• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Is Citizen's United et al ruling compatible with democracy?

  • yes

    Votes: 9 39.1%
  • no

    Votes: 14 60.9%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

xpiher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Please answer the poll and explain your reasoning.
 
You forgot the poll!

No, it is not compatible.

Unlimited anonymous money will be the end of our democracy.

If you're going to shout over everybody by means of your wealth, then I want to know who you are so that I can vote against you with my dollars if necessary. Deny you my business if I disagree with your donation, give you my business if I support it.

Money is not speech. The ability to anonymously buy EVERY SINGLE MINUTE of available airtime was certainly not what the Founders had in mind.

Corporations are not people. They can be neither imprisoned nor executed. They never sleep. They share no DNA with homo sapiens.

The upcoming election will certainly be akin to a trip through the Looking Glass.
 
I'm busily rethinking my life in general. The level of anger I'm experiencing these days isn't healthy. There's also a degree of feeling powerless that I am not comfortable with. So I'm going to start denying my business to all manner of companies and corporations. They've already got all the money. They don't need any more.
 
Corporations are nothing more than a group of people associated in a common cause.
 
Corporations are nothing more than a group of people associated in a common cause.

Corporations are monolithic, illegitimate institutions, which enrich themselves through theft, and, are, fundamentally, antithetical to democracy.
 
Corporations are monolithic, illegitimate institutions, which enrich themselves through theft, and, are, fundamentally, antithetical to democracy.

The cool thing is that the above opinions never gain any sort of traction.
 
The cool thing is that the above opinions never gain any sort of traction.

That's what they pay the propagandists for. PR is a ten billion dollar Industry, and that doesn't count the professionals in the direct employ of corporations, politicians, and PACs.

They're obviously getting their moneys worth.
 
The cool thing is that the above opinions never gain any sort of traction.

I can cite several historical examples. Are the majority of Americans (real) Libertarians? No, most Americans don't approach these issues in such a systemic way; they aren't reading Chomsky, or Kropotkin, or whatever. However, the basic principles are widely held. There are ample statistics revealing substantial antipathy towards corporations among the American people, and justifiably so. Most Americans don't read Marx, either, however, most of them regard his famous quote; 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' to be be such an obvious truism, as to be taken for granted.
 
That's what they pay the propagandists for. PR is a ten billion dollar Industry, and that doesn't count the professionals in the direct employ of corporations, politicians, and PACs.

They're obviously getting their moneys worth.

The Western countries, especially the United States, have, by far, the most sophisticated propaganda systems.
 
I can cite several historical examples. Are the majority of Americans (real) Libertarians? No, most Americans don't approach these issues in such a systemic way; they aren't reading Chomsky, or Kropotkin, or whatever. However, the basic principles are widely held. There are ample statistics revealing substantial antipathy towards corporations among the American people, and justifiably so. Most Americans don't read Marx, either, however, most of them regard his famous quote; 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' to be be such an obvious truism, as to be taken for granted.

Of course you can find examples of antipathy and even outright hate of a corporation. That is really irrelevant to anything.
 
Completely compatible.
A corporation is merely a collective of people lobbying government.

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.
 
The Western countries, especially the United States, have, by far, the most sophisticated propaganda systems.

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.:2wave:
 
You forgot the poll!

No, it is not compatible.

Unlimited anonymous money will be the end of our democracy.

If you're going to shout over everybody by means of your wealth, then I want to know who you are so that I can vote against you with my dollars if necessary. Deny you my business if I disagree with your donation, give you my business if I support it.

Money is not speech. The ability to anonymously buy EVERY SINGLE MINUTE of available airtime was certainly not what the Founders had in mind.


If it is not speech then why did you compare it to shouting over others?

Corporations are not people. They can be neither imprisoned nor executed. They never sleep. They share no DNA with homo sapiens.

The upcoming election will certainly be akin to a trip through the Looking Glass.

Yeah, corporations are not people... great. Why should groups of people be prohibited from joining together in a common cause?
 
Completely compatible.
A corporation is merely a collective of people lobbying government.

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.

Its the anonymity that is the issue. If a corporation wants to produce and air ads to convince people of their point of view, fine. Just say "Paid for by "x" Corp".

What we're going to see is a tidal wave of deceptive crap being passed off as "grassroots" and "people just like you" that absolutely is NOT.

Don't be surprised when you see the first "fake" Republican or Democrat ad. And no one will be able to prove its fake because its all anonymous.

Its going to be a mess. Mark my words.
 
Its the anonymity that is the issue. If a corporation wants to produce and air ads to convince people of their point of view, fine. Just say "Paid for by "x" Corp".

What we're going to see is a tidal wave of deceptive crap being passed off as "grassroots" and "people just like you" that absolutely is NOT.

Don't be surprised when you see the first "fake" Republican or Democrat ad. And no one will be able to prove its fake because its all anonymous.

Its going to be a mess. Mark my words.

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.
 
If it is not speech then why did you compare it to shouting over others?



Yeah, corporations are not people... great. Why should groups of people be prohibited from joining together in a common cause?

Ok.

Shouting is not speaking. Different words.

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?
 
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.

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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.:2wave:

Are you familiar with Manufacturing Consent?
 
Back
Top Bottom