Citizens United: One Year Later

[Sheldon]

More after the jump. I would think that all of us can agree that more transparency is a good thing, especially when it comes to which interests are buying candidates.

Absolutely.

But I don't have much expectations for an effective transparency law. There probably is or will be enough loopholes for the original sources to hide behind third-party names.

I think transparency generally isn't in the best interests of the people writing the transparency laws, or the big money sources who are now more empowered to influence which people are writing those laws.

It makes for a nice campaign slogan, but it's clear that what happens on the campaign trail usually stays on the campaign trail. People like me who voted for Obama are finding that out, and I suspect the Tea Party people will find out the same within the next year.

 

[Sheldon]

Think about it: when anyone complains about any money and where it might come from- they're saying they don't trust the American public to look past the number of times they see a commercial and vote based on the issues

That's kind of how I feel.

Yes there's people who do the research and vote based on what the candidate has demonstrated in the past and the merit of their ideas.

And there's those who will vote based solely on the letter in parentheses.

And then there's people, a non-insignificant number I think, who have a lot of other things going on in their life, don't have the time or energy to do the research, and vote based on who's got the more "positive" TV exposure or who'd be the better drinking buddy.

Maybe it's arrogant or misanthropic of me to think that way, but it seems that political apathy has made campaigns less a battle of ideas, and more like a well-funded beauty contest.

 

[Trajan]

ISS - One year after Citizens United







More after the jump. I would think that all of us can agree that more transparency is a good thing, especially when it comes to which interests are buying candidates.

*sigh* how much money was spent by each side and where did the money come from there is a site that tells us that...


and I trust the dog that doesn't bark..... trust me on this; IF the media had even a sniff of foreign money in rep. campaigns, we'd be bombarded with it every week..

.in fact they did try that back in the summer and it fell flat when even left leaning folks like bob Schiefer asked the soap salesman ( axelrod) where his evidence was.....he had none.

I think the point the article was getting at is that the information, evidence if you will, was never asked for nor collected.

Nobody has that information for 2/3 of the organizations making expenditures. I don't care who benefited from that money, this time around the GOP had more leverage so they got more. That's not rocket science. What I'm interested in finding out is where it came from, and that's the information nobody asked for or received.

We simply do not know.

I have no problem with transparency, but it depends.........who would you go about managing the information once its collected? Lets say everyone who contributes to either side, they all send information to a body for a review....do we make this information public?

I am not sure thats the way to go, if we had a body that reviewed the information and kept it to themselves after reviewing it for legality etc. I would not have a problem with that.

 

[uscitizen]

We clearly have the best government that money can buy.

Trust me on this one, if money were going to go out and buy government it would work a lot better than it does.

Just like our finiancial industry worked?
And it has nothing to do with trusting you.
I know.

 

[uscitizen]

Think about it: when anyone complains about any money and where it might come from- they're saying they don't trust the American public to look past the number of times they see a commercial and vote based on the issues

We are a well programmed society.

 

[The Rabbi]

*sigh* how much money was spent by each side and where did the money come from there is a site that tells us that...


and I trust the dog that doesn't bark..... trust me on this; IF the media had even a sniff of foreign money in rep. campaigns, we'd be bombarded with it every week..

.in fact they did try that back in the summer and it fell flat when even left leaning folks like bob Schiefer asked the soap salesman ( axelrod) where his evidence was.....he had none.

I think the point the article was getting at is that the information, evidence if you will, was never asked for nor collected.

Nobody has that information for 2/3 of the organizations making expenditures. I don't care who benefited from that money, this time around the GOP had more leverage so they got more. That's not rocket science. What I'm interested in finding out is where it came from, and that's the information nobody asked for or received.

We simply do not know.

I have no problem with transparency, but it depends.........who would you go about managing the information once its collected? Lets say everyone who contributes to either side, they all send information to a body for a review....do we make this information public?

I am not sure thats the way to go, if we had a body that reviewed the information and kept it to themselves after reviewing it for legality etc. I would not have a problem with that.

The faggots in California gathered info on people opposed to gay marriage and targeted them personally. A very good reason to keep such lists of donors private.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is really funny is that you actually believe that BS. If you go back through the records you will see that well more than half of the donations that Obama collected in 2008 did not come form little people, it came from corporations. He is the single largest beneficiary of corporate donations in history. If he had actually been concerned with you or the other little people who supported him he would have kept his promise and accepted public financing.

Got Link?

To what? His promise to take public funds? His decision to break that promise?

Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election - Political Punch

The fact that he got gobs of money from corporations? That it was more than half of his total money raised?

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

That he raised more than anyone as a result?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/us/politics/15donors.html

What exactly do you want a link to?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did we read the same article? Nobody's talking about transparency from the parties. The words "independent organizations" are the object. You know, the ones that made expenditures under CU.

The fact is, transparency stops at the name of the organization with these expenditures. They are generally not required to divulge their source of funds. Ignore your chip against Bert and you might stop overlooking the real issue here. It's a good question.

I am talking specifically about transparency from Modbert.

As for corporations, nothing in Citizen's United prohibited Congress from making reasonable laws about disclosure. Blaming the lack of transparency on a single case when the truth is that the lack of disclosure is part of the political culture is dishonest. If bert really wanted to talk about disclosure he would point out that the only time either party supports disclosure is when the money is being spent on anti incumbent political advertising, they have no problem with obfuscation when it is in their favor.

You're not usually this obtuse, QW. If not for that single case and the nature of the right established, there would be no expenditures and no need for disclosure. 529s and other political organizations in existence prior to CU have reporting requirements. The decision made it very clear that those under CU need disclose the name of the organization and only the name of the organization in the advertisement itself.

The dissent points out very clearly the inherent pitfalls here. I happen to agree with that dissent. Even reporting wouldn't serve to avoid those pitfalls, because CU makes foreign contributions perfectly legal so long as the organization is formed on US soil. But it would be nice to know who's really behind these expenditures and where the money is coming from, don't you think?

Maybe not. But for me...the answer is "yes".

Really?

Are you trying to tell me that no one ever tried to spend money on an election before McCain-Feingold? That McCain-Feingld was not specifically designed to prohibit dissenting politcal speech just before an election? Other laws already make foreign contributions illegal, and all corporations have to report all income, and its sources, to the IRS. The argument that foreign sources can now spend money on elections is a misdirection, and you should not let yourself be manipulated by it.

The reason the reporting in the ad was rejected is that it stifles free speech. It takes valuable air time to list all the donors to a fund, time that takes away from their message. I am not the one being obtuse here, you are allowing the complaints about lack of transparency to blind you to the fact that it already exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Think about it: when anyone complains about any money and where it might come from- they're saying they don't trust the American public to look past the number of times they see a commercial and vote based on the issues

That is because they think the American public is stupid, and that they cannot see that a corporation might have an agenda.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Think about it: when anyone complains about any money and where it might come from- they're saying they don't trust the American public to look past the number of times they see a commercial and vote based on the issues

Look at it this way, JB. There are people on this thread who can't see past who posted the OP and pick out the issue. I'm assuming they vote. You do the math.

Might you be one who cannot see past the OP?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

*sigh* how much money was spent by each side and where did the money come from there is a site that tells us that...


and I trust the dog that doesn't bark..... trust me on this; IF the media had even a sniff of foreign money in rep. campaigns, we'd be bombarded with it every week..

.in fact they did try that back in the summer and it fell flat when even left leaning folks like bob Schiefer asked the soap salesman ( axelrod) where his evidence was.....he had none.

I think the point the article was getting at is that the information, evidence if you will, was never asked for nor collected.

Nobody has that information for 2/3 of the organizations making expenditures. I don't care who benefited from that money, this time around the GOP had more leverage so they got more. That's not rocket science. What I'm interested in finding out is where it came from, and that's the information nobody asked for or received.

We simply do not know.

I have no problem with transparency, but it depends.........who would you go about managing the information once its collected? Lets say everyone who contributes to either side, they all send information to a body for a review....do we make this information public?

I am not sure thats the way to go, if we had a body that reviewed the information and kept it to themselves after reviewing it for legality etc. I would not have a problem with that.

We already do. Current laws already prohibit foreign contributions to campaigns, and both the IRS and the FEC insure that these laws are followed. Yet, somehow, that is not good enough now, and we must require everyone to spend more money, and use up their air time and ad space, to inform us of who is behind every single ad. that would stifle free speech, and stop none of the things that everyone claims to be worried about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We clearly have the best government that money can buy.

Trust me on this one, if money were going to go out and buy government it would work a lot better than it does.

Just like our finiancial industry worked?
And it has nothing to do with trusting you.
I know.

What makes you think the financial industry did not work? It worked so well that they got a bailout when things went bad.

 

[JBeukema]

Think about it: when anyone complains about any money and where it might come from- they're saying they don't trust the American public to look past the number of times they see a commercial and vote based on the issues

Look at it this way, JB. There are people on this thread who can't see past who posted the OP and pick out the issue. I'm assuming they vote. You do the math.

Which is why I don't trust Americans as a whole to govern themselves: too many of them are as you described- or worse.

They bitch about D.C. but can't even be bothered to vote out their incumbents. Or they vote for some 'outsider' whose been to D.C. before in the past just because they call themselves a 'Tea Party Candidate'.

 

[JBeukema]

Think about it: when anyone complains about any money and where it might come from- they're saying they don't trust the American public to look past the number of times they see a commercial and vote based on the issues

That's kind of how I feel.

Yes there's people who do the research and vote based on what the candidate has demonstrated in the past and the merit of their ideas.

And there's those who will vote based solely on the letter in parentheses.

And then there's people, a non-insignificant number I think, who have a lot of other things going on in their life, don't have the time or energy to do the research, and vote based on who's got the more "positive" TV exposure or who'd be the better drinking buddy.

Maybe it's arrogant or misanthropic of me to think that way, but it seems that political apathy has made campaigns less a battle of ideas, and more like a well-funded beauty contest.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sheldon again.

stupid gunny...
​

 

[goldcatt]

I think the point the article was getting at is that the information, evidence if you will, was never asked for nor collected.

Nobody has that information for 2/3 of the organizations making expenditures. I don't care who benefited from that money, this time around the GOP had more leverage so they got more. That's not rocket science. What I'm interested in finding out is where it came from, and that's the information nobody asked for or received.

We simply do not know.

I have no problem with transparency, but it depends.........who would you go about managing the information once its collected? Lets say everyone who contributes to either side, they all send information to a body for a review....do we make this information public?

I am not sure thats the way to go, if we had a body that reviewed the information and kept it to themselves after reviewing it for legality etc. I would not have a problem with that.

We already do. Current laws already prohibit foreign contributions to campaigns, and both the IRS and the FEC insure that these laws are followed. Yet, somehow, that is not good enough now, and we must require everyone to spend more money, and use up their air time and ad space, to inform us of who is behind every single ad. that would stifle free speech, and stop none of the things that everyone claims to be worried about.

Nice straw man.

Not really, actually. Lame attempt.

Requiring independent organizations to report the source of funds used in advertising to directly support a candidate has no effect on free speech for any other organization. Did you mean you honestly thought 529s, PACs and other pre-existing groups did not have to make disclosures for funds used to support a candidate or platform?

There is no such reporting or disclosure requirement for organizations running ads under CU. They don't have to send that report to the FEC. So neither the government nor the public has any way of knowing who's driving the message. No evidence can be given, because nobody asks for it and it's protected by the veil. That's the entire point you've been rather willfully overlooking.

The CU decision clearly delineated the disclosure requirement, and that is to have the organization's fictitious name in the ad.

I'm wondering why I seem to be alone in thinking these organizations should be expected to follow the same transparency requirements as any other group engaging in the same activity for the same purpose.

If the right is pulled through the veil and derivative of the individual rights of the principals, the names of the individuals exercising those rights should also be pulled through for reporting purposes. Broadcasting them is beyond absurd, as is your straw man. But standard FEC reporting?

Again, rights with zero accountability...the biggest problem with CU.

 

[goldcatt]

Think about it: when anyone complains about any money and where it might come from- they're saying they don't trust the American public to look past the number of times they see a commercial and vote based on the issues

Look at it this way, JB. There are people on this thread who can't see past who posted the OP and pick out the issue. I'm assuming they vote. You do the math.

Which is why I don't trust Americans as a whole to govern themselves: too many of them are as you described- or worse.

They bitch about D.C. but can't even be bothered to vote out their incumbents. Or they vote for some 'outsider' whose been to D.C. before in the past just because they call themselves a 'Tea Party Candidate'.

Ignorance is bliss. So is coddled and complacent, apparently. But what can you do? Restrict voting? No. Outlaw stupid? No. Better education? These same morons would scream bloody murder about their kids being "indoctrinated" if anything but their own echo chamber fantasies were taught in schools. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

Face it, it's here to stay. Since the people aren't interested, it would be nice if the information was given to somebody, somewhere at least. Just knowing it's not protected might keep a few of them a little more honest.

 

[editec]

Hey listen what difference does it make if we KNOW who is bribing who?

It's all perfectly legal, isn't it?

We wonder why this nation is going to shit?

Its for SALE for christ's sakes.

You think this is just a liberal v conservative issue?

WAKE UP!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no problem with transparency, but it depends.........who would you go about managing the information once its collected? Lets say everyone who contributes to either side, they all send information to a body for a review....do we make this information public?

I am not sure thats the way to go, if we had a body that reviewed the information and kept it to themselves after reviewing it for legality etc. I would not have a problem with that.

We already do. Current laws already prohibit foreign contributions to campaigns, and both the IRS and the FEC insure that these laws are followed. Yet, somehow, that is not good enough now, and we must require everyone to spend more money, and use up their air time and ad space, to inform us of who is behind every single ad. that would stifle free speech, and stop none of the things that everyone claims to be worried about.

Nice straw man.

Not really, actually. Lame attempt.

Requiring independent organizations to report the source of funds used in advertising to directly support a candidate has no effect on free speech for any other organization. Did you mean you honestly thought 529s, PACs and other pre-existing groups did not have to make disclosures for funds used to support a candidate or platform?

There is no such reporting or disclosure requirement for organizations running ads under CU. They don't have to send that report to the FEC. So neither the government nor the public has any way of knowing who's driving the message. No evidence can be given, because nobody asks for it and it's protected by the veil. That's the entire point you've been rather willfully overlooking.

The CU decision clearly delineated the disclosure requirement, and that is to have the organization's fictitious name in the ad.

I'm wondering why I seem to be alone in thinking these organizations should be expected to follow the same transparency requirements as any other group engaging in the same activity for the same purpose.

If the right is pulled through the veil and derivative of the individual rights of the principals, the names of the individuals exercising those rights should also be pulled through for reporting purposes. Broadcasting them is beyond absurd, as is your straw man. But standard FEC reporting?

Again, rights with zero accountability...the biggest problem with CU.

Wrong.

There are no requirements for public disclosure, but that does not change the fact that these organizations still have to file tax returns and obey other US laws. Or are you going to try to argue that Citizens United also eliminated these corporations from filing taxes? Or that any group that engages in political or election advocacy is not required to file with with the FEC?

What is the problem with groups that are not responsible to either party speaking up? Why should the fact that independent groups spent more in 2010, but less than they did in 2008 scare me?

Independent groups spent $296 million dollars last year, and $302 million in 2008. I would like to point out that that spending in 2008 was before McCain-Feingold was overruled.

The two parties spent a combined $1.4 billion, and the incumbents in Congress spent an additional $1.8 billion. If you check you will see that Democrats outspent Republicans by almost 2 to 1 even after you factor in the independent groups and their spending. If money was all it took to win an election the Democrats would have a huge majority in Congress right now.

May I point out that they do not?

The numbers, after I get a good look at them, do not scare me. I am not the one raising up strawmen here, Modbert is, and you have bought into it.

Still, the amount citizen groups spent in 2010 pales next to these enormous sums: $1.35 billion spent by the two major political parties and an additional $1.8 billion by candidates for Congress. While citizens making independent expenditures increased their election spending to nearly $300 million in 2010, that remains less than one-tenth of the more than $3 billion spent by political parties and their candidates. So why all the hysteria from incumbents? Perhaps because independent spending by citizens has shifted away from Democratic candidates. In 2006, liberal interest groups tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics outspent conservative interest groups by a 2-to-1 margin. By 2010, the trend had reversed, and conservative groups were outspending the liberal groups 2 to 1.
We suspect that what most upsets incumbent politicians about Citizens United is not the fact that conservative groups temporarily have gained the upper hand in independent spending. (Does anyone really think labor unions will not try to even the score in 2012?) Instead, what most bothers the political class is that the speech that surged in 2010 was independent. Politicians could not control the message, so they vilified such speech as "unaccountable." Indeed, the Democratic majority was so unnerved that it cobbled together legislation to make such independent speech as burdensome as possible, complete with a misleading mom-and-apple-pie title: the Disclose Act. But this effort to stifle debate unraveled when it was disclosed that the bill included exceptions favoring powerful interest groups.
As the Supreme Court has ruled, Congress should get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas and placing its thumb on the scale of federal elections. In Citizens United, the court reminded us that when our government seeks "to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought." The government argued in Citizens United that it could ban books advocating the election of a candidate if they were published by a corporation or labor union. Today, thanks to Citizens United, we may celebrate that the First Amendment confirms what our forefathers fought for: "the freedom to think for ourselves."

David N. Bossie and Theodore B. Olson - How the Citizens United ruling freed political speech

Your only real argument is that there needs to be some sort of accountability. I agree, if they do something wrong, they need to be accountable. What we do not need, however, is a complete list of donors to every political organization out there. The laws already exist that prevent any foreign money from contributing to our elections, either directly or indirectly. Corporations are transparent to both the FEC and the IRS. I know that federal law makes it all but impossible for foreigners to donate to them.

The law exists, and is enforced. If you can prove it is not, talk to me, and I will howl right along with you. Just do not expect me to get up in arms about making people jump through the same hoops again just because you do not like on SCOTUS decision.

 

[Trajan]

I think the point the article was getting at is that the information, evidence if you will, was never asked for nor collected.

Nobody has that information for 2/3 of the organizations making expenditures. I don't care who benefited from that money, this time around the GOP had more leverage so they got more. That's not rocket science. What I'm interested in finding out is where it came from, and that's the information nobody asked for or received.

We simply do not know.

I have no problem with transparency, but it depends.........who would you go about managing the information once its collected? Lets say everyone who contributes to either side, they all send information to a body for a review....do we make this information public?

I am not sure thats the way to go, if we had a body that reviewed the information and kept it to themselves after reviewing it for legality etc. I would not have a problem with that.

We already do. Current laws already prohibit foreign contributions to campaigns, and both the IRS and the FEC insure that these laws are followed. Yet, somehow, that is not good enough now, and we must require everyone to spend more money, and use up their air time and ad space, to inform us of who is behind every single ad. that would stifle free speech, and stop none of the things that everyone claims to be worried about.

Uhm I know, this is how things got unraveled for clinton etc. ...it was a rhetorical device.......I had a post all ready and waiting to go, you just blew it up!!!!!

 

[JBeukema]

Look at it this way, JB. There are people on this thread who can't see past who posted the OP and pick out the issue. I'm assuming they vote. You do the math.

Which is why I don't trust Americans as a whole to govern themselves: too many of them are as you described- or worse.

They bitch about D.C. but can't even be bothered to vote out their incumbents. Or they vote for some 'outsider' whose been to D.C. before in the past just because they call themselves a 'Tea Party Candidate'.

Ignorance is bliss. So is coddled and complacent, apparently. But what can you do? Restrict voting? No. Outlaw stupid? No. Better education? These same morons would scream bloody murder about their kids being "indoctrinated" if anything but their own echo chamber fantasies were taught in schools. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

Face it, it's here to stay. Since the people aren't interested, it would be nice if the information was given to somebody, somewhere at least. Just knowing it's not protected might keep a few of them a little more honest.

What do you do? Same thing as always: let them pretend they have democracy but don't actually let them govern themselves. A good parent might let their child choose what cereal they want to make the child happy- but they only get to pick from what the parents have already decided is okay for the child and within budget. Similarly, those who govern our society let you choose your representatives- from the candidates they place before you.

And, in the end, that's all the kids really want, need, or can handle anyway. I've explained all this before.

People don't want real liberty. They want to illusion of liberty and the freedom to go about their daily lives without thinking about complicated matters or the restrictions placed upon them. Think about it: even today, the teabaggers and the lefties don't complain about the fact that they don't really govern their own country- they complain that they've lost their ability to play make-believe. They're not mad that mommy and daddy still decide what's best for them- they just want to be let out of sight for a bit. Lower their taxes a little and stick to soft tyranny only, and they're be content to eat, watch tv, and labour without thinking about the greater world around them.

Besides, it can't work any other way- thew world's too complicated. Ther must be an elite to widdle down the choices and make democracy digestible to the citizenry. But they must always be invisible.

Think about it: what are the gods but man's desire for just such guidance?