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

[Glitch]

Well, that's an opinion, and I don't share it.

It is the opinion of the Supreme Court, and that is all that matters.

We understand that you leftists utterly despise all speech that is not in agreement with yours, but you will just have to learn to live with disappointment.

 

[Etallium]

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

Yes

(10char)

 

[OscarLevant]

I'm pro-free speech, clearly you are not. But that isn't surprising. Leftists always oppose freedom and liberty at every opportunity. It is what makes the Democratic Party the greatest enemy the US ever faced.

Yeah, well, got bad news for you, GOP is a runaway criminal enterprize.

And nothing spells "for free speech" like trying to prosecute Vindman for doing his duty.

GOP = CRIMINAL Sleazebags
View attachment 67273984

 

[Glitch]

Yeah, well, got bad news for you, GOP is a runaway criminal enterprize.

And? What has that got do to with your aversion to freedom and liberty?

And nothing spells "for free speech" like trying to prosecute Vindman for doing his duty.

GOP = CRIMINAL Sleazebags
View attachment 67273984

Vindman wasn't prosecuted for anything. He was removed from his position and given another position. Things like that happen in the military, but you wouldn't know that.

 

[OscarLevant]

Speech is absolutely power. Look at the power the press wields: "the pen is mightier than the sword".

Let's not confuse transactional speech with normal speech of every day citizens. One can give a speech for money, that's transactional. There becomes something for something, labor for something. You buy a newspaper, you purchase information. Here, "speech", is being reduced to a product being purchased.

You influence with speech, but you can't purchase power like you can with money.

There is a difference. Speech can be powerful persuasive, but money is POWER. It's the difference between talking about cars, and gasoline.

Talking about cars is or can persuasive, but gasoline is stored power, real power.

Nothing corrupts more than money. Money should not be ruled as speech, just for that reason alone.

One person has a billion dollars, another person has a hundred dollars.

One person can talk to a congressman to persuade him, his influence is just as good as the next man's.

But, if person donates a million dollars to a congressman, when another person has only 100 dollars, that's an unfair advantage.

Speech should be equal. One man, one vote. But money is power and gives the giver undue influence.

That is why we should take money out of politics. We should not call money speech simply because it's the just thing to do.

 

[jonny5]

The Courts have actually said that requiring disclosure of donors does not abridge speech, and all challenges to disclosure laws on the basis of "chilling" have been denied.

True, but that seems more a case of public good vs individual good. In CU they did indeed acknowledge that all rules are chilling.

because speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, any speech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled.

 

[jonny5]

It is the opinion of the Supreme Court, and that is all that matters.

We understand that you leftists utterly despise all speech that is not in agreement with yours, but you will just have to learn to live with disappointment.

Not really. What matter is if we listen to their opinion. They have no enforcement power.

 

[jonny5]

No, I make up my own mind, but it is plain that is not true of the public as a whole as the link has shown, 86% of all elections are won by they who spend the most. And you are not the one who lets the public know who you donate too, that would be required of those who you donate to. And there is nothing in our constitution that disallows the government from making that a requirement. I am not afraid to let others know who I donate to, why are YOU?

Correlation is not causation. The money is not whats causes the public to vote a certain way. Their brain does that. If they CHOOSE to vote with the money, that is still a choice.

And we've seen recently what happens when people know who others donate to or support. The IRS literally used the election regulation laws to prevent conservative groups from having a voice in the election, because the govt actually does have the POWER to control speech. The media defames people with MAGA hats. Groups have destroyed people and businesses for donating or supporting things.

There is indeed a role for prevention of bribery, but like most invasions of privacy, it should be limited. Is publicizing my registration and voting history neccesary?

Did You Vote? Now Your Friends May Know (and Nag You) - The New York Times

 

[independentusa]

And? What has that got do to with your aversion to freedom and liberty?



Vindman wasn't prosecuted for anything. He was removed from his position and given another position. Things like that happen in the military, but you wouldn't know that.

I am from a military family and was in the military myself and nothing that happened to Vindman was usual for the military. He was frog marched out of the White House like someone who was guilty of something and the president told the military they should take action against him and for what. All because Vindman did his duty to his oath as a miulitary officer. That is something we never have to worry about Trump, he will never follow the oath he took when he became president. And Trumpsters are happy to see him break his oath and the law and have the GOP protect him.

 

[Perotista]

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 86% sounds about right. But it would have to be done through the amendment process. We just had an presidential election where the candidate with the most money lost. Hillary raised and spent 1.191 billion to Trump's 646.8 Million. The first time a presidential candidate lost spending more money than their opponent since 1964.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

2018 saw democratic house candidate raise and spend almost 1.0 billion to the Republican house candidates 661 million which resulted in the Democrats picking up 40 house seats. The senate was more even with the Democratic senate candidates spending almost 600 million to the GOP's 456 million.

In 2014 it was the Republican house candidates having the advantage 587 million to the democrats 455 million. But what must be said here is the Republicans had many more House members than the Democrats in 2014 and in 2018, so one would expect the GOP to raise and spend more. But the Democrats completely out did them in 2018

But I agree that something needs to be done.

 

[jonny5]

The 86% sounds about right. But it would have to be done through the amendment process. We just had an presidential election where the candidate with the most money lost. Hillary raised and spent 1.191 billion to Trump's 646.8 Million. The first time a presidential candidate lost spending more money than their opponent since 1964.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

2018 saw democratic house candidate raise and spend almost 1.0 billion to the Republican house candidates 661 million which resulted in the Democrats picking up 40 house seats. The senate was more even with the Democratic senate candidates spending almost 600 million to the GOP's 456 million.

In 2014 it was the Republican house candidates having the advantage 587 million to the democrats 455 million. But what must be said here is the Republicans had many more House members than the Democrats in 2014 and in 2018, so one would expect the GOP to raise and spend more. But the Democrats completely out did them in 2018

But I agree that something needs to be done.

That fact that people do lose elections while spending more disproves the theory. Clearly there is some other reason people win elections. No one is denying that money has influence, but there is no way to MAKE someone vote in this country with money. They have to choose. You could even bribe someone and due to our anonymous elections you wouldnt even know if they actually voted according to the bribe. Even if it wasnt anonymous, they could take the bribe and still vote otherwise.

 

[Nickyjo]

Anyone who believes money is speech and who thinks that unlimited and opaque money in the political system leads to anything other than bad things is blind.

It is nothing more than legalized corruption.

This is the US. Money talks. Does it surprise that the Supremes decided the way they did? Goes way back to dualistic philosophy from a long time ago, starting with Plato, thence through Augustine, Luther, Calvin and the Jansenists. The rich are better than others cause they have more money. They have more money cause they are better than others. Aristotle never had a chance.

 

[Craig234]

The use of money is not the crux of CU. A case has to be brought that attacks CU at the core idiot premise of the CU decision as it relates to campaign financing. Any case that does not do that will miss the mark. Use of money is not the crux of CU as it relates to election financing. The consolidation of large sums of money under the umbrella of a corporation that can then distribute what amounts to an election slush fund in any way that it wishes is the crux of the CU decision as it relates to election financing. Another way to say that would be the crux of the issue is the hiding of what is in effect an election campaign slush fund under the legal umbrella of a corporation.

The point was made earlier that campaign funds are in fact PAC's. That is fine. They can call a campaign fund specific to a particular candidate running for a particular elected office anything they want to as long as it is in fact a funding a specific candidate running for a particular elected office.

We have to get back to funneling money to campaigns, not corporations though campaigns do tend to incorporate. That however is a moot point. I don't care that campaigns are often if not always now incorporated. I care that the instrument, the legal entity of THE CORPORATION has become the central figure in these arguments about PAC's and how they function in election financing.

McConnell's Senate Slush fund (PAC) is a good example. McConnell can divvy up those funds anyway he sees fit...financially supporting this Senate Candidate's run or that Senate Candidate's run...whatever suits his fancy.

You have to get rid of the slush funds before you can even approach again the issue of how much an individual can give to a campaign.

It's out of control.

They can't even enforce things like foreign contribution prohibitions. Jane Meyer wrote a book about some of this, "Dark Money". Democracy is supposed to give power to voters; we've systemically created an army out to defeat the voters, loyal to the big donors, and that's what we have today. Which is why we need Bernie; Warren would also help but seems out of the race.

 

[OscarLevant]

And? What has that got do to with your aversion to freedom and liberty?

.

You cannot ask a question with a false premise.


Last time I checked, criminals do not defend freedom and liberty.

Claiming dems are not the defenders of freedom and liberty is rather rich, considering you defend the party of criminals.

That's what it has to do with your premise, which is obviously false, given that fact.

 

[OscarLevant]

It is the opinion of the Supreme Court, and that is all that matters.

We understand that you leftists utterly despise all speech that is not in agreement with yours, but you will just have to learn to live with disappointment.

That's rich, considering you support the party who totally disrespects the decision of SCOTUS on R v W

Apparently what the Supreme Court rules on is not all that matters.

Which proves you are a hypocrite who understands ****.

 

[independentusa]

That fact that people do lose elections while spending more disproves the theory. Clearly there is some other reason people win elections. No one is denying that money has influence, but there is no way to MAKE someone vote in this country with money. They have to choose. You could even bribe someone and due to our anonymous elections you wouldnt even know if they actually voted according to the bribe. Even if it wasnt anonymous, they could take the bribe and still vote otherwise.

Yes let us see, here is Voter IDds made so hard to get as it will eliminate Dem Voters. Purges of Dem voters by GOP controlled state legislatures. Gerrymandering by state legislatures. And finally, moving voting stations in Dem areas out of those areas to make it harder for Dems to vote. Yes, you are right, there are other reasons for someone to win, but when the winners 86% of the time are the ones who spends the most, there is no question that money gets votes.

 

[Glitch]

I am from a military family and was in the military myself and nothing that happened to Vindman was usual for the military. He was frog marched out of the White House like someone who was guilty of something and the president told the military they should take action against him and for what. All because Vindman did his duty to his oath as a miulitary officer. That is something we never have to worry about Trump, he will never follow the oath he took when he became president. And Trumpsters are happy to see him break his oath and the law and have the GOP protect him.

Vindman was treated like anyone in the military who violates their chain of command. If you served in the military then you must know how seriously the military takes their chain of command. Those who violate it, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, are a military pariah and treated as such. Don't look now but your Trump Derangement Syndrome is showing yet again.

 

[Aberration]

That's rich, considering you support the party who totally disrespects the decision of SCOTUS on R v W

Apparently what the Supreme Court rules on is not all that matters.

Which proves you are a hypocrite who understands ****.

You should probably read R v W more closely. The context wasn’t global.

 

[btthegreat]

We will not pass constitutional amendments anymore. We cannot even get sufficient political will to pass bills through the senate and House. Not happening!

 

[jonny5]

Yes let us see, here is Voter IDds made so hard to get as it will eliminate Dem Voters. Purges of Dem voters by GOP controlled state legislatures. Gerrymandering by state legislatures. And finally, moving voting stations in Dem areas out of those areas to make it harder for Dems to vote. Yes, you are right, there are other reasons for someone to win, but when the winners 86% of the time are the ones who spends the most, there is no question that money gets votes.

Again, false logic. Money isnt the cause. Voters CHOOSE to go with the money. The winners 100% of the time are the ones who the voters CHOOSE.

 

[Harshaw]

But that is the effect it had.

No, it didn't.

The staggering amount of ignorance over Citizens United is really one of the more breathtaking facets of current political debate.

 

[Thoreau72]

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.

I favor the amendment process because of its finality.

If the court would somehow reverse itself that would be good, but that's not at all likely.

Move to Amend

 

[vanceen]

That really wasn't part of the CU decision. Corporate personhood wasn't the crux of the opinion.

The Constitution could certainly be amended to overturn the CU decision, but corporate personhood isn't really the issue, and addressing that wouldn't really change anything about CU (and it would mess up a lot of corporate law precedents).

Yes. Corporate personhood is an old and indispensible legal doctrine, predating CU by a long time.

 

[independentusa]

Vindman was treated like anyone in the military who violates their chain of command. If you served in the military then you must know how seriously the military takes their chain of command. Those who violate it, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, are a military pariah and treated as such. Don't look now but your Trump Derangement Syndrome is showing yet again.

Ah, but he did not break the chain of command as being from a military family I know he DID NOT. He answered a legal subpoena and answered the questions put forward undere that subpoena. To do otherwise would have had him breaking the law and his oath to the country. If he had done anything wrong you can be sure Trump would have had him axed and he can't. Trump cultists are so caught up in the Trump can do nothing wrong and anyone who "tells" on Trump is a traitor it makes we wonder about their ability to think outside of what trump tells them. Pititful!!!!

 

[independentusa]

Yes. Corporate personhood is an old and indispensible legal doctrine, predating CU by a long time.

I wonder if any of you understand what a coporation is, apparently not. Corporations were created for just two reasons. The first was to limit the liablity of the owners to just what is invested in the corporation. The second is to be able to raise money through stock sales. In business they are treated as you would a person, but they until CU made were considered a person for free speech purposes and most legal scholars think that CU was a really bad decision.