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

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?

Black and white again? Disagreeing with Stevens vote and opinion does not equate disagreeing on a solution he later proposed as a way of remedying a crappy outcome. I can and do support the Citizens United ruling because of Constitutional disagreement with Stevens over the degree of the states interest. I'd rather err on the side of the speech than the side of regulation there.

There is a way out as there has always been and Stevens could not fix it as a lone Justice: amend the Constitution. It's difficult work, but we need to get back to basics in America
 
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?

Black and white again? Disagreeing with Stevens vote and opinion does not equate disagreeing on a solution he later proposed as a way of remedying a crappy outcome. I can and do support the Citizens United ruling because of Constitutional disagreement with Stevens over the degree of the states interest. I'd rather err on the side of the speech than the side of regulation there.

There is a way out as there has always been and Stevens could not fix it as a lone Justice: amend the Constitution. It's difficult work, but we need to get back to basics in America

Ok, so how do you, personally, want to see the proposed Amendment worded?
 
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?

Black and white again? Disagreeing with Stevens vote and opinion does not equate disagreeing on a solution he later proposed as a way of remedying a crappy outcome. I can and do support the Citizens United ruling because of Constitutional disagreement with Stevens over the degree of the states interest. I'd rather err on the side of the speech than the side of regulation there.

There is a way out as there has always been and Stevens could not fix it as a lone Justice: amend the Constitution. It's difficult work, but we need to get back to basics in America

Ok, so how do you, personally, want to see the proposed Amendment worded?
I support Stevens' proposal. He wrote one out that people are free to embrace or alter.
 

Forum List

Back
Top