OK, libertarians I assume you are down with Citizen's United like conservatives

I'm pretty libertarian, so I'll say this: I firmly support one thing that the Citizen's United ruling allowed us to do. I was a member of a group that hosted a political rally for a minor candidate whose voice we thought needed to be heard. We had a relatively unstructured group (not a 501c3 or anything) and we were able to take up a collection and run radio ads promoting the rally. We simply declared at the end of the ad that our little group bought the ads. Prior to Citizen's United, only the campaign or an individual (with his or her own money) could have bought the ads. The ruling makes a major difference on how small groups of individuals can influence the political process.

By the way, your thread is somewhat timely, because Dan Abrams (ABC's political analyst) has a column today ripping the media for their lies about the Citizen's United ruling. Here it is: http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-...-the-supreme-courts-citizens-united-decision/

 

Colbert can produce Viacom-funded speech but Citizens United can't make a movie about Hillary? weak

 

You can't make people less apathetic. Money in politics is so disconnected to people's every day life. They don't understand how it impacts their day-to-day lives. It's hard to trace the trail for most people, if not impossible.

Obama tried in the beginning to break through by saying that he would do the right thing and practical thing, and forget the money and forget the politics.

That doesn't work.

Why doesn't it work?

Because people care about things like: who mucks up a debate, who comes across as more likable, how do they look in a suit, and how great are their sound bites...and whether they have a job or not.

No one cares about the actual policy. What they care about is perceived fears and twisted truth. They don't know who to believe, and so whenever there is something negative, they suspect it must be true.

 

Problem is that these PAC commercials are full of lies and half-truths. And most people still don't know where they come from or who is actually footing the bill.

I am all for corporations being able to spend money on TV ads. But I am not for them getting the anonymity and basically having a means to bribe politicians.

Let them spend the money, but to say it is not coordinated is a joke. Do you think Mitt Romney is not going to set policy in part to how much PAC money certain interests gave?

Why don't you just let me give a cop $100 as free speech so I can get out of a ticket? Isn't that a violation of my free speech rights?

When a corporation or a PAC attacks another candidate, they are essentially making a bribe. Spending money to benefit a political candidate in return for favors.


If you want to allow it, fine. But then make it Libel for a company to state things that are not true about a candidate and punishable under federal law.

 

IMO the government was getting too involved in regulating speech it doesn't like.

 

I agree. Perhaps we should establish something called a Ministry of Truth that will determine what sorts of things are truly correct and not. I'm sure it would work really well.

 

I don't support the idea of the SuperPAC, and I don't want to appear to. I have no problem with corporations giving unlimited money, but I do think they should have to declare it. That wasn't the intent of the Citizen's United ruling, in fact, in the majority opinion they specifically stated that it didn't allow anonymous donations to PACs. The law needs to change to say that 501(c)(4)s that donate to a PAC must disclose their donors. That's a side-effect of the Citizen's United ruling and a current loophole in the law that needs to change.

This is just not true. With exception of the years 1974-76, individuals have always been able to spend as much as they want to support whatever candidate or cause that they want. This was upheld in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. The swift boat ads were paid for by declared individuals. George Soros spent $23 Million in support of John Kerry. That was all completely legal well before the Citizen's United ruling.

 

I don't think you could call choosing from people vetted by the two parties who are seeking power a democracy. Its more of a democratic aristocracy. Like a choice between McDonalds and Burger King -- they're both bad for you, but they're slightly different!!!

 

How did Buckley lead to anything when the First Amendment violations that it overturned were never in force for a Federal election?

 

Difference is that Hillary is a politician with policy making influence. Colbert is an entertainer who isn't a servant of the public.

 

Weslinder is doing some work in this thread.

 

How far does Weslinder have to unwind your ball of string before you admit you are wrong?

 

There are a lot of definitions of the word you know. You're clearly trying to discredit ron paul libertarians with the bastardized version of it advocated by Washington DC think tanks.