Citizens United outcry

[Ragnar]

4 out of 5 Americans disagree with this decision.

If four out of five Americans jump off a cliff... **** 'em, shorter lines at Starbucks and Barns and Noble. I'd rather have greater than fewer free speech rights.

The corporate money in our system will crush every regular Americans voice.

You mean like our voices, learning from each other right now?

You mean the corporate money that owns Facebook?

You mean the corporate money that owns You Tube?

Yeah, it's really hard to get info these days ain't it?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Public Citizen Press Room


One Year Later, Movement Is Growing to Overturn Citizens United

Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen

The theory and practice of the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission are incompatible with a well-functioning democracy.

One year and one election after the decision, we know that Citizens United remade the electoral landscape. Not only did it enable corporations to write large checks to affect who would and would not be elected, but it also established that Wild West rules would prevail for campaign 2010. The 2010 campaign and the 2010 election results were influenced quite considerably by Citizens United.

Citizens United has cast a shadow over all policymaking, because elected officials now know that if they cross powerful corporate interests, they face the prospect of an unaccountable, outside campaign to defeat them in the next election.

Back in the old days Liberals applauded every expansion of free speech. Citizens ought to have been one of those moments.
Now liberals are for free speech, as long as it is theirs. Anything contrary to that is labeled "corporatism" and "hate speech."
The truth is United Citizens did nothing that the OP alleges. Corporations are still forbidden to contribute to candidates' elections. This fact seems to get lost conveniently, in libs' talking points.

Yep, typical leftwing lies. It is funny, if it was actually done to support lefties they would be silent on the subject.

 

[goldcatt]

SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION





fwiw - Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation



Much more at link.

It's a good argument. If the government can suppress Citizens United, it can suppress the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR) or ABC, FOX, CNN, CBS or NBC or anyone anywhere anytime etc etc etc.

Absolutely not. News organizations have and have always had freedom of the press, which is an expansion of speech to press organizations in service of the public.

Whether that "service of the public" part still holds true is debatable. But the fact remains that non-press corporations were never intended to hold individual rights to serve their own purposes.

"In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415)."

So? As I posted earlier, corporations have long had free speech protection for commercial purposes. Pull up and read those actual citations, you'll understand what I'm talking about. You think SCOTUS clerks don't cite cases in a manner most favorable to the opinions of their bosses? You haven't researched too many.

The Court decided it, it's the law and needs to be obeyed. But there are a lot of scholars including some who sit on that bench who disagree that money is speech or that fictitious entities created for a strictly commercial purpose should have political rights without responsibility.

The sheer scope and activism of the decision is breathtaking, McCain-Feingold could and should have been found unconstitutional on much, much narrower grounds. And those who call themselves "Originalist" who voted for this without any regard for the purpose of political speech protection should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Corporations are not people.

The people who run them can vote already IF they are citizens.

If you spend much time interacting with people on the right, you'll find that there isn't a lot of intelligence there. They are motivated by god, not intelligence. They delude themselves into believing that they actually know what the constitution is about.

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson

It doesn't take much intelligence to recognize that when you designate corporations as people, real people are going to lose.

Better then being a leftwing satan worshipping socialist. The stupid ones are on the left.

 

[AmericanFirst]

As I said, in the old days liberals wanted more free speech. Whatever happened to thsoe people??

They sold their souls to the communists.

 

[Ragnar]

Absolutely not. News organizations have and have always had freedom of the press, which is an expansion of speech to press organizations in service of the public.

Whether that "service of the public" part still holds true is debatable. But the fact remains that non-press corporations were never intended to hold individual rights to serve their own purposes.

"In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415)."

So? The Court decided it, it's the law and needs to be obeyed. But there are a lot of scholars including some who sit on that bench who disagree that money is speech or that fictitious entities created for a strictly commercial purpose should have political rights without responsibility.

The sheer scope and activism of the decision is breathtaking, McCain-Feingold could and should have been found unconstitutional on much, much narrower grounds. And those who call themselves "Originalist" who voted for this without any regard for the purpose of political speech protection should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by "political speech protection".

My understanding of the concept is that the best protection for political speech is to have more of it, not less.

Um, "fictitious entities created for a strictly commercial purpose", wha? What constitutes a fictitious entity? It exist or it does not. Unions and Corporations still can't give money directly to the Pols and they stiff have to disclose who they are when they create documentaries or political ads.

It should not be up to the FEC who can and can't make a political ad. The government should never have had that right and it makes less sense now with the advent of the internet (at any speed), TV, Cable, AM/FM radio, Satellite Radio, Newspapers, electronic books, magazines, movies and on and on and on.

No one but no one can possibly achieve some kind of unfair advantage. Sarah Palin can send ripples through the MSM empires of many corporations with a single Facebook entry. You may say that's to the MSM's discredit and I would agree, but that's just a fart in a thunderstorm example of how one person's influence can make a difference.

 

[daveman]

I already know those like Daveman, Crusader Frank, and others are going to try to debase me by saying I'm this or that... all I can say is pre-emptively, provide me with evidence that corporations haven't been subversive against citizens of this country, the world, animals, the enviroment, and I will believe you. Until then, the evidence is overwhelming. So, keep the insults to yourself until you have someting to back it up, please, otherwise you just make yourselves look partisan for the sake of being partisan.

Why should anyone even make the attempt? You're certainly not going to change your mind.

 

[daveman]

As I said, in the old days liberals wanted more free speech. Whatever happened to thsoe people??

In the old days, liberals supported individual liberties, too.

Is that a whine?

No, it's the truth.

 

[daveman]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.

The people in them already have rights.

The US was not designed to give corporations control over the government was it?

Then you similarly oppose 527s like MoveOn.org, correct?

TM, I think you missed this question.

 

[goldcatt]

"In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415)."

So? The Court decided it, it's the law and needs to be obeyed. But there are a lot of scholars including some who sit on that bench who disagree that money is speech or that fictitious entities created for a strictly commercial purpose should have political rights without responsibility.

The sheer scope and activism of the decision is breathtaking, McCain-Feingold could and should have been found unconstitutional on much, much narrower grounds. And those who call themselves "Originalist" who voted for this without any regard for the purpose of political speech protection should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by "political speech protection".

My understanding of the concept is that the best protection for political speech is to have more of it, not less.

Um, "fictitious entities created for a strictly commercial purpose", wha? What constitutes a fictitious entity? It exist or it does not. Unions and Corporations still can't give money directly to the Pols and they stiff have to disclose who they are when they create documentaries or political ads.

It should not be up to the FEC who can and can't make a political ad. The government should never have had that right and it makes less sense now with the advent of the internet (at any speed), TV, Cable, AM/FM radio, Satellite Radio, Newspapers, electronic books, magazines, movies and on and on and on.

No one but no one can possibly achieve some kind of unfair advantage. Sarah Palin can send ripples through the MSM empires of many corporations with a single Facebook entry. You may say that's to the MSM's discredit and I would agree, but that's just a fart in a thunderstorm example of how one person's influence can make a difference.

You're partly correct.

McCain-Feingold needed to go.

That could have been done on much narrower grounds than granting full individual protection for political speech to entities that exist only on paper and with the sole purpose of commerce. Or, in the case of unions, that exist only on paper and for the sole purpose of collective bargaining. These are organizations with zero, zip, nada political responsibility, accountability or purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-corporation. And CU is as big a threat to the integrity of the corporate structure as it is anything else, by weakening the theoretical legal structure of the corporate veil.

But there is an inherent lack of responsibility and accountability in the corporate structure that doesn't exist for individuals. The fictitious entity can be created by anyone, anywhere in the world with any agenda, but as its own "person" on paper as long as there is a PO Box and a piece of paper filed in a State somewhere in the US, it's an American "citizen" for all purposes under CU and now has access to engage in the political process to its heart's content - without any accountability whatsoever. A corporation gets in trouble? No problem, the principals can merely wind it up, get a new charter and voila! They have a clean, new "person" with no record. And the principals are protected by the corporate veil - almost completely - for any accountability for the actions they take on behalf of this fictitious person.

Full rights, no responsibility. Way to go, Supremies!

 

[AmericanFirst]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.

The people in them already have rights.

The US was not designed to give corporations control over the government was it?

Then you similarly oppose 527s like MoveOn.org, correct?

Thats different, the liberals love socialism and moveon.org is a socialist organization so they love it. Idiots.

 

[Ragnar]

So? The Court decided it, it's the law and needs to be obeyed. But there are a lot of scholars including some who sit on that bench who disagree that money is speech or that fictitious entities created for a strictly commercial purpose should have political rights without responsibility.

The sheer scope and activism of the decision is breathtaking, McCain-Feingold could and should have been found unconstitutional on much, much narrower grounds. And those who call themselves "Originalist" who voted for this without any regard for the purpose of political speech protection should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by "political speech protection".

My understanding of the concept is that the best protection for political speech is to have more of it, not less.

Um, "fictitious entities created for a strictly commercial purpose", wha? What constitutes a fictitious entity? It exist or it does not. Unions and Corporations still can't give money directly to the Pols and they stiff have to disclose who they are when they create documentaries or political ads.

It should not be up to the FEC who can and can't make a political ad. The government should never have had that right and it makes less sense now with the advent of the internet (at any speed), TV, Cable, AM/FM radio, Satellite Radio, Newspapers, electronic books, magazines, movies and on and on and on.

No one but no one can possibly achieve some kind of unfair advantage. Sarah Palin can send ripples through the MSM empires of many corporations with a single Facebook entry. You may say that's to the MSM's discredit and I would agree, but that's just a fart in a thunderstorm example of how one person's influence can make a difference.

You're partly correct.

McCain-Feingold needed to go.

That could have been done on much narrower grounds than granting full individual protection for political speech to entities that exist only on paper and with the sole purpose of commerce. Or, in the case of unions, that exist only on paper and for the sole purpose of collective bargaining. These are organizations with zero, zip, nada political responsibility, accountability or purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-corporation. And CU is as big a threat to the integrity of the corporate structure as it is anything else, by weakening the theoretical legal structure of the corporate veil.

But there is an inherent lack of responsibility and accountability in the corporate structure that doesn't exist for individuals. The fictitious entity can be created by anyone, anywhere in the world with any agenda, but as its own "person" on paper as long as there is a PO Box and a piece of paper filed in a State somewhere in the US, it's an American "citizen" for all purposes under CU and now has access to engage in the political process to its heart's content - without any accountability whatsoever. A corporation gets in trouble? No problem, the principals can merely wind it up, get a new charter and voila! They have a clean, new "person" with no record. And the principals are protected by the corporate veil - almost completely - for any accountability for the actions they take on behalf of this fictitious person.

Full rights, no responsibility. Way to go, Supremies!

I guess we are at the point of agree to disagree.

I'm perfectly content with the idea that you and I should decide weather a political message is "responsible" (correct? fact? fiction? just plain dumb?) or not rather than have the government butt in and order folks not to make a movie, speech, ect. Thanks for having a civil disagreement anyway.

On edit...

 

[AmericanFirst]

Back in the old days Liberals applauded every expansion of free speech. Citizens ought to have been one of those moments.
Now liberals are for free speech, as long as it is theirs. Anything contrary to that is labeled "corporatism" and "hate speech."
The truth is United Citizens did nothing that the OP alleges. Corporations are still forbidden to contribute to candidates' elections. This fact seems to get lost conveniently, in libs' talking points.

Money is not speech. Money is property.

Your attempt to obscure the nature of what in fact is a euphemistically labeled means of facilitating bribery is weakly veiled. The so-called "Citizens United" ruling is nothing more or less than a plainly corrupted Supreme Court's sanctioning of the transfer of unrestricted amounts of property from corporate entities and other affluent sources to our legislators. It is nothing more or less than legitimized bribery and any rhetorical effort to color it as something other than that is ambitious bullshit.

It is too bad that someone with your inteligence has chosen to ignore the damage that such an insidious ruling will have on the future of America.

Since when is it the government's right to limit or restrict the transfer of private property, and when dd campaign donations become "bribery". Oh wait, it's only "bribery" when corporations do it right?

Seriously do you people hear yourselves? The constitution never allowed for the courts to restrict the transfer of private property. This court acted properly.

Corporations don't vote. They can't steal elections. The problem is not corporate advertisement, it's the idiots that vote based on corporate advertisement. Some seem to believe that the American people aren't smart enough to vote without being "protected" from ads paid by big business. That may be so... but the courts have NO LEGAL RIGHT to "protect" stupid people from their own stupidity.

The dimwits love the courts. Look at all the fed judges making stupid decisions favoring dimwits. The gov't deciding private property rights is socialism.

 

[Ragnar]

I already know those like Daveman, Crusader Frank, and others are going to try to debase me by saying I'm this or that... all I can say is pre-emptively, provide me with evidence that corporations haven't been subversive against citizens of this country, the world, animals, the enviroment, and I will believe you. Until then, the evidence is overwhelming. So, keep the insults to yourself until you have someting to back it up, please, otherwise you just make yourselves look partisan for the sake of being partisan.

Why should anyone even make the attempt? You're certainly not going to change your mind.

I'll concede newpolitics point.

Later today at lunch I'll try to remember that the McDonalds corporation is subversive to citizens making a living at other food establishments as well as the interest of cows (obviously), the environment (there likely was a nice field there before the franchise opened) and the world (I could have opted for Chinese from those nice new family in town).

Jeez, I'm a monster.

 

[goldcatt]

I'm not sure what you mean by "political speech protection".

My understanding of the concept is that the best protection for political speech is to have more of it, not less.

Um, "fictitious entities created for a strictly commercial purpose", wha? What constitutes a fictitious entity? It exist or it does not. Unions and Corporations still can't give money directly to the Pols and they stiff have to disclose who they are when they create documentaries or political ads.

It should not be up to the FEC who can and can't make a political ad. The government should never have had that right and it makes less sense now with the advent of the internet (at any speed), TV, Cable, AM/FM radio, Satellite Radio, Newspapers, electronic books, magazines, movies and on and on and on.

No one but no one can possibly achieve some kind of unfair advantage. Sarah Palin can send ripples through the MSM empires of many corporations with a single Facebook entry. You may say that's to the MSM's discredit and I would agree, but that's just a fart in a thunderstorm example of how one person's influence can make a difference.

You're partly correct.

McCain-Feingold needed to go.

That could have been done on much narrower grounds than granting full individual protection for political speech to entities that exist only on paper and with the sole purpose of commerce. Or, in the case of unions, that exist only on paper and for the sole purpose of collective bargaining. These are organizations with zero, zip, nada political responsibility, accountability or purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-corporation. And CU is as big a threat to the integrity of the corporate structure as it is anything else, by weakening the theoretical legal structure of the corporate veil.

But there is an inherent lack of responsibility and accountability in the corporate structure that doesn't exist for individuals. The fictitious entity can be created by anyone, anywhere in the world with any agenda, but as its own "person" on paper as long as there is a PO Box and a piece of paper filed in a State somewhere in the US, it's an American "citizen" for all purposes under CU and now has access to engage in the political process to its heart's content - without any accountability whatsoever. A corporation gets in trouble? No problem, the principals can merely wind it up, get a new charter and voila! They have a clean, new "person" with no record. And the principals are protected by the corporate veil - almost completely - for any accountability for the actions they take on behalf of this fictitious person.

Full rights, no responsibility. Way to go, Supremies!

I guess we are at the point of agree to disagree.

I'm perfectly content with the idea that you and I should decide weather a political message is "responsible" (correct? fact? fiction? just plain dumb?) or not rather than have the government butt in and order folks not to make a movie, speech, ect. Thanks for having a civil disagreement anyway.

On edit...

Thank YOU.

Although the only point of contention I still have is to point out that it's not about the message, but the nature of the messenger.

As for the rest...potay-toes, potah-toes. And life goes on.

 

[Ragnar]

You're partly correct.

McCain-Feingold needed to go.

That could have been done on much narrower grounds than granting full individual protection for political speech to entities that exist only on paper and with the sole purpose of commerce. Or, in the case of unions, that exist only on paper and for the sole purpose of collective bargaining. These are organizations with zero, zip, nada political responsibility, accountability or purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-corporation. And CU is as big a threat to the integrity of the corporate structure as it is anything else, by weakening the theoretical legal structure of the corporate veil.

But there is an inherent lack of responsibility and accountability in the corporate structure that doesn't exist for individuals. The fictitious entity can be created by anyone, anywhere in the world with any agenda, but as its own "person" on paper as long as there is a PO Box and a piece of paper filed in a State somewhere in the US, it's an American "citizen" for all purposes under CU and now has access to engage in the political process to its heart's content - without any accountability whatsoever. A corporation gets in trouble? No problem, the principals can merely wind it up, get a new charter and voila! They have a clean, new "person" with no record. And the principals are protected by the corporate veil - almost completely - for any accountability for the actions they take on behalf of this fictitious person.

Full rights, no responsibility. Way to go, Supremies!

I guess we are at the point of agree to disagree.

I'm perfectly content with the idea that you and I should decide weather a political message is "responsible" (correct? fact? fiction? just plain dumb?) or not rather than have the government butt in and order folks not to make a movie, speech, ect. Thanks for having a civil disagreement anyway.

On edit...

Thank YOU.

Although the only point of contention I still have is to point out that it's not about the message, but the nature of the messenger.

As for the rest...potay-toes, potah-toes. And life goes on.

Cool.

Then at risk of over-simplification and a possible (well warranted) accusation of glutinous last wordianism... I don't want the government picking and choosing the messenger for me, whatever it's nature.

Also, in my mind, your the one saying "potah-toes".

 

[MikeK]

[...]

It's a good argument. If the government can suppress Citizens United, it can suppress the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR) or ABC, FOX, CNN, CBS or NBC or anyone anywhere anytime etc etc etc.

It is not a good argument. When viewed through the lens of common sense it is a plainly specious argument. PBS, etc., are in the business of disseminating speech! Citizens United facilitates the transfer of inordinate amounts of property to elected legislators, the inevitable effect of which is inequitably persuasive patronage.

Anyone who cannot understand the difference between the two issues is either dense or is chauvinistically loyal to partisan dogma and is unconcerned with the fact that the dominant wing of the Supreme Court is obviously biased and/or corrupt.

The obvious purpose of the Citizens United ruling is to impart unequal political power to an emerging corporatocracy. It is a plainly fascistic maneuver.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Public Citizen Press Room


One Year Later, Movement Is Growing to Overturn Citizens United

Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen

The theory and practice of the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission are incompatible with a well-functioning democracy.

One year and one election after the decision, we know that Citizens United remade the electoral landscape. Not only did it enable corporations to write large checks to affect who would and would not be elected, but it also established that Wild West rules would prevail for campaign 2010. The 2010 campaign and the 2010 election results were influenced quite considerably by Citizens United.

Citizens United has cast a shadow over all policymaking, because elected officials now know that if they cross powerful corporate interests, they face the prospect of an unaccountable, outside campaign to defeat them in the next election.

We all know, or should know by now that those we "elect" lie to us to get into office and ***** slap the citizens. People need to not vote for these "candidates" on the left or right, and research viable 3rd party and independent real candidates. Nothing short of a complete and total rebuke of the existing system will change anything.
We can't compete with the corporations.

 

[mammastevens]

As I said, in the old days liberals wanted more free speech. Whatever happened to thsoe people??

They became babyboomers with stocks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On The Hill: Survey: Four in Five Americans Support Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

They used to have surveys where most people supported slavery. Should we go back to using it because most people were stupid?