An honest question to conservatives.

[squeeze berry]

So....

To sum up the current answers:

1. Liberals did it.
2. Now we can do it, our way.
3. Liberals whine.



That is great and all..

But, does the ability for undocumented/unaccounted campaign contributions improve politics?

to sum it up...

the playing field is level

 

[westwall]

The Citizens United is an ideologically conservative non-profit group that challenged the Federal Election Commission and aspects of BCR Act of 2002, etc.. I am sure you all know by now..

Read more here.

Basically opening the doors for a ton of Corporate spending in elections.

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court? And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

Not trying to flame bait, I just want to see what conservative citizens really think about this.

No, I didn't like the ruling. However, I do like the fact that the unions no longer have a monopoly on lobbying government. That too was an abomination.

 

[blackhawk]

The Citizens United is an ideologically conservative non-profit group that challenged the Federal Election Commission and aspects of BCR Act of 2002, etc.. I am sure you all know by now..

Read more here.

Basically opening the doors for a ton of Corporate spending in elections.

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court? And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

Not trying to flame bait, I just want to see what conservative citizens really think about this.

Do I think there is to much special interest money in politics yes do I like it not really but at the end of the day it still comes down to your message if you have a lousy message, and bad policy views I'm not sure how much the money can help with that.

 

[alan1]

The Citizens United is an ideologically conservative non-profit group that challenged the Federal Election Commission and aspects of BCR Act of 2002, etc.. I am sure you all know by now..

Read more here.

Basically opening the doors for a ton of Corporate spending in elections.

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court? And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

Not trying to flame bait, I just want to see what conservative citizens really think about this.

They didn't go far enough. I still have limits on how much I can personally contribute.
I find it to be bullshit that if I want to run for office, I can personally finance as much of my own campaign as I want to (or can afford), but if my brother wants to run for office I am limited in how much I can contribute to his campaign.

 

[squeeze berry]

The truth is, American conservatives love corporations. Talk to them and they feel we should be having a completely different kind of government.

One where the church controls the social aspect of our lives. And corporations control everything else. They only want majority rule when they are in the majority. Under Church control, we can limit or get rid of the gays, limit what women can do, ban other religions and change public schools.

Under the corporate aspect, we can deregulate corporations and end environment laws.

The zany idea is that corporations will keep things clean on their own and they will create jobs for everyone. With the church handling the moral aspect, we will have a "moral" country with everyone in their proper place paying the correct respect to "God".

Only, it's a weird Christian Taliban type of fantasy that could only come to pass with a lot of violence and continued suffering.

so then there are no conservative atheists and no libs go to church.

There are no dems that are heads of large corporations. No dems are stockholders. No reps are working class.

No business was ever successful witout the help of the govt.

All businesses are corrupt.

Anyone that wants to reform schools is a rep.
All reps want to fire teachers ( it seems that way at time)

No dem has ever wanted to change the social aspect of our lives.

No rep has had the opinion that they could care less what anyone else does as long as it doesn't harm anyone else..

You get my point here R Dean?

PS not all reps hate women. We love em

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Citizens United is an ideologically conservative non-profit group that challenged the Federal Election Commission and aspects of BCR Act of 2002, etc.. I am sure you all know by now..

Read more here.

Basically opening the doors for a ton of Corporate spending in elections.

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court? And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

Not trying to flame bait, I just want to see what conservative citizens really think about this.

Are there any liberals that deal in honesty? When you find one get back with me.

Now you are being "dishonest". Typical.

Next to truth don't matter you make her look almost honest.

 

[Katzndogz]

The right is ideologicallty driven and so is the left. The difference is in the ideology.

I find the left's ideology far more onerous.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Citizens United vs FEC upheld that incorporation does not trump your 1st Amendment right to free speech.

At issue = a movie.

It does not allow for unlimited campaign contributions.

 

[Papageorgio]

So....

To sum up the current answers:

1. Liberals did it.
2. Now we can do it, our way.
3. Liberals whine.



That is great and all..

But, does the ability for undocumented/unaccounted campaign contributions improve politics?

To sum this up:

You didn't read all the answers.
And you were really all about flaming the board.

Thanks for the dishonesty.

 

[healthmyths]

There was nothing in the Citizen's United ruling that prevents substantial corporate donations from going to the DNC. They are equally capable of getting millions of dollars in donations and do. The democrats are just losing the money election. The ruling was fair. A limited government interferes in private activity as little as possible, including donating to whatever political party it wishes. Democrats just don't like the way donations are going. They don't complain when Unions heavily donate to democrats and Unions are as much as a collective entity as a corporation.

I NEVER said that it was some "exclusive" ruling that was only for the RNC..

I don't like the existence of this ability at all for ANY party.

But, you really think that the injection of countless dollars into an election is acceptable? Does that not detract from the ability for Washington to get things done for people (you know, you and me)?

Has it not been proven that an election is where the corruption can start? Political contributions with strings attached for a favor at a later point.. I think that conservatives can agree that political corruption is on both sides of the isle, does this ruling not increase the chance of the corruption?

During 2008 the lawyers of America donated 90% of their $300 million to Democrats and Obama.
As a result Obamacare COULD have addressed the $600 billion a year in "defensive medicine" which contrary to the straw dog by supporters IS nothing to do with malpractice insurance BUT 90% of physicians want relief of fear of lawsuits! This fear causing them to duplicate tests, refer to specialists ALL because they fear being sued!

So where was Obama/Congress aggressive legislation against lawyers and their $100 billion fees as they were against the tanning salons? I mean put a 10% tax on tanning salons has generated less then $25 million BUT 10% on lawyers TIED to declining $600 billion defensive medicine i.e. for every x% defensive medicine declines.. corresponding X% decline in lawyers tax.

That one tax of $10 billion would fund health insurance premium for the truly 8 million that need but can't afford health insurance.
Watch how long hospitals would no longer be charging 6,000% markups to Medicare/private insurance.
Then watch how much insurance/medicare costs drop!

BUT because of that $300 million in 2008 alone... NOTHING was addressed regarding $600 billion "defensive Medicine" or the 6,000% markups hospitals send to Medicare.

 

[Wiseacre]

The 2010 election was the 1st that followed the Citizens United decision, from what I understand the spending then was fairly even, and apparently will be this time around too. Do not deceive yourself that it is all one-sided, many democratic senators and representatives are getting money from big corps. Considering that the big unions are pumping hundreds of billions into democratic campaign coffers, I see no reason why big biz shouldn't be allowed to do the same wherever and whenever they choose. Free speech is free speech, I think the ruling was correct. The problem isn't with campaign donations and super PACs, the problemis with our elected officials getting away with wasting our money on corporate welfare and special interest favoritism that both parties engage in. And don't give me the crap that one side is worse than the other.

 

[midcan5]

'Citizens United' was one of the worse SCOTUS decisions of our history. It gave to money and anonymity a power no democracy can withstand. The proof today is in the buffoons now elected - especially since 2010 - to congresses both local and national. America has become a nation that celebrates ignorance as the foxes carry off the lucre.

The problem with CU is it assumes a corporation is a definable entity, and as such acts in a manner that makes sense in the way in which we consider a person for instance to act. Corporate goals rarely align with society's goals, or even with a nation's goals. Corporations exist to make money for their stock holders and executives. Persons exist as individuals, as recognizable, responsible agents. Corporations operate outside the democratic framework that individuals operate under. Corporations operate equally well under communism as under democracy, they also operate across borders with resources and policies that differ from place to place. Funds from overseas operations then can enter and provide monies that influence local politics, and even transnational politics by creating and funding ads and other various media that manages the idea landscape. CU gave enormous power to money that comes from anywhere to control media in our democracy with no responsible agent or clear understanding of who benefits, how, or why they benefit. 'Show me the money.' Or show me why all the money and from whom is a better idea for democracy.

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy' [see also ]Democracy after Citizens United | MIT Video


American Democracy today has come to support corporate BS about free markets and other nonsense that has no real meaning outside linguistic loop de loops. Consider any issue you like, healthcare for one, and you can easily see the pernicious influence of CU. Should a democracy legalize pernicious nonsense by allowing corporations the power to buy congress and the media sphere? Trying to convince anyone of the deleterious effect of Citizens United passed 5-4 by five justices that operated their whole life outside the real world (a very experienced lawyer I know, mentioned this in conversation recently), I'll list two examples of the power corporate propaganda has over congress even though these examples have (or had) majority American citizen support. The question becomes does government operate for the wealthy corporations or does it operate for the nation and its people? I'm for the latter.

Example one: The sub prime mess and the lack of regulatory, or even sound economics, given the influence of wall street money.

"Abstract: Despite the considerable media attention given to the collapse of the market for complex structured assets that contain subprime mortgages, there has been too little discussion of why this crisis occurred. "The Subprime Crisis: Cause, Effect and Consequences" argues that three basic issues are at the root of the problem, the first of which is an odious public policy partnership, spawned in Washington and comprising hundreds of companies, associations and government agencies, to enhance the availability of "affordable housing" via the use of "creative financing techniques." Second, federal regulators have actively encouraged the rapid growth of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives and securities by all types of financial institutions. And third, also bearing blame for the subprime crisis is the related embrace by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board of "fair value accounting." After reviewing the Bush administration's proposed solutions as flawed, this article recommends a strategy for subprime crisis resolution. Job one is to rebuild market confidence in structured assets by going back to "first principles" on issues such as market transparency, standardization of contracts, and accounting treatment. By reducing complexity on the trade of structured assets through simple deal structures and providing investors with the information they need to analyze collateral, for example by requiring SEC registration and public pricing of assets, much of the current liquidity problem is ameliorated." The Subprime Crisis: Cause, Effect and Consequences by R. Whalen :: SSRN

Example two: Paul Ryan's attempt to destroy Medicare. This review is a bit OT but the issue is the power of Insurance corporations to control Ryan and others. UHC in America is the example, once popular hurt by CU and its propaganda machine. Money talks and those who deny that reality are fools and its talk is multilingual.

"So consider: elderly people of limited means in the United States who are dependent on Medicare for their basic well-being—there are tens of millions of them—are rather clearly “vulnerable people.” Why, then, is it not equally problematic when a powerful congressman, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, advocates effectively eliminating the program that benefits these vulnerable people, indeed, keeps them alive? “Hatred,” after all, is not the issue as Waldron says, and no one, I assume, thinks Rep. Ryan “hates” the elderly or the poor. He may simply be stupid, or in thrall to an ideology, or defective in empathetic capacity, or beholden to special interests; whatever the explanation, it is clear that his proposals, if enacted, would eventually result in elderly people in need being unable to afford essential healthcare." Brian Leiter review of 'The Harm in Hate Speech' by Jeremy Waldron, Waldron on the Regulation of Hate Speech by Brian Leiter :: SSRN


Story of how here: "Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court? And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

One should take care when trying to assign ‘value’ to a given court ruling.

Certainly the Supreme Court takes into consideration the potential effect of its rulings; the Court also strives to ensure justice is served in an equable and consistent manner in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There are some circumstances, however, particularly with regard to fundamental rights such as free expression, where the Court may not take into consideration the potential abuse of a civil liberty by a citizen, such as yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

It is assumed each citizen will utilize his civil rights in an appropriate and responsible manner; he is subject to sanction only when he crosses a line into actual criminality or potential civil liability.

Such was the case with Citizens United.

That the government may have deemed it appropriate to preempt or restrict political speech – including funding – in an effort to ensure fair elections is insufficient to justify a given preemption or restriction. That partisan hacks and political charlatans might twist, spin, or contort the truth – or indeed just outright lie – is a normal consequence of the political process best left to each voter to sort out on his own, through his own research and self-edification.

And that the voter fails to educate himself as to the issues – through incompetence or willfully – it is not the government’s role to rectify.

The doctrine that money is a component of free expression and political discourse is predicated on long-established case law, as the government’s restriction on funding is also a restriction on free expression.

That the corporation constitutes a legal and political entity is also well established, along with labor unions, the many states, and foreign governments:

In our view…[government] restriction would have been unconstitutional under Bellotti ’s central principle: that the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity.

It is thus incumbent upon corporations to exercise their First Amendment rights in a responsible manner; failing that it is the responsibility of the voter to ascertain the facts of an issue on his own:

The appearance of influence or access…will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate. The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials. This is inconsistent with any suggestion that the electorate will refuse “ ‘to take part in democratic governance’ ” because of additional political speech made by a corporation or any other speaker.

There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ with regard to Citizens United, that we may disapprove of the corporate entities given license to free expression is irrelevant; it is neither the Court’s nor government’s role to monitor or limit free expression, including that which is irresponsible or offensive.

But, you really think that the injection of countless dollars into an election is acceptable?

It may not be, but it is Constitutional.



Source for cited above:
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Citizens United is an ideologically conservative non-profit group that challenged the Federal Election Commission and aspects of BCR Act of 2002, etc.. I am sure you all know by now..

Read more here.

Basically opening the doors for a ton of Corporate spending in elections.

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court? And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

Not trying to flame bait, I just want to see what conservative citizens really think about this.

Unions have been donating too nearly nothing but dems for decades.

Libs are just pissed that the gop can get big money now.

As far as the ruling being about "big government", you aren't listening.

Small government means the government is small and has little to do with our private affairs.

 

[editec]

The more money that is allowed by law to be injected into the political process the more that BIG CAPITAL can destroy the democratic part of this formerly DEMOCRATIC republic.

I don't care whether the perversion of our Republic comes from UNIONS or CORPORATIONS, it is fundamentally wrong.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The more money that is allowed by law to be injected into the political process the more that BIG CAPITAL can destroy the democratic part of this formerly DEMOCRATIC republic.

I don't care whether the perversion of our Republic comes from UNIONS or CORPORATIONS, it is fundamentally wrong.

I can support whatever or whoever I want to the ability of my means.

I am not going to begrudge any other that right.

 

[zeke]

Can I get a buyer for my vote? If not, why?

Unions could bid for my support. Corporations could bid for my vote. Highest bidder wins.

If all other aspects of our political system are up for sale, why not the vote? Seriously?

Might as well get something out of the farce we call "Democracy". Which is really a plutocracy.

Show me some money. I'll vote however you like if you pay me enough.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Show me some money. I'll vote however you like if you pay me enough.

I am voting for Romney this time because he is the best shot of the choices to get work to get paid more.

 

[Papageorgio]

Show me some money. I'll vote however you like if you pay me enough.

I am voting for Romney this time because he is the best shot of the choices to get work to get paid more.

That makes sense to me.

 

[Billo_Really]

Citizens United levels the playing field by balancing the donations that go from unions to the Dems.....and they don't like it.

That's bullshit! The ratio of private corporate campaign donations, to union campaign donations, is 15 - 1. And there is legislation coming up that is going to make it illegal for unions to donate any money at all.

It doesn't level the playing field, it sells out this country's democracy to the highest bidder.

[In] November 2010...of the 53 competitive House districts where Rove’s Crossroads organization outspent Democratic candidates in 2010, Republicans won 51.

So the candidates no longer run on the issues concerning American's, it's now down to whomever spends the most super PAC money wins. And the people who are the biggest donors, get to set the government agenda that addresses only their concerns, not ours. Which boils down to 196 people.

Our government represent only 196 people! That's their representatives now. This is their country now, we just live here.