Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision?

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by Dante, Dec 17, 2014.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
     
  2. Derideo_Te
    Offline

    Derideo_Te Je Suis Charlie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    Messages:
    20,464
    Thanks Received:
    7,287
    Trophy Points:
    360
    Ratings:
    +12,090
    The concept of corporations being "people" with "free speech rights" is ludicrous.

    If that were true then a corporation would be restricted to the same contribution limits as you and I but that isn't the case.

    Furthermore there is nothing that grants a corporation "citizenship". So anyone can create a corporation, even foreign nationals, and use it to influence the outcome of an American election.

    CU will go down in history as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history and that will sully the reputation of partisan bigots like Scalia so ultimately some good might come of it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    56,268
    Thanks Received:
    12,116
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +41,033






    I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

    Question
    1) Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional?

    2) Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"?

    3) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA?

    4) Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?

    Conclusion
    Decision: 5 votes for Citizens United, 4 vote(s) against
    Legal provision:
    No. No. Yes. Yes. The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor.

    ---------------------------------------------

    mentioned in Citizens United is:

    McConnell v. Federal Election Commission The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
    Question
    1. Does the "soft money" ban of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 exceed Congress's authority to regulate elections under Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and/or violate the First Amendment's protection of the freedom to speak?

    2. Do regulations of the source, content, or timing of political advertising in the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 violate the First Amendment's free speech clause?


    Conclusion
    Decision: 5 votes for McConnell, 4 vote(s) against
    Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
    Split Vote

    With a few exceptions, the Court answered "no" to both questions in a 5-to-4 decision written by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2014
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?

    Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.
     
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    56,268
    Thanks Received:
    12,116
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +41,033




    No, I don't. But I'm smart enough to realize that any group that does is doing it to buy power and influence. Both things that are anathema to the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
     
  7. Howey
    Offline

    Howey Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    5,480
    Thanks Received:
    756
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Ratings:
    +1,306
    A corporation has no soul.

    Of course, few republicans have a soul too, so maybe I'm making a moot point.
     
  8. Howey
    Offline

    Howey Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    5,480
    Thanks Received:
    756
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Ratings:
    +1,306
    Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    72,317
    Thanks Received:
    9,417
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +36,597
    And you think Citizens United granted that.

    And you think Citizens United has to do with contribution limits.

    As always, you are an ignorant sot, spouting off on subjects you have zero knowledge of.
     
  10. Derideo_Te
    Offline

    Derideo_Te Je Suis Charlie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    Messages:
    20,464
    Thanks Received:
    7,287
    Trophy Points:
    360
    Ratings:
    +12,090
    Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Money Is Not Speech

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Campaign donations pay for more than political ads and should not be protected as free speech, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told a Senate panel Wednesday in urging them to rein in the billions of dollars shaping elections.

    The retired justice reminded lawmakers that political donations funded the burglary at the Watergate office complex under President Richard Nixon. That break-in at the Democratic National Committee is not speech, Stevens argued in a rare appearance of a former justice in the Senate.

    "While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protections as speech itself," Stevens said. "After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglary, actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment."
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page