

The Federal Election Commission argued that it violated McCain-Feingold and other laws that limit campaign finance by corporations. The case went up to the Supreme Court, and today's campaign finance ruling went 5-4 for Citizens United.

As a result, Citizens United and other corporate groups can now spend as much as they want on behalf of certain candidates - and spend as much as they want attacking them. Labor unions will also get the same benefit, though the focus on the Supreme Court campaign finance decision is centered on corporate influence.

The decision has already been hailed by Republicans and slammed by Democrats. Conservatives and Citizens United see this as a First Amendment issue, while Democrats argue that corporations now have more power over elections than ever. After the loss of the 60-seat majority, and new-found worries about the midterms and President Obama's future, today's ruling is seen as the worst news yet for the left.

McCain-Feingold and other federal laws that limited corporate spending are now weakened. So with the Supreme Court campaign finance ruling, the sky is the limit for companies to promote their preferred candidates and attack their enemies.

 Source: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2616679/supreme_court_campaign_finance_ruling.html

Supreme Court justices question campaign finance law

The US Supreme Court appears poised to pare back campaign finance reform measures that sharply restrict corporate expenditures during federal campaigns.
Skip to next paragraph

Related Stories

• Supreme Court: a session of firsts Wednesday

At issue in a special hearing Wednesday was whether the court should strike down two legal precedents that bar corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political speech during campaign season.
Although it is difficult to predict how the high court may rule based solely on the questions the justices ask during oral argument, several analysts say five of the nine justices appear united in their skepticism over the two measures.
"We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats," Chief Justice John Roberts said at one point, referring to staff members of the Federal Election Commission which enforces the campaign finance laws.
Three justices, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, are on record opposing the two provisions. By the end of the 80-minute oral argument, it appeared that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are prepared to vote with their colleagues on the court's conservative wing.
Conservative justices repeatedly raised questions about whether the campaign finance restrictions on corporations were too broad and all-encompassing to pass constitutional muster.
At the same time, the court's liberal wing remained united in the view that the corporate restrictions were justified by Congressional concern about the corruptive and distorting influence of corporate dollars in federal campaigns. Some also suggested that it was unfair for corporations to use shareholder money to pursue political goals.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and the court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, repeatedly stressed that the court should identify narrower grounds to decide the case rather than overturning established legal precedents.
But the conservatives – including Roberts and Alito – seemed determined to correct what they view as an error of constitutional import.

The 'Hillary' documentary

The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, involves a decision by the FEC to block video-on-demand broadcasts of a 90-minute documentary attacking the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The film, "Hillary: The Movie," was produced by a conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United. The group complained that the FEC action was an unconstitutional form of government censorship of political speech.
The government responded that the documentary was similar to a pre-election broadcast attack advertisement and thus could be regulated by the government under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).
The high court is considering whether to overturn the section of BCRA that deals with corporate spending before and during elections. In addition, the court is considering overturning a 1990 decision in a case called Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The 1990 case established the legal foundation for the corporate restrictions later adopted in BCRA.

'Corporate electioneering'?

In a joint statement, Sens. John McCain (R) of Arizona and Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, the two cosponsors of BCRA, warned that overturning the corporate restrictions in the law would be a "drastic step."
"At stake in this case are the voices of millions and millions of Americans that could be drowned out by large corporations if the decades-old restrictions on corporate electioneering are called into question," the senators said.
"During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts, whom we both voted for, promised to respect precedent," Senators McCain and Feingold said. "If he casts the deciding vote to overrule [the two legal precedents] it would completely contradict that promise, and could have serious consequences for our democracy."
Others were pleased with the apparent direction of the court.
"Based on today's argument, free speech advocates can be optimistic for a broad vindication of First Amendment rights," said Steve Simpson, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice. "Several justices recognized that a piecemeal approach to free speech is insufficient to protect vital constitutional rights."
Mr. Simpson added, "Corporate speech bans are nothing more than government censorship of selected speakers. The simple fact is it takes money, including corporate money, to speak up and be heard. Under the First Amendment, the government has no business deciding which speakers gain admittance to the marketplace of ideas."
Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, holds a different view.
"Since the dawn of the Republic, the court has recognized that corporations are artificial entities that enjoy unique advantages and must therefore be subject to greater government oversight," Mr. Kendall said. "If the court turns back on this constitutional text and history, it will blatantly disregard the will of the people and unleash corporate influence on elections."

FOnt: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0910/p02s01-usju.html

Supreme Court: campaign finance overhaul in 'Hillary' case?

By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / September 8, 2009

The US Supreme Court this week takes up a potential crossroads case that could greatly expand the ability of corporations and labor unions to wield influence in federal elections.
The high court on Wednesday is re-hearing a case it heard last spring involving a Federal Election Commission (FEC) effort to block an unflattering 90-minute video portrait of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was then running for the Democratic presidential nomination. The film was called, "Hillary: The Movie."
The FEC said the film was the equivalent of an electioneering attack advertisement and thus could be regulated under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The conservative nonprofit group that produced the film, Citizens United, charged that the FEC's actions amounted to unconstitutional suppression of political speech.
"Hillary: The Movie" is a documentary, the group said, not a political advertisement.
The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, asks a fundamental question: Whether corporations and labor unions have the same protected First Amendment free speech rights as individuals to engage in political debate during elections without facing government censorship.
The answer to that question is important because it could open the door to a flood of corporate and union dollars to try to influence federal elections.
The case could mark a turning point in the legal battle over campaign-finance reform. The justices have suggested they will be taking a close look at two existing legal precedents with an eye toward overturning them. Both deal with government efforts to restrict corporate spending for certain issue advertising and other political broadcasts immediately prior to elections.
During the earlier oral argument in March, a government lawyer – in response to a hypothetical question – told the justices that the FEC had the power to ban corporate-produced political books that urge the election or defeat of a particular candidate. The exchange may have triggered the high court's decision to re-hear the case and closely examine the underlying precedents.
"When the government of the United States of America claims the authority to ban books because of their political speech, something has gone terribly wrong," writes Theodore Olson, lawyer for Citizens United, in his brief to the court. "And it is a sure sign as any that a return to first principles is in order," he said.
Not so fast, counters Solicitor General Elena Kagan, in her brief. "Overruling the [two prior cases] would fundamentally alter the legal rules governing participation of corporations – including the nation's largest for-profit corporations – in electoral campaigns, and would make vast sums of corporate money available for overt electioneering," she writes.
Since 1947, federal campaign laws have barred corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds in federal elections, and corporate contributions to candidates have been banned since 1907. But the regulations have been difficult to enforce.
The 2002 campaign-finance law sought to close what reform advocates said were "loopholes" permitting corporations and unions to support candidates through sham issue advertisements.
Opponents of the legislation claimed the law was too restrictive of corporate speech.
Now the high court may be on the verge of declaring that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend their money and express a corporate viewpoint during elections, just like individual voters.
A few years ago in a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia sought to counter concerns by reform advocates about the potential corrupting influence of money in politics. Justice Scalia alluded to the signers of the Declaration of Independence as pledging their "fortunes" as well as their "sacred honor."
Solicitor General Kagan seeks in her brief to draw a sharp distinction between corporations, the nation's founding fathers, and individual voters. "John Hancock pledged his own fortune," Ms. Kagan writes. "When the CEO of John Hancock Financial uses corporate-treasury funds for electoral advertising, he pledges someone else's."

Font: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0908/p02s01-usju.html

Google Goggles Searches by Sigh

Android: Among a flurry of mini mobile announcements today, Google announced a new application called Google Goggles designed to let you search Google using your Android device's camera. Just point, shoot, and search.
The video above gives you a good idea of how it works—and how it doesn't. In a nutshell, Goggles wants to take search beyond typing and voice recognition (both of which Google Mobile search does pretty well on most smartphones). According to the developers, Google Goggles works great with objects like business cards, paintings, landmarks, wine, books, and logos, but it's not great with things like food, animals, and plants. It even does some small augmented reality work for businesses using your device's location awareness and compass skills.
Right now Goggles is only available for Android users, but we'd imagine they're working on Goggles for other devices as well. If you've got an Android device and you give it a try, let's hear how well it works for you in the comments.

Google Goggles [via Official Google Mobile Blog]


From: LifeHacker

18 Extensions Worth Downloading from Google Chrome's Gallery

Google's extension gallery for its Chrome browser opened for business this morning. We've taken a look around the offerings—most of them, anyways—and pulled out a few picks that deserve a spot in your formerly pristine browser.
Actually, rating these extensions by "worth the slowdown," as is often the case with Firefox, doesn't seem applicable here. Chrome renders pages just as snappily on a Linux install with eight extensions loaded, and the memory use seems not all that different. Your mileage may certainly vary.
We pulled out extensions from the gallery for highlighting that do something a bit different from widely-available bookmarklets, or at least fill a crucial need for those who use the web productively. You can disagree with our picks or tell us how blind we must be to miss a great one—do so in the comments, and if we missed a really great one, we'll update the post.
You need to be running either the Windows dev version of Chrome, the just-released Linux beta, or a daily build that supports extensions. Mac users are, unfortunately, left out of the add-on party for the moment.
Google Mail Checker: Just what it sounds like. It sits in your address bar, keeps track of your unread messages, and opens Gmail when you click it. Take note that the author states it "does not yet work well" with Google Apps mail.
RSS Subscription Extension: Puts an RSS icon in the address bar when standard feeds are detected, and delivers the feed to a reader selection page when clicked. You can add custom readers beyond the standard five using URL syntax.
Xmarks for Chrome Beta: Just like the early Chrome alpha, this extension ties Chrome into your Xmarks bookmark account, synchronizing you between Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer, and across multiple profiles, if needed.
iMacros for Chrome: We haven't had nearly enough time to discover what this cool tool is capable of, but it seems like a nice solution for anyone missing their crucial Greasemonkey scripts and other Firefox-only helpers.
Aviary Screen Capture and Picnik Extension for Chrome: We've already spilled some digital ink on the neat Aviary extension, but Picnik does the same type of instant web page capture—and also lets you pick a particular image from a quick list that pops down.
Flash Block and FlashBlock: Both do the basic task of turning off Flash on all web pages, until you turn it back on for all pages from that domain. FlashBlock uses a keyboard shortcut, while Flash Black has a settings dialog with a list you can edit.
AdThwart and AdSweep: As you might guess, they both block ads, though they use different blacklists to do so. We've previously covered AdSweep in its early days. At the moment, AdSweep's gallery page returns an installation failure—from Linux, at least. AdThwart is proving more popular, perhaps due in part to AdSweep's troubles.
Brizzly: The helpful, time-saving, at-a-glance Twitter/Facebook client for the web integrates smoothly into Chrome. Click the button, and you get a quick read on what's happening in your social streams, with images automatically shown and videos embedded. You can, of course, also tweet or update Facebook from here.
Google Voice Notifier, Google Wave Notifier, and Google Alerter: The first two do just what you'd think they do, but make lots of sense for services you want right away and might only occasionally check, respectively. The last is a kind of uber-notifier that checks Gmail, Wave, and Reader for new items. If you're a heavy Reader user, you'll obviously want to turn those pings off in the settings.
Chromium Delicious Plugin: All your recent bookmarks from the Delicious bookmark service, as well as quick saving of bookmarks from selected text/links or manual creation.
ChromeMilk: There are many, many tools that bring to-do manager Remember the Milk into your browser, but this one's notable for popping up your task list right from the address bar—and offering Remember the Milk's very slick iPhone interface as an option for pro membership owners.
LastPass: As previously mentioned, this extension fills in the gap that Xmarks' lack of password syncing leaves on Chrome.
Fittr Flickr: Adds keyboard shortcuts, additional photo information, lightbox-style galleries, and more to Flickr photo pages, in the style of Gina's own Better Flickr for Firefox.

---

What have you found that's worth installing, and bragging about, in the Chrome Extensions Gallery? Share the links and love in the comments.

FROM: LifeHacker

Best Outlining Tool: Microsoft OneNote

Last week we asked you to share your favorite outlining tool and then we rounded up the top five nominations for a vote. Now we're back to share the results.
Leading the pack was Microsoft OneNote with 30% of the vote. Although not a dedicated outlining application, its outlining functionality combined with ease of use and ease of capture made it a strong contender. Following OneNote was FreeMind (22%) a mind-mapping application many readers have repurposed for use as an outlining and organization tool. Rounding out the top three was Microsoft Word with 13%—not the most sophisticated outliner in the world, but it's on millions of computers and it gets the job done.
For more information on the winner and the runners up, check out the full Hive Five. Have a topic you'd love to see covered in the Hive Five? Fire off an email to tips@lifehacker.com with "Hive Five" in the subject line.

From: LIfeHacker

Negotiate Anything By Keeping Three Things in Mind

Not everyone likes—or is good at—negotiating to get the best deal on what they want. Finance guru and author Herb Cohen says the process will be a lot easier if you keep three crucial variables in mind.
Photo by Sklathill.
Over at personal finance weblog Get Rich Slowly, J.D. Roth breaks down Cohen's classic negotiation advice. In his book on the subject, Cohen says to some degree we negotiate with lots of people every day, from family members to co-workers and friends. If you bear three factors in mind, however, you stand a lot better chance of a successful outcome for everyone, and Roth runs down each of Cohen's three variables: power, time, and information.

Time also plays a role. In negotiations, the side with the most time generally has an advantage. Patience pays. No matter how pressed you are, you should always keep your cool, maintaining an appearance of calm. "Your deadline is of your own making," Cohen writes. Don't ignore deadlines, but don't follow them blindly, either.

Hit up the post over at Get Rich Slowly for more details on how power and time play into the equation and to read up on other factors. The video above is an oldie but goodie talk from Herb Cohen from ten years ago on the subject. These tips may not work every time and in every situation, but they're worth keeping in mind when you need to stand your ground and come to an agreement with someone.
How do you feel about negotiating? Does it bring out the competitor in you, or do you avoid it like the plague? Talk about it in the comments.

You Can Negotiate Anything [Get Rich Slowly]