This Lying RNC Idiot POS Is Responsible For Citizen's United... And He's Not Sorry

[Billy000]

Are you fucking kidding me? The Koch Brothers gave almost a billion to the 2016 GOP campaign. That's all of the funding of the 2012 funding for the GOP in TOTAL. That's what Citizens United brought us. Money trumping the will of the people. I mean thank god they were idiots and gave it to the wrong campaigns but we might not be so lucky next time.

PLEASE show us your reliable, along with the link to your allegation that the KOCH BROTHERS GAVE ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS to the 2016 campaign.

Thus far, I don't believe they have not contributed a dime for 2016.

If you meant 2012, as I said above, please show us your source.

Koch Brothers' network will drop almost $1 billion on 2016 election

How do you people miss this stuff?

It has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the effect of Citizens United. But since you brought it up, who comprises this "network"?

From your link:
My bold

Freedom Partners' twice-as-large 2016 budget was included in a Monday briefing that Freedom Partners officials offered a record 450 allies and donors who huddled for a weekend in Palm Springs, California.

So it's not just Kochs providing the funds as you imply. Typical lying regressive.

Lol of course it is the effect of Citizens United. Can you not read? God you republicans are

Are you fucking kidding me? The Koch Brothers gave almost a billion to the 2016 GOP campaign. That's all of the funding of the 2012 funding for the GOP in TOTAL. That's what Citizens United brought us. Money trumping the will of the people. I mean thank god they were idiots and gave it to the wrong campaigns but we might not be so lucky next time.

PLEASE show us your reliable, along with the link to your allegation that the KOCH BROTHERS GAVE ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS to the 2016 campaign.

Thus far, I don't believe they have not contributed a dime for 2016.

If you meant 2012, as I said above, please show us your source.

Koch Brothers' network will drop almost $1 billion on 2016 election

How do you people miss this stuff?

It has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the effect of Citizens United. But since you brought it up, who comprises this "network"?

From your link:
My bold

Freedom Partners' twice-as-large 2016 budget was included in a Monday briefing that Freedom Partners officials offered a record 450 allies and donors who huddled for a weekend in Palm Springs, California.

So it's not just Kochs providing the funds as you imply. Typical lying regressive.

Lol these are groups who support and are owned by the Koch Brothers. A sum that represents their own interests.

And yeah, this is obviously an effect of the ruling you Mook. This ruling allows any INDIVIDUAL to give as much as they want to a Super PAC. Before that was just $2,700 per person.

Link? It's $2,700 for a candidate, not a PAC, never has been.

Yeah and before that you couldn't donate unlimited funding to a PAC. How is this not sinking in? And, Christ, when do you EVER provide links of your own? Why haven't you thus far into this conversation for instance?

 

[OKTexas]

Show me the finance laws that were changed by Citizens United. Hint, there were none. If there's a reason for larger expenditures, it was because citizens were allowed to fully participate in the process and not cut off at arbitrary times by an unconstitutional law which suppressed their speech.

What? Do you not understand the concept of Super PACs?

STFU until you show me the finance law Citizens United changed. Super PACs were allowed before McCain/Feingold, and after and still are. If you disagree, it's time to provide proof.

How do you not even know what this ruling is? It allows unlimited donations to Super PACs that work to promote the campaigns they support.


"In its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the court opened the campaign spending floodgates. The justices' ruling said political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it was done independently of a party or candidate."

How Citizens United Has Changed Politics in 5 Years

All this BS, just point out what finance law was changed. Be specific.

Unlimited donations to a political cause was changed you assclown. How else can this be spelled out to you? Just admit I am right and move on.

Stop making unsubstantiated claims and provide proof. You know like reputable links or quote the court decision. You're really not very good a debating, pathetic really.

 

[Billy000]

What? Do you not understand the concept of Super PACs?

STFU until you show me the finance law Citizens United changed. Super PACs were allowed before McCain/Feingold, and after and still are. If you disagree, it's time to provide proof.

How do you not even know what this ruling is? It allows unlimited donations to Super PACs that work to promote the campaigns they support.


"In its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the court opened the campaign spending floodgates. The justices' ruling said political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it was done independently of a party or candidate."

How Citizens United Has Changed Politics in 5 Years

All this BS, just point out what finance law was changed. Be specific.

Unlimited donations to a political cause was changed you assclown. How else can this be spelled out to you? Just admit I am right and move on.

Stop making unsubstantiated claims and provide proof. You know like reputable links or quote the court decision. You're really not very good a debating, pathetic really.

Well what are you waiting for? Quote the ruling in context and prove me wrong? You haven't given shit in sources thus far.

 

[OKTexas]

PLEASE show us your reliable, along with the link to your allegation that the KOCH BROTHERS GAVE ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS to the 2016 campaign.

Thus far, I don't believe they have not contributed a dime for 2016.

If you meant 2012, as I said above, please show us your source.

Koch Brothers' network will drop almost $1 billion on 2016 election

How do you people miss this stuff?

It has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the effect of Citizens United. But since you brought it up, who comprises this "network"?

From your link:
My bold

Freedom Partners' twice-as-large 2016 budget was included in a Monday briefing that Freedom Partners officials offered a record 450 allies and donors who huddled for a weekend in Palm Springs, California.

So it's not just Kochs providing the funds as you imply. Typical lying regressive.

Lol of course it is the effect of Citizens United. Can you not read? God you republicans are

PLEASE show us your reliable, along with the link to your allegation that the KOCH BROTHERS GAVE ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS to the 2016 campaign.

Thus far, I don't believe they have not contributed a dime for 2016.

If you meant 2012, as I said above, please show us your source.

Koch Brothers' network will drop almost $1 billion on 2016 election

How do you people miss this stuff?

It has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the effect of Citizens United. But since you brought it up, who comprises this "network"?

From your link:
My bold

Freedom Partners' twice-as-large 2016 budget was included in a Monday briefing that Freedom Partners officials offered a record 450 allies and donors who huddled for a weekend in Palm Springs, California.

So it's not just Kochs providing the funds as you imply. Typical lying regressive.

Lol these are groups who support and are owned by the Koch Brothers. A sum that represents their own interests.

And yeah, this is obviously an effect of the ruling you Mook. This ruling allows any INDIVIDUAL to give as much as they want to a Super PAC. Before that was just $2,700 per person.

Link? It's $2,700 for a candidate, not a PAC, never has been.

Yeah and before that you couldn't donate unlimited funding to a PAC. How is this not sinking in? And, Christ, when do you EVER provide links of your own? Why haven't you thus far into this conversation for instance?

Here ya go:
My bold

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[24] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[25]

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[4] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the majority argued that Austin was based on an "equality" rationale – trying to equalize speech between different speakers – that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley. The Michigan statute at issue in Austin had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The Austin Court, over vigorous dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature's prerogative. InCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.[24]

The majority also criticized Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction: "There is no such thing as too much speech."[24] The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.

The majority opinion relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance case of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda.[24] Specifically, the majority echoed Bellotti's rejection of categories based on a corporation's purpose. The majority argued that to grant First Amendment protections to media corporations but not others presented a host of problems, and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions.

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself.[24] The majority opinion argued for the disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions, saying that

...prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are "in the pocket" of so-called moneyed interests...This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.[26][27]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's all about the 1st Amendment, period, end of story.

 

[Billy000]

Koch Brothers' network will drop almost $1 billion on 2016 election

How do you people miss this stuff?

It has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the effect of Citizens United. But since you brought it up, who comprises this "network"?

From your link:
My bold

Freedom Partners' twice-as-large 2016 budget was included in a Monday briefing that Freedom Partners officials offered a record 450 allies and donors who huddled for a weekend in Palm Springs, California.

So it's not just Kochs providing the funds as you imply. Typical lying regressive.

Lol of course it is the effect of Citizens United. Can you not read? God you republicans are

Koch Brothers' network will drop almost $1 billion on 2016 election

How do you people miss this stuff?

It has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the effect of Citizens United. But since you brought it up, who comprises this "network"?

From your link:
My bold

Freedom Partners' twice-as-large 2016 budget was included in a Monday briefing that Freedom Partners officials offered a record 450 allies and donors who huddled for a weekend in Palm Springs, California.

So it's not just Kochs providing the funds as you imply. Typical lying regressive.

Lol these are groups who support and are owned by the Koch Brothers. A sum that represents their own interests.

And yeah, this is obviously an effect of the ruling you Mook. This ruling allows any INDIVIDUAL to give as much as they want to a Super PAC. Before that was just $2,700 per person.

Link? It's $2,700 for a candidate, not a PAC, never has been.

Yeah and before that you couldn't donate unlimited funding to a PAC. How is this not sinking in? And, Christ, when do you EVER provide links of your own? Why haven't you thus far into this conversation for instance?

Here ya go:
My bold

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[24] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[25]

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[4] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the majority argued that Austin was based on an "equality" rationale – trying to equalize speech between different speakers – that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley. The Michigan statute at issue in Austin had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The Austin Court, over vigorous dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature's prerogative. InCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.[24]

The majority also criticized Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction: "There is no such thing as too much speech."[24] The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.

The majority opinion relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance case of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda.[24] Specifically, the majority echoed Bellotti's rejection of categories based on a corporation's purpose. The majority argued that to grant First Amendment protections to media corporations but not others presented a host of problems, and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions.

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself.[24] The majority opinion argued for the disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions, saying that

...prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are "in the pocket" of so-called moneyed interests...This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.[26][27]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's all about the 1st Amendment, period, end of story.

Lol oh great. Nice job. You fully explained the ruling and its justification without at all disputing what I originally said about what individual donors can legally contribute.

 

[HUGGY]

The American people are ultimately responsible for who gets elected – not corporate money, not PACS, not Citizens United.

And the American people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get.

Do you really think the average American voter knows and would approve of his congressman or senator spending 30 hours a week on the phone begging for contributions?

Really? They are told they must come up with 18,000 dollars a week in donations by the DNC and RNC. And you have nothing to say but that you blame the American voter? Really?

The American voter has the responsibility to know the issues, to research and learn the facts of the issues himself, and to vote based on the facts concerning the issues, not based on some political attack ad created by a PAC.

And if the voters are too lazy, or stupid, or too apathetic to put the effort into learning the facts concerning the issues and to vote intelligently, then again, the voters have only themselves to blame.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to ‘protect’ voters from dishonest, misleading political advocacy groups and politicians.

The Citizens United Court made the correct decision, government has no authority to dictate to citizens how and when they may engage in political speech – even when that speech is partisan, dishonest, and misleading.

The problem isn’t too much money in politics, the problem too little voter involvement.

It appears you do not understand the intent of the court's ruling in Citizen's United v The Federal Election Committee.

The court attempted to separate the obvious huge donations a super pac could aim at an election. They attempted to make it clear that these super pacs could not be directly associated with any candidate directly. In effect it does not work that way. These super pacs are run by people directly linked to individual candidates. In short the super pacs ignore the intent of the ruling and do an end run around the ruling by packing the managers of the super pacs with personnel closely associated with individual candidates.

You give the voting public too much credit. Obviously you do not understand the dynamics of advertising either.

Advertising works. The guy with the biggest megaphone gets his message heard and the guy armed only with the truth on a small budget gets shouted over. The aisles of any big grocery store will confirm that what you see on television is what is stocked on the shelves and what sells regardless of the content of the products.

You can say that the average American is stupid for allowing his or her buying habits to be manipulated like they are. Their voting habits are not that different from what they purchase to eat.

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

 

[OKTexas]

It has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the effect of Citizens United. But since you brought it up, who comprises this "network"?

From your link:
My bold

Freedom Partners' twice-as-large 2016 budget was included in a Monday briefing that Freedom Partners officials offered a record 450 allies and donors who huddled for a weekend in Palm Springs, California.

So it's not just Kochs providing the funds as you imply. Typical lying regressive.

Lol of course it is the effect of Citizens United. Can you not read? God you republicans are

It has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is the effect of Citizens United. But since you brought it up, who comprises this "network"?

From your link:
My bold

Freedom Partners' twice-as-large 2016 budget was included in a Monday briefing that Freedom Partners officials offered a record 450 allies and donors who huddled for a weekend in Palm Springs, California.

So it's not just Kochs providing the funds as you imply. Typical lying regressive.

Lol these are groups who support and are owned by the Koch Brothers. A sum that represents their own interests.

And yeah, this is obviously an effect of the ruling you Mook. This ruling allows any INDIVIDUAL to give as much as they want to a Super PAC. Before that was just $2,700 per person.

Link? It's $2,700 for a candidate, not a PAC, never has been.

Yeah and before that you couldn't donate unlimited funding to a PAC. How is this not sinking in? And, Christ, when do you EVER provide links of your own? Why haven't you thus far into this conversation for instance?

Here ya go:
My bold

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[24] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[25]

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[4] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the majority argued that Austin was based on an "equality" rationale – trying to equalize speech between different speakers – that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley. The Michigan statute at issue in Austin had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The Austin Court, over vigorous dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature's prerogative. InCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.[24]

The majority also criticized Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction: "There is no such thing as too much speech."[24] The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.

The majority opinion relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance case of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda.[24] Specifically, the majority echoed Bellotti's rejection of categories based on a corporation's purpose. The majority argued that to grant First Amendment protections to media corporations but not others presented a host of problems, and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions.

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself.[24] The majority opinion argued for the disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions, saying that

...prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are "in the pocket" of so-called moneyed interests...This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.[26][27]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's all about the 1st Amendment, period, end of story.

Lol oh great. Nice job. You fully explained the ruling and its justification without at all disputing what I originally said about what individual donors can legally contribute.

And you have yet to prove that claim.

 

[Billy000]

Lol of course it is the effect of Citizens United. Can you not read? God you republicans are
Lol these are groups who support and are owned by the Koch Brothers. A sum that represents their own interests.

And yeah, this is obviously an effect of the ruling you Mook. This ruling allows any INDIVIDUAL to give as much as they want to a Super PAC. Before that was just $2,700 per person.

Link? It's $2,700 for a candidate, not a PAC, never has been.

Yeah and before that you couldn't donate unlimited funding to a PAC. How is this not sinking in? And, Christ, when do you EVER provide links of your own? Why haven't you thus far into this conversation for instance?

Here ya go:
My bold

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[24] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[25]

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[4] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the majority argued that Austin was based on an "equality" rationale – trying to equalize speech between different speakers – that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley. The Michigan statute at issue in Austin had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The Austin Court, over vigorous dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature's prerogative. InCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.[24]

The majority also criticized Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction: "There is no such thing as too much speech."[24] The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.

The majority opinion relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance case of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda.[24] Specifically, the majority echoed Bellotti's rejection of categories based on a corporation's purpose. The majority argued that to grant First Amendment protections to media corporations but not others presented a host of problems, and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions.

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself.[24] The majority opinion argued for the disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions, saying that

...prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are "in the pocket" of so-called moneyed interests...This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.[26][27]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's all about the 1st Amendment, period, end of story.

Lol oh great. Nice job. You fully explained the ruling and its justification without at all disputing what I originally said about what individual donors can legally contribute.

And you have yet to prove that claim.

Lol you did for me.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The American people are ultimately responsible for who gets elected – not corporate money, not PACS, not Citizens United.

And the American people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get.

Do you really think the average American voter knows and would approve of his congressman or senator spending 30 hours a week on the phone begging for contributions?

Really? They are told they must come up with 18,000 dollars a week in donations by the DNC and RNC. And you have nothing to say but that you blame the American voter? Really?

Probably no more so than the Congressman that had tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer.


Oops.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The American people are ultimately responsible for who gets elected – not corporate money, not PACS, not Citizens United.

And the American people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get.

Do you really think the average American voter knows and would approve of his congressman or senator spending 30 hours a week on the phone begging for contributions?

Really? They are told they must come up with 18,000 dollars a week in donations by the DNC and RNC. And you have nothing to say but that you blame the American voter? Really?

The American voter has the responsibility to know the issues, to research and learn the facts of the issues himself, and to vote based on the facts concerning the issues, not based on some political attack ad created by a PAC.

And if the voters are too lazy, or stupid, or too apathetic to put the effort into learning the facts concerning the issues and to vote intelligently, then again, the voters have only themselves to blame.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to ‘protect’ voters from dishonest, misleading political advocacy groups and politicians.

The Citizens United Court made the correct decision, government has no authority to dictate to citizens how and when they may engage in political speech – even when that speech is partisan, dishonest, and misleading.

The problem isn’t too much money in politics, the problem too little voter involvement.

It appears you do not understand the intent of the court's ruling in Citizen's United v The Federal Election Committee.

The court attempted to separate the obvious huge donations a super pac could aim at an election. They attempted to make it clear that these super pacs could not be directly associated with any candidate directly. In effect it does not work that way. These super pacs are run by people directly linked to individual candidates. In short the super pacs ignore the intent of the ruling and do an end run around the ruling by packing the managers of the super pacs with personnel closely associated with individual candidates.

You give the voting public too much credit. Obviously you do not understand the dynamics of advertising either.

Advertising works. The guy with the biggest megaphone gets his message heard and the guy armed only with the truth on a small budget gets shouted over. The aisles of any big grocery store will confirm that what you see on television is what is stocked on the shelves and what sells regardless of the content of the products.

You can say that the average American is stupid for allowing his or her buying habits to be manipulated like they are. Their voting habits are not that different from what they purchase to eat.

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

 

[HUGGY]

The American people are ultimately responsible for who gets elected – not corporate money, not PACS, not Citizens United.

And the American people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get.

Do you really think the average American voter knows and would approve of his congressman or senator spending 30 hours a week on the phone begging for contributions?

Really? They are told they must come up with 18,000 dollars a week in donations by the DNC and RNC. And you have nothing to say but that you blame the American voter? Really?

Probably no more so than the Congressman that had tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer.


Oops.....

"Congressman that had tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer."


It gets hot in Louisiana or Mississippi or wherever that was.

 

[HUGGY]

Do you really think the average American voter knows and would approve of his congressman or senator spending 30 hours a week on the phone begging for contributions?

Really? They are told they must come up with 18,000 dollars a week in donations by the DNC and RNC. And you have nothing to say but that you blame the American voter? Really?

The American voter has the responsibility to know the issues, to research and learn the facts of the issues himself, and to vote based on the facts concerning the issues, not based on some political attack ad created by a PAC.

And if the voters are too lazy, or stupid, or too apathetic to put the effort into learning the facts concerning the issues and to vote intelligently, then again, the voters have only themselves to blame.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to ‘protect’ voters from dishonest, misleading political advocacy groups and politicians.

The Citizens United Court made the correct decision, government has no authority to dictate to citizens how and when they may engage in political speech – even when that speech is partisan, dishonest, and misleading.

The problem isn’t too much money in politics, the problem too little voter involvement.

It appears you do not understand the intent of the court's ruling in Citizen's United v The Federal Election Committee.

The court attempted to separate the obvious huge donations a super pac could aim at an election. They attempted to make it clear that these super pacs could not be directly associated with any candidate directly. In effect it does not work that way. These super pacs are run by people directly linked to individual candidates. In short the super pacs ignore the intent of the ruling and do an end run around the ruling by packing the managers of the super pacs with personnel closely associated with individual candidates.

You give the voting public too much credit. Obviously you do not understand the dynamics of advertising either.

Advertising works. The guy with the biggest megaphone gets his message heard and the guy armed only with the truth on a small budget gets shouted over. The aisles of any big grocery store will confirm that what you see on television is what is stocked on the shelves and what sells regardless of the content of the products.

You can say that the average American is stupid for allowing his or her buying habits to be manipulated like they are. Their voting habits are not that different from what they purchase to eat.

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The American people are ultimately responsible for who gets elected – not corporate money, not PACS, not Citizens United.

And the American people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get.

And the last 8 years sure does show how bad govt gets.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

One of the few excellent decisions that the high court has made in the last few years.

 

[OKTexas]

The American voter has the responsibility to know the issues, to research and learn the facts of the issues himself, and to vote based on the facts concerning the issues, not based on some political attack ad created by a PAC.

And if the voters are too lazy, or stupid, or too apathetic to put the effort into learning the facts concerning the issues and to vote intelligently, then again, the voters have only themselves to blame.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to ‘protect’ voters from dishonest, misleading political advocacy groups and politicians.

The Citizens United Court made the correct decision, government has no authority to dictate to citizens how and when they may engage in political speech – even when that speech is partisan, dishonest, and misleading.

The problem isn’t too much money in politics, the problem too little voter involvement.

It appears you do not understand the intent of the court's ruling in Citizen's United v The Federal Election Committee.

The court attempted to separate the obvious huge donations a super pac could aim at an election. They attempted to make it clear that these super pacs could not be directly associated with any candidate directly. In effect it does not work that way. These super pacs are run by people directly linked to individual candidates. In short the super pacs ignore the intent of the ruling and do an end run around the ruling by packing the managers of the super pacs with personnel closely associated with individual candidates.

You give the voting public too much credit. Obviously you do not understand the dynamics of advertising either.

Advertising works. The guy with the biggest megaphone gets his message heard and the guy armed only with the truth on a small budget gets shouted over. The aisles of any big grocery store will confirm that what you see on television is what is stocked on the shelves and what sells regardless of the content of the products.

You can say that the average American is stupid for allowing his or her buying habits to be manipulated like they are. Their voting habits are not that different from what they purchase to eat.

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

 

[HUGGY]

It appears you do not understand the intent of the court's ruling in Citizen's United v The Federal Election Committee.

The court attempted to separate the obvious huge donations a super pac could aim at an election. They attempted to make it clear that these super pacs could not be directly associated with any candidate directly. In effect it does not work that way. These super pacs are run by people directly linked to individual candidates. In short the super pacs ignore the intent of the ruling and do an end run around the ruling by packing the managers of the super pacs with personnel closely associated with individual candidates.

You give the voting public too much credit. Obviously you do not understand the dynamics of advertising either.

Advertising works. The guy with the biggest megaphone gets his message heard and the guy armed only with the truth on a small budget gets shouted over. The aisles of any big grocery store will confirm that what you see on television is what is stocked on the shelves and what sells regardless of the content of the products.

You can say that the average American is stupid for allowing his or her buying habits to be manipulated like they are. Their voting habits are not that different from what they purchase to eat.

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

Sure why not, I've got my sample ballot prepared before I go to vote, nothing I hear or see at the polling location will alter my vote. Only weak people need to be concerned.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

That is under the domain of state election laws, not the First Amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

That is under the domain of state election laws, not the First Amendment.

And local disturbing the peace ordnances.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Wrong.

The intent of the Citizens United court was to place appropriate and warranted limits on government’s authority to control and restrict political speech.

It was neither the responsibility nor role of the Supreme Court to ‘solve’ the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process; and the Citizens United majority clearly acknowledged that problem – but violating the First Amendment is not the ‘solution.’

It is the responsibility of voters to address the problem of the undue influence money has in the political process consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, there is no disagreement that there is a problem, the disagreement concerns the ‘solution’ to the problem advocated by some.

Why don't you just tell me it should be OK to yell "FIRE" in a theater. The Hillary movie attempted to break FEC law and a court threw them out. THEN they attempted to make it a free speech case which they did because Roberts made it so. It was NEVER a free speech issue. It was an electioneering violation.

Also wrong.

Citizens United did in fact concern free speech:

“The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
[…]
[T]he remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The Court admonishes citizens to “explore other regulatory mechanisms” that do not violate the First Amendment; the Court acknowledges that campaign finance reform is warranted, but that violating free speech is not a Constitutional ‘remedy.’

You are so full of shit. The reg that Citizen's United was trying to get around was electioneering within the thirty day limit. The FEC said no and the judge agreed.

Hint to the weak minded, electioneering is speech.

I imagine you would be OK with having blaring amplified speeches at the doorsteps of polling locations. After all it's only free speech right?

Electioneering is not allowed at polling stations in Missouri. Nor are political signs.