The Citizens United case...Armageddon, not so much

eflatminor

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
1,665
Points
245
To level set, the finding held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The case came about after Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, which ran afoul of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

Nearly six years after the ruling, we have yet to see the disastrous results predicted by so many around here, not to mention the President, when he said "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".

I have yet to hear a cogent argument that justifies restriction of first amendment rights. And all that "corporations are now people" talk? Pure bullshit. Bottom line, the ruling did NOT result in our elections being bankrolled by foreign entities nor any of the other end-of-the-world predictions made around here.

An interesting clip...5 things you man not have know about the case:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTu5QZvZJi8]5 Things You Didn't Know About Citizens United - YouTube[/ame]

Speech is good. More speech is better.
 

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
53,238
Reaction score
6,694
Points
1,830
Nearly six years after the ruling, we have yet to see the disastrous results predicted by so many around here, not to mention the President, when he said "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".

I have yet to hear a cogent argument that justifies restriction of first amendment rights. And all that "corporations are now people" talk? Pure bullshit. Bottom line, the ruling did NOT result in our elections being bankrolled by foreign entities nor any of the other end-of-the-world predictions made around here.

An interesting clip...5 things you man not have know about the case:
You havent heard what is wrong with it? It give people with money more value to their "speech" than others.

Of course to you Repubs and Dems are representing the people, right? They arent in the pockets of the monied class....Let me hear you say it.

But you wont, because to pretend money has no influence and UNLIMITED money has NO Influence you would have to be either a retarded fool or a foolish retard.

Go ahead, tell everyone how money means nothing. When you refuse to do it then you'll know the problem with Citizens United and unlimited contributions to Politicians.
 

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
53,238
Reaction score
6,694
Points
1,830
I'm sure the response wont have a point at all and just be a paragraph of silly ass questions...watch.

"Why do you hate freedom?" DERP
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
To level set, the finding held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The case came about after Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, which ran afoul of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

Nearly six years after the ruling, we have yet to see the disastrous results predicted by so many around here, not to mention the President, when he said "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".

I have yet to hear a cogent argument that justifies restriction of first amendment rights. And all that "corporations are now people" talk? Pure bullshit. Bottom line, the ruling did NOT result in our elections being bankrolled by foreign entities nor any of the other end-of-the-world predictions made around here.

An interesting clip...5 things you man not have know about the case:

5 Things You Didn't Know About Citizens United - YouTube

Speech is good. More speech is better.
You're an idiot. I write that based on the body of your work posted on this message board and your claim the CU v. FEC is about free speech. It is not. It's about five justices deciding that anonymous sources may spend money & make claims on issues to be decided in an election.

Speech is good, but not given behind a curtain, and that curtain may very well be iron or bamboo.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding the opinion of Romney and others. They, as well as political action committees of every size and shape are amoral, and have one and only one concern - their own well being.

Suggesting money does not buy elections is absurd, even the most dishonest partisan knows that it has and can. Sadly some partisan - like you? - lie and claim otherwise.

Do you really want to allow our nation to become a Plutocracy, one where the rich make all the rules? Not most of them as is done today. It really is time to take our government back, from the Plutocrats in Congress and in boardrooms across the nation.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
So Obama bought the last two elections and you're not complaining about it?
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
So Obama bought the last two elections and you're not complaining about it?
Yep, and I do complain about it. But that's because I'm honest and not a lying partisan hack like you. Look at my signature! The CU v. FEC ruling was the death knell for our democratic republic.

Of course the Plutocrats and their fellow travelers - witted, dim or half - want to change democratic republic to constitutional republic, while deciding the 'real' meaning of every phrase written within the law of our land to fit within their ideology.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
Citizens United doesn't allow for direct contributions. Those are banned for federal elections from unions or corporations. CU is about allowing electioneering communications. While the ruling isn't favorable from an individual perspective, it does n't allow for the "buying of elections". That's simply incorrect, propaganda nonsense formulated by Dimocrats in the 2010 electino cycle to make their losses about CU. Which, was another failure of LOlberals.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
So Obama bought the last two elections and you're not complaining about it?
Yep, and I do complain about it. But that's because I'm honest and not a lying partisan hack like you. Look at my signature! The CU v. FEC ruling was the death knell for our democratic republic.

Of course the Plutocrats and their fellow travelers - witted, dim or half - want to change democratic republic to constitutional republic, while deciding the 'real' meaning of every phrase written within the law of our land to fit within their ideology.
First complaint I've heard from you. And you calling other people partisan hacks is absolutely :lmao:
 

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
53,238
Reaction score
6,694
Points
1,830
Citizens United doesn't allow for direct contributions. Those are banned for federal elections from unions or corporations. CU is about allowing electioneering communications. While the ruling isn't favorable from an individual perspective, it does n't allow for the "buying of elections". That's simply incorrect, propaganda nonsense formulated by Dimocrats in the 2010 electino cycle to make their losses about CU. Which, was another failure of LOlberals.
You talk alot about what it doesnt do. Tell everyone what it DOES do.

It allows anyone to put UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of Politicians.

Using your own thoughts. Why is this good? Dont start up with "Liberals think blah blah" try talking about what you believe for a change
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
Citizens United doesn't allow for direct contributions. Those are banned for federal elections from unions or corporations. CU is about allowing electioneering communications. While the ruling isn't favorable from an individual perspective, it does n't allow for the "buying of elections". That's simply incorrect, propaganda nonsense formulated by Dimocrats in the 2010 electino cycle to make their losses about CU. Which, was another failure of LOlberals.
You talk alot about what it doesnt do. Tell everyone what it DOES do.

It allows anyone to put UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of Politicians.

Using your own thoughts. Why is this good? Dont start up with "Liberals think blah blah" try talking about what you believe for a change
No, that is not what it does.

Here, let me help you learn instead of spouting off at the mouth with nonsense.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[2]

The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]
It is not an unlimited funding of politicians at all. That is simply propaganda that doesn't conform to the boundaries of reality. Which, is a pretty typical error from LOLberals.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
So Obama bought the last two elections and you're not complaining about it?
Yep, and I do complain about it. But that's because I'm honest and not a lying partisan hack like you. Look at my signature! The CU v. FEC ruling was the death knell for our democratic republic.

Of course the Plutocrats and their fellow travelers - witted, dim or half - want to change democratic republic to constitutional republic, while deciding the 'real' meaning of every phrase written within the law of our land to fit within their ideology.
First complaint I've heard from you. And you calling other people partisan hacks is absolutely :lmao:
Because I disagree with almost everything the right supports does not make me a partisan hack. Now, what do I support?

Equal rights for all citizens
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Universal preventative health care, cradle to grave
The United Nations
Progressive taxation
Immigration reform
Labor rights (i.e. collective bargaining)
The Line-Item Veto for the POTUS
A comprehensive employment and training act
Rational gun control
Repeal of CU v. FEC
A Code of Judicial Ethics, applicable to the US Supreme Court
a Dollar and two-dollar coin to replace paper money.
Fiscal sanity.
Repair, rebuild, renew the nations infrastructure.
Criminal sanctions for libel and slander against public officials.
 
Last edited:

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
You are a partisan hack, Dullard. Now, if you want to remain on topic, that would be great. I'd love to show everyone how ignorant you are about the CU ruling.
 

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
53,238
Reaction score
6,694
Points
1,830
Citizens United doesn't allow for direct contributions. Those are banned for federal elections from unions or corporations. CU is about allowing electioneering communications. While the ruling isn't favorable from an individual perspective, it does n't allow for the "buying of elections". That's simply incorrect, propaganda nonsense formulated by Dimocrats in the 2010 electino cycle to make their losses about CU. Which, was another failure of LOlberals.
You talk alot about what it doesnt do. Tell everyone what it DOES do.

It allows anyone to put UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of Politicians.

Using your own thoughts. Why is this good? Dont start up with "Liberals think blah blah" try talking about what you believe for a change
No, that is not what it does.

Here, let me help you learn instead of spouting off at the mouth with nonsense.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[2]

The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]
It is not an unlimited funding of politicians at all. That is simply propaganda that doesn't conform to the boundaries of reality. Which, is a pretty typical error from LOLberals.
If its not unlimited then what did you just quote here? :cuckoo:
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
It's a bad decision for the individual voter. Who in this country, is generally completely ignorant of all things politics. So, adding additional communications via ads and soundbites, will only help foster that level of ignorance since all politics is about deception.

I mean, just look at all the money Obama supporters spent on electioneering communications and independent expenditures.

The ruling is bad becaiuse the majority of voters are already ignorant. This can help, from any side, fuel that ignorance and generally cloud of muck up the real issues.

Sort of like the last cycle where we had to hear about Romney's fuckin' dog and other dumb shit that was about as useful as most LOLberal ideas.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
You talk alot about what it doesnt do. Tell everyone what it DOES do.

It allows anyone to put UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of Politicians.

Using your own thoughts. Why is this good? Dont start up with "Liberals think blah blah" try talking about what you believe for a change
No, that is not what it does.

Here, let me help you learn instead of spouting off at the mouth with nonsense.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[2]

The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]
It is not an unlimited funding of politicians at all. That is simply propaganda that doesn't conform to the boundaries of reality. Which, is a pretty typical error from LOLberals.
If its not unlimited then what did you just quote here? :cuckoo:
There is a difference between independent expenditures, electioneering communications and direct contributions. The CU ruling, I REPEAT, does NOT allow for unlimited contributions, or direct funding of a candidate. You can read all about the case, what the controversy was over and what the court decided at any number of sites on the internet. Including reading the case and ruling directly.

What you wont find, is that the ruling allowed for unlimited campaign contributions., or funding.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
You are a partisan hack, Dullard. Now, if you want to remain on topic, that would be great. I'd love to show everyone how ignorant you are about the CU ruling.
Please feel free. Start with my edification on the issue of propaganda. I believe it has become a science, and the money paid by religious institutions to influence voters to deny basic rights to American Citizens (a real world event which impacted Prop. 8 in CA) is not a good thing.

In my "ignorance" I simply assumed that the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence applied to all. Please do provide for my moral improvement & guidance.
 
Last edited:

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,659
Points
48
Location
Maine
STRAW MAN's ass sure got kicked in this video.

Yup, that straw man is hurtin for sure.

Meanwhile Citizens United is effectively turning a democratic republic into a fascist republic.

Think that fascism and republic are muturally exclusive events,do ya?

REad the history of the ROMAN REPUBLIC.

That was a fascist republic from the get go.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
You are a partisan hack, Dullard. Now, if you want to remain on topic, that would be great. I'd love to show everyone how ignorant you are about the CU ruling.
Please feel free. Start with my edification on the issue of propaganda. I believe it has become a science, and the money paid by religious institutions to influence voters to deny basic rights to American Citizens (a real world event which impacted Prop. 8 in CA) is not a good thing.

In my "ignorance" is simply assumed that the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence applied to all. Please do provide for my moral improvement & guidance.
They are entitled to their opinion. The "money paid"" by such groups in electioneering communications or independent expenditure means little to nothing more than advocating that opinion. The same would be true of any other group that put forth capital to advocate their beliefs/opinions. Still, it really does not mean that CU has any bearing on such actions.

It doesn't mean it get legislated either. Nor does can any direct ciorrelation be drawn to infer such. It's one of those kookie LOLberal conspiracy theories where there is this big backroom game going to bank role "the plutocracy".
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top