Supreme Court rolls back restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns

[Mogi67]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227.html

What a cluster ****. In case you weren't paying attention, last Thursday the Supreme Ct. voted 5-4 to lift the ban on corporate restrictions in campaign financing. As if the government isn't already ****ed up enough, this could very well be the one thing that history will cite as the end.

 

[Kinslayer]

HEY GUYS LETS OVERBLOW SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING THROUGH LOOPHOLES.

Get a grip. I'm reading the decision myself right now, and the only thing that's changed is that corporations no longer have to loophole everything, as the restrictive laws in review are antiquated and very easy to get around. The Supreme Court is treating corporations as a person and upholding their free speech rights, which is overturning the antiquated laws but is upholding a far greater standard of legal review.

 

[Krynn72]

Obama was pissed about it. With good reason.

Kin, what do you mean when you say "upholding a far greater standard of legal review"?

 

[Kinslayer]

If the ruling went the other way, the corporation would continue to have a lack of freedom of speech in the political spectrum; example, the NRA would not be able to run an advertisement against Senator Bob for wanting to outlaw handguns 60 days before the election.

From the syllabus of the decision, pg 6:

(d) The relevant factors in deciding whether to adhere to stare decisis, behind workability-the precedent's antiquity, the reliance of interests at stake, and whether the decision was well reasoned-counsel in favor of abandoning Austin, which itself contravened the precedents of Buckley and Bellotti.

So, the decision of the court was based upon not Austin, which they believed was poorly reasoned, but the precedents of Buckley and Bellotti, which established that the corporation should be treated as an individual, and thus should be able to contribute to the wealth of opinion in the political sphere as per free speech.

The loophole argument:

Political speech is so ingrained in this country's culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws. Rapid changes in technology- and the created dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression-counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.

In short: Court upholds the fact that "the government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations." (6 syllabus)

I'm only on page 22 of the Decision of the Court, so I may have more to add later.

 

[Krynn72]

So you support the idea that corporations should have free speech just like people?

And how does "they find loopholes" justify legalizing it entirely? I mean, I understand that with the precedent set by Buckley and Bellotti, its required, so thats decent justification in that context. But its still complete BS that corporations should be treated as people.

 

[Kinslayer]

So you support the idea that corporations should have free speech just like people?

And how does "they find loopholes" justify legalizing it entirely? I mean, I understand that with the precedent set by Buckley and Bellotti, its required, so thats decent justification in that context. But its still complete BS that corporations should be treated as people.

Why shouldn't they? If you start taking away the basic freedoms for certain groupings of people, other restrictions soon follow. Political speech is a large part of this country's election process, so why restrict those with some of the biggest interests in it from taking part? Furthermore, corporations are treated as citizens with regard to every other issue, so why is it any different here? It's illogical.

Precedent followed both ways. They could either follow the precedent set by Austin, which overturned Buckley and Bellotti, or they could reason that Austin was a poor departure from the previous precedent. Precedent could've been argued either way, although if we assume stare decisis then Austin would be followed. In this case, they believe Austin was built on poor reasoning and antiquated laws, however, and thus they re-overturned it back to the old standard. Keep in mind this is a relatively modern issue built upon new technology, so Austin's reasoning doesn't necessarily apply to the context of the current time, which is part of the Court's explanation of "antiquated laws". The precedent of treating corporations as citizens, however, does.

As for the loopholes, it's not a justification as much as it is an explanation of the effects. They're basically stating "not much will change after this ruling because it already happens, just in a backwards manner", which is true.

 

[VirusType2]

It's scary to think that the greediest, [most evil corporations] (possibly redundant) in the world are capable of steering elections in any capacity, and that's without even considering the fact that they have money. Millions and even billions of dollars.

All we need is [evil corporation 1 & 2] getting corrupt officials in office to write laws that really screw shit up for good. Oh, wait, we already have that!

 

[Kinslayer]

It's scary to think that the greediest, [most evil corporations] (possibly redundant) in the world are capable of steering elections in any capacity, and that's without even considering the fact that they have money. Millions and even billions of dollars.

All we need is [evil corporation 1 & 2] getting corrupt officials in office to write laws that really screw shit up for good. Oh, wait, we already have that!

Political speech is so ingrained in this country's culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws. Rapid changes in technology- and the created dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression-counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.

char.izard.

 

[Raziaar]

Corporations being legal people is one of the stupidest things ever. It's about on par with cartoons being considered real people.

 

[Wizard]

I was actually hoping this would be a Supreme Commander thread.

:[

 

[Mr Stabby]

Coporate america already controls U.S elections. Before they just 'donated' money to 'like minded' individuals to do their dirty work. Maybe if peole can see more openly the coporate ownerhsip of the Democratic and Republican parties it might cause people to wake up to the ridiculous levels of influence corporations already have on the U.S government.

 

[Noodle]

I could see some restrictions being put on publicly traded companies, but if it's all privately owned, the owner(s) should be able to do whatever they damn well please.

 

[lord_raken]

I could see some restrictions being put on publicly traded companies, but if it's all privately owned, the owner(s) should be able to do whatever they damn well please.

True, but then the it would be the owner donating privately.

Corporations have been given certain rights to protect the investors from liability. This is important for our system to work. I would be awefule if someone could be sued just for owning some share in a company that did something illegal.

But I do agree, allowing corporations to pay for political adds and campaigns is beyond stupid... its traitorous!

WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be the rulers of this country, not our ellected representatives, and certainly not corporations.

Corporations are there to make things people want to buy and make make money for their investors. That is their purpose... they need to say away from politics.

 

[Shyam]

Corporations being legal people is one of the stupidest things ever. It's about on par with cartoons being considered real people.

Actually in legal terms they kind of are. When for example a corporation enters into a contract with a person, the company is considered as an individual.

So, the decision of the court was based upon not Austin, which they believed was poorly reasoned, but the precedents of Buckley and Bellotti,

Hey kin, I am not familiar with American cases, can you provide me with a very brief obiter/ratio of Buckley and Belotti ?

 

[Kinslayer]

Hey kin, I am not familiar with American cases, can you provide me with a very brief obiter/ratio of Buckley and Belotti ?

I must admit that I'm not very familiar with them myself; I had to recently look them up as I became interested in this case.

Essentially, they both stated that corporations the right to influence political campaigns.

Both decisions were reasoned mostly around the First Amendment and the concept of "protected speech". The majority also felt that it was, at the time, unnecessary to place federal regulations upon these donations and thus the concept of protected speech essentially carried the ruling. While Buckley did not completely slash all measures from the law that limited campaign financing, it did overturn those relating to corporations.

Interestingly enough, especially in Buckley, the same issues existed then as did today; some wanted to completely remove all limits on funding, and some wanted to completely uphold the law. However, in my opinion, the Constitution clearly states the concepts of the freedoms of expression, and as the corporation is treated as an individual in every other respect, the dissent is simply attempting to put forth a political goal.

 

[15357]

I want to be an evil corporation now. Maybe then I could have fun with the US.




When it happens, it's your cue to evacuate

 

[lord_raken]

Don't be so quick to call all corporations "evil." Most of us have a higher standard of living because of them, and all the stuff we love to buy and use is much cheaper because the corporations are big.

Yes they only care about themselves but then that's how our world works. The whole planet (both natural and man-made) functions off of self interest. You can either work with it or get steamrolled trying to fight it.

 

[15357]

Don't be so quick to call all corporations "evil." Most of us have a higher standard of living because of them, and all the stuff we love to buy and use is much cheaper because the corporations are big.

Yes they only care about themselves but then that's how our world works. The whole planet (both natural and man-made) functions off of self interest. You can either work with it or get steamrolled trying to fight it.

No, I meant that I want to be a corporation that is actively evil. Think Umbrella.

I agree with you anyway.

 

[No Limit]

Really Kinslayer, corporations should be people? Ok, lets try that out. First repeal their special tax laws. Since they are people why do they get special treatment under the law? I don't get to deduct operating expenses from my taxes, why do they? Lets give them a standard 5,000 deducation (7,200 if they have kids, they are people, I assume they can have kids right?). Other than that they are shit out of luck. You know, equal protection under the law and all that.

And what happens when a corporation breaks a law? Who goes to jail? The entire board of directors? Like when it turns out Halliburton scammed the US tax payer for billions, who do we get to arrest?

What if China decides they want to open up a small corporation here in the United States? Now all of the sudden they get to pick who runs in campaigns and they can put up as many billion of dollars as they want? Really?

The idea that corporations are people is absolutely insane. Corporations are imaginary entities set up to offer legal protections FOR people, not to be people. The government does not prohibit individual spending on campagins. Any one working for a corporation can go donate however the hell they wish because they have rights because they are real people. Once you start allowing corporations to run campaigns you are ****ed. To excuse it by saying that they always could do this through loop holes is really disingenuous; in fact the feingold/mccain ammendment which this case was based on specifically closed those loop holes.

 

[Raziaar]

Actually in legal terms they kind of are. When for example a corporation enters into a contract with a person, the company is considered as an individual.

I know that... that's why I said it's retarded.

I should "accidentally" get mauled by an elevator or revolving door or plate glass window or something in a corporation I hate... and take them to court for aggravated assault... or maybe... just maybe... attempted murder.

 

[Noodle]

Corporations are property, plain and simple. You can do whatever you damn well please with your own property (except illegal drug trafficking, murder, etc).

Corporations already have to deal with absurd amounts of bureaucratic regulation as it is.

 

[No Limit]

Corporations are property, plain and simple. You can do whatever you damn well please with your own property (except illegal drug trafficking, murder, etc).

Corporations already have to deal with absurd amounts of bureaucratic regulation as it is.

So propery has rights now?

And what is your opinion of communist china setting up a american corporation and pumping billions in to campaigns?

 

[Raziaar]

Corporations are property, plain and simple. You can do whatever you damn well please with your own property (except illegal drug trafficking, murder, etc).

Corporations already have to deal with absurd amounts of bureaucratic regulation as it is.

You *CANNOT* do whatever you damn well please with your own property.

As a singular example, it is against the law to pour motor oil in the ground on your property.

 

[Noodle]

You *CANNOT* do whatever you damn well please with your own property.

As a singular example, it is against the law to pour motor oil in the ground on your property.

I said EXCEPT when it is illegal for good reasons. Telling you that you can't give your money to someone for whatever reason is stupid. It's your money. The owner of the corporation has to follow the same rules as everyone else in that regard.

 

[No Limit]

I said EXCEPT when it is illegal for good reasons. Telling you that you can't give your money to someone for whatever reason is stupid. It's your money. The owner of the corporation has to follow the same rules as everyone else in that regard.

So it should be illegal if its for good reasons. Do you think protecting democracy is a good reason?

 

[Noodle]

Democracy protects itself. If people really don't want corporations getting involved with campaigns, then they can vote for someone without big corporate backing. If you don't like it, don't buy stock in that company, or don't buy their products.

The only possible restrictions I could see being justified would be on campaign spending, so the amount of money raised doesn't have the same effect on the election.

 

[No Limit]

Democracy protects itself. If people really don't want corporations getting involved with campaigns, then they can vote for someone without big corporate backing. If you don't like it, don't buy stock in that company, or don't buy their products.

Really, you think money has no effect on democracy? I wish I could be that naive.

The only possible restrictions I could see being justified would be on campaign spending, so the amount of money raised doesn't have the same effect on the election.

Do you know where 90% of the campaign spending actually goes to? It's advertising. And now politicians no longer have to worry about that as corporations will do it for them, assuming ofcourse the politicians get on board. You honestly don't see any issue here?

 

[Noodle]

I know what the issue is, and I'm not fond of it, but I am against putting legal restrictions on it as well.

 

[No Limit]

I know what the issue is, and I'm not fond of it, but I am against putting legal restrictions on it as well.

Then explain it to me. You just said you are willing to restrict direct campaign contributions? Why?

 

[Solaris]

I said EXCEPT when it is illegal for good reasons. Telling you that you can't give your money to someone for whatever reason is stupid. It's your money. The owner of the corporation has to follow the same rules as everyone else in that regard.

hohoho so what you basically said is 'you can do anything you want except when you can't'.

What a fantastic insight you have there.

 

[Noodle]

Then explain it to me. You just said you are willing to restrict direct campaign contributions? Why?

I see a major difference between restricting private finances and public finances. Regulate it on the government's end, not the private corporation's.

 

[No Limit]

I see a major difference between restricting private finances and public finances. Regulate it on the government's end, not the private corporation's.

Huh? I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

So is the government allowed to tell people how much money can be spent on campaigns? is that what you are saying?

 

[Noodle]

Huh? I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

So is the government allowed to tell people how much money can be spent on campaigns? is that what you are saying?

You have corporations donating to candidates running for public office. Regulate the official election instead of the private finances.

gah, never mind. my brain is tired.

 

[Kinslayer]

Really, you think money has no effect on democracy? I wish I could be that naive.

You're quite the condescending one, aren't you?

Really, you think money is the only thing that allows a candidate to win? I wish I could be that naïve.

Really Kinslayer, corporations should be people? Ok, lets try that out. First repeal their special tax laws. Since they are people why do they get special treatment under the law? I don't get to deduct operating expenses from my taxes, why do they? Lets give them a standard 5,000 deducation (7,200 if they have kids, they are people, I assume they can have kids right?). Other than that they are shit out of luck. You know, equal protection under the law and all that.

And what happens when a corporation breaks a law? Who goes to jail? The entire board of directors? Like when it turns out Halliburton scammed the US tax payer for billions, who do we get to arrest?

What if China decides they want to open up a small corporation here in the United States? Now all of the sudden they get to pick who runs in campaigns and they can put up as many billion of dollars as they want? Really?

The idea that corporations are people is absolutely insane. Corporations are imaginary entities set up to offer legal protections FOR people, not to be people. The government does not prohibit individual spending on campagins. Any one working for a corporation can go donate however the hell they wish because they have rights because they are real people. Once you start allowing corporations to run campaigns you are ****ed. To excuse it by saying that they always could do this through loop holes is really disingenuous; in fact the feingold/mccain ammendment which this case was based on specifically closed those loop holes.

- What operating costs could you claim anyways? You aren't producing anything. My family runs a small business. We get to claim operating expenses for our services. Shoot us.

- The corporation is a PERSON, not PEOPLE. Since you can't "send a corporation to jail", of course they have to come up with alternatives. Common sense here, man.

- Transparency laws would have a much better effect than trying to close constantly changing loopholes. Okay, so China comes over and gives a bunch of money; if the citizens are able to see that, then hell it doesn't matter.

- You're way, way overblowing the situation. Take a breather before you post. Corporations do not, and will never "run campaigns".

- The Feingold-McCain Act is part of the problem. By limiting the free speech of these corporate entities, we are essentially making the first amendment conditional. Why shouldn't the NRA be able to run an anti-Smith ad when Smith is advocating a handgun ban? This is hardly "running the campaign", and if you think so then I don't know any other way to say it, but you're delusional. This is hardly mentioning that it closed very few loopholes, and only more have opened up since. Even after the Supreme Court decision, transparency laws still apply, so the NRA must say that it ran that ad; it can't "secretly donate" any more than it could have before the decision.

By the way: Look up Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). It established that corporations have 14th Amendment rights and are legally treated as a person.

 

[No Limit]

You're quite the condescending one, aren't you?

Really, you think money is the only thing that allows a candidate to win? I wish I could be that naïve.

No, but I do know that without money they can't win. And those politicians will sell their soul for that money as a result. If they didn't they wouldn't be very good politicians.

Kinslayer, I have a feeling you aren't a lawyer so stop trying to pretend that you are.

What operating costs could I claim? How about all my food, all my rent, all my travel expenses, etc. All these things are required for me to operate.

Yes, obviously you can't send a corporation to jail but you can send a person to jail. You know why? because a corporation isn't a ****ing person! So if a corporation defrauds the government why would they be treated differently than a regular person that does the same thing? Again, equal protection under the law and all that.

So the fact that China won't be allowed to influance our election will be based on how smart the American people are? Really? You wanna put your faith in the american people to see past the politics? Seriously? Are you are aware of how propogenda works? You think that people are voting against politicians funded by the american coal lobby because that lobby is running false ads about clean coal? Give me a break, in fact if you mention clean coal to the american people they think this is something that exists today. Most people don't pay any attention, once a advertisement gets in their head it doesn't matter to most where it came from and that information will sit there as fact.

Corporations do not run campaigns? Why not? They are now allowed to fund them. And that funding can be conditional. Therefore they are the ones that are in control of those campaigns even if they are doing so indirectly.

Finally the supreme court never actually ruled that corporations are people. Look it up. They did not want to set precident as they made clear in that ruling and there is plenty of evidance that the court reporter (former president of a railroad company) slipped that line in there about the court not disagreeing with personhood.

 

[Kinslayer]

No, but I do know that without money they can't win. And those politicians will sell their soul for that money as a result. If they didn't they wouldn't be very good politicians.

Kinslayer, I have a feeling you aren't a lawyer so stop trying to pretend that you are.

What operating costs could I claim? How about all my food, all my rent, all my travel expenses, etc. All these things are required for me to operate.

Yes, obviously you can't send a corporation to jail but you can send a person to jail. You know why? because a corporation isn't a ****ing person! So if a corporation defrauds the government why would they be treated differently than a regular person that does the same thing? Again, equal protection under the law and all that.

So the fact that China won't be allowed to influance our election will be based on how smart the American people are? Really? You wanna put your faith in the american people to see past the politics? Seriously? Are you are aware of how propogenda works? You think that people are voting against politicians funded by the american coal lobby because that lobby is running false ads about clean coal? Give me a break, in fact if you mention clean coal to the american people they think this is something that exists today. Most people don't pay any attention, once a advertisement gets in their head it doesn't matter to most where it came from and that information will sit there as fact.

Corporations do not run campaigns? Why not? They are now allowed to fund them. And that funding can be conditional. Therefore they are the ones that are in control of those campaigns even if they are doing so indirectly.

Finally the supreme court never actually ruled that corporations are people. Look it up. They did not want to set precident as they made clear in that ruling and there is plenty of evidance that the court reporter (former president of a railroad company) slipped that line in there about the court not disagreeing with personhood.

Whenever you have no response, resort to insults, belittling, and personal thoughts with no evidence! If possible, include phrases about "evil politicians" to make argument more convincing.

NEWSFLASH: You now have to be a lawyer to be interested in politics. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. Any offenders will be violated by No Limit. If you happen to be a corporation, you will be put in jail.

As for the "content" of your post:

- You aren't producing anything. Therefore, it cannot be filed under operating costs, just like the owner of the corporation can't add in his own house's electricity bill as an operating cost.

- See: Legal treatment of corporations as a person. As much as you want to argue this, it's what happens. Regardless of how valid the quote was to be reported (and thus taken as legal precedent), it was done so regardless, so your point of "BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE!" is pretty much irrelevant.

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

- Let me counter your flaky assertion with my own: I'd be willing to bet that if an ad said "Endorsed by the Chinese government", many Americans would begin to become very angry. This isn't even mentioning the fact that it's very difficult to know which candidate will prove to be a better relation. Unless one of them is shouting "BOMB CHINA" (in which case China would FIND a way to run some ads), you really can't predict that.

- Clean coal does exist, the name is simply a misnomer. It's "cleaner coal", rather than clean coal.

- You seem to forget that funding is going to both sides. Greenpeace can run as many ads as the NRA does, not to mention your continued ignorance of the fact that this already happened through use of loopholes, as stated by the Supreme Court themselves in their decision.

 

[No Limit]

First of all let me start by saying thank you for ignoring my main point, that currently corporations are getting better (not equal) protection under the law since they can't go to prison.

Whenever you have no response, resort to insults, belittling, and personal thoughts with no evidence! If possible, include phrases about "evil politicians" to make argument more convincing.

You know what I think? I think that you should grow a thicker skin. I'm pretty sure I responded to everything, if I missed something let me know.

NEWSFLASH: You now have to be a lawyer to be interested in politics. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. Any offenders will be violated by No Limit. If you happen to be a corporation, you will be put in jail.

No you don't have to be a lawyer to make an argument. But stop pretending you are one citing case law when in reality you don't really have a clue as to what you are referencing.

You aren't producing anything. Therefore, it cannot be filed under operating costs, just like the owner of the corporation can't add in his own house's electricity bill as an operating cost.

Where exactly are you getting your definition of operating costs from? For a corporation to live they need certain things. For me to live I also need certain things. The difference is they get to deduct theirs from their taxes, I don't.

And yes, you and I can start a business. But that business is not considered a person.

- See: Legal treatment of corporations as a person. As much as you want to argue this, it's what happens. Regardless of how valid the quote was to be reported (and thus taken as legal precedent), it was done so regardless, so your point of "BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE!" is pretty much irrelevant.

You think a court reporter that just happened to be president of a rail road company slipping something in is irrelevent? Especially when the entire sentence before it implies that the supreme court specifically did not want to address that issue?

Lets of course not forget that our current supreme court is the same supreme court that doesn't believe in legal precedent.

- Let me counter your flaky assertion with my own: I'd be willing to bet that if an ad said "Endorsed by the Chinese government", many Americans would begin to become very angry. This isn't even mentioning the fact that it's very difficult to know which candidate will prove to be a better relation. Unless one of them is shouting "BOMB CHINA" (in which case China would FIND a way to run some ads), you really can't predict that.

So you are going to force corporations to disclose that they are paying for the ads? That's cool, but you know that these corporations can call themselves whatever the hell they want right? So instead of endorsed by the chinese government it would be endorsed by The People for a Better America inc.

- Clean coal does exist, the name is simply a misnomer. It's "cleaner coal", rather than clean coal.

No, clean coal does not exist in any viable manner. Thank you for proving my point.

You seem to forget that funding is going to both sides. Greenpeace can run as many ads as the NRA does, not to mention your continued ignorance of the fact that this already happened through use of loopholes, as stated by the Supreme Court themselves in their decision.

Right, because a non-profit corporation for a greener tomorrow is going to have as much money as exxon-mobile or the chinese government. Good point.

 

[Noodle]

this is entertaining.

but seriously, chill...

 

[Kinslayer]

First of all let me start by saying thank you for ignoring my main point, that currently corporations are getting better (not equal) protection under the law since they can't go to prison.

Where exactly are you getting your definition of operating costs from? For a corporation to live they need certain things. For me to live I also need certain things. The difference is they get to deduct theirs from their taxes, I don't.

You think a court reporter that just happened to be president of a rail road company slipping something in is irrelevent? Especially when the entire sentence before it implies that the supreme court specifically did not want to address that issue?

Lets of course not forget that our current supreme court is the same supreme court that doesn't believe in legal precedent.

So you are going to force corporations to disclose that they are paying for the ads? That's cool, but you know that these corporations can call themselves whatever the hell they want right? So instead of endorsed by the chinese government it would be endorsed by The People for a Better America inc.

No, clean coal does not exist in any viable manner. Thank you for proving my point.

Right, because a non-profit corporation for a greener tomorrow is going to have as much money as exxon-mobile or the chinese government. Good point.

- I dropped the whole YOU CANT ARGUE YOURE NOT A LAWYER bit because it was stupid and immature. You're trying to find fault with me backing up my arguments, whereas you're just banging on the keyboard and hoping sense comes out. It's not going to work.

- Okay, you send an imaginary person to jail. Go for it. I'll be waiting. Then again, you can always use something called an alternative to better fit the situation.

- Quit being dense on purpose, you know exactly what I mean with operating costs and producing a product or service.

- It doesn't matter whether it was actually said or not; what matters is that it has become precedent.

- You still didn't address my point on what interest China had in influencing the elections.

- Clean(er) coal technology does exist. Whether it is actually used is a different story (because it isn't), but it -does- exist. Thank you for proving my point that you're being a condescending douchebag.

- It was an example. Let's not forget that Google's CEO endorsed Obama.

P.S.: Please don't multiquote. It makes the post a pain in the ass to read.

 

[Xevrex]

P.S.: Please don't multiquote. It makes the post a pain in the ass to read.

Tell that to Stern.