Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (344966)	1/22/2010 1:19:02 PM
From: Jan W	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793761

Out this way, we can't afford to drop the "g"s. We've already tossed the "r"s out! <g>

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (344966)	1/22/2010 1:22:08 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793761

U.S. SUPREME COURT -Individual Rights- Question of whether 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441b--which prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an "electioneering communication"--applied to advertisements for corporation’s documentary critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton could not be resolved on narrower grounds than whether Sec. 441b was facially valid. Holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity was erroneous and thus provides no basis for allowing government to limit corporate independent expenditures in Sec. 441b. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements were valid as applied to advertisements and to documentary. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - filed January 21, 2010 Cite as 08-205 Full text metnews.com