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 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 154

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

  1. #41
    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
    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.
    It does not. Citizen's was originally about the limit McCain Feingold put on "electioneering communications" in the window (i think it was 60 days) immediately before the election. That was clearly unconstitutional.

    Citizen's did not rule on disclosure requirements. Anonymous donations are allowed by federal law to the 501(c)(4) organizations and that law can be changed.

    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.
    Yeah, political payback. Whether disclosure is good or bad is debatable but your argument for it is without a doubt, bad. Do you think the gay clients should be able to follow the hotel owner into the voting booth or be able to see his vote? Do you not know what sort of abuses use to happen in our election system when that was allowed? What happens when the hotel owner fires his bellhop because he donated to a group supporting gay marriage?

    Should the state have been able to force disclosure of the authors of The Federalist papers or the Cato letters?

  2. #42
    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 xpiher View Post
    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?
    No. I have never heard any libertarian argue that the state should go out of its way to encourage this sort of behavior.

    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).
    Are you talking about the idea of requiring anonymity? Why isn't it plausible? Donations do not have to be made in cash or by handing someone a check. It may not have been that plausible 50 years, but when I donate to a cause I usually do it online. The only reason they know who I am is because the government makes them gather that information.

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,444
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    You would be better off thinking for yourself and quit listening to what they are selling you.
    Well that's an odd response.

    Are you assuming that I'm only talking about conservative/republican use of deceptive persuasion techniques?

    Au contraire, mon frere. The dems are doing it too. They're WAY behind the right and not very good at it, but they're doing it too.

    Thinking for oneself instead of thinking what one's been programmed to is what I'm trying to help everybody do.

    You shpuld try it.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Well that's an odd response.

    Are you assuming that I'm only talking about conservative/republican use of deceptive persuasion techniques?

    Au contraire, mon frere. The dems are doing it too. They're WAY behind the right and not very good at it, but they're doing it too.

    Thinking for oneself instead of thinking what one's been programmed to is what I'm trying to help everybody do.

    You shpuld try it.
    I find it odd that you believe that people can not think for themselves. It seems to be a common belief of those who generally are on the minority side of things. There must be someone pulling the strings to get people to think in a way you do not understand.

    Yes, people try and influence people's belief but the majority are perfectly able to make up their own mind. They do not need some group to instruct them how to do this. I suppose if you feel the need of an outside organization to help you do this, well good for you for taking the steps necessary.

  5. #45
    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
    Well that's an odd response.

    Are you assuming that I'm only talking about conservative/republican use of deceptive persuasion techniques?

    Au contraire, mon frere. The dems are doing it too. They're WAY behind the right and not very good at it, but they're doing it too.

    Thinking for oneself instead of thinking what one's been programmed to is what I'm trying to help everybody do.

    You shpuld try it.
    That's going to cause you trouble. Assuming that others are "programmed" or are "not thinking for themselves" will alienate them. I looked over your link and it mostly seems to be common sense stuff about how to manipulate people, e.g., avoid alienating them. Nothing revolutionary.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    That's going to cause you trouble. Assuming that others are "programmed" or are "not thinking for themselves" will alienate them. I looked over your link and it mostly seems to be common sense stuff about how to manipulate people, e.g., avoid alienating them. Nothing revolutionary.
    That's what I read. I'm not so sure that many are convinced of your arguement though by simply starting it and ending it with a cuss word or by being the loudest in the room.

  7. #47
    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 1Perry View Post
    I find it odd that you believe that people can not think for themselves. It seems to be a common belief of those who generally are on the minority side of things. There must be someone pulling the strings to get people to think in a way you do not understand.

    Yes, people try and influence people's belief but the majority are perfectly able to make up their own mind. They do not need some group to instruct them how to do this. I suppose if you feel the need of an outside organization to help you do this, well good for you for taking the steps necessary.
    I agree, mostly, and would add that being obsessed with how others might be trying to manipulate you will turn you into a cynical prick, which really is not much better than being a manipulative prick. You have to let your guard down or nobody ever gets in and you become isolated and alone.

    I do think it is good to be aware of how you are vulnerable to manipulation, especially, when dealing with politicians, car salesman and other unscrupolous scumbags. The information on the site is all fairly well known, common sense stuff. I am a skeptic and read things written by skeptics on how to spot hokum. So, maybe, it is just that exposure that makes it seem rather mundane to me.

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I find it odd that you believe that people can not think for themselves. It seems to be a common belief of those who generally are on the minority side of things. There must be someone pulling the strings to get people to think in a way you do not understand.

    Yes, people try and influence people's belief but the majority are perfectly able to make up their own mind. They do not need some group to instruct them how to do this. I suppose if you feel the need of an outside organization to help you do this, well good for you for taking the steps necessary.
    The vast majority of people are either too busy or too lazy to actually examine the information that's presented to them by whatever source they get their information from. How many people do you know who, when presented with information by the media or another source, research that claim in its entirety in order to evaluate the truth value of that claim? I would guess not many, particularly if they have a full time job, children and other responsibilities.

    I wouldn't say people are "programmed" necessarily, but I would certainly argue based on my personal experience that the majority haven't thoroughly examined the information presented to them by the government, media, their religious organizations or other sources. In other words, they can think for themselves, but they do so with an extraordinarily limited amount of information.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    The vast majority of people are either too busy or too lazy to actually examine the information that's presented to them by whatever source they get their information from.
    This is a statement based upon my opinion. In those cases most of those types do not care about whatever is being pushed anyway so it doesn't matter. There are a ton of claims and statements made that I have no desire to research.

    How many people do you know who, when presented with information by the media or another source, research that claim in its entirety in order to evaluate the truth value of that claim? I would guess not many, particularly if they have a full time job, children and other responsibilities.
    If it's relevant to them, I'd guess many. Especially with the internet now available to them. Few of them smply take an ad at face value. It doesn't take long at all to get other opinions on the internet. If they have no need to buy a car, those statements go in one ear and out the other. Before the internet this was largely done by word of mouth from people they trusted. A neighbor would tell you that they had a good or bad experience.

    I wouldn't say people are "programmed" necessarily, but I would certainly argue based on my personal experience that the majority haven't thoroughly examined the information presented to them by the government, media, their religious organizations or other sources. In other words, they can think for themselves, but they do so with an extraordinarily limited amount of information.
    IMO that means they don't care, not as you note, they have been programmed to believe that way. As an example. I have a cell phone provider. It suits my purpose. There may be ones with better and cheaper plans but eh, mine is good enough for me to not want to bother.

  10. #50
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,444
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    It does not. Citizen's was originally about the limit McCain Feingold put on "electioneering communications" in the window (i think it was 60 days) immediately before the election. That was clearly unconstitutional.

    Citizen's did not rule on disclosure requirements. Anonymous donations are allowed by federal law to the 501(c)(4) organizations and that law can be changed.



    Yeah, political payback. Whether disclosure is good or bad is debatable but your argument for it is without a doubt, bad. Do you think the gay clients should be able to follow the hotel owner into the voting booth or be able to see his vote? Do you not know what sort of abuses use to happen in our election system when that was allowed? What happens when the hotel owner fires his bellhop because he donated to a group supporting gay marriage?

    Should the state have been able to force disclosure of the authors of The Federalist papers or the Cato letters?
    Ok, I had to go back and read up.

    Corrections to my above posts as follows:

    CU wanted an end to rules against electioneering near elections. The Supreme Court threw in ending spending limits on corporate/union/non-profit campaign activities.

    So I take it that a lobbyist being able to threaten a legislator with campaign expenditures against them for failure to vote the way the lobbyist wants is ok?

    I was also incorrect aboit disclosure requirements. They still have to disclose, but only at year end or whatever, so nobody gets to know until after the election.

    Further, there is no mechanism in place to prevent corp. donors from using corp assets for political purposes that their individual shareholders might disagree with without their knowledge. Which would seem to be a violation of free speech itself. Anti union forces use this argument as it applies to unions all the time.

    I stated.quite clearly that addressing the corrupting influence of money without infringing on the first amendment was a sticky wicket. Your hyperbole doesn't address this issue, its just strawmen. There's a difference between campaign contribution activity and "following someone into the voting booth" and firing someone for making a contribution is much different from denying a contributor my custom. An employer is constrained from certain firing behaviors. Boycotts are pefectly free market. I can choose not to buy what you are selling for whatever reason I choose.

    The Federalist papers example does not address the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with money in politics.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •