Citizens United outcry

[Quantum Windbag]

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

corporations aren't people.

and most of the conservatives i know agree with that...

except for the most rightwingnutty of wingnuts.

They're wingnuts who also don't know anything about their First Amendment OR corporate law.

Corporations as fictitious entities already had free speech rights for the purposes of commerce, that being the sole purpose for their existence and "association", if one really must use that term.

Why the fringe types fail to grasp that a legal fiction constructed for a single purpose should have rights limited to that purpose is beyond me.

So, the ones that are created to espouse a political position, like Move On and Citizens United should have the right to spend money to advocate that political cause? Glad to know we agree on something, even if you thought we did not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never said it was one thing or the other.

I said it was both.

A democracy is what a republic is.

There are reasons the right pumps this propaganda into the right wing minions.

If lies are allowed to hang in the air without challenge they will be taken advantage of later.

Please understand there is a reason this proaganda needs to be challenged.

Dont help them spread the lie by chidding me for outing it.

While you are correct that we are a democratic republic, it is possible to have a republic without having a democracy.

Federal republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SUMMARY

- In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment.

- Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.

HOLDING AND ANALYSIS

Independent Expenditures by Corporations

The Court overruled Austin, striking down § 441b's ban on corporate independent expenditures. It also struck down the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA § 203's extension of § 441b's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures.

The Court held that the “government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations. ”

fwiw - Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation

Facial Challenge to § 441b. In considering the facial challenge, the Court applied strict scrutiny; thus requiring the government to demonstrate that the statute served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A “facial challenge” requires the Court to look at the law and determine if it is unconstitutional as written.

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).

In Austin, the Court held that antidistortion was a compelling government interest that justified a ban on independent election expenditures by corporations and unions. It ruled that large aggregations of wealth, accumulated with the help of the corporate form, may have corrosive or distorting effects, thus justifying a ban on corporate independent expenditures. The Citizens United Court reasoned that “differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment and there is no support for the view that the Amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' free speech. ” Austin, it found, interferes with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment. As a result of this reasoning, the Court was not persuaded by the government's arguments on (1) anticorruption and (2) shareholder protection.

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.

Which is why corporations in general, and corporations specifically formed to comply with election laws specifically, should have free speech.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Corporations are not people.

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

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

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

Corporations are legal persons.

 

[goldcatt]

corporations aren't people.

and most of the conservatives i know agree with that...

except for the most rightwingnutty of wingnuts.

They're wingnuts who also don't know anything about their First Amendment OR corporate law.

Corporations as fictitious entities already had free speech rights for the purposes of commerce, that being the sole purpose for their existence and "association", if one really must use that term.

Why the fringe types fail to grasp that a legal fiction constructed for a single purpose should have rights limited to that purpose is beyond me.

So, the ones that are created to espouse a political position, like Move On and Citizens United should have the right to spend money to advocate that political cause? Glad to know we agree on something, even if you thought we did not.

Actually I do agree with you on that - to a point. These are openly political organizations, usually based on grassroots membership (at least in theory, similar to the NRA and other groups who use "membership" as both political clout and a fundraising tool), and most important they are formed under and scrutinized under specific regulations for that purpose.

Do I think their money is speech either? No. Would I want them participating in the political process minus those specific regulations? No. Do I think they're a good idea as opposed to a legal one? Not entirely.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They're wingnuts who also don't know anything about their First Amendment OR corporate law.

Corporations as fictitious entities already had free speech rights for the purposes of commerce, that being the sole purpose for their existence and "association", if one really must use that term.

Why the fringe types fail to grasp that a legal fiction constructed for a single purpose should have rights limited to that purpose is beyond me.

So, the ones that are created to espouse a political position, like Move On and Citizens United should have the right to spend money to advocate that political cause? Glad to know we agree on something, even if you thought we did not.

Actually I do agree with you on that - to a point. These are openly political organizations, usually based on grassroots membership (at least in theory, similar to the NRA and other groups who use "membership" as both political clout and a fundraising tool), and most important they are formed under and scrutinized under specific regulations for that purpose.

Do I think their money is speech either? No. Would I want them participating in the political process minus those specific regulations? No. Do I think they're a good idea as opposed to a legal one? Not entirely.

OK, but we have to live with the system we have. It could be better, but it will not happen without a lot of work and hassle. I would love to go back to the original Constitutional Convention and have them clarify a few things based on my 200+ years of perspective, but what we have works because they were smart enough to realize that they had no idea what was coming.

 

[WillowTree]

Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?

Yes, unless you think it's a bad idea for demonRats to take union money..

 

[goldcatt]

So, the ones that are created to espouse a political position, like Move On and Citizens United should have the right to spend money to advocate that political cause? Glad to know we agree on something, even if you thought we did not.

Actually I do agree with you on that - to a point. These are openly political organizations, usually based on grassroots membership (at least in theory, similar to the NRA and other groups who use "membership" as both political clout and a fundraising tool), and most important they are formed under and scrutinized under specific regulations for that purpose.

Do I think their money is speech either? No. Would I want them participating in the political process minus those specific regulations? No. Do I think they're a good idea as opposed to a legal one? Not entirely.

OK, but we have to live with the system we have. It could be better, but it will not happen without a lot of work and hassle. I would love to go back to the original Constitutional Convention and have them clarify a few things based on my 200+ years of perspective, but what we have works because they were smart enough to realize that they had no idea what was coming.

True enough. And we've come a long way, baby.

Of course, the reason it's lasted this long without 24,317 amendments is because we sit here and argue over what "speech" means. The next few years will be very, very interesting with clarifications and adjustments of CU - if not outright overturning it. There's a lot they didn't address, and the reasoning calls a lot of things about the corporate structure itself and the nature of speech into question.

Let the games begin!

 

[The Rabbi]

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

corporations aren't people.

and most of the conservatives i know agree with that...

except for the most rightwingnutty of wingnuts.

They're wingnuts who also don't know anything about their First Amendment OR corporate law.

Corporations as fictitious entities already had free speech rights for the purposes of commerce, that being the sole purpose for their existence and "association", if one really must use that term.

Why the fringe types fail to grasp that a legal fiction constructed for a single purpose should have rights limited to that purpose is beyond me.

What commerce was "Citizen United" engaged in?

 

[The Rabbi]

SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SUMMARY

- In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment.

- Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.

fwiw - Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation

Facial Challenge to § 441b. In considering the facial challenge, the Court applied strict scrutiny; thus requiring the government to demonstrate that the statute served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A “facial challenge” requires the Court to look at the law and determine if it is unconstitutional as written.

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).

In Austin, the Court held that antidistortion was a compelling government interest that justified a ban on independent election expenditures by corporations and unions. It ruled that large aggregations of wealth, accumulated with the help of the corporate form, may have corrosive or distorting effects, thus justifying a ban on corporate independent expenditures. The Citizens United Court reasoned that “differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment and there is no support for the view that the Amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' free speech. ” Austin, it found, interferes with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment. As a result of this reasoning, the Court was not persuaded by the government's arguments on (1) anticorruption and (2) shareholder protection.

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.

Do "news organizations" have special rights under the 1A that the rest of us don't have?
You show your ignorance, "counselor."

 

[MikeK]

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.

How have Limbaugh and Beck managed to convince you that repealing Citizens United will negatively affect your freedom of speech?

You need to stop listening to those guys.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

"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)."

Here's a simple question for you: Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth -- or how much money you can afford to give to lawmakers?

Because the Citizens United ruling has ordained precisely that. It says that money is speech, so how much speech can you afford compared to the Koch Brothers?

 

[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.

Do "news organizations" have special rights under the 1A that the rest of us don't have?
You show your ignorance, "counselor."

**** off, troll. If you don't know who the "press" is, you have even bigger problems than your disgusting personality suggests.

Don't you have somebody else to stalk and call a hooker today? I'm in no mood to play nice.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Do "news organizations" have special rights under the 1A that the rest of us don't have?
You show your ignorance, "counselor."

**** off, troll. If you don't know who the "press" is, you have even bigger problems than your disgusting personality suggests.

Don't you have somebody else to stalk and call a hooker today? I'm in no mood to play nice.

Translation: I have no refutation to offer because you are right.
Again:
What "commerce" was Citizens United engaged in?
What rights do "news organizations" have that the rest of us don't have?
I don't know who "the press" is. Tell me, is Matt Drudge the press? Does he have rights I do not have? What about Rush Limbaugh? What about Keith Olberdouchebag? How about posters here on USMB? Is this a "news org" that has protections the rest of us don't?
Your knowledge base is very shallow, the contradictions come fast and furious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[...]

"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)."

Here's a simple question for you: Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth -- or how much money you can afford to give to lawmakers?

Because the Citizens United ruling has ordained precisely that. It says that money is speech, so how much speech can you afford compared to the Koch Brothers?

I do not believe that, and I also do not believe it is inversely proportional to my net worth either.

 

[goldcatt]

Do "news organizations" have special rights under the 1A that the rest of us don't have?
You show your ignorance, "counselor."

**** off, troll. If you don't know who the "press" is, you have even bigger problems than your disgusting personality suggests.

Don't you have somebody else to stalk and call a hooker today? I'm in no mood to play nice.

Translation: I have no refutation to offer because you are right.
Again:
What "commerce" was Citizens United engaged in?
What rights do "news organizations" have that the rest of us don't have?
I don't know who "the press" is. Tell me, is Matt Drudge the press? Does he have rights I do not have? What about Rush Limbaugh? What about Keith Olberdouchebag? How about posters here on USMB? Is this a "news org" that has protections the rest of us don't?
Your knowledge base is very shallow, the contradictions come fast and furious.

You're as stupid as you are pathetic, bigoted, sexist and cowardly, I see. That's no surprise either.

IF you had half a brain cell and had read even a news snippet about it, you would know the basis of the entire case was the production and distribution of a film. By CU. You would also know that he scope of the decision left the facts of the case far behind, and what the actual ruling was as opposed to what CU in particular was doing. But I'm making the assumption here that you are, in fact, literate - and you know what they say about people who make assumptions. My bad.

IF you had any idea of what constitutes the press you would understand that all of the organizations listed are in fact journalistic organizations, and that even though you're a freakish moron who can't grasp the concept "press" doesn't just mean newspapers but all journalistic ventures. Surely nobody's dumb enough to say news organizations were granted freedom of the press by the CU decision, not even you. But then again, I've been wrong before.

As for posters at USMB, don't be absurd. You don't even know your ******* basics. This is a privately owned forum, we all post here at sufferance and under the rules set by the owners. You mean you were under the assumption free speech means no rules, in no place, at no time and set by no one? All speech is completely free of price tags and rules, even on private property? Or were you trying in your pathetic little way to argue something just as dumb as the rest of what you have to say?

Now unless you have anything remotely cogent and/or coherent to say, you can stop targeting women for your unwanted attentions any time. Pathetic freak.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?

 

[daveman]

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.

I'd like her answer. Just to confirm.

 

[Ragnar]

[...]

"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)."

Here's a simple question for you: Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth -- or how much money you can afford to give to lawmakers?

Because the Citizens United ruling has ordained precisely that. It says that money is speech, so how much speech can you afford compared to the Koch Brothers?

That is a misunderstanding of the Citizens United ruling which I went to some length to explain via the link above. I'm sorry to tell you but President Obama was as wrong about the SC ruling in his SOTU speech last year as you are now.

If "money is speech" were the ruling in Citizens United then there would have been no need to film a documentary, or buy ads, or print pamphlets (you know... "speak") and direct donations to the bastards would be allowed outright. (that is still, rightly, not legal) also note that Citizens United lost (rightly) 8-1 in there argument for non-disclosure.

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that your argument is "documentary films are not speech" than to claim my argument is "money is speech" though obviously both have their shortcomings via simplification.

To answer your question, "Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth...", I reject the premise on the basis that I reject the false narrative that "money = speech". However, I do understand that those with gobs of dough can own newspapers I can't afford and film documentaries and otherwise get their message out in ways I can't. So what? That is not a problem that needs government regulation.

Just ask Obama artist David Farley (sp?) Or filmmaker Micheal Moore, or anyone with a blog or a message board. Rush Limbaugh has a radio show and I don't but we still both have the same right to free speech. (he's just better than me at exercising that right)

 

[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)."

Here's a simple question for you: Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth -- or how much money you can afford to give to lawmakers?

Because the Citizens United ruling has ordained precisely that. It says that money is speech, so how much speech can you afford compared to the Koch Brothers?

That is a misunderstanding of the Citizens United ruling which I went to some length to explain via the link above. I'm sorry to tell you but President Obama was as wrong about the SC ruling in his SOTU speech last year as you are now.

If "money is speech" were the ruling in Citizens United then there would have been no need to film a documentary, or buy ads, or print pamphlets (you know... "speak") and direct donations to the bastards would be allowed outright. (that is still, rightly, not legal) also note that Citizens United lost (rightly) 8-1 in there argument for non-disclosure.

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that your argument is "documentary films are not speech" than to claim my argument is "money is speech" though obviously both have their shortcomings via simplification.

To answer your question, "Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth...", I reject the premise on the basis that I reject the false narrative that "money = speech". However, I do understand that those with gobs of dough can own newspapers I can't afford and film documentaries and otherwise get their message out in ways I can't. So what? That is not a problem that needs government regulation.

Just ask Obama artist David Farley (sp?) Or filmmaker Micheal Moore, or anyone with a blog or a message board. Rush Limbaugh has a radio show and I don't but we still both have the same right to free speech. (he's just better than me at exercising that right)

Money = speech isn't actually taken from the CU decision. It's part of an earlier decision, Buckely v. Valeo. The CU ruling merely treats it as precedent.

Buckley v. Valeo

The restriction on unlimited donations directly to political campaigns is actually a restriction on speech, as the courts see it. Which is why it received the enhanced scrutiny it did in CU. The interest of curbing public corruption was deemed important enough to make that restriction, but it's still a restriction. Just like the interest in not having people stampeded to death for a prank is deemed enough to outlaw yelling "Fire" in a theater.

I happen to agree with the dissent in CU.

But it wasn't CU that made the leap of cash is speech.