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

[Dante]

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)?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

 

[westwall]

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)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

 

[Dante]

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

 

[Dante]

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)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

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.

 

[westwall]

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)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

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.

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.

 

[Howey]

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)?

A corporation has no soul.

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

 

[Howey]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The concept of corporations being "people" with "free speech rights" is ludicrous.

And you think Citizens United granted that.

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

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.

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."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.

 

[Dante]

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.

First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"

Some people are offended by the practices and some like you the mere concept.
You object to corporations being 'people' in court, but if they aren't 'people' in court how do you sue them, how do you hold them criminally liable (can you?), how do fine them? Can you fine a door, a table, a chair?

Can foreign nationals contribute already? Is what you say about the results of the ruling spin and opinion or can you point to it in the ruling? It's okay if you can't -- point to it in the ruling. Most people can't.

 

[Dante]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.

We are all lobbyists on some level, so personally I'd be careful what I advocate for or against them. Not saying you have written anything against the existence of lobbyists.

Bribes are against the law.

 

[Dante]

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.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. Are you saying Justice Kennedy is a partisan bigot and why single out only Justice Scalia?

 

[Dante]

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)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

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.

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.

You deny a political party is a group like any other group? Haven't parties spent money on campaigns of one person against another? Why should a political party be treated any differently than any other group? Is this consistent with your understanding of the US Constitution and -- gulp -- the Declaration of Independence.

Do all donors demand pay back? What is wrong with influence? Do you not want to influence your representatives?

 

[westwall]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.

We are all lobbyists on some level, so personally I'd be careful what I advocate for or against them. Not saying you have written anything against the existence of lobbyists.

Bribes are against the law.

One persons "bribe" is another's lobbyist donation.

 

[Dante]

Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.

How would you do that? Would you pass laws that you know would be ruled unconstitutional or do you have an idea how to do this within the bounds of the constitutional arguments before the Court?

 

[westwall]

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)?

I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.

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.

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.

You deny a political party is a group like any other group? Haven't parties spent money on campaigns of one person against another? Why should a political party be treated any differently than any other group? Is this consistent with your understanding of the US Constitution and -- gulp -- the Declaration of Independence.

Do all donors demand pay back? What is wrong with influence? Do you not want to influence your representatives?

What I do as an INDIVIDUAL is one thing. What political parties do is entirely different. And yes I would apply the same control to political parties. I don't like how the RNC, or the DNC skews local politics because of their money.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"

Some people are offended by the practices and some like you the mere concept.
You object to corporations being 'people' in court, but if they aren't 'people' in court how do you sue them, how do you hold them criminally liable (can you?), how do fine them? Can you fine a door, a table, a chair?

Can foreign nationals contribute already? Is what you say about the results of the ruling spin and opinion or can you point to it in the ruling? It's okay if you can't -- point to it in the ruling. Most people can't.

Thank you.

The defacto granting of some limited individual rights to corporations occurred in 1885, under the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case. Essentially, if Santa Clara county was to impose a tax on the corporation, the act of declaring the corporation a legal entity to be taxed conferred certain rights. You cannot declare a corporation an entity for the purpose of taxation, then deny that it is an entity in regard to rights.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co. 118 U.S. 394 1886 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

The complaint of the DNC (who held the leash of the FEC) that releasing a movie constituted "soft money" in the face of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" from the previous election was absurd. And as you already pointed out, the court ruled AGAINST Citizens United on several points. Where they did support CU was vital, the most important validation of 1st Amendment civil rights in over a century.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was not the task of the Citizens United Court to resolve the issue of the undue influence money has in the political process, the Court's task was solely to determine if the remedy implemented by Congress to address the problem passed Constitutional muster – it did not.

Now it's incumbent upon the people find another route to realize campaign finance reform that comports with the First Amendment.