Citizes United Unlimited Corporate/ Money in Elections

That's groups, not parties. Overall spending, I believe the Democrats have spent more.

Regardless, it still doesn't matter. Money doesn't always equate to winning. The high coincidence between and spending and winning can just as easily be an instance of the right politicians attract the money and hence the winning. You seem to be under this delusion that all corporations are run by Republicans who anonymously and quite Machiavellian-like run the world.
And we still have loopholes in that statute that made it ok for major media corporations to spend their money in elections.

I've got to get back to outlining though.

 

Don't know if I agree with the reasoning of the decision but am very displeased with the effects we're seeing in this election cycle as a result. I was hoping after the decision that the Congress would quickly try to patch the wound by crafting some kind of legislation that would satisfy the courts but still protect the democracy. But, they haven't done anything (and now they are paying the price).

 

mark knows that. He's a Yankees fan.

(even so....I'm against this judgement. It effectively ups the ante even more for candidates seeking election. Harder to get there without industry support of some kind).

 

That's kinda the point though, isn't it? Because of the court decision, we've had a lot of well-funded, mysterious groups pop up and do some drive-by campaigning outside of the official party structures.

 

now you're just being nasty...

 

I just don't see the problem. Maybe a simple solution to what you see as a problem would be to make these mysterious groups register. I would be fine with that. Telling them they can't fund, in the case of Citizen's United, an independent movie about Hillary Clinton, is ridiculous. If they want to waste their money on that by all means let them.

 

I think that would help some. I don't like anonymous free speech.

But, it seems to me the weakness in your argument is the idea that you can't buy elections. Honestly, money moves elections. Just like my company calculates how much it costs to buy a customer with marketing, politicians can count on a cost to acquire a vote. That cost can move with how effective their marketing execution is and how effective the opposition is with their spend. And, some customer profiles will be more expensive to acquire than others. But, it is a statistical problem more than an ideological one. You'll be able to point to campaigns that spent a lot and screwed up. Still, marketing has been proven to work, and it will apply to this product just as it would to any other.

 

And I guess I just don't have that much of a problem with it. Both sides have money.

 

Let's also keep in mind the real issue in Citizen's United is whether a group of individuals lose their free speech rights if they want to say something unified as a corporation. Keep in mind that there were major loopholes in the law for media corporations, etc.

We can argue about the policy of certain limitations, and I think most of those would be permissible, but this was a complete ban on a certain type of speech. Kennedy, who can't really be classified as an arch-conservative, thought the ban went over the line.

 

Since politicians have proven to be so honest and beholden to the voting populace, then I can see where you wouldn't have a problem with unlimited, anonymous dollars being spent on public elections.

I know there are a lot of judges and sheriffs in small backwater little towns across the country who would agree.

 

exactly, the problem is what happens when candidate x now has some special requests from his/her "anonymous" donor

 

I think a bill that had simple addressed the ability for donors to be annoymous would have been fine. This did more than that.

 

Jesus, this makes my head hurt.

Did you take corporations in law school?

YOu do know that a corporation isn't "a group of individuals" rather it was expressly created not to be so legally? That's kind of the whole point of having them - to create an artificial entity separate from a "group of individuals'?

You also do know that the "individuals" making up corporations are frequently artificial entities themselves too, right?

You also do know that individuals don't "lose" anything in their personal capacity with respect to restrictions on corporations right? No regulation applicable to News Corporation has any bearing on what Rupert Murdoch, the man can do - you do realize that right?

YOu also know that corporations exist subject to the state's corporation code, and can have their nature and existence drastically altered by legislative or administrative action at pretty much any time, right?

Yeah, guess what has happened to these bills in the senate.....one guess....

Then the court in Citizens United could have confined its ruling to that basis. But it didn't.

 

This is just the tip...

What happens when group X goes to a Senator and tells them to vote one way or face $3 million in anonymous money the next election?

Citizens just flat out gave the rich license to buy government. There's not even pretending anymore... just secrecy.

 

My prediction is that we will soon see a startling increase of politicians caught with their pants down and money sticking out their assholes.

 

Follow the money...http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130845545&ps=cprs



and here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130836771&ps=rs

 

Let me be more clear. I was posing the essential question of Citizens in a laymen's terms sort of way because not everyone in here has gone to law school.

You and I both know its not as simple as saying all corporate speech can be regulated and in the case of political speech, specifically electioneering, completely suppressed. We know this can't be because as Justice Kennedy put it, media corporations would not be able to have their speech suppressed, as the contested sections of McCain -Feingold recognized and made allowance for.

Let's be clear on what is and what is not acceptable. Federal law still prohibits corporations "from using the general treasury to make direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, inconnection with certain qualified federal elections" Citizens, J. Kennedy at 3. McCain Feingold also banned corporations from using funds from the treasury to participate in electioneering communications, which are defined as "'any broad-cast, cable, or satellite communication' that 'refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office' and is madewithin 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election." Id.

I'll just post Kennedy's argument about corporations and you can argue with that.

 

No.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aWGuUwjS4Pc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aWGuUwjS4Pc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

Voted yes, because the Constitution does a better job explaining free speech than popular sovereignty, or even "fairness."

 

From Justice Kennedy, starting at 25:

1
The Court has recognized that First Amendment protec-tion extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977);[string cite of a 1000 cases]

This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button, 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936). Under the rationale of these precedents,political speech does not lose First Amendment protection“simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion)(“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determiningwhether speech is protected. Corporations and otherassociations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bel-lotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected theargument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the FirstAmendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id., at 780, n. 16. Cf. id., at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
At least since the latter part of the 19th century, thelaws of some States and of the United States imposed a ban on corporate direct contributions to candidates. See
B. Smith, Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform 23 (2001). Yet not until 1947 did Congress firstprohibit independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions in §304 of the Labor Management Relations Act 1947, 61 Stat. 159 (codified at 2 U. S. C. §251 (1946 ed., Supp. I)). In passing this Act Congress overrode theveto of President Truman, who warned that the expendi-ture ban was a “dangerous intrusion on free speech.” Message from the President of the United States, H. R. Doc. No. 334, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1947).
For almost three decades thereafter, the Court did not reach the question whether restrictions on corporate and union expenditures are constitutional. See WRTL, 551
U. S., at 502 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). The question was inthe background of United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106 (1948). There, a labor union endorsed a congressionalcandidate in its weekly periodical. The Court stated that “the gravest doubt would arise in our minds as to [the federal expenditure prohibition’s] constitutionality” if itwere construed to suppress that writing. Id., at 121. The Court engaged in statutory interpretation and found the statute did not cover the publication. Id., at 121–122, and
n. 20. Four Justices, however, said they would reach theconstitutional question and invalidate the Labor Man-agement Relations Act’s expenditure ban. Id., at 155 (Rutledge, J., joined by Black, Douglas, and Murphy, JJ., concurring in result). The concurrence explained that any “‘undue influence’” generated by a speaker’s “large expen-ditures” was outweighed “by the loss for democratic proc-esses resulting from the restrictions upon free and fullpublic discussion.” Id., at 143.
In United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567 (1957), the Court again encountered the independent expenditure ban, which had been recodified at 18 U. S. C.§610 (1952 ed.). See 62 Stat. 723–724. After holding onlythat a union television broadcast that endorsed candidates was covered by the statute, the Court “[r]efus[ed] to an-ticipate constitutional questions” and remanded for the trial to proceed. 352 U. S., at 591. Three Justices dis-
sented, arguing that the Court should have reached theconstitutional question and that the ban on independent expenditures was unconstitutional:
“Under our Constitution it is We The People whoare sovereign. The people have the final say. The leg-islators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important—vitally important—that all channels of communications be open to them duringevery election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.” Id., at 593 (opinion ofDouglas, J., joined by Warren, C. J., and Black, J.).
The dissent concluded that deeming a particular group“too powerful” was not a “justificatio[n] for withholdingFirst Amendment rights from any group—labor or corpo-rate.” Id., at 597. The Court did not get another opportu-nity to consider the constitutional question in that case;for after a remand, a jury found the defendants not guilty. See Hayward, Revisiting the Fable of Reform, 45 Harv. J.Legis. 421, 463 (2008).
Later, in Pipefitters v. United States, 407 U. S. 385, 400– 401 (1972), the Court reversed a conviction for expendi-ture of union funds for political speech—again without reaching the constitutional question. The Court would not resolve that question for another four years.

.......

[From Bellotti, a 1978 case on the same topic]

“We thus find no support in the First . . . Amend-ment, or in the decisions of this Court, for the proposi-tion that speech that otherwise would be within the protection of the First Amendment loses that protec-tion simply because its source is a corporation that cannot prove, to the satisfaction of a court, a material effect on its business or property. . . . [That proposi-tion] amounts to an impermissible legislative prohibi-tion of speech based on the identity of the interests that spokesmen may represent in public debate over controversial issues and a requirement that thespeaker have a sufficiently great interest in the sub-ject to justify communication.
. . . . .

“In the realm of protected speech, the legislature is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the sub-jects about which persons may speak and the speak-ers who may address a public issue.” Id., at 784–785.

Etc. I can keep going but I'm sure this is boring most folks. Bottom line, don't oversimplify the case.