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

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

  1. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    71,226
    Thanks Received:
    9,240
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +35,444
    I understand that you seek to insult, because you don't understand the issue at hand and are frustrated by the failure of the talking points you ignorantly recite.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. C_Clayton_Jones
    Online

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    47,018
    Thanks Received:
    10,073
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +30,550
    Because private citizens are not subject to Constitutional restrictions, only government is.

    Government sought to limit the political speech of private citizens and private organizations, and being subject to the First Amendment, government was restricted accordingly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. 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

    good point
     
  4. Howey
    Offline

    Howey Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    5,480
    Thanks Received:
    756
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Ratings:
    +1,306
    You couldn't be more wrong with your unsourced claim.

    Zephyr Teachout for Democracy Journal Original Intent

    What Would the Founders Think?
    Lobbying today is at the heart of what the Founding Fathers would call “corruption.” This is not corruption in the legal sense of “bribery,” but the deeper sense, in which public officials and citizens use public channels to serve private ends.

    Lobbying as it currently exists was not part of the nation imagined by the Founding Fathers. However, as the debate notes from the Constitutional Convention show, they were electrified by the fear of money influencing politics, and they went to great lengths to structure the Constitution to protect against financial interests’ takeover of the democratic structures. During the months they spent in Philadelphia, corruption was a constant topic of conversation, talked about one out of every four days–almost half the days in which there were issues of substance debated. As Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, for those at the Convention “[n]othing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.” When they spoke about corruption, it was clear they were not merely talking about crimes, but abuses of power, brought on by temptation. The specter of a corrupt Europe, and to some degree corrupted Greece and Rome, hung over dozens of conversations. The bogeyman was Britain; above all, the Framers and their contemporaries feared creating a structure that invited the sort of plunder of democracy by economic interests that they saw in the British empire. Thomas Paine considered Britain “teeming with corruption.” Patrick Henry wrote, “Look at Britain–see there the bolts and bars of power–see bribery and corruption defiling the fairest fabric that ever nature reared.” In place of this culture of plunder, where the king and parliament acted for private gain instead of the public good, the American Framers wanted a system that limited the temptations placed in front of public servants.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. 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
    If corporations are "people" then they should be subject to the exact same restrictions as people. They should have the same donation limits and disclosure requirements. The whole concept of PAC's (which are incorporated and therefore "people") is mind boggling. You can create as many corporate "people" as you want and each of them can then contribute to the maximum. This makes the whole concept of trying to regulate campaign finance into nothing more than a bad joke.

    Under the current corrupt system politicians are sold to the highest bidder which means they no longer represent "We the People" but instead they represent corporate "people".

    That is the most insane way to run a nation. We are a democracy in name only. Welcome to the Corporate States of America thanks to the rightwing extremism of the SCOTUS.
     
  6. 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
    Ironic!
     
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Online

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    47,018
    Thanks Received:
    10,073
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +30,550
    Consider:

    “[T]he FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.” ibid.

    This was clearly not the intent of the Framers, nor does this comport with a free and democratic society.

    Government is clearly authorized to regulate commerce and markets, food and drugs, and goods and services for the benefit of all society – but not political speech.
     
  8. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    56,223
    Thanks Received:
    12,103
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +40,927




    But factual...
     
  9. 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
    Well you got me there. A web site dedicated to anti-lobbying. Must all be true and sound. J such opinion from an anti lobbying web site pushed upon unsuspecting innocents as fact. :lol:

    "public officials and citizens use public channels to serve private ends"??? You mean like Ben Franklin's angling for Post Master (or whatever they called it), and others with land deals (surveying otherwise known as land speculator), and lotteries and more? What about the revolutionary war profiteers? They all lobbied for stuff. It's what government doles out -- patronage. Ever here of Adams and Jefferson stacking offices with patronage? They were lobbied
     
  10. 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
    Back to basics: Corporations are persons for reasons of law: Corporate personhood - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

    The concept of trying to regulate campaign finance falls into many parts -- individuals and groups. Regulating them has to pass constitutional muster.

    Justice Stevens had a reasonable and credible idea: "Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns"
    How John Paul Stevens Would Amend the Constitution
     

Share This Page