SHould we end "Citizens United" by the court or amendment?

[independentusa]

It would never pass.

In that you are right as our politico's depend on money from the corporations and the wealthy to fill their coffers and that is the worst part of all of this. No one counts right now to the politico's except their financial backers which is the worst part of Citizens.

 

[Glitch]

Money is not speech. Please show me anywhere in the Constitution it says that money is speech. Even if you think money is speech, if you donate 50 dollars that would be free speech. If you donate a million dollars, then you are buying an election. That is why before Citizens we had limits.

In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) the Supreme Court held that money was indeed protected speech.

The First Amendment requires the invalidation of the Act's independent expenditure ceiling, its limitation on a candidate's expenditures from his own personal funds, and its ceilings on over-all campaign expenditures, since those provisions place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate.

 

[less right]

So you're making **** up. That's what I thought.

The reality is that there was no restriction on this kind of spending until the 20th Century.

I bet yoi don't even know what the Citizens United ruling even says. It doesn't legalize outside groups to coordinate with political campaigns.

It's such a short distance from your eyes to your brain I don't know how the words get flipped around so in your responses.

Stick to the subject. Prove me wrong about corporations when the constitution was written otherwise it's you making **** up.

 

[independentusa]

In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) the Supreme Court held that money was indeed protected speech.

I guess my question if you believe that is what the founding father's were thinking when they wrote the First Amendment? SCOTUS has made money equal free speech, but there is nothing in the constitution or the founding father's writing that would suggest that they found it to be so. I suspect that many people who disagree with Roe think, where the hell did the SCOTUS come up with that decision, and they are right. Like Citizens it was a SCOTuS determination where neither makes any sense.

 

[apdst]

In that you are right as our politico's depend on money from the corporations and the wealthy to fill their coffers and that is the worst part of all of this. No one counts right now to the politico's except their financial backers which is the worst part of Citizens.

Citizens United was a non-profit group, not a company. Y'all really need to lesrn about this stuff.

 

[apdst]

No, money is money and speech is speech. Some of that money is not spent on speech, isn't it.

What's it spent on?

 

[independentusa]

What's it spent on?

DO you have any idea how much campaigns cost, much of the money is not spent on ads.

 

[apdst]

Money is not speech. Please show me anywhere in the Constitution it says that money is speech. Even if you think money is speech, if you donate 50 dollars that would be free speech. If you donate a million dollars, then you are buying an election. That is why before Citizens we had limits.

When you donate to a political organization, are you expressing yourself? Why, yes you are. Instead of you saying it, you're funding an organization to say it for you.

 

[apdst]

Yes!!

Bull**** you do...lol

 

[independentusa]

I find it curiously funny to find leftists so adamantly opposed to free speech and free association, not surprising, just funny. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) was a very good decision, and the only decision an honest court could make in light of the First Amendment. Freedom and speech and freedom of association are two freedoms that really stick in the craw of leftists. They will do everything in their power to eliminate them (like we are seeing at the leftist universities). So naturally they utterly despise the very good decision made by the court.

I find it interesting that so called conservatives are so desirable to have the Wealthy and corporations buy our elections unless they are wealthy themselves and enjoy the benefits of owning the government. You can speak freely anywhere you want, but buying speech does not make it "FREE". The idea of limiting contributions was to make all men and women equal when it comes to elections and speech. I know you hate the idea of everyone created equal and that is why you are so adament to insure that the wealthy and corporations control our elections and our country.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Even if a subgroup of the GOP, Conservatives and Libertarians decided such a law were a good idea, and joined in with the Radical-Left/Democrats to get it passed into law...

Why on earth would any sane, awake&observing events, and honest person believe that such a law would be fairly and evenly enforced?!!!

It would end up just like the recent cases of people Lying-Under-Oath-to-the-FBI.

If you're a Radical-International-Leftie, Specially-Protected-Designated-Minority or Deep-State, you can do it all day long, and receive no consequences.

But if you're Conservative, Libertarian, Working-Class-White, ... You're going to lose everything you own and go to Jail for years!

So, given that it will not be enforced fairly, why on earth should any Conservative, Libertarian, or Working-Class-White, give the radical-Left yet another set of Laws, which can be abused into becoming Political-Weapons to use unfairly against themselves.

The same can be said of ALMOST any new Legislation. Just look at how the selective implementation of Obama-Care has been used as a Racial-Political-Weapon!

Until the Double-Standards and Selective Enforcement problems are resolved, don't pass ANY new laws. It only enables persecution by the Radical-Lefties.

The American-Rule-of-Law is DEAD. Obama and Soros Murdered it!

-

 

[Glitch]

I guess my question if you believe that is what the founding father's were thinking when they wrote the First Amendment? SCOTUS has made money equal free speech, but there is nothing in the constitution or the founding father's writing that would suggest that they found it to be so. I suspect that many people who disagree with Roe think, where the hell did the SCOTUS come up with that decision, and they are right. Like Citizens it was a SCOTuS determination where neither makes any sense.

Money is a representation of our labor that can be used in a wide variety of different ways, including as a means of expression. Do you think the founding fathers would have prohibited Thomas Paine from spending his money to write Common Sense? The founders were certainly no stranger to patronage themselves. Money has always been behind popular political ideology, and it always will be. You cannot separate money from speech because they can both be used for political expression. Which means, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Buckley, any restrictions on money is also a restriction on speech.

The Buckley decision concerned individuals, the Citizens United decision however also included freedom of association. You cannot restrict speech simply because an association of people decide to express themselves in a manner you don't like. It doesn't matter whether it is a corporation, a union, a PAC, or any other organization, people have the right to associate with whomever they please and that does not mean they lose their right to free speech because of that association.

 

[Glitch]

I find it interesting that so called conservatives are so desirable to have the Wealthy and corporations buy our elections unless they are wealthy themselves and enjoy the benefits of owning the government. You can speak freely anywhere you want, but buying speech does not make it "FREE". The idea of limiting contributions was to make all men and women equal when it comes to elections and speech. I know you hate the idea of everyone created equal and that is why you are so adament to insure that the wealthy and corporations control our elections and our country.

I support inidividual liberty, including the right to free speech and freedom of association. Clearly you don't.

The idea of limiting contributions was for the purpose of restricting political speech, and for no other reason. Even Bush43 acknowledged that when he signed the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill into law.

 

[joko104]

How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.

The Democratic Party now FIERCELY opposes this. Their new standard is the richest person in America who wants to be president should be.

 

[Bullseye]

How Money Affects Elections | FiveThirtyEight
According to the above article 86% of elections are won by he who spends the most making money now seemingly the most important part of the election process. Some how I do not see our forefathers believeing that money should buy our elections. I have read messages that this would not allow corporations to have a voice in our government when they pay taxes and yet they have lobbying, which gives them a huge voise as anyone who keeps track of wht is happening in Washington can attest too. It seems that Citizens gives them a second bite at the apple and if the information that money is what wins elections, then they get a huge bite with nearly unlimited funding for elections. Citizens with its dark money seems to have allowed foreign money to be a part of our electoral process, something that our forefathers were certainly worried about. So why not rid ourselves of the huge problems created by Citizens and either the courts override what most legal scholars have siad is a very bad decision or throught the amendment process.

Got twenty to thirty years to spare? Go for it. But understand that Citizens United doesn't just affect corporations (which are just groups of people getting together to conduct business) but alone labor unions and similar organizations.

 

[KevinKohler]

Repeal citizens United, any which way we can.

 

[CaughtInThe]

$$$$$

 

[independentusa]

I support inidividual liberty, including the right to free speech and freedom of association. Clearly you don't.

The idea of limiting contributions was for the purpose of restricting political speech, and for no other reason. Even Bush43 acknowledged that when he signed the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill into law.

You apparently do not follow history. The whole idea of limiting contributions was not to limit speech, but to make us all equal when it comes to that which seems to allow you to win elections 86% of the time. We should all be treated equaally under the law and that should include contritutions to campaigns. And to name Bush, a coinserevative, is probably not a good example. So in the end you think it is okay for the wealthy and the corporations to buy our elections. That is what you are saying, no matter how you try to place it under individual freedom or any other excuse. You want those with wealth to own us.

 

[independentusa]

Got twenty to thirty years to spare? Go for it. But understand that Citizens United doesn't just affect corporations (which are just groups of people getting together to conduct business) but alone labor unions and similar organizations.

I do not think any groupd including labor unions should be able to spend unlimited money. They are no different from corporations as they also have the financial abilty to lobby congress and to then allow them unlimited funding for campaigns gives the a second bite at the apple.

 

[Bullseye]

I do not think any groupd including labor unions should be able to spend unlimited money. They are no different from corporations as they also have the financial abilty to lobby congress and to then allow them unlimited funding for campaigns gives the a second bite at the apple.

I'm not sure Citizens allows unlimited spending.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Re: SHould we end "Citizens United" by the court or amendment?

I'm not sure Citizens allows unlimited spending.

It does.

SuperPACs only exist due to the Citizen's United decision - and they are groups which are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to help a candidate get elected. Only thing they can't do is coordinate with the actual campaign apparatus. They have to be nominally "independent".

 

[Bullseye]

Re: SHould we end "Citizens United" by the court or amendment?

It does.

SuperPACs only exist due to the Citizen's United decision - and they are groups which are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to help a candidate get elected. Only thing they can't do is coordinate with the actual campaign apparatus. They have to be nominally "independent".

Ok, thanks.

 

[Glitch]

You apparently do not follow history. The whole idea of limiting contributions was not to limit speech, but to make us all equal when it comes to that which seems to allow you to win elections 86% of the time. We should all be treated equaally under the law and that should include contritutions to campaigns. And to name Bush, a coinserevative, is probably not a good example. So in the end you think it is okay for the wealthy and the corporations to buy our elections. That is what you are saying, no matter how you try to place it under individual freedom or any other excuse. You want those with wealth to own us.

Bush was hardly conservative, but even he was offended by the unconstitutionality of McCain-Feingold. You are treated equally under the law. Everyone is allowed to spend as much or as little as they like, equally. Anti-American Leftist scum didn't like that idea because they were never getting enough funding to compete against real Americans, so they decided to try and violate the individual rights of Americans by restricting their freedom of speech and freedom of association. It is a well established fact that anti-American leftist scum utterly despise individual liberties of any kind. Citizens United was just further proof of leftist fascism that failed.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Bush was hardly conservative, but even he was offended by the unconstitutionality of McCain-Feingold. You are treated equally under the law. Everyone is allowed to spend as much or as little as they like, equally. Anti-American Leftist scum didn't like that idea because they were never getting enough funding to compete against real Americans, so they decided to try and violate the individual rights of Americans by restricting their freedom of speech and freedom of association. It is a well established fact that anti-American leftist scum utterly despise individual liberties of any kind. Citizens United was just further proof of leftist fascism that failed.

Citizen's United went a lot farther than just overturning parts of McCain-Feingold.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Re: SHould we end "Citizens United" by the court or amendment?

As a side note, if Bloomberg doesn't make it through the primaries, I think we're going to see a shift in positions from the GOP on Citizen's United - he has promised that if he drops out, his campaign apparatus will transform overnight into the most well-funded SuperPAC in history, supporting whoever the Dem nominee is.