g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 125,228
- 68,948
- 2,605
When will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections. Now the upper hand is being shifted to the right.
Even Rachel maddow appeared to admit that though she probably didn't mean to.
After all they had now problem when Obama outspent McCain and have no problem with unions pouring money into elections.
My opposition to CU v. FEC is it is anti-democratic. It matters not if Unions or Industry or foreign nations make and enforce our laws. What CU does is puts more power (influence is power) in the hands of powerful self intersts and reduces the power of the individual.
Nonsense. You do not understand the tremendous power behind the freedom of association is one of the things that makes our country great. You have the freedom to give your money to an organization which will amplify your voice for you.
This is to be celebrated, not stamped out!
An association consists simply in the public assent which a number of individuals give to certain doctrines and in the engagement which they contract to promote in a certain manner the spread of those doctrines. The right of associating in this fashion almost merges with freedom of the press, but societies thus formed possess more authority than the press. When an opinion is represented by a society, it necessarily assumes a more exact and explicit form. It numbers its partisans and engages them in its cause; they, on the other hand, become acquainted with one another, and their zeal is increased by their number. An association unites into one channel the efforts of divergent minds and urges them vigorously towards the one end which it clearly points out.
The second degree in the exercise of the right of association is the power of meeting. When an association is allowed to establish centers of action at certain important points in the country, its activity is increased and its influence extended. Men have the opportunity of seeing one another; means of execution are combined; and opinions are maintained with a warmth and energy that written language can never attain.
Lastly, in the exercise of the right of political association there is a third degree: the partisans of an opinion may unite in electoral bodies and choose delegates to represent them in a central assembly. This is, properly speaking, the application of the representative system to a party.
If, among a people who are imperfectly accustomed to the exercise of freedom, or are exposed to violent political passions, by the side of the majority which makes the laws is placed a minority which only deliberates and gets laws ready for adoption, I cannot but believe that public tranquillity would there incur very great risks. There is doubtless a wide difference between proving that one law is in itself better than another and proving that the former ought to be substituted for the latter. But the imagination of the multitude is very apt to overlook this difference, which is so apparent to the minds of thinking men. It sometimes happens that a nation is divided into two nearly equal parties, each of which affects to represent the majority. If, near the directing power, another power is established which exercises almost as much moral authority as the former, we are not to believe that it will long be content to speak without acting; or that it will always be restrained by the abstract consideration that associations are meant to direct opinions, but not to enforce them, to suggest but not to make the laws.
In America the liberty of association for political purposes is unlimited.
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 12