Citizens United

[Uncensored2008]

In another thread, one of the less informed of the democrat partisans started spewing shit about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

30 seconds of reading the idiocy of this hack and it was clear that he had no idea at all what the case was about. In fact, very few of the leftists in this forum appear to grasp what the case is, or what it means.

First things first; here is the actual case: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Let's start by dispelling the myths that the leftist hate sites have created.

Myth #1 - Citizens United declared corporations to be people.

This is complete horseshit and utterly stupid. Corporations were recognized to have limited rights back in 1886 under the Supreme Court case of :Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad. This case ruled that IF taxes were levied against a corporation as they are levied against an individual, then the corporation assumes the rights of representation.

Corporations gained personhood over a century before Citizens United.

Myth #2 - Citizens United lets foreign corporations buy U.S. Elections.

This one has no basis in fact or reality and appears to be a deliberate distortion by the Soros run ThinkProgress hate site.

So WHAT IS Citizens United really about?

The desire of the democratic party to censor political speech.

In 2004, film maker and professional demagogue Michael Moore released the film "Fahrenheit 9-11" to attack then President Bush prior to the election. No court cases were filed against the movie, though slander and libel charges were probably warranted.

In 2008, the group Citizens United made the film "Hillary, the movie," which was an expose of Hillary Clinton and very unflattering to her. The democratic party immediately moved to censor the film and blocked release. democrats have a basic hatred of the 1st Amendment and civil liberty in general. The democrats used the McCain - Feingold rulings as a basis of denying civil rights to those not in the party. The initial effort to stop free speech was successful, but Citizens United persisted and claimed that the 1st Amendment still exists in the United States.

Lawyers for Citizens United argued that if Moore could produce political films that favor the party, then prohibiting films that work against the party violates 14th amendment equal protection rights. The court agreed.

Part of the case involved disclosure of donors. CU sought to keep the donors to the file anonymous, but the court ruled against them, which is why campaign ads will list funding at the end.

Citizens United saved the 1st Amendment - pure and simple. Had the court not thrown out the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act provisions, then all political speech would be subject to prior approval by the party.It is the most important decision defending civil rights in half a century.

 

[BlindBoo]

There was no GOP primary scheduled within the next 30 after the release of Fahrenheit 911. And the General election was well over 60 days away. That's why the federal government couldn't file a motion under McCain-Feingold to stop it's release. Furthermore it was the federal government, who halted the release of Hillary, The Movie, during the Democrat Primaries in 2008. Who was the head of the Federal government in 2008?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all

 

[MaxGrit]

Yep

 

[occupied]

What it was about does not matter at this point, what it has unleashed is far more important. Republicans like it because it gives them an advantage but wanting to win at any cost is hardly good for the democratic process of chosing our leaders.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There was no GOP primary scheduled within the next 30 after the release of Fahrenheit 911.

Moore's film actually ran within a week of the general election. Basically, the law was applied in one way when party interests were served, and a vastly different way when they were infringed.

This formed the grounds for a 14th amendment challenge, but ultimately the party was assaulting the 1st Amendment, outlawing speech critical of the party

And the General election was well over 60 days away.

Again, it ran within 7 days of the general election.

That's why the federal government couldn't file a motion under McCain-Feingold to stop it's release.

That is not at all what the party pleaded;

The party claimed that Moore was immune in that he produced the film as an individual project rather than in the interests of a PAC or political party

Furthermore it was the federal government, who halted the release of Hillary, The Movie, during the Democrat Primaries in 2008. Who was the head of the Federal government in 2008?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all

The FEC acted on complaints filed by the "Hillary 08'" group.

The key element in CU is this;

{In correctly explaining why it must address the facial constitutionality of §203, see ante , at 5–20, the Court recognizes that “[t]he First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to … seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day,” }

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM rsquo N

The provision that permission must be obtained from the party to engage in political speech is on it's face unconstitutional.

Citizens United salvaged the 1st Amendment from the garbage heap where it had been discarded.

 

[Kosh]

Well if SCOTUS had ruled against Citizen united the Unions would not be able to give the billions they do to the DNC coffers.

So as much as the far left complains about this their main funding source would not be able to give to their favorite religious organization the DNC..

 

[Uncensored2008]

What it was about does not matter at this point, what it has unleashed is far more important. Republicans like it because it gives them an advantage but wanting to win at any cost is hardly good for the democratic process of chosing our leaders.

What it was about is the censorship of political speech, ergo the revocation of the 1st Amendment. democrats are at war with civil rights, particularly the right to free speech. Citizens United quit simply established that the 1st Amendment is still in effect, that permission from the party to engage in political speech is not needed.

The party suffered a serious blow whilst civil liberty enjoyed a huge victory.

This was the most important ruling since Brown v. Board of Education - and the players were the same, democrats seeking to crush civil rights, Republicans demanding that civil rights be preserved and afforded to all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well if SCOTUS had ruled against Citizen united the Unions would not be able to give the billions they do to the DNC coffers.

Further, you could quite possibly be arrested for the message you just posted, given that it is election day.

So as much as the far left complains about this their main funding source would not be able to give to their favorite religious organization the DNC..

Remember that Citizens United actually lost on the question of anonymous donations.

 

[g5000]

Even without Citizens United, we would still be breaking campaign spending records. All attempts at campaign finance reform, including McCain-Feingold, are failures.

After I read McCain-Feingold, I predicted on another forum a flood of 527 groups, and that is exactly what happened. Remember "Swift Boating"? That was before Citizens United.

The only way to achieve true campaign finance reform is to remove the incentive for giving federal politicians money. The reason money is poured on federal politicians is because that is where the power is.

FIGURE IT OUT!

The dumb shits on the Left and Right have been handing over more and more power to the federal government, and then they have the audacity to get pissed off when special interest spending flows toward that increased power!

Can you people possibly get more retarded?

 

[g5000]

Increased campaign spending is in direct correlation to the increase in the scope of federal power.

Figure it the fuck out, dumbasses.

 

[Londoner]

Agree with OP for the most part. The personhood concept is a silly leftist exaggeration.

Citizens United isn't that complicated. It makes it easier for concentrated wealth - on the left or the right - to buy concentrated power, and it creates a stronger buffer of secrecy so that politicians can receive the money in the place they love the most: darkness.

And of course this newly created darkness makes it easier for foreign money to slide into the coffers of our politicians, but what naïve moron believed that this wasn't possible prior to this ruling. Money always creates a slithery path into the pockets of those willing to take it, this is why capitalism is so effective - because it doesn't need a democratic system of voting to mold the world. It just fucking buys it.

Our political system, especially since 1980, has been run by concentrated wealth - and corporations have always been the largest source of that wealth.

Study the 2003 Republican drug bill. Study the amount of money that big Pharma pumped into the pockets of our politicians. The influence of money on legislation has been occurring for a long long time. Citizens United may increase the total number of dollars sloshing through Washington, but in truth nothing has really changed that much.

The OP is shadowboxing against another fake demon. The rest of us are not shocked that our political system is run by the highest bidder. And nobody is shocked that the Republican base would aggressively defend a bill that makes it easier for people to buy Washington.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

1. Fahrenheit 9/11
   
   
   2004 ‧ Indie film/Drama ‧ 2h 3m
2. 7.5/10-IMDb
   83%-Rotten Tomatoes
   67%-Metacritic
3. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary film by American filmmaker and director and political commentator Michael Moore. The film takes a critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and its coverage in the news media. Wikipedia
4. Release date: June 25, 2004 (USA)
5. Director: Michael Moore
6. Initial DVD release: October 5, 2004
7. Sequel: Fahrenheit 9/11½
8. Cast: Michael Moore
9. Awards: Palme d'Or, People's Choice Award for Favorite Movie, BFCA Critics' Choice Award for Best Documentary Feature

Election date in 2004, November 2 ......................

So June 25 to November 2 would be how many days??

 

[Uncensored2008]

Even without Citizens United, we would still be breaking campaign spending records. All attempts at campaign finance reform, including McCain-Feingold, are failures.

After I read McCain-Feingold, I predicted on another forum a flood of 527 groups, and that is exactly what happened. Remember "Swift Boating"? That was before Citizens United.

The only way to achieve true campaign finance reform is to remove the incentive for giving federal politicians money. The reason money is poured on federal politicians is because that is where the power is.

FIGURE IT OUT!

The dumb shits on the Left and Right have been handing over more and more power to the federal government, and then they have the audacity to get pissed off when special interest spending flows toward that power!

Can you people possibly get more retarded?

What is your proposal for removing the incentive? George Soros is a majority share holder in Blue Cross / Blue Shield. Soros funds about a dozen ultra-leftist web sites that promote radical left democrats and promoted Fascist Care, which directly impacts the profitability of Blue Cross.

How would you take the incentive out of Soros funding MoveOn and ThinkProgress? Did Soros buy the Obama presidency? He was certainly a major player. Did he buy Obamacare? His plethora of sites played a roll in forcing it through.

My perspective is that the court selected the right balance, that we cannot censor or prohibit political speech, but those who fund it shall be known.

 

[g5000]

What is your proposal for removing the incentive?

You missed the forest for the trees. I stated quite plainly what the incentive is: federal power.

Take away federal power, and you take away the incentive to buy it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. Fahrenheit 9/11
   View attachment 33780 2004 ‧ Indie film/Drama ‧ 2h 3m
2. 7.5/10-IMDb
   83%-Rotten Tomatoes
   67%-Metacritic
3. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary film by American filmmaker and director and political commentator Michael Moore. The film takes a critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and its coverage in the news media. Wikipedia
4. Release date: June 25, 2004 (USA)
5. Director: Michael Moore
6. Initial DVD release: October 5, 2004
7. Sequel: Fahrenheit 9/11½
8. Cast: Michael Moore
9. Awards: Palme d'Or, People's Choice Award for Favorite Movie, BFCA Critics' Choice Award for Best Documentary Feature

Election date in 2004, November 2 ......................

So June 25 to November 2 would be how many days??

It was in Los Angeles theaters less than a week before the general election. Release date is irrelevant, show dates would be the relevant factor.

However, I never suggested censoring Moore - we have a 1st Amendment in this country. Thanks to Citizens United - we STILL have a 1st Amendment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What is your proposal for removing the incentive?

You missed the forest for the trees. I stated quite plainly what the incentive is: federal power.

Take away federal power, and you take away the incentive to buy it.

Good answer.

 

[g5000]

ObamaCare is a federal government takeover of health care. The liberals have therefore created a whole new massive basket of goodies to be bought by special interests. The campaign cash which will flow just to buy control over our country's health care system will be mind blowing.

And those same liberals will be crying over all that campaign spending which they created!

It just does not get any more retarded than that.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

It was in Los Angeles theaters less than a week before the general election. Release date is irrelevant, show dates would be the relevant factor.

However, I never suggested censoring Moore - we have a 1st Amendment in this country. Thanks to Citizens United - we STILL have a 1st Amendment.

No your implications were quite clear, you thought it was earth shattering news, the timing of which played a very critical part ...................

At least till I pointed the hard facts out and called you on your BS .....................

 

[Kosh]

1. Fahrenheit 9/11
   View attachment 33780 2004 ‧ Indie film/Drama ‧ 2h 3m
2. 7.5/10-IMDb
   83%-Rotten Tomatoes
   67%-Metacritic
3. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary film by American filmmaker and director and political commentator Michael Moore. The film takes a critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and its coverage in the news media. Wikipedia
4. Release date: June 25, 2004 (USA)
5. Director: Michael Moore
6. Initial DVD release: October 5, 2004
7. Sequel: Fahrenheit 9/11½
8. Cast: Michael Moore
9. Awards: Palme d'Or, People's Choice Award for Favorite Movie, BFCA Critics' Choice Award for Best Documentary Feature

Election date in 2004, November 2 ......................

So June 25 to November 2 would be how many days??

To call any Michel Moore film a "Documentary" is being very disingenuous..

Also your own link shows that the DVD came out in October less than 30 days from the elections. So your link just proved the OP, congratulations..

 

[Kosh]

What is your proposal for removing the incentive?

You missed the forest for the trees. I stated quite plainly what the incentive is: federal power.

Take away federal power, and you take away the incentive to buy it.

Then do not support the far left or vote far left..