View Poll Results: Is Citizen's United et al ruling compatible with democracy?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    29 65.91%
  • no

    15 34.09%
Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 154

Thread: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

  1. #21
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Ok.

    Shouting is not speaking. Different words.
    Sure it is. Shouting is speaking loudly.

    Seems pretty clear that you meant to imply that their speech drowns out the speech of others. This is the real reason behind CFR and why the courts keep getting in its way. The state may not decrease the effectiveness of one speech act just because it is more effective than another. That would grant the state the power to regulate speech.

    I didn't say anything about people not being able to join together in common cause. What I did say is that said group should not be considered an actual person itself.

    And they should be able to advocate their causes. As long as they do so OPENLY. Would you want a Chinese competitor secretly supporting a candidate that would put you out of business? Or any competitor for that matter? Pretending to be "Grandmothers in support of keeping kids safe" or whatever?
    It is not necessary that the group be considered a person. The NAACP is nothing more than a group of people joined together in common cause. When they speak they are in effect exercising the speech rights of their members. Why shouldn't they be allowed to speak?
    Last edited by BayToBay; 07-02-11 at 02:04 AM.

  2. #22
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Considerable amounts of money and effort have been invested in eliminating disclosure and removing limits on contributions, so considerable value must be placed on those conditions being in place.
    I don't believe Citizen's dealt with disclosure requirements.

    Disclosure creates the risk of political payback. I think there is some merit in requiring that the donation be completely anonymous. That way, whoever it benefits is less able to reward their benefactors since they would not know who they are.

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,452
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    Sure it is. Shouting is speaking loudly.

    Seems pretty clear that you meant to imply that their speech drowns out the speech of others. This is the reall reason behind CFR and why the courts keep getting in its way. The state may not decrease the effectiveness of one speech act just because it is more effective than another. That would grant the state the power to regulate speech.



    It is not necessary that the group be considered a person. The NAACP is nothing more than a group of people joined together in common cause. When they speak they are in effect exercising the sppech rights of their members. Why shouldn't they be allowed to speak?
    Never said once they shouldn't be.

    I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the corrosive effect money has on our political process. I personally feel money should be severely limited in our politics. How to do that is a tricky wicket.

    Requiring disclosure of the GROUP paying for political campaigning/advertising shouldn't be an infringement.

    There are already limits on speech. Fire in a theatre, slander, etc. In these cases, application of the anonymity parts of the CU decision would basically legalize both of the above, if the yelling of fire or slander was simply done anonymously.

    I know campaining is a legal activity, but I think you get my meaning.

    Unlimited anonymous money for political campaining.

    Just really think about that for a minute.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,452
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    I don't believe Citizen's dealt with disclosure requirements.

    Disclosure creates the risk of political payback. I think there is some merit in requiring that the donation be completely anonymous. That way, whoever it benefits is less able to reward their benefactors since they would not know who they are.
    It does, iirc that's what it was originally about. The SCOTUS just "threw in" the elimination of limits on donations. Or the other way around. They gave them things they didn't even ask for, at any rate.

    And it wasn't about rewards for backers, it was about retaliation on the donors for the donation. A hotel owner in SF who had a large gay clientelle made a large contribution to the anti gay marriage campaign in CA and the gay community found out and boycotted the hotel.

    Which I think is perfectly fair. If you're donating large amounts to campaigns I vehemently oppose, I should be able to know this so I can deny you my business. Seems pretty free market to me.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  5. #25
    Professor
    NGNM85's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Trying to get people to think about that fact, in light of Citizens United specifically is why I joined this board.

    I personally believe that modern persuasion science, coupled with CU, is one of the greatest threats facing the working class in this country.

    Both sides in this country point to people on the other side who believe ridiculous things.

    If anyone would like to know HOW they were led to believe these things, I invite you to explore the site in my sig. There is much there to see, linked to the original, peer reviewed research. All in an entertaining format. And virtually devoid of partisanship. (The author is a research psychology grad student from the UK)

    Once exposed to HOW bs can be installed in your head it becomes much more difficult to do so. Further, you tend to SEE it more when its in play.

    I'm betting that if enough people realize the extent to which they are being slipped the equivalent of mental "rufees" they won't take too kindly to it.
    Are you familiar with Manufacturing Consent?
    Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
    All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky

  6. #26
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,452
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    Are you familiar with Manufacturing Consent?
    Yup. Read the book and seen the movie.

    That was the first place I learned that persuasion was science and not just an "art".

    I've also read a lot of the Propaganda Model stuff.

    George Lakoff, head of Cognitive Linguistics at Berkely has some GREAT insights on the subject. He's responsible for the concept of "framing".

    Its powerful juju. Much more so than most people think.

    And our political discourse is THICK with it.

    Are you familiar with netvocates? Check out "Advantage Consultants" too.

    I searched all over for a name for PR professionals managing "messaging" on discussion boards etc., and finally gave up and started calling them "memeherders" before I discovered the Netvocates thing.

    I've been trying to figure out how to positively identify them. There is quite a bit of speculation as to how they would operate from 2006 when the Netvocates thing originally broke.

    I wonder how many there are here...
    Last edited by What if...?; 07-02-11 at 02:29 AM.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  7. #27
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Never said once they shouldn't be.
    Okay then, do you believe the state should be able to limit the speech of the NAACP? If not, why not?

    I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the corrosive effect money has on our political process. I personally feel money should be severely limited in our politics. How to do that is a tricky wicket.
    It's not relevant to whether this is a free speech issue. Free speech was not intended to protect only the speech you or I like or believe conducive to the political process.

    Requiring disclosure of the GROUP paying for political campaigning/advertising shouldn't be an infringement.

    There are already limits on speech. Fire in a theatre, slander, etc. In these cases, application of the anonymity parts of the CU decision would basically legalize both of the above, if the yelling of fire or slander was simply done anonymously.
    "Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" is taken from an opinion where Holmes rationalized the arrest of those who distributed literature in opposition of the draft. It's always odd to see lefties cheering such a decision. The precedent has been overturned, though, and so it really no longer has relevance.

    Slander is a tort and does not involve the criminal law. If not limited we will get the same kind of crazy stuff that's going on in England, where you can be sued for saying a psychic is full of crap.

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,452
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    Okay then, do you believe the state should be able to limit the speech of the NAACP? If not, why not?



    It's not relevant to whether this is a free speech issue. Free speech was not intended to protect only the speech you or I like or believe conducive to the political process.



    "Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" is taken from an opinion where Holmes rationalized the arrest of those who distributed literature in opposition of the draft. It's always odd to see lefties cheering such a decision. The precedent has been overturned, though, and so it really no longer has relevance.

    Slander is a tort and does not involve the criminal law. If not limited we will get the same kind of crazy stuff that's going on in England, where you can be sued for saying a psychic is full of crap.
    Nope, tbe NAACP can say whatever they want. I just don't think it would be cool for them to pretend to be "The True Aryan Nation" when they do. Which the CU decision now allows.

    Again its not the speech its the anonymity coupled with unlimited funding that is my issue.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  9. #29
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Democracy tends to end itself because it is the belief that all people have valid opinions in the operation of government.
    Basically, an appeal to the majority.
    So you'd rather have an aristocracy/meritocracy (as defined by Plato)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I don't think full disclosure will change much to tell ya the truth.
    Mostly because few people look up who actually donates to which cause.

    Only politic junkies, like us, care.
    You don't need to look up if the corps is obvious, like Exon.
    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    I don't believe Citizen's dealt with disclosure requirements.

    Disclosure creates the risk of political payback. I think there is some merit in requiring that the donation be completely anonymous. That way, whoever it benefits is less able to reward their benefactors since they would not know who they are.
    Political pay back is perfectly legitimate, just like not hiring someone you don't want to work with for whatever reason. That's the classic libertarian view is it not?

    Either donors cannot be know by the recipient (which isn't plausible) or most, if not all, donors have to be publicly known (under the table deal be damnned).

    I plan on writing a blog post about this after hearing some more arguments for or against.
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  10. #30
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    So you'd rather have an aristocracy/meritocracy (as defined by Plato)?

    You don't need to look up if the corps is obvious, like Exon.
    You're making value judgments on whose voice should be heard.
    Clearly that's not democratic.

    Do you think non profits, unions and other lobbying organizations are motivated simply by good things but corporations are only interested in bad?

    Many of you guys say that it's these corporate entities are spreading deceptive information.
    When the truth is that there are many organizations all motivated by the want to marginalize their competition and to boost their favored groups.
    It isn't corporations vs. "the people."

    It's "the people" vs. "the people."
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •