Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wry Catcher, Jan 22, 2012.

  1. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,745
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (1910)

    Do you believe this decision is good for America?
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Couldn't you find something new to bitch and moan about?
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    One must first read and comprehend the actual ruling to engage in meaningful debate.

    Cite specific passages from the ruling you take issue with or believe to be harmful.

    Having read the ruling I can say it is good for America in that it upholds free speech and restricts government excess – I am an advocate of regulation but only when sensible and appropriate, not for the sake of regulation alone. The law overturned was an anachronism, in this age of cable/satellite/fiber optic television, internet, and various other forms of wireless communication, it is nonsensical to attempt to restrict voter access to political discourse simply because that discourse occurs a certain point before a given election.

    Moreover, the ruling had noting to with ‘corporate personhood,’ indeed, the word appears nowhere in the ruling. Neither does the notion that ‘money equals speech’ appear; instead the Court addresses the restriction of donations is a restriction on free speech:
    That in many cases political discourse is idiotic, misleading, or factually incorrect doesn’t justify restriction of speech in a free society:

    That political discourse and information emanates from corporate entities does not justify their restriction by the government in an effort to ‘protect’ the voting public from the nefarious motives or agenda of those same corporate entities:

    Even if one were to concede that corporate participation in political discourse is harmful, it’s not the place of government to make that determination, that responsibility belongs to the citizen voter alone.


    The ruling for those interested:

    CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,745
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    Nope. For those of us who actually believe in our democratic institutions, it is the most important issue of the day.
     
  5. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,407
    Thanks Received:
    2,247
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,732
    If anyone cares to remember, the question before the court was a restriction banning groups from buying airtime 6 weeks before an election, the court should have stuck to the narrow issue at hand rather than issuing a broad ruling that amounted to judicial activism. It sets the stage for every national election from now on to be a contest between corporatism and the people, guess who will win in a country where money talks?
     
  6. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,745
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    Another link to CU v. FEC:

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission : SCOTUSblog

    Those of us concerned with the outcome of this decision understands that money corrupts politics, always has, always will. This decision exacerbates and creates a dangerous situation, dangerous since it allows for unlimited money from anonymous sources to influence the voter.

    Think for a moment of who the anonymous 'donor' and creater of that 30 second commerical may be, and how often the propaganda - for isn't that what all politcal ads are - can be played on the airways if there is no limit on how much money can be spent.
     
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    That’s for the people to decide, not the government.

    And the Court addressed the central issue: government restriction of free speech, regardless how well-intentioned.

    And it’s incumbent upon the voter to learn the truth of the matter, not have the information hidden from him by the government.

    Free speech isn’t a guarantee of truthful or accurate speech, and government has no monopoly on the truth or accuracy of a matter. The people have the right to be exposed to all discourse, regardless the intent or source; the government should play no role in evaluating the accuracy or truthfulness of the information contained in political discourse.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845


    I don't know. It's possible that that money is not the end all of political discourse. Mitt outspent Newt by how much and got his pitute handed to him.

    That result all by itself should have the Big 0 crapping himself.
     
  9. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,745
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    So your defense of CU is based on Freedom of Speech, yet this freedom is not absolute. Slander and libel restrict speech and that restriction ought to provide protection to those elected and those who want to be elected to public office. Why should someone be immune from culpability/indictment when they libel or slander another?
     
  10. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    So when you donate, you corrupt the process, is that your premise? In truth, we are talking about influence and participation. Money is a means, a tool. It does nothing of itself. Money is a part of every campaign, it is a part of the political process, in every form, it is fuel. You might as well ban the air certain people are allowed to breathe, in the end the effect will be the same. Those you support and choose will survive, those you apply undue burden on will fail. Voice is a funny thing when not subjugated. It stands or falls on it's own merit. Either the Government protects Free Speech, of it fails to, there really is no in between Politically. Why obstruct my right to hear and educate? Do I get to choose your reading materials? Do I get to deny you? Why in my right mind would I?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page