The Great Experiment is over.

[Too Tall]

Are people limited as to how much they can give to a campaign?

yes. $2500.

If a corporation is "a person" is it subject to that same limit?

Hopefully the corporations are subject to the same limit that the Unions are.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't see how anyone can possibly argue that an advertisement on television is not speech with any sort of integrity.

 

[Dot Com]

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

Ummm.....yes. I don't want "the best government money can buy". Apparently, you do.

So you want people silenced. Got you.

See that's my problem with it. You can't silence people

The operative word there being "people" NOT artificially constructed entities on paper. You're just as much of a lock-step, ideologue as The Rabbi. You two acquainted perchance?

I don't see how anyone can possibly argue that an advertisement on television is not speech with any sort of integrity.

It's "outside influence". Elections are about the people and their chosen Rep. Not some outside, corporately-funded, slime machine.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ummm.....yes. I don't want "the best government money can buy". Apparently, you do.

So you want people silenced. Got you.

See that's my problem with it. You can't silence people

The operative word there being "people" NOT artificially constructed entities on paper. You're just as much of a lock-step, ideologue as The Rabbi. You two acquainted perchance?

I don't see how anyone can possibly argue that an advertisement on television is not speech with any sort of integrity.

It's "outside influence". Elections are about the people and their chosen Rep. Not some outside, corporately-funded, slime machine.

People have a right to free speech as individuals and in association with other people. They don't lose that right because they choose to incorporate for business matter. Nor do they lose that right if they decide to join as a union.

Political speech is a part of the election process. You don't have the right to ban people or groups of people from advertising for or against a candidate simply because you don't like them or don't like what they say.

You don't like what they say or stand for, then stand against them. Speak up for yourself. Associate yourself with others and purchase advertising against them.

If you won't do that, then you deserve what you get. But you sure as heck don't have the right to take away their freedom of speech because you don't like them.

 

[Dot Com]

"Purchase"?. You want to govern using TeeVee commercials? Thats just marvelous.

 

[Kuros]

The solution to violent videogames: good parenting.

It makes little sense for the State to bar video games to all children throughout California.

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," Scalia said in the case's majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

That reasoning didn't sit well with some parents, including Parents Councilmember Angela Atkinson, a Hazelwood parent of three, who said she believes parents should have the right to approve any game their child purchases.

But parents DO have the right to approve any game their child purchases!!!

A concern for some parents may be how to monitor game purchases when children live in multiple households. Patch Parents Councilmember Tera Stalhut, who has four children from a previous relationship, said her concern would be what the law does when the birth parents aren't necessarily on the same accord.

That's a very particular problem, and the abridgement to free speech is serious enough that we shouldn't cater such a broad restriction to it.

And just to reiterate how low the stakes really are.

Although the original California state law never took effect . . .

This was a law instituted in 2005, and it has never taken effect. But ZOMG CORPORATIONS ARE CONTROLLING DEMOCRACY.

Give me a break.

 

[Dot Com]

The solution to violent videogames: good parenting.

It makes little sense for the State to bar video games to all children throughout California.

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," Scalia said in the case's majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

That reasoning didn't sit well with some parents, including Parents Councilmember Angela Atkinson, a Hazelwood parent of three, who said she believes parents should have the right to approve any game their child purchases.

But parents DO have the right to approve any game their child purchases!!!

A concern for some parents may be how to monitor game purchases when children live in multiple households. Patch Parents Councilmember Tera Stalhut, who has four children from a previous relationship, said her concern would be what the law does when the birth parents aren't necessarily on the same accord.

That's a very particular problem, and the abridgement to free speech is serious enough that we shouldn't cater such a broad restriction to it.

And just to reiterate how low the stakes really are.

Although the original California state law never took effect . . .

This was a law instituted in 2005, and it has never taken effect. But ZOMG CORPORATIONS ARE CONTROLLING DEMOCRACY.

Give me a break.

So you think this is no big deal & it doesn't empower shadowy groups?
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.[1]

 

[Kuros]

So you think this is no big deal & it doesn't empower shadowy groups?

I'm not trying to dodge the question, but what do you think of the Patriot Act?

I'm not trying to trap you. I'm trying to say that often the solution to countering "shadowy groups" is worse than the problem. For example, I want Al Qaeda destroyed. But I don't want essential freedoms trampled in order to do it.

So if you can understand that, you can begin to understand my position on Citizens United.

Please note that Citizens United allows open funding (but upheld the disclosure requirements) on ISSUE ADVOCACY advertising. Campaign advertising is still tightly restricted. I thought it was a balanced decision, and everytime I see liberal activist groups moan and scream about the decision, it really undermines their credibility for me.

 

[Dot Com]

Citizens United allows "outside groups" (from outside the district/state) to spend money to influence elections.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited

It was nice while it lasted. Oligarchy here we come

 

[St.Blues]

Yes, and the New Deal can be shoved where the sun doesn't shine along with the Patriot act.
TSA your going down. You sellout schmucks.

 

[California Girl]

Citizens United allows "outside groups" (from outside the district/state) to spend money to influence elections.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited

It was nice while it lasted. Oligarchy here we come

So, you're saying that Glenn Beck was right?

 

[syrenn]

"Purchase"?. You want to govern using TeeVee commercials? Thats just marvelous.

Or tweets, and emails, oprah and facebook.



just saying

 

[midcan5]

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

You of all people should know decisions are read as everything else is read.

This is excellent. Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World

"Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work. The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government. The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups." Citizens United - One year later - Steven Rockford - Open Salon


Just came across this and thought it pertinent.

"To the extent the United States was governed by anyone during the decades after World War II, it was governed by the President acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private sector's 'Establishment.'" A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

>

Repeal the 17th amendment and you will single handedly eliminate the control Special Interest have on all of the Federal Government.

But then I dont think that's really what you want.

Repealing the 17th would only move the problem down a step or over a bit, people are people and so long as special interest money controls our government it will remain the same.