Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

[Wry Catcher]

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (1910)

Do you believe this decision is good for America?

 

[Oddball]

Couldn't you find something new to bitch and moan about?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (1910)

Do you believe this decision is good for America?

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:

Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a “restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam) . Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process.

That in many cases political discourse is idiotic, misleading, or factually incorrect doesn’t justify restriction of speech in a free society:

Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley , supra , at 14–15 (“In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential”). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “ ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm. , 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy , 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971) ); see Buckley , supra , at 14 (“Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution”).

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:

This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button , 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co. , 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936) . Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal. , 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) (“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id. , at 780, n. 16. Cf. id. , at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

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

 

[Wry Catcher]

Couldn't you find something new to bitch and moan about?

Nope. For those of us who actually believe in our democratic institutions, it is the most important issue of the day.

 

[occupied]

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?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (1910)

Do you believe this decision is good for America?

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:

Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a “restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam) . Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process.

That in many cases political discourse is idiotic, misleading, or factually incorrect doesn’t justify restriction of speech in a free society:

Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley , supra , at 14–15 (“In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential&#8221. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “ ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm. , 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy , 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971) ); see Buckley , supra , at 14 (“Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution&#8221.

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:

This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button , 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co. , 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936) . Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal. , 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) (“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id. , at 780, n. 16. Cf. id. , at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

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

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[code1211]

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?

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

 

[Intense]

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (1910)

Do you believe this decision is good for America?

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:

This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button , 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co. , 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936) . Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal. , 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) (“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id. , at 780, n. 16. Cf. id. , at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

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

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.

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?

 

[Wiseacre]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

I don't think someone should be immune from prosecution for whatever they say or write, my problem is that they can say what they want but the benefitted candidate can deny any responsibility. I'd put a stop to that, I think every ad should be sponsored by a specific campaign or it doesn't air. If a Super PAC wants to run a negative ad against somebody, fine; but we should know on who's behalf it's for.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Correct, no freedom is absolute.

But it’s incumbent upon the state to present a compelling interest to preempt a given right, and evidence in support of that restriction. That a right might be abused is not a compelling reason to restrict that right; one can not yell Fire! in a crowded theater, but he’s allowed to enter the theater and approach the podium. Locking the speaker out of the theater is not an acceptable ‘remedy’ in an effort to prevent the possibility of the speaker yelling Fire!

Likewise, that a candidate or advocate of a candidate or issue might lie in a political ad is not justification to preempt that ad.

Why should someone be immune from culpability/indictment when they libel or slander another?

They’re not, but that would be a civil issue between two private litigants, having nothing to do with government involvement.

As an aside, it’s not ‘my defense’ of CU, I merely note the Court’s reasoning in the context of other free speech case law. And the abundance of that law is in support of the decision.

 

[code1211]

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.

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?

I don't think someone should be immune from prosecution for whatever they say or write, my problem is that they can say what they want but the benefitted candidate can deny any responsibility. I'd put a stop to that, I think every ad should be sponsored by a specific campaign or it doesn't air. If a Super PAC wants to run a negative ad against somebody, fine; but we should know on who's behalf it's for.

I happen to like Newt. I also think that obama is a hurtful and degrading influence on our society and country.

I have said it here.

This is in a very limited way mass media.

Should I be restrained from writing either of these thoughts here?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (1910)

Do you believe this decision is good for America?

I believe it is good for intelligent voters.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Your support of Citizens United must be based on the premise that it is justifiable to tell someone they can talk about politicians as long as said politician is not actually running for office, because that is what the law that was struck down actually said. Can you explain why you think that is good for democracy?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I happen to like Newt. I also think that obama is a hurtful and degrading influence on our society and country.

I have said it here.

This is in a very limited way mass media.

Should I be restrained from writing either of these thoughts here?

No, neither statement should be preempted, however subjective or inaccurate.