Citizens United outcry

[taichiliberal]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

 

[Ragnar]

Here's a simple question for you: Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth -- or how much money you can afford to give to lawmakers?

Because the Citizens United ruling has ordained precisely that. It says that money is speech, so how much speech can you afford compared to the Koch Brothers?

That is a misunderstanding of the Citizens United ruling which I went to some length to explain via the link above. I'm sorry to tell you but President Obama was as wrong about the SC ruling in his SOTU speech last year as you are now.

If "money is speech" were the ruling in Citizens United then there would have been no need to film a documentary, or buy ads, or print pamphlets (you know... "speak") and direct donations to the bastards would be allowed outright. (that is still, rightly, not legal) also note that Citizens United lost (rightly) 8-1 in there argument for non-disclosure.

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that your argument is "documentary films are not speech" than to claim my argument is "money is speech" though obviously both have their shortcomings via simplification.

To answer your question, "Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth...", I reject the premise on the basis that I reject the false narrative that "money = speech". However, I do understand that those with gobs of dough can own newspapers I can't afford and film documentaries and otherwise get their message out in ways I can't. So what? That is not a problem that needs government regulation.

Just ask Obama artist David Farley (sp?) Or filmmaker Micheal Moore, or anyone with a blog or a message board. Rush Limbaugh has a radio show and I don't but we still both have the same right to free speech. (he's just better than me at exercising that right)

Money = speech isn't actually taken from the CU decision. It's part of an earlier decision, Buckely v. Valeo. The CU ruling merely treats it as precedent.

Buckley v. Valeo

The restriction on unlimited donations directly to political campaigns is actually a restriction on speech, as the courts see it. Which is why it received the enhanced scrutiny it did in CU. The interest of curbing public corruption was deemed important enough to make that restriction, but it's still a restriction. Just like the interest in not having people stampeded to death for a prank is deemed enough to outlaw yelling "Fire" in a theater.

I happen to agree with the dissent in CU.

But it wasn't CU that made the leap of cash is speech.

I concur with this reiteration of my point.

 

[goldcatt]

That is a misunderstanding of the Citizens United ruling which I went to some length to explain via the link above. I'm sorry to tell you but President Obama was as wrong about the SC ruling in his SOTU speech last year as you are now.

If "money is speech" were the ruling in Citizens United then there would have been no need to film a documentary, or buy ads, or print pamphlets (you know... "speak") and direct donations to the bastards would be allowed outright. (that is still, rightly, not legal) also note that Citizens United lost (rightly) 8-1 in there argument for non-disclosure.

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that your argument is "documentary films are not speech" than to claim my argument is "money is speech" though obviously both have their shortcomings via simplification.

To answer your question, "Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth...", I reject the premise on the basis that I reject the false narrative that "money = speech". However, I do understand that those with gobs of dough can own newspapers I can't afford and film documentaries and otherwise get their message out in ways I can't. So what? That is not a problem that needs government regulation.

Just ask Obama artist David Farley (sp?) Or filmmaker Micheal Moore, or anyone with a blog or a message board. Rush Limbaugh has a radio show and I don't but we still both have the same right to free speech. (he's just better than me at exercising that right)

Money = speech isn't actually taken from the CU decision. It's part of an earlier decision, Buckely v. Valeo. The CU ruling merely treats it as precedent.

Buckley v. Valeo

The restriction on unlimited donations directly to political campaigns is actually a restriction on speech, as the courts see it. Which is why it received the enhanced scrutiny it did in CU. The interest of curbing public corruption was deemed important enough to make that restriction, but it's still a restriction. Just like the interest in not having people stampeded to death for a prank is deemed enough to outlaw yelling "Fire" in a theater.

I happen to agree with the dissent in CU.

But it wasn't CU that made the leap of cash is speech.

I concur with this reiteration of my point.

On that particular point, that CU did not rule money is speech, you were right. Facts are facts, opinions are debatable.

Now, whether I agree with Buckley is a whole 'nother question.

 

[Ernie S.]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

not unless they hold stock in the corporation. Only OWNERS have a vote in how a corporation spends their money. A corporation is kind of a Republic. They elect a board of directors to take care of business.

 

[Ragnar]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

There are separate laws regarding campaign contributions. Post Citizens United there are not separate laws regarding “electioneering communications”.

As amended by § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on “electioneering communications” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. An “electioneering communication” is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office, (2) is made within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, (2 U. S. C. § 441b), and (3) is publicly distributed (11 CFR § 100. 29(a)(2)).

As to the statement that "Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement", I'd love to see a link on that. I've read and experienced quite the opposite when I was in a union. When I worked in the shipping industry they had already created the union so I didn't vote for it. As to spending my dues, I was never asked for my two cents in all my four years there.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Y-O-U
D-O
N-O-T
H-A-V-E
A
R-I-G-H-T
T-O
R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E
O-T-H-E-R
P-E-O-P-L-E-S
M-O-N-E-Y
I-N
T-H-I-S
C-O-U-N-T-R-Y.

Jesus is it that hard of a freaking concept to grasp? Get your lazy asses out of people's wallets and vote on issues not what you see on tv.

 

[Ragnar]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

not unless they hold stock in the corporation. Only OWNERS have a vote in how a corporation spends their money. A corporation is kind of a Republic. They elect a board of directors to take care of business.

Yes that.

Back to my ol' linky...

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.

Anticorruption. The Court addressed the government's anticorruption argument and ruled that independent expenditures “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. ” The Court reasoned:

1. Although Buckley identified a sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, that interest was limited to quid pro quo corruption.

2. This interest justifies restrictions on direct contributions to candidates, but not on independent expenditures.

3. Influence over and access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt and the appearance of influence or access “will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. ”

4. Twenty six states do not ban corporate independent expenditures, and the government did not argue that the absence of a ban in these states has led to increased corruption.

Shareholder Protection. Lastly, the Court rejected the government's argument that shareholders should be protected from being compelled to fund corporate speech. The Court reasoned:

1. Under a shareholder protection interest, if shareholders of a media corporation disagreed with its political views, the government would have the authority to restrict the media corporation's political speech.

2. If Congress had been interested in protecting shareholders, it would not have limited the ban on corporate independent expenditures to the 30 and 60 day windows preceding an election.

3. The ban is overinclusive because it includes corporations that only have a single shareholder.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Money is not speech. Money has no mouth nor is it a citizen.
MOney is an unequalizer when it is called/used as free speech.
The ones with the most money can "talk" the loudest.
It causes the buying of our government.

Giving the government too much power causes the buying of our government.

If the government didn't have much power the lobbyists would be lobbying us because we'd have all the power.

 

[Ragnar]

Y-O-U
D-O
N-O-T
H-A-V-E
A
R-I-G-H-T
T-O
R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E
O-T-H-E-R
P-E-O-P-L-E-S
M-O-N-E-Y
I-N
T-H-I-S
C-O-U-N-T-R-Y.

Jesus is it that hard of a freaking concept to grasp? Get your lazy asses out of people's wallets and vote on issues not what you see on tv.

Anarchist.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Y-O-U
D-O
N-O-T
H-A-V-E
A
R-I-G-H-T
T-O
R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E
O-T-H-E-R
P-E-O-P-L-E-S
M-O-N-E-Y
I-N
T-H-I-S
C-O-U-N-T-R-Y.

Jesus is it that hard of a freaking concept to grasp? Get your lazy asses out of people's wallets and vote on issues not what you see on tv.

Anarchist.

At least I'm not fascist.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fuck off, troll. If you don't know who the "press" is, you have even bigger problems than your disgusting personality suggests.

Don't you have somebody else to stalk and call a hooker today? I'm in no mood to play nice.

Translation: I have no refutation to offer because you are right.
Again:
What "commerce" was Citizens United engaged in?
What rights do "news organizations" have that the rest of us don't have?
I don't know who "the press" is. Tell me, is Matt Drudge the press? Does he have rights I do not have? What about Rush Limbaugh? What about Keith Olberdouchebag? How about posters here on USMB? Is this a "news org" that has protections the rest of us don't?
Your knowledge base is very shallow, the contradictions come fast and furious.

You're as stupid as you are pathetic, bigoted, sexist and cowardly, I see. That's no surprise either.

IF you had half a brain cell and had read even a news snippet about it, you would know the basis of the entire case was the production and distribution of a film. By CU. You would also know that he scope of the decision left the facts of the case far behind, and what the actual ruling was as opposed to what CU in particular was doing. But I'm making the assumption here that you are, in fact, literate - and you know what they say about people who make assumptions. My bad.

IF you had any idea of what constitutes the press you would understand that all of the organizations listed are in fact journalistic organizations, and that even though you're a freakish moron who can't grasp the concept "press" doesn't just mean newspapers but all journalistic ventures. Surely nobody's dumb enough to say news organizations were granted freedom of the press by the CU decision, not even you. But then again, I've been wrong before.

As for posters at USMB, don't be absurd. You don't even know your fucking basics. This is a privately owned forum, we all post here at sufferance and under the rules set by the owners. You mean you were under the assumption free speech means no rules, in no place, at no time and set by no one? All speech is completely free of price tags and rules, even on private property? Or were you trying in your pathetic little way to argue something just as dumb as the rest of what you have to say?

Now unless you have anything remotely cogent and/or coherent to say, you can stop targeting women for your unwanted attentions any time. Pathetic freak.

Thank you, "counselor." Yes, Citizens United is a corporation formed for political purposes. Thus your distinction that corporations should only be entitled to speech entailing commerce is clearly wrong.
Yes, there is no distinction between rights enjoyed by a "news organization" and rights enjoyed by everyone else.
So in the end you agree your points were stupid and wrong. I am glad we cleared that up.
You are indeed an arrogant and rude piece of shit with nothing factual or of substance to add here.

 

[loosecannon]

Thank you, "counselor." Yes, Citizens United is a corporation formed for political purposes. Thus your distinction that corporations should only be entitled to speech entailing commerce is clearly wrong.
Yes, there is no distinction between rights enjoyed by a "news organization" and rights enjoyed by everyone else.
So in the end you agree your points were stupid and wrong. I am glad we cleared that up.
You are indeed an arrogant and rude piece of shit with nothing factual or of substance to add here.

apparently you have never heard of "freedom of the press" which is a free speech right with expanded domain.

You are a dire idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

What fucking world do you live in? Union management votes before they make a political endorsement, not union membership. Do you actually believe that the NEA has a vote of all 3 million members before making decisions about how to spend money? It is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Neither is the SEIU with its 2 million or so members.

Maybe you and rdean could get together and see if between the two of you you can get in touch with reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

There are separate laws regarding campaign contributions. Post Citizens United there are not separate laws regarding “electioneering communications”.

As amended by § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on “electioneering communications” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. An “electioneering communication” is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office, (2) is made within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, (2 U. S. C. § 441b), and (3) is publicly distributed (11 CFR § 100. 29(a)(2)).

As to the statement that "Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement", I'd love to see a link on that. I've read and experienced quite the opposite when I was in a union. When I worked in the shipping industry they had already created the union so I didn't vote for it. As to spending my dues, I was never asked for my two cents in all my four years there.

The only way your opinion would matter to the union is if you were part of the leadership. Unions are massive corporations that care as little about there rank and file as the worst corporations liberals can imagine, yet they think they are different because...

To be honest, I really do not understand why they think they are different.

 

[Ragnar]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

There are separate laws regarding campaign contributions. Post Citizens United there are not separate laws regarding “electioneering communications”.

As amended by § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on “electioneering communications” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. An “electioneering communication” is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office, (2) is made within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, (2 U. S. C. § 441b), and (3) is publicly distributed (11 CFR § 100. 29(a)(2)).

As to the statement that "Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement", I'd love to see a link on that. I've read and experienced quite the opposite when I was in a union. When I worked in the shipping industry they had already created the union so I didn't vote for it. As to spending my dues, I was never asked for my two cents in all my four years there.

The only way your opinion would matter to the union is if you were part of the leadership. Unions are massive corporations that care as little about there rank and file as the worst corporations liberals can imagine, yet they think they are different because...

To be honest, I really do not understand why they think they are different.

I think it's unfair to call unions corporations. Corporations produce goods and services and create jobs, wealth and prosperity.

Not to put to fine a point on it but unions are more like, well... parasites. (but lets not go too far off topic, lol)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

What fucking world do you live in? Union management votes before they make a political endorsement, not union membership. Do you actually believe that the NEA has a vote of all 3 million members before making decisions about how to spend money? It is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Neither is the SEIU with its 2 million or so members.

Maybe you and rdean could get together and see if between the two of you you can get in touch with reality.

Progressives break out into only 2 categories: liars and idiots

 

[MikeK]

I think it's unfair to call unions corporations. Corporations produce goods and services and create jobs, wealth and prosperity.

Not to put to fine a point on it but unions are more like, well... parasites. (but lets not go too far off topic, lol)

My son-in-law drives for UPS. I don't remember what his hourly wage is but I do know he owns a very nice home, he drives a nice car and he takes very good care of his family. He works long hours but he is well paid for it and he knows he owes all to the Teamsters.

His friend and co-worker was at his house over Christmas and this fellow voiced some strong complaints about the "gangster controlled" Teamsters Union and how Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. is living like a prince on his sweat. While I don't know enough about the situation to argue with him I noticed that he never mentioned how much he'd be making were it not for the Teamsters Union and how much worse his working conditions would be.

One of his complaints was about a friend who was fired and the Union didn't make an issue of it. My son-in-law later told me the guy was fired because of a long string of complaints and warnings that he paid no attention to.

 

[taichiliberal]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

What fucking world do you live in? Union management votes before they make a political endorsement, not union membership. Do you actually believe that the NEA has a vote of all 3 million members before making decisions about how to spend money? It is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Neither is the SEIU with its 2 million or so members.

Maybe you and rdean could get together and see if between the two of you you can get in touch with reality.

Maybe YOU, QW, need to THINK before your fingers hit the keys..... unless you like living up to your screen name.

Pay attention: Unions ELECT their via campaigns like we have have for local and national political leadership, as opposed to corporations who's elections/appointments are NOT dependent upon ALL it's members (i.e., workers). So if the leadership does NOT act in the interest of the people they represent, then they can be voted out. That doesn't exist for corporations, now does it bunky? Shareholders may have a voice by voting with their wallets, but the workers sure as hell don't.

And neither union or corporation should be treated as an individual person, since as you and I agree, they would not be acting in unison via ALL members (management, workers, shareholders, etc.). This is why the Citizens United decision is so terribly wrong.

 

[taichiliberal]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

not unless they hold stock in the corporation. Only OWNERS have a vote in how a corporation spends their money. A corporation is kind of a Republic. They elect a board of directors to take care of business.

Precisely, Ernie.....thanks for putting some polish on that point.

 

[taichiliberal]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

There are separate laws regarding campaign contributions. Post Citizens United there are not separate laws regarding “electioneering communications”.

As amended by § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on “electioneering communications” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. An “electioneering communication” is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office, (2) is made within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, (2 U. S. C. § 441b), and (3) is publicly distributed (11 CFR § 100. 29(a)(2)).

As to the statement that "Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement", I'd love to see a link on that. I've read and experienced quite the opposite when I was in a union. When I worked in the shipping industry they had already created the union so I didn't vote for it. As to spending my dues, I was never asked for my two cents in all my four years there.

I wasn't talking about the creation of a union. Last time I checked, most unions have elections on some time table regarding new leadership, etc., so depending upon your time with your particular union, you may not have been there long enough for one. The unions vote in their leadership, so the political endorsements stem from that vote. If the members don't like the decisions the leaders make, they can vote them out.

And yeah, after Citizens United, unions and corporations are treated like individuals....not good, because last time I checked, an individual cannot be in two places at one time, like a corporation or union, nor can the individual pull massive amounts of money from the labor or many others to pour into advertising.