Citizens United v. FEC

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's got nothing to do with party, and everything to do with free speech. it's not perfect-much as we'd like the world to be so, it's not. our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

no one said corporations had no right to speak their mind. they've been active participants in our democracy through lobbying and pac's.

and it isn't as if they've been muzzled. the fact is the influence of large corporations on legislation already far outweighed any other countervailing force. and now that balance is going to tip even farther.

it won't be restricted to legislation. in all likelihood, any limits states have placed on campaign finance is also unconstitutional under this ruling. which means judicial races will be subject to the same corporate influence that already permeates the rest of our elected bodies.

my basic disagreement is with a view that corporations are somehow underrepresented in our current system. if you think otherwise, i'm not sure how i'd convince you of something that i think is self evident.

[Danzig]

I have no opinion on whether anyone is over or under represented. All I'm basically saying is that I understand why the court ruled as it did.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I have no opinion on whether anyone is over or under represented. All I'm basically saying is that I understand why the court ruled as it did.

That's why you should make the leap, and join that Republican mess. If you believe this garbage (you're #1 issue is already the right to have a personal gun shop) then I think your social issue concerns are dwarfed into being almost insignificant. You've shown your loyalty is with corporations. You can't deny that.

[Riot]

no problem whatsoever, the foreign companies/entities are doing it now behind the scenes. you think Obama wasn't funded by foreign entities and that they went to great lengths to conceal it? bringing it out in the open is better.

But that's the whole point - being "out in the open" has just been repealed by this ruling.

This has undone campaign finance law in like 43 states, plus part of Federal law regarding corporate accountability.

judicial activism in the name of the first ammendment is most welcome.
i'm sure there are candidates and issues that you support who will also take advantage of this new freedom to get their message out.

This isn't a "right vs left" issue at all. It's a "big government run by corporations versus citizens voters" issue. There are plenty of "conservative" Constitutional scholars that are appalled by this ruling.

The Supreme Court just put the influence strength of corporations above we voters!

i suppose you would not be in favor of government muzzling all corporations, say the New York Times for example. why should they have free rein to actively campaign on behalf of Democratic candidates and ideals, while other corporations are muzzled?

Corporations have not been muzzled - they have had "free rein" to campaign for whomever they want. They can contribute to campaigns financially, they can run ads

However, the accountability - the ability of the public to see what corporations are doing, the limitations upon how corporations can influence candidates - has just been removed.

the court correctly decided that government cannot pick and chose which companies and associations are allowed to have free speech.

I don't know where you read that, but that isn't what just happened at all. What has happened is that the one with the most money, now wins.

are you afraid that corporate ads will influence your decision about who to vote for? if not what is the problem?

No, I'm afraid that who I vote for, and who you vote for, and who we contribute to and support, no longer matters at all.

If one supports unregulated increase in big corporations buying and controling our political system, exclusion of the opinions of clamoring masses of voters having town hall meetings and sending e-mails, your dream just came true. Courtesy of the United States Supreme Court.

[Danzig]

I am on my phone so I can't post a link. But. I suggest reading the wsj op piece on the ruling

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I am on my phone so I can't post a link. But. I suggest reading the wsj op piece on the ruling

I suggest in addition reading something, anything, aside from the WSJ op ed piece on the ruling (which I have read)

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

If one supports unregulated increase in big corporations buying and controling our political system, exclusion of the opinions of clamoring masses of voters having town hall meetings and sending e-mails, your dream just came true. Courtesy of the United States Supreme Court.

They didn't grant corporations the right to vote.
Excluding opinions of voters, town hall meetings and emails? what in the world are you talking about?
Still one vote per person.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

They didn't grant corporations the right to vote.
Excluding opinions of voters, town hall meetings and emails? what in the world are you talking about?
Still one vote per person.

You're right, they didn't grant corporations the right to vote. But they just allowed them to overpower, to the -nith degree, your and my vote.

I'm in favor of Tea Parties, Independents - anything that keeps the flux in a rather strict two-party system.

My fear is that this has just rendered all of us useless, a small voice, crushed under now-unregulated corporate influence.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You're right, they didn't grant corporations the right to vote. But they just allowed them to overpower, to the -nith degree, your and my vote.
.

How exactly are they going to overpower your vote?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's why you should make the leap, and join that Republican mess. If you believe this garbage (you're #1 issue is already the right to have a personal gun shop) then I think your social issue concerns are dwarfed into being almost insignificant. You've shown your loyalty is with corporations. You can't deny that.

No. My number one issue is what's constittional. Its not always pretty tho.
My loyalty is not to corps. I can and do deny that. You tend to confuse someone having a thought about one thing with belonging to a group.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

How exactly are they going to overpower your vote?

Well, look at Scott Brown's campaign finances, the guy from Mass who was just elected Senator. There's a chart in this article.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/15/wallst-scott-brown/

Less than half his money came from people who want to elect him, those "grass-roots" people who supported his "I drive a truck" campaign and gave him money to help get elected.

But when he came out and said he wouldn't support the tax on bonuses for the banks that put our country into recession and economic freefall (that borrowed money but still are giving record bonuses), Wall Street came out in force to support his election.

Well, of course! He's voting against taxpayers and our deficit reduction, and in favor of banks that took our bailout money not having to be responsible for putting our country into the financial toilet

But that was certainly fair under campaign law as of last Tuesday. Corporations had the first amendment right to free speech, to support financially and vocally any candidate they want to. And they did.

But there was a limit to what Corps could do: how much they could give, and they had a responsibility to have campaign PAC's, to account for what money went there.

That left the "people" with contributing almost half his campaign finances.

For example, see who one of the "Tea Party" organizations (FreedomWorks) - really is. It's not a group of citizens, it's a Wall Street bank lobbying organization.

But, we get to know that money from "FreedomWorks" is corporate money, due to disclosure requirements.

– The Wall Street front group FreedomWorks is mobilizing get out the vote efforts for Brown this weekend. FreedomWorks organized the very first tea party protests, and has used its extensive staff and resources to mobilize rallies and advocacy campaigns on behalf of corporate interests. Dick Armey, who as a corporate lobbyist represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouit, is the leader of FreedomWorks. FreedomWorks is also funded and chaired by Steve Forbes and Frank Sands of Sands Capital Management.

The Wall Street front group Club for Growth is strongly “boosting” Brown and is expected to run ads in support for him. According to recent disclosures, the Club for Growth is funded by a $1.4 million dollar donation from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc, a $1.4 million dollar donation from broker Richard Gilder, and $210,000-$630,000 donations from at least 10 other investors and financial industry professionals.

So half Brown's money came from people who will vote for him, the other half is from Wall Street wanting to elect candidates that serve their special interests.

What the Supreme Court ruling has done is just eliminated limits on what those corporations can contribute, and the accountability.

Thus, any corporation (who has far more money than individual investors -see the individuals in the "Club for Growth" above) can literally just squash a candidate.

First, this renders all the little $5 and $50 contributions people make useless - it's like donating pennies now.

Second, it renders groups like "Club for Growth", above, useless, as even their donations are like donating pennies now.

The largest, richest corporations can literally give a billion dollars to squash or support a candidate now.

It renders you and I pretty useless, especially regarding candidate support in primaries.

Oh, yeah, we still are the ones that technically vote - but corporate money now has unlimited ability to determine what we see and hear about a candidate, what ads we see, and pretty much who will get on the primary ballot (who we will even hear about, who will be able to afford to get on the ballot)

So a movement of "average citizens" wanted to vote for Scott Brown, but any opposing corporation could have just squashed all those TV ads about him and his truck, by running three times the ad numbers showing his Playgirl centerfold.

Of course, then the Wall Street interests - or foreign corporations - could have paid for a billion in pro- Brown ads - but the point is, that you and I voters, the groundswell of people who got interested in this candidate and supported him - no longer matter at all.

The overwhelming number of people in this country say they are not happy with the way the country is going, and they are not happy with Wall Street, the banks, and their lack of responsibility for putting our country (and others) in a deep recession, the mortage and derivative crisis, etc.

And these same "anti-Wall Street" people who are so unhappy with the recession, where our country is financially, think the above Supreme Court decision giving corporations virtually unlimited involvement in American elections is a good thing for the average voter?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

And these same "anti-Wall Street" people who are so unhappy with the recession, where our country is financially, think the above Supreme Court decision giving corporations virtually unlimited involvement in American elections is a good thing for the average voter?

A couple days ago you said the Brown election was 'a local thing' and now it's Wall Street?

and I do agree that 'anti-Wall Street' people thinking this is a good thing is crazy. I am pro-Wall Street and in a much broader sense pro-Capitalism so I am thrilled with the Supreme Court's decision. Just as those who are anti-Wall Street and anti-Capitalism would be against. This obviously is why Obama and people like you have come out so strongly against.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

A couple days ago you said the Brown election was 'a local thing' and now it's Wall Street?

Dell, I have never said the Brown election was a local thing. And I have already corrected your mistake once. Why do you repeat it? I said I thought the Brown election was about the economy and Washington, and more than once.

and I do agree that 'anti-Wall Street' people thinking this is a good thing is crazy. I am pro-Wall Street and in a much broader sense pro-Capitalism so I am thrilled with the Supreme Court's decision. Just as those who are anti-Wall Street and anti-Capitalism would be against the decision. This obviously is why Obama and people like you have come out so strongly against.

Well, I am unabashedly pro-capitalism, make enough money off Wall Street, and being firmly against this decision has nothing at all to do with who you voted for in the last election, in my opinion. And, I've not seen anybody who is against this opinion say they are anti-business or anti-Wall Street ???

You made an assumptive jump there I just can't follow.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

A couple days ago you said the Brown election was 'a local thing' and now it's Wall Street?

and I do agree that 'anti-Wall Street' people thinking this is a good thing is crazy. I am pro-Wall Street and in a much broader sense pro-Capitalism so I am thrilled with the Supreme Court's decision. Just as those who are anti-Wall Street and anti-Capitalism would be against. This obviously is why Obama and people like you have come out so strongly against.

Lets face the facts, liberals are aghast at this decision because one of their primary tactics is to beat up on the evil, rich corporations. Now they wont be as willing to use class warfare and populism for fear of retribution. It may actually force them to deal with the issues on which they often have very tenuous positions. What they should be more worried about is who fills the money vacuum between when George Soros dies and GBBob becomes a billionaire?

[Cannon Shell]

For those who choose to be informed by a source other than our own Ellie Light (Riot)

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw...es.php?ID=7047

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

For those who choose to be informed by a source other than our own Ellie Light (Riot)

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw...es.php?ID=7047

Ah, Mr. Rude and Insulting has returned!

I was worried you'd given it up for your blood pressure.

[Cannon Shell]

The thought that money from Corporate or other huge, organized groups like unions isnt already the primary source of influence over elections is laughable. Should we prevent George Soros from pouring hundreds of millions of his Wall Street dollars into Democratic campaigns via moveon.org and other shady groups he funds? That one single individual who happens to be a liberal billionaire has not only the funds but no fear of political retribution if his side loses. Should we rein him in as well because he certainly has more influence than a regular citizen?

The idea that this will suddenly make politics dirty and politicians whores seems to forget that we have already been there for quite sometime now.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

No. My number one issue is what's constittional. Its not always pretty tho.
My loyalty is not to corps. I can and do deny that. You tend to confuse someone having a thought about one thing with belonging to a group.

The Constitution is a biased piece of Republican Love Letter. The Electoral College is unfair to many citizens of this country. If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with only 17% of the country’s population. Now this piece of trash is used to justify allowing companies to determine who gets to vote on laws that involve their interests. This is the garbage your loyalty lies with? Changing it requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and, then, 3/4 of the state legislatures. That means any bias within has to be gotten rid of with the help of the same people who are being advantaged (won't happen.) It's biased garbage, and that's why Republicans have such a hard-on love for it. They recognize the advantage within. You couldn't be more blatantly unfair than to allow 33% of the population only have an 8% say in something.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

The Constitution is a biased piece of Republican Love Letter. The Electoral College is unfair to many citizens of this country. If the 26 least populated states voted as a bloc, they would control the U.S. Senate with only 17% of the country’s population. Now this piece of trash is used to justify allowing companies to determine who gets to vote on laws that involve their interests. This is the garbage your loyalty lies with? Changing it requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and, then, 3/4 of the state legislatures. That means any bias within has to be gotten rid of with the help of the same people who are being advantaged (won't happen.) It's biased garbage, and that's why Republicans have such a hard-on love for it. They recognize the advantage within. You couldn't be more blatantly unfair than to allow 33% of the population only have an 8% say in something.

yes, my loyalty lies with the country formed by our founding fathers, including that 'piece of crap' constitution that's been used as the basis for our laws. i'm assuming you agree with a fair amount of them. but not all of them, so when it doesn't suit your purpose i guess it becomes a piece of crap to you. sorry to hear that. your problem, not mine.

[Danzig]

and i do find it interesting that in three pages of thread, no one has said anything about big unions, who also benefit from this ruling. the washington post had a very good article about the ruling that i just read.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ref%3Dobinsite