Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?

Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Money Is Not Speech

WASHINGTON (AP) — Campaign donations pay for more than political ads and should not be protected as free speech, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told a Senate panel Wednesday in urging them to rein in the billions of dollars shaping elections.

The retired justice reminded lawmakers that political donations funded the burglary at the Watergate office complex under President Richard Nixon. That break-in at the Democratic National Committee is not speech, Stevens argued in a rare appearance of a former justice in the Senate.

"While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protections as speech itself," Stevens said. "After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglary, actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment."

I know. But why do you agree with Justice Stevens and not Justice Kennedy? Do you have a constitutional argument or is it purely ideological? Nothing wrong with it if the last (purely ideological) is the case. Just trying to flush out where others stand and why

 

[Derideo_Te]

The concept of corporations being "people" with "free speech rights" is ludicrous.

If that were true then a corporation would be restricted to the same contribution limits as you and I but that isn't the case.

Furthermore there is nothing that grants a corporation "citizenship". So anyone can create a corporation, even foreign nationals, and use it to influence the outcome of an American election.

CU will go down in history as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history and that will sully the reputation of partisan bigots like Scalia so ultimately some good might come of it.

First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"

That was my point!

Some people are offended by the practices and some like you the mere concept.
You object to corporations being 'people' in court, but if they aren't 'people' in court how do you sue them, how do you hold them criminally liable (can you?), how do fine them? Can you fine a door, a table, a chair?

The concept of corporations being "people" for legal purposes does not grant them the same rights as citizens. Unfortunately the current corrupt SCOTUS decided to grant them the same free speech rights as citizens which is absurd. A corporation cannot be "jailed", it cannot "vote" (at least not yet), it cannot "bear arms" and it cannot hold office.

So why the charade of treating corporations like "people"? Because it suits the agenda of the extreme right.

Can foreign nationals contribute already?

Quick Answers-General Questions

Can non-US citizens contribute?
Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.​

Is what you say about the results of the ruling spin and opinion or can you point to it in the ruling? It's okay if you can't -- point to it in the ruling. Most people can't.

Foreign Nationals Electoral Spending and the First Amendment by Toni M. Massaro SSRN

One of the ideas raised by critics of Citizens United is that
Congress might further limit the ability of foreign corporations
to make campaign expenditures.8 Existing laws already limit
foreign speakers (both individual and corporate) from making
campaign contributions to candidates for state or federal office,
or contributions to American political parties,9
though the laws
exempt permanent resident aliens and American subsidiaries
of foreign corporations. Existing laws also prohibit foreign nationals—which
include individuals who are not lawful permanent
residents, foreign governments, corporations, residents,
and political parties ‚organized under the laws of or having
[their] principal place of business in a foreign country‛10—from
funding the operation of a PAC.11 Post-Citizens United, because
the law exempts American subsidiaries of foreign corporations
from these restrictions, these subsidiaries need not use a PAC
to expend funds on a domestic election.​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.

We are all lobbyists on some level, so personally I'd be careful what I advocate for or against them. Not saying you have written anything against the existence of lobbyists.

Bribes are against the law.

One persons "bribe" is another's lobbyist donation.

Yet the framers desired lobbying from citizens. You'd have to outlaw lobbying and that would kill democracy. So now what? Laws that limit speech, money, access, influence? Will they pass constitutional muster -- any of the ideas you may have on how to do it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?

Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.

No, I don't. But I'm smart enough to realize that any group that does is doing it to buy power and influence. Both things that are anathema to the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

You deny a political party is a group like any other group? Haven't parties spent money on campaigns of one person against another? Why should a political party be treated any differently than any other group? Is this consistent with your understanding of the US Constitution and -- gulp -- the Declaration of Independence.

Do all donors demand pay back? What is wrong with influence? Do you not want to influence your representatives?

What I do as an INDIVIDUAL is one thing. What political parties do is entirely different. And yes I would apply the same control to political parties. I don't like how the RNC, or the DNC skews local politics because of their money.

Would you consider banning political parties?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.

We are all lobbyists on some level, so personally I'd be careful what I advocate for or against them. Not saying you have written anything against the existence of lobbyists.

Bribes are against the law.

Unlimited campaign "contributions" are de facto bribes in my opinion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"

Some people are offended by the practices and some like you the mere concept.
You object to corporations being 'people' in court, but if they aren't 'people' in court how do you sue them, how do you hold them criminally liable (can you?), how do fine them? Can you fine a door, a table, a chair?

Can foreign nationals contribute already? Is what you say about the results of the ruling spin and opinion or can you point to it in the ruling? It's okay if you can't -- point to it in the ruling. Most people can't.

Thank you.

The defacto granting of some limited individual rights to corporations occurred in 1885, under the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case. Essentially, if Santa Clara county was to impose a tax on the corporation, the act of declaring the corporation a legal entity to be taxed conferred certain rights. You cannot declare a corporation an entity for the purpose of taxation, then deny that it is an entity in regard to rights.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co. 118 U.S. 394 1886 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

The complaint of the DNC (who held the leash of the FEC) that releasing a movie constituted "soft money" in the face of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" from the previous election was absurd. And as you already pointed out, the court ruled AGAINST Citizens United on several points. Where they did support CU was vital, the most important validation of 1st Amendment civil rights in over a century.

Wow there tiger! Lots happened between the Pacific Railroad case and Citizens. Lots that was bipartisan and partisan. This is why I put up a link to McConnell v FCC case. McCain-Feingold ring a bell?
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It was not the task of the Citizens United Court to resolve the issue of the undue influence money has in the political process, the Court's task was solely to determine if the remedy implemented by Congress to address the problem passed Constitutional muster – it did not.

Now it's incumbent upon the people find another route to realize campaign finance reform that comports with the First Amendment.

Sort of like Obamacare?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course it's difficult to generate any real 'outrage' with regard to how money and politics work when it's the people themselves who are ultimately to blame.

That too many voters possess such weak minds as to be influenced by slick attack ads is the problem, instead of researching the candidates and issues themselves and voting based on the facts, having nothing to do with the Citizens United ruling or any lack of campaign finance reform.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.

We are all lobbyists on some level, so personally I'd be careful what I advocate for or against them. Not saying you have written anything against the existence of lobbyists.

Bribes are against the law.

Unlimited campaign "contributions" are de facto bribes in my opinion.

black and white. no shades of gray. I am sure others must have reasons why this is detrimental to freedom, liberty, and apple pie -- but I wonder i there is a constitutional argument to back it up? I'm sure there must be, but is it sound?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The concept of corporations being "people" with "free speech rights" is ludicrous.

If that were true then a corporation would be restricted to the same contribution limits as you and I but that isn't the case.

Furthermore there is nothing that grants a corporation "citizenship". So anyone can create a corporation, even foreign nationals, and use it to influence the outcome of an American election.

CU will go down in history as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history and that will sully the reputation of partisan bigots like Scalia so ultimately some good might come of it.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. Are you saying Justice Kennedy is a partisan bigot and why single out only Justice Scalia?

I singled out Scalia because he is both partisan and a bigot. That his record will include his support for one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in all time will be yet another stain on his reputation.

Kennedy was arguing purely from a legal point of view in my opinion and he failed to look at the broader picture as to the ramifications of his decision. That will sully his reputation. One can make the claim that the SCOTUS cannot "legislate from the bench" but in this instance I believe they did just that. They effectively granted corporations free speech rights and the ability for subsidiaries of foreign corporations to purchase the results of US elections. That is not something that would have passed in Congress in my opinion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was not the task of the Citizens United Court to resolve the issue of the undue influence money has in the political process, the Court's task was solely to determine if the remedy implemented by Congress to address the problem passed Constitutional muster – it did not.

Now it's incumbent upon the people find another route to realize campaign finance reform that comports with the First Amendment.

Nonsense.

The McCain - Feingold act purported to address the issue of influence of contributions. Citizens United was a question of law.

The Court was not tasked with regulating elections, nor did it attempt to do so. The court ruled on the Constitutionality of the matter before it, three elements were addressed.

First, does the Legislature have the Constitutional power to limit political speech?

{The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[31]}

Penned by Justice Kennedy.

This is the most important ruling in support of civil rights since Brown v, BoE - this confirms that the 1st Amendment is still valid and that civil rights may not be revoked via the legislative process.

On the flip side, the court held that the disclosure requirements of the BCRA were Constitutional and ruled in favor of the FEC/DNC.

Further, despite the disinformation campaigns that have been waged, the court UPHELD the ban on direct contributions to candidates and campaigns by corporations. The claim that CU allowed unlimited corporate donations is false.

Reference:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[Uncensored2008]

I singled out Scalia because he is both partisan and a bigot. That his record will include his support for one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in all time will be yet another stain on his reputation.

Kennedy was arguing purely from a legal point of view in my opinion and he failed to look at the broader picture as to the ramifications of his decision. That will sully his reputation. One can make the claim that the SCOTUS cannot "legislate from the bench" but in this instance I believe they did just that. They effectively granted corporations free speech rights and the ability for subsidiaries of foreign corporations to purchase the results of US elections. That is not something that would have passed in Congress in my opinion.

The greatest flaw in your argument is that there is simply no truth to it at all.

 

[westwall]

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?

Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.

No, I don't. But I'm smart enough to realize that any group that does is doing it to buy power and influence. Both things that are anathema to the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

You deny a political party is a group like any other group? Haven't parties spent money on campaigns of one person against another? Why should a political party be treated any differently than any other group? Is this consistent with your understanding of the US Constitution and -- gulp -- the Declaration of Independence.

Do all donors demand pay back? What is wrong with influence? Do you not want to influence your representatives?

What I do as an INDIVIDUAL is one thing. What political parties do is entirely different. And yes I would apply the same control to political parties. I don't like how the RNC, or the DNC skews local politics because of their money.

Would you consider banning political parties?

No. Just how they fund political campaigns.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?

Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Money Is Not Speech

WASHINGTON (AP) — Campaign donations pay for more than political ads and should not be protected as free speech, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told a Senate panel Wednesday in urging them to rein in the billions of dollars shaping elections.

The retired justice reminded lawmakers that political donations funded the burglary at the Watergate office complex under President Richard Nixon. That break-in at the Democratic National Committee is not speech, Stevens argued in a rare appearance of a former justice in the Senate.

"While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protections as speech itself," Stevens said. "After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglary, actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment."

I know. But why do you agree with Justice Stevens and not Justice Kennedy? Do you have a constitutional argument or is it purely ideological? Nothing wrong with it if the last (purely ideological) is the case. Just trying to flush out where others stand and why

All of the above.

From a Constitutional perspective the extreme right objects strenuously to illegal immigrants having any "rights" at all but they are more than happy to allow the subsidiaries of foreign owned corporations "free speech rights" to purchase the outcome of a US election? WTF?

Ideologically I am opposed to the current unfettered campaign financing since it means that the Koch Bros (or George Soros if you prefer) has a billion more "votes" than you or I do because of their money. Democracy (small 'd') means one person, one vote*. Under CU your vote and mine is now one billionth of that of billionaires. From an ideological perspective that is just flat out wrong.

*No, I am not going to respond to anyone who kneejerks with 'America is a Republic' deflection.)

 

[westwall]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.

We are all lobbyists on some level, so personally I'd be careful what I advocate for or against them. Not saying you have written anything against the existence of lobbyists.

Bribes are against the law.

One persons "bribe" is another's lobbyist donation.

Yet the framers desired lobbying from citizens. You'd have to outlaw lobbying and that would kill democracy. So now what? Laws that limit speech, money, access, influence? Will they pass constitutional muster -- any of the ideas you may have on how to do it?

Yes, from CITIZENS. Not professionals. Nor did they want professional politicians.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.

We are all lobbyists on some level, so personally I'd be careful what I advocate for or against them. Not saying you have written anything against the existence of lobbyists.

Bribes are against the law.

Unlimited campaign "contributions" are de facto bribes in my opinion.

black and white. no shades of gray. I am sure others must have reasons why this is detrimental to freedom, liberty, and apple pie -- but I wonder i there is a constitutional argument to back it up? I'm sure there must be, but is it sound?

Perhaps the 14th Amendment? If we are all equal under the law then how come some are more equal than others? Why do "people" with more money get to have a louder voice in elections than others with less money?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?

Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.

No, I don't. But I'm smart enough to realize that any group that does is doing it to buy power and influence. Both things that are anathema to the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

You deny a political party is a group like any other group? Haven't parties spent money on campaigns of one person against another? Why should a political party be treated any differently than any other group? Is this consistent with your understanding of the US Constitution and -- gulp -- the Declaration of Independence.

Do all donors demand pay back? What is wrong with influence? Do you not want to influence your representatives?

What I do as an INDIVIDUAL is one thing. What political parties do is entirely different. And yes I would apply the same control to political parties. I don't like how the RNC, or the DNC skews local politics because of their money.

Again, that wasn't the issue before the Court. That corporations, political parties, and other political organizations and entities are entitled to First Amendment protections is settled and accepted:

'The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”'

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM rsquo N

What you do as an individual, or what political parties do as organizations, is Constitutionally the same.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The concept of corporations being "people" with "free speech rights" is ludicrous.

If that were true then a corporation would be restricted to the same contribution limits as you and I but that isn't the case.

Furthermore there is nothing that grants a corporation "citizenship". So anyone can create a corporation, even foreign nationals, and use it to influence the outcome of an American election.

CU will go down in history as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history and that will sully the reputation of partisan bigots like Scalia so ultimately some good might come of it.

First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"

That was my point!

Yet your point gets lost you say corporations aren't people yet you consistently compare them with people. If you do this why would a foreign corp necessarily be a citizen just because an American corp were a citizen? Wouldn't foreign corps be held to the same standards as foreign citizens?

I could go on but I'm sure this one boggles the mind.

Some people are offended by the practices and some like you the mere concept.
You object to corporations being 'people' in court, but if they aren't 'people' in court how do you sue them, how do you hold them criminally liable (can you?), how do fine them? Can you fine a door, a table, a chair?

The concept of corporations being "people" for legal purposes does not grant them the same rights as citizens. Unfortunately the current corrupt SCOTUS decided to grant them the same free speech rights as citizens which is absurd. A corporation cannot be "jailed", it cannot "vote" (at least not yet), it cannot "bear arms" and it cannot hold office.

So why the charade of treating corporations like "people"? Because it suits the agenda of the extreme right.

I used to argue your points above until I actually read the opinions. I must say I disagree with some imbecilic notions Justice Kennedy puts forth, but I've always thought Kennedy wrote some weird shit whether I agreed with his opinion or not or supported the outcome or not.

Whether a corp can be jailed (it can be fined), vote, bear arms, or hold office was not before the Court and I doubt any case on any of those idiocies would never get passed a filing.

Can foreign nationals contribute already?

Quick Answers-General Questions

Can non-US citizens contribute?
Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.​

.... ... .. .

Is what you say about the results of the ruling spin and opinion or can you point to it in the ruling? It's okay if you can't -- point to it in the ruling. Most people can't.

Foreign Nationals Electoral Spending and the First Amendment by Toni M. Massaro SSRN

One of the ideas raised by critics of Citizens United is that
Congress might further limit the ability of foreign corporations
to make campaign expenditures.8 Existing laws already limit
foreign speakers (both individual and corporate) from making
campaign contributions to candidates for state or federal office,
or contributions to American political parties,9
though the laws
exempt permanent resident aliens and American subsidiaries
of foreign corporations. Existing laws also prohibit foreign nationals—which
include individuals who are not lawful permanent
residents, foreign governments, corporations, residents,
and political parties ‚organized under the laws of or having
[their] principal place of business in a foreign country‛10—from
funding the operation of a PAC.11 Post-Citizens United, because
the law exempts American subsidiaries of foreign corporations
from these restrictions, these subsidiaries need not use a PAC
to expend funds on a domestic election.​

"Signs are that the current Court would defer to Congress and uphold restrictions on foreign national campaign expenditures, were it to address the question directly." - from your link -- and I fully agree.

and

"Whether this constitutional point matters, however, is questionable given the rapid development of new communications technologies. Foreign nationals, like American citizens, now have multiple ways of reaching potential voters that make efforts to territorialize such influence infeasible. Consequently, the most important constitutional question on the post - Citizens United horizon may not be who can expend funds, but whether donor identity can be disclosed so that voters can better evaluate electoral messages from foreign and non-foreign sources, and whether the privacy objections to such disclosure can, or should, be overcome." - I don't think this helps you out any. Hypotheticals that will most probably not come into play?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I singled out Scalia because he is both partisan and a bigot. That his record will include his support for one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in all time will be yet another stain on his reputation.

Kennedy was arguing purely from a legal point of view in my opinion and he failed to look at the broader picture as to the ramifications of his decision. That will sully his reputation. One can make the claim that the SCOTUS cannot "legislate from the bench" but in this instance I believe they did just that. They effectively granted corporations free speech rights and the ability for subsidiaries of foreign corporations to purchase the results of US elections. That is not something that would have passed in Congress in my opinion.

The greatest flaw in your argument is that there is simply no truth to it at all.

Your greatest flaw is that contribute nothing of any value to this forum.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course it's difficult to generate any real 'outrage' with regard to how money and politics work when it's the people themselves who are ultimately to blame.

That too many voters possess such weak minds as to be influenced by slick attack ads is the problem, instead of researching the candidates and issues themselves and voting based on the facts, having nothing to do with the Citizens United ruling or any lack of campaign finance reform.

agreed

 

[Uncensored2008]

Perhaps the 14th Amendment? If we are all equal under the law then how come some are more equal than others? Why do "people" with more money get to have a louder voice in elections than others with less money?

Why does the media get a louder voice? Why do unions? Why does a union that benefits DIRECTLY from a particular official have the right to campaign for that official using the employees of that official as their troops?

IF people are prohibited from forming cooperative alliances through the formation of PACs, are you not denying them the right to join together to provide an alternate voice to the media and the unions?