Citizens United outcry

[peach174]

You got it backwards - the US is a republic which is a democracy.
So Ben Franklin was a liar?

 

[goldcatt]

Why are you refusing to believe that we are a republic?
I pledge allegiance to the flag -And to the republic for which it stands.
Ben Franklin- was asked well sir what type of government do we have? He then replied a republic.

i'm wondering why you're both arguing a point that has zip, zilch, nada to do with the perversion that is Citizen's United v. FEC.

I wish you would understand WHY all the people on the right want to make this lie become the accepted thinking.

It is one of their base lies they feed the right win converts.

It is designed to sully the word demoratic and make people redefine words to fit their world view.

They are trying to ruin the word so they can turn it into an epitath.

You really need to understand how the right works and how they win converts.

Whether you're right or not is irrelevant. The fact is, it has nothing to do with CU.

CU is about the nature and purpose of the corporate entity. Not the nature of government. Arguing endlessly over semantics about something completely unrelated to the topic just takes attention away from anything relevant.

 

[Ernie S.]

Go study forms of government.

Democracy is the title of a categorey of types.

They all include the ones which give the power to the people to decide.

Democracy is the category that republic falls under.

Also under that category is Direct or pure democracy.

The US is a democracy which is a republic.

You can pretend not to understand but it doesnt make you right.

A republic is a "form" of democracy just as lung cancer and the common cold are forms of disease. We do not use the words "cancer" and "cold" interchangeably. Get it?

 

[Truthmatters]

You got it backwards - the US is a republic which is a democracy.
So Ben Franklin was a liar?

Ben franklin as wonderful as he was also did not have the right to define dictionary words.

Now what you need to realise is in the wrtiings of the founders they often did not say direct democracy when they were discussing the issues. They used the word democracy instead.

All historians agree they were tralking about direct or pure democracy when you see them scathing the word.

Listen to what they say, they speak of how it is a tyranny of the majority.

That is practically the definition of direct democracy.

Its not about what you believe my friend its about the definitions of the words themselves.

There is nothing here to argue.


The definition of the words themselves tell the tale if you are willing to accpet what this world has decided there meaning is.


The fact that you persist in your effort to accept partisan definitions of the word shows you are being politcally manipulated.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go study forms of government.

Democracy is the title of a categorey of types.

They all include the ones which give the power to the people to decide.

Democracy is the category that republic falls under.

Also under that category is Direct or pure democracy.

The US is a democracy which is a republic.

You can pretend not to understand but it doesnt make you right.

A republic is a "form" of democracy just as lung cancer and the common cold are forms of disease. We do not use the words "cancer" and "cold" interchangeably. Get it?

This country is a democracy wether you like it or not.

Your opinion has no bearing on the words real definitions.

Now go find out what you political manipulators want you to believe next.

 

[peach174]

I'm not giving you my opinion, I'm stating a fact.
It has nothing to do with political manipulation.
Like I said before it has nothing to do with the names of either of our political parities.

 

[editec]

FWIW, and I don't expect it to be worth much to those whose minds are already made up...

The Floundering Father's concept of corporations was NOTHING like the corporations we have today, folks.

So dragging them into this discussion to support the concept of modern corporations isn't going to be supportive to those of us who know what corporations were in the 18th century.

What corporations have been allowed to become is wholly different than what they were allowed to be 225 years ago.

Looks like we're headed back to the days of the East India Company, doesn't it?

Yes....that unholy alliance between CAPITAL and GOVERNMENT.

And that was precisely what the founding fathers feared, too, in most cases.

 

[editec]

Oh for goodness sakes...it's a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

We all know this, so pretending that its wholly one thing or the other is just plain silly.

 

[Truthmatters]

I never said it was one thing or the other.

I said it was both.

A democracy is what a republic is.

There are reasons the right pumps this propaganda into the right wing minions.

If lies are allowed to hang in the air without challenge they will be taken advantage of later.

Please understand there is a reason this proaganda needs to be challenged.

Dont help them spread the lie by chidding me for outing it.

 

[peach174]

It's not propaganda or lies it is our history, period.

 

[Truthmatters]

how do you then explain the facts of the words definition?

 

[Truthmatters]

FWIW, and I don't expect it to be worth much to those whose minds are already made up...

The Floundering Father's concept of corporations was NOTHING like the corporations we have today, folks.

So dragging them into this discussion to support the concept of modern corporations isn't going to be supportive to those of us who know what corporations were in the 18th century.

What corporations have been allowed to become is wholly different than what they were allowed to be 225 years ago.

Looks like we're headed back to the days of the East India Company, doesn't it?

Yes....that unholy alliance between CAPITAL and GOVERNMENT.

And that was precisely what the founding fathers feared, too, in most cases.

Very true.

4 out of 5 Americans understand this fact.

 

[Ragnar]

SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SUMMARY

- In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment.

- Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.

HOLDING AND ANALYSIS

Independent Expenditures by Corporations

The Court overruled Austin, striking down § 441b's ban on corporate independent expenditures. It also struck down the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA § 203's extension of § 441b's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures.

The Court held that the “government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations. ”

fwiw - Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation

Facial Challenge to § 441b. In considering the facial challenge, the Court applied strict scrutiny; thus requiring the government to demonstrate that the statute served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A “facial challenge” requires the Court to look at the law and determine if it is unconstitutional as written.

In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415).

In Austin, the Court held that antidistortion was a compelling government interest that justified a ban on independent election expenditures by corporations and unions. It ruled that large aggregations of wealth, accumulated with the help of the corporate form, may have corrosive or distorting effects, thus justifying a ban on corporate independent expenditures. The Citizens United Court reasoned that “differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment and there is no support for the view that the Amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' free speech. ” Austin, it found, interferes with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment. As a result of this reasoning, the Court was not persuaded by the government's arguments on (1) anticorruption and (2) shareholder protection.

Much more at link.

It's a good argument. If the government can suppress Citizens United, it can suppress the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR) or ABC, FOX, CNN, CBS or NBC or anyone anywhere anytime etc etc etc.

 

[Ragnar]

- Brief for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Support of Appellant

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/prev...antAmCuReportersComttforFreedomofthePress.pdf

- Brief for the United States Chamber of Commerce in Support of Appellant

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_AppellantAmCuUSCoC.pdf

 

[Truthmatters]

4 out of 5 Americans disagree with this decision.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, by giving corporations a powerful tool and larger voice in influencing elections, the court ruling definantly curtails each individuals first amendment rights.

Good call Frankie!

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech (except when Progressive lose their media monopoly and cannot tolerate opposing opinions)

Boo Fucking Hoo

Got it, so you're an anti-bill of rights dude huh? Who'd have thunk it? You a corporate stooge!

He is against Court misintrepretation of the constitution unless it suits his purpose.

 

[goldcatt]

SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SUMMARY

- In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment.

- Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.

HOLDING AND ANALYSIS

Independent Expenditures by Corporations

The Court overruled Austin, striking down § 441b's ban on corporate independent expenditures. It also struck down the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA § 203's extension of § 441b's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures.

The Court held that the “government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations. ”

fwiw - Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation

Facial Challenge to § 441b. In considering the facial challenge, the Court applied strict scrutiny; thus requiring the government to demonstrate that the statute served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A “facial challenge” requires the Court to look at the law and determine if it is unconstitutional as written.

In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415).

In Austin, the Court held that antidistortion was a compelling government interest that justified a ban on independent election expenditures by corporations and unions. It ruled that large aggregations of wealth, accumulated with the help of the corporate form, may have corrosive or distorting effects, thus justifying a ban on corporate independent expenditures. The Citizens United Court reasoned that “differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment and there is no support for the view that the Amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' free speech. ” Austin, it found, interferes with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment. As a result of this reasoning, the Court was not persuaded by the government's arguments on (1) anticorruption and (2) shareholder protection.

Much more at link.

It's a good argument. If the government can suppress Citizens United, it can suppress the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR) or ABC, FOX, CNN, CBS or NBC or anyone anywhere anytime etc etc etc.

Absolutely not. News organizations have and have always had freedom of the press, which is an expansion of speech to press organizations in service of the public.

Whether that "service of the public" part still holds true is debatable. But the fact remains that non-press corporations were never intended to hold individual rights to serve their own purposes.

 

[Ragnar]

4 out of 5 Americans disagree with this decision.

If four out of five Americans jump off a cliff... fuck 'em, shorter lines at Starbucks and Barns and Noble. I'd rather have greater than fewer free speech rights.

 

[Ragnar]

SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SUMMARY

- In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment.

- Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.

fwiw - Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation

Facial Challenge to § 441b. In considering the facial challenge, the Court applied strict scrutiny; thus requiring the government to demonstrate that the statute served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A “facial challenge” requires the Court to look at the law and determine if it is unconstitutional as written.

In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415).

In Austin, the Court held that antidistortion was a compelling government interest that justified a ban on independent election expenditures by corporations and unions. It ruled that large aggregations of wealth, accumulated with the help of the corporate form, may have corrosive or distorting effects, thus justifying a ban on corporate independent expenditures. The Citizens United Court reasoned that “differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment and there is no support for the view that the Amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' free speech. ” Austin, it found, interferes with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment. As a result of this reasoning, the Court was not persuaded by the government's arguments on (1) anticorruption and (2) shareholder protection.

Much more at link.

It's a good argument. If the government can suppress Citizens United, it can suppress the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR) or ABC, FOX, CNN, CBS or NBC or anyone anywhere anytime etc etc etc.

Absolutely not. News organizations have and have always had freedom of the press, which is an expansion of speech to press organizations in service of the public.

Whether that "service of the public" part still holds true is debatable. But the fact remains that non-press corporations were never intended to hold individual rights to serve their own purposes.

"In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415)."

 

[Truthmatters]

4 out of 5 Americans disagree with this decision.

If four out of five Americans jump off a cliff... fuck 'em, shorter lines at Starbucks and Barns and Noble. I'd rather have greater than fewer free speech rights.

The corporate money in our system will crush every regular Americans voice.