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

[Uncensored2008]

Your greatest flaw is that contribute nothing of any value to this forum.

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Unlimited campaign "contributions" are de facto bribes in my opinion.

black and white. no shades of gray. I am sure others must have reasons why this is detrimental to freedom, liberty, and apple pie -- but I wonder i there is a constitutional argument to back it up? I'm sure there must be, but is it sound?

Perhaps the 14th Amendment? If we are all equal under the law then how come some are more equal than others? Why do "people" with more money get to have a louder voice in elections than others with less money?

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.

 

[Dante]

Perhaps the 14th Amendment? If we are all equal under the law then how come some are more equal than others? Why do "people" with more money get to have a louder voice in elections than others with less money?

Why does the media get a louder voice? Why do unions? Why does a union that benefits DIRECTLY from a particular official have the right to campaign for that official using the employees of that official as their troops?

IF people are prohibited from forming cooperative alliances through the formation of PACs, are you not denying them the right to join together to provide an alternate voice to the media and the unions?

good point

 

[Howey]

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.

Yet the framers desired lobbying from citizens. You'd have to outlaw lobbying and that would kill democracy. So now what? Laws that limit speech, money, access, influence? Will they pass constitutional muster -- any of the ideas you may have on how to do it?

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.

 

[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.

First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"

That was my point!

Yet your point gets lost you say corporations aren't people yet you consistently compare them with people. If you do this why would a foreign corp necessarily be a citizen just because an American corp were a citizen? Wouldn't foreign corps be held to the same standards as foreign citizens?

I could go on but I'm sure this one boggles the mind.

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?

The concept of corporations being "people" for legal purposes does not grant them the same rights as citizens. Unfortunately the current corrupt SCOTUS decided to grant them the same free speech rights as citizens which is absurd. A corporation cannot be "jailed", it cannot "vote" (at least not yet), it cannot "bear arms" and it cannot hold office.

So why the charade of treating corporations like "people"? Because it suits the agenda of the extreme right.

I used to argue your points above until I actually read the opinions. I must say I disagree with some imbecilic notions Justice Kennedy puts forth, but I've always thought Kennedy wrote some weird shit whether I agreed with his opinion or not or supported the outcome or not.

Whether a corp can be jailed (it can be fined), vote, bear arms, or hold office was not before the Court and I doubt any case on any of those idiocies would never get passed a filing.

Can foreign nationals contribute already?

Quick Answers-General Questions

Can non-US citizens contribute?
Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.​

.... ... .. .

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.

Foreign Nationals Electoral Spending and the First Amendment by Toni M. Massaro SSRN

One of the ideas raised by critics of Citizens United is that
Congress might further limit the ability of foreign corporations
to make campaign expenditures.8 Existing laws already limit
foreign speakers (both individual and corporate) from making
campaign contributions to candidates for state or federal office,
or contributions to American political parties,9
though the laws
exempt permanent resident aliens and American subsidiaries
of foreign corporations. Existing laws also prohibit foreign nationals—which
include individuals who are not lawful permanent
residents, foreign governments, corporations, residents,
and political parties ‚organized under the laws of or having
[their] principal place of business in a foreign country‛10—from
funding the operation of a PAC.11 Post-Citizens United, because
the law exempts American subsidiaries of foreign corporations
from these restrictions, these subsidiaries need not use a PAC
to expend funds on a domestic election.​

"Signs are that the current Court would defer to Congress and uphold restrictions on foreign national campaign expenditures, were it to address the question directly." - from your link -- and I fully agree.

and

"Whether this constitutional point matters, however, is questionable given the rapid development of new communications technologies. Foreign nationals, like American citizens, now have multiple ways of reaching potential voters that make efforts to territorialize such influence infeasible. Consequently, the most important constitutional question on the post - Citizens United horizon may not be who can expend funds, but whether donor identity can be disclosed so that voters can better evaluate electoral messages from foreign and non-foreign sources, and whether the privacy objections to such disclosure can, or should, be overcome." - I don't think this helps you out any. Hypotheticals that will most probably not come into play?

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your greatest flaw is that contribute nothing of any value to this forum.

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.

Ironic!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[westwall]

Your greatest flaw is that contribute nothing of any value to this forum.

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.

Ironic!

But factual...

 

[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.

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

Yet the framers desired lobbying from citizens. You'd have to outlaw lobbying and that would kill democracy. So now what? Laws that limit speech, money, access, influence? Will they pass constitutional muster -- any of the ideas you may have on how to do it?

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.

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.

"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

 

[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"

That was my point!

Yet your point gets lost you say corporations aren't people yet you consistently compare them with people. If you do this why would a foreign corp necessarily be a citizen just because an American corp were a citizen? Wouldn't foreign corps be held to the same standards as foreign citizens?

I could go on but I'm sure this one boggles the mind.

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?

The concept of corporations being "people" for legal purposes does not grant them the same rights as citizens. Unfortunately the current corrupt SCOTUS decided to grant them the same free speech rights as citizens which is absurd. A corporation cannot be "jailed", it cannot "vote" (at least not yet), it cannot "bear arms" and it cannot hold office.

So why the charade of treating corporations like "people"? Because it suits the agenda of the extreme right.

I used to argue your points above until I actually read the opinions. I must say I disagree with some imbecilic notions Justice Kennedy puts forth, but I've always thought Kennedy wrote some weird shit whether I agreed with his opinion or not or supported the outcome or not.

Whether a corp can be jailed (it can be fined), vote, bear arms, or hold office was not before the Court and I doubt any case on any of those idiocies would never get passed a filing.

Can foreign nationals contribute already?

Quick Answers-General Questions

Can non-US citizens contribute?
Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.​

.... ... .. .

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.

Foreign Nationals Electoral Spending and the First Amendment by Toni M. Massaro SSRN

One of the ideas raised by critics of Citizens United is that
Congress might further limit the ability of foreign corporations
to make campaign expenditures.8 Existing laws already limit
foreign speakers (both individual and corporate) from making
campaign contributions to candidates for state or federal office,
or contributions to American political parties,9
though the laws
exempt permanent resident aliens and American subsidiaries
of foreign corporations. Existing laws also prohibit foreign nationals—which
include individuals who are not lawful permanent
residents, foreign governments, corporations, residents,
and political parties ‚organized under the laws of or having
[their] principal place of business in a foreign country‛10—from
funding the operation of a PAC.11 Post-Citizens United, because
the law exempts American subsidiaries of foreign corporations
from these restrictions, these subsidiaries need not use a PAC
to expend funds on a domestic election.​

"Signs are that the current Court would defer to Congress and uphold restrictions on foreign national campaign expenditures, were it to address the question directly." - from your link -- and I fully agree.

and

"Whether this constitutional point matters, however, is questionable given the rapid development of new communications technologies. Foreign nationals, like American citizens, now have multiple ways of reaching potential voters that make efforts to territorialize such influence infeasible. Consequently, the most important constitutional question on the post - Citizens United horizon may not be who can expend funds, but whether donor identity can be disclosed so that voters can better evaluate electoral messages from foreign and non-foreign sources, and whether the privacy objections to such disclosure can, or should, be overcome." - I don't think this helps you out any. Hypotheticals that will most probably not come into play?

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.

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

 

[Dante]

We are a democracy in name only. Welcome to the Corporate States of America thanks to the rightwing extremism of the SCOTUS.

really? Then how do you explain the PPACA and other rulings like
Supreme Court rules cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant?

 

[Dante]

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.

The framers didn't foresee anything the FEC regulates either.

In your opinion: Government is clearly not authorized to regulate political speech. Yet the people want it. They will amend the Constitution on it sooner or later

 

[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.

First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"

That was my point!

Yet your point gets lost you say corporations aren't people yet you consistently compare them with people. If you do this why would a foreign corp necessarily be a citizen just because an American corp were a citizen? Wouldn't foreign corps be held to the same standards as foreign citizens?

I could go on but I'm sure this one boggles the mind.

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?

The concept of corporations being "people" for legal purposes does not grant them the same rights as citizens. Unfortunately the current corrupt SCOTUS decided to grant them the same free speech rights as citizens which is absurd. A corporation cannot be "jailed", it cannot "vote" (at least not yet), it cannot "bear arms" and it cannot hold office.

So why the charade of treating corporations like "people"? Because it suits the agenda of the extreme right.

I used to argue your points above until I actually read the opinions. I must say I disagree with some imbecilic notions Justice Kennedy puts forth, but I've always thought Kennedy wrote some weird shit whether I agreed with his opinion or not or supported the outcome or not.

Whether a corp can be jailed (it can be fined), vote, bear arms, or hold office was not before the Court and I doubt any case on any of those idiocies would never get passed a filing.

Can foreign nationals contribute already?

Quick Answers-General Questions

Can non-US citizens contribute?
Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.​

.... ... .. .

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.

Foreign Nationals Electoral Spending and the First Amendment by Toni M. Massaro SSRN

One of the ideas raised by critics of Citizens United is that
Congress might further limit the ability of foreign corporations
to make campaign expenditures.8 Existing laws already limit
foreign speakers (both individual and corporate) from making
campaign contributions to candidates for state or federal office,
or contributions to American political parties,9
though the laws
exempt permanent resident aliens and American subsidiaries
of foreign corporations. Existing laws also prohibit foreign nationals—which
include individuals who are not lawful permanent
residents, foreign governments, corporations, residents,
and political parties ‚organized under the laws of or having
[their] principal place of business in a foreign country‛10—from
funding the operation of a PAC.11 Post-Citizens United, because
the law exempts American subsidiaries of foreign corporations
from these restrictions, these subsidiaries need not use a PAC
to expend funds on a domestic election.​

"Signs are that the current Court would defer to Congress and uphold restrictions on foreign national campaign expenditures, were it to address the question directly." - from your link -- and I fully agree.

and

"Whether this constitutional point matters, however, is questionable given the rapid development of new communications technologies. Foreign nationals, like American citizens, now have multiple ways of reaching potential voters that make efforts to territorialize such influence infeasible. Consequently, the most important constitutional question on the post - Citizens United horizon may not be who can expend funds, but whether donor identity can be disclosed so that voters can better evaluate electoral messages from foreign and non-foreign sources, and whether the privacy objections to such disclosure can, or should, be overcome." - I don't think this helps you out any. Hypotheticals that will most probably not come into play?

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.

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

I agree with the rest of Stevens position;

As his amendment reflects, campaign spending is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, but this does not mean that the right is absolute: "the [state] interest in preventing wealth from becoming the deciding factor in contested elections is valid and significant." The Supreme Court ignoring this interest starting with Buckely v. Valeo in 1976 has helped to produce a polity in which the interests of the wealthy are increasingly dominant.

Wealth is altering the outcome of elections, or as I stated elsewhere, my vote is now worth one billionth of the votes of the Koch bros.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We are a democracy in name only. Welcome to the Corporate States of America thanks to the rightwing extremism of the SCOTUS.

really? Then how do you explain the PPACA and other rulings like
Supreme Court rules cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant?

We are discussing Citizens United, right? Under CU we are the Corporate States of America when it comes to elections. We need another thread to discuss those other SCOTUS decisions.

 

[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"

That was my point!

Yet your point gets lost you say corporations aren't people yet you consistently compare them with people. If you do this why would a foreign corp necessarily be a citizen just because an American corp were a citizen? Wouldn't foreign corps be held to the same standards as foreign citizens?

I could go on but I'm sure this one boggles the mind.

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?

The concept of corporations being "people" for legal purposes does not grant them the same rights as citizens. Unfortunately the current corrupt SCOTUS decided to grant them the same free speech rights as citizens which is absurd. A corporation cannot be "jailed", it cannot "vote" (at least not yet), it cannot "bear arms" and it cannot hold office.

So why the charade of treating corporations like "people"? Because it suits the agenda of the extreme right.

I used to argue your points above until I actually read the opinions. I must say I disagree with some imbecilic notions Justice Kennedy puts forth, but I've always thought Kennedy wrote some weird shit whether I agreed with his opinion or not or supported the outcome or not.

Whether a corp can be jailed (it can be fined), vote, bear arms, or hold office was not before the Court and I doubt any case on any of those idiocies would never get passed a filing.

Can foreign nationals contribute already?

Quick Answers-General Questions

Can non-US citizens contribute?
Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.​

.... ... .. .

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.

Foreign Nationals Electoral Spending and the First Amendment by Toni M. Massaro SSRN

One of the ideas raised by critics of Citizens United is that
Congress might further limit the ability of foreign corporations
to make campaign expenditures.8 Existing laws already limit
foreign speakers (both individual and corporate) from making
campaign contributions to candidates for state or federal office,
or contributions to American political parties,9
though the laws
exempt permanent resident aliens and American subsidiaries
of foreign corporations. Existing laws also prohibit foreign nationals—which
include individuals who are not lawful permanent
residents, foreign governments, corporations, residents,
and political parties ‚organized under the laws of or having
[their] principal place of business in a foreign country‛10—from
funding the operation of a PAC.11 Post-Citizens United, because
the law exempts American subsidiaries of foreign corporations
from these restrictions, these subsidiaries need not use a PAC
to expend funds on a domestic election.​

"Signs are that the current Court would defer to Congress and uphold restrictions on foreign national campaign expenditures, were it to address the question directly." - from your link -- and I fully agree.

and

"Whether this constitutional point matters, however, is questionable given the rapid development of new communications technologies. Foreign nationals, like American citizens, now have multiple ways of reaching potential voters that make efforts to territorialize such influence infeasible. Consequently, the most important constitutional question on the post - Citizens United horizon may not be who can expend funds, but whether donor identity can be disclosed so that voters can better evaluate electoral messages from foreign and non-foreign sources, and whether the privacy objections to such disclosure can, or should, be overcome." - I don't think this helps you out any. Hypotheticals that will most probably not come into play?

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.

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

I agree with the rest of Stevens position;

As his amendment reflects, campaign spending is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, but this does not mean that the right is absolute: "the [state] interest in preventing wealth from becoming the deciding factor in contested elections is valid and significant." The Supreme Court ignoring this interest starting with Buckely v. Valeo in 1976 has helped to produce a polity in which the interests of the wealthy are increasingly dominant.

Wealth is altering the outcome of elections, or as I stated elsewhere, my vote is now worth one billionth of the votes of the Koch bros.

I agree with caveat: Wealth is altering things, but not to the degree your hyperbolic statements seem to push.

Billions are spent in contested elections and sway a few votes in contested elections. All it takes is a few votes.

This is why I say I would consider voting for Jeb Bush in 2016 if he were a candidate. It keeps my mind focused away from what is sure to come with billions spent to convince me he is Satan incarnate.

I agree with Stevens on the state interest. I disagree with him on the solution

 

[Dante]

We are a democracy in name only. Welcome to the Corporate States of America thanks to the rightwing extremism of the SCOTUS.

really? Then how do you explain the PPACA and other rulings like
Supreme Court rules cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant?

We are discussing Citizens United, right? Under CU we are the Corporate States of America when it comes to elections. We need another thread to discuss those other SCOTUS decisions.

We get nowhere when you go this far with hyperbole

 

[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.

First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"

That was my point!

Yet your point gets lost you say corporations aren't people yet you consistently compare them with people. If you do this why would a foreign corp necessarily be a citizen just because an American corp were a citizen? Wouldn't foreign corps be held to the same standards as foreign citizens?

I could go on but I'm sure this one boggles the mind.

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?
I used to argue your points above until I actually read the opinions. I must say I disagree with some imbecilic notions Justice Kennedy puts forth, but I've always thought Kennedy wrote some weird shit whether I agreed with his opinion or not or supported the outcome or not.

Whether a corp can be jailed (it can be fined), vote, bear arms, or hold office was not before the Court and I doubt any case on any of those idiocies would never get passed a filing.



.... ... .. .

"Signs are that the current Court would defer to Congress and uphold restrictions on foreign national campaign expenditures, were it to address the question directly." - from your link -- and I fully agree.

and

"Whether this constitutional point matters, however, is questionable given the rapid development of new communications technologies. Foreign nationals, like American citizens, now have multiple ways of reaching potential voters that make efforts to territorialize such influence infeasible. Consequently, the most important constitutional question on the post - Citizens United horizon may not be who can expend funds, but whether donor identity can be disclosed so that voters can better evaluate electoral messages from foreign and non-foreign sources, and whether the privacy objections to such disclosure can, or should, be overcome." - I don't think this helps you out any. Hypotheticals that will most probably not come into play?

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.

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

I agree with the rest of Stevens position;

As his amendment reflects, campaign spending is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, but this does not mean that the right is absolute: "the [state] interest in preventing wealth from becoming the deciding factor in contested elections is valid and significant." The Supreme Court ignoring this interest starting with Buckely v. Valeo in 1976 has helped to produce a polity in which the interests of the wealthy are increasingly dominant.

Wealth is altering the outcome of elections, or as I stated elsewhere, my vote is now worth one billionth of the votes of the Koch bros.

I agree with caveat: Wealth is altering things, but not to the degree your hyperbolic statements seem to push.

Billions are spent in contested elections and sway a few votes in contested elections. All it takes is a few votes.

This is why I say I would consider voting for Jeb Bush in 2016 if he were a candidate. It keeps my mind focused away from what is sure to come with billions spent to convince me he is Satan incarnate.

I agree with Stevens on the state interest. I disagree with him on the solution

What is your alternate solution?

 

[Dante]

Yet your point gets lost you say corporations aren't people yet you consistently compare them with people. If you do this why would a foreign corp necessarily be a citizen just because an American corp were a citizen? Wouldn't foreign corps be held to the same standards as foreign citizens?

I could go on but I'm sure this one boggles the mind.

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.

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

I agree with the rest of Stevens position;

As his amendment reflects, campaign spending is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, but this does not mean that the right is absolute: "the [state] interest in preventing wealth from becoming the deciding factor in contested elections is valid and significant." The Supreme Court ignoring this interest starting with Buckely v. Valeo in 1976 has helped to produce a polity in which the interests of the wealthy are increasingly dominant.

Wealth is altering the outcome of elections, or as I stated elsewhere, my vote is now worth one billionth of the votes of the Koch bros.

I agree with caveat: Wealth is altering things, but not to the degree your hyperbolic statements seem to push.

Billions are spent in contested elections and sway a few votes in contested elections. All it takes is a few votes.

This is why I say I would consider voting for Jeb Bush in 2016 if he were a candidate. It keeps my mind focused away from what is sure to come with billions spent to convince me he is Satan incarnate.

I agree with Stevens on the state interest. I disagree with him on the solution

What is your alternate solution?

former Justice Stevens laid it out: amend the Constitution

 

[Derideo_Te]

We are a democracy in name only. Welcome to the Corporate States of America thanks to the rightwing extremism of the SCOTUS.

really? Then how do you explain the PPACA and other rulings like
Supreme Court rules cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant?

We are discussing Citizens United, right? Under CU we are the Corporate States of America when it comes to elections. We need another thread to discuss those other SCOTUS decisions.

We get nowhere when you go this far with hyperbole

When Senator Warren is viewed as being the equivalent of Ted Cruz, We the People are no longer being represented by anyone in Congress. The interests of the people don't come 2nd, they come way behind the interests of the billionaires, corporations and plutocrats.

If you can prove me wrong please feel free to do so. I have no problems with openly admitting when I am proven wrong in these forums. I have done so many times in the past and I expect that I will do so many times in the future too. So please go ahead and show me where I am wrong in my understanding of whose interests are actually being represented in Congress.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

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

I agree with the rest of Stevens position;

As his amendment reflects, campaign spending is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, but this does not mean that the right is absolute: "the [state] interest in preventing wealth from becoming the deciding factor in contested elections is valid and significant." The Supreme Court ignoring this interest starting with Buckely v. Valeo in 1976 has helped to produce a polity in which the interests of the wealthy are increasingly dominant.

Wealth is altering the outcome of elections, or as I stated elsewhere, my vote is now worth one billionth of the votes of the Koch bros.

I agree with caveat: Wealth is altering things, but not to the degree your hyperbolic statements seem to push.

Billions are spent in contested elections and sway a few votes in contested elections. All it takes is a few votes.

This is why I say I would consider voting for Jeb Bush in 2016 if he were a candidate. It keeps my mind focused away from what is sure to come with billions spent to convince me he is Satan incarnate.

I agree with Stevens on the state interest. I disagree with him on the solution

What is your alternate solution?

former Justice Stevens laid it out: amend the Constitution

But you just said that you disagreed with Stevens. How is your amendment different?