Conservatives' Views of Citizens United

[newpublius]

It has opened the door wide to foreign interests

No, it didn't. Bluman v FEC addressed that topic and the foreigners lost.

 

[Fenton]

Right.. lets get this straight.. conservatives don't like Acorn.. and we don't like that kind of corrupt lobbying... so we should happy about Citizens United that makes it EASIER for groups like Acorn to Lobby?
Please.

Citizens United was a horrible decision. It has opened the door wide to foreign interests and tit for tat lobbying. "but look what Acorn was doing" is no defense.

Giving corporations the same rights that both Public and Private sector Unions have had for decades is not comparable to the highly destructive effects that groups like ACORN have had on our economy.

I can prove that group like ACORN were highly corrupt, and can prove that they were highly influential in creating the policies that are at the root of the 2008 Financial Crisis. I can prove they received Billions...with a B, in kickbacks.

Show some real proof that their influence is destructive and I'll listen, otherwise it's just your opinion.

 

[Zyphlin]

Moderator's Warning:

If you feel like someone is breaking the rules, report it. Making accusations of rule violations in thread is baiting

 

[jaeger19]

No, it didn't. Bluman v FEC addressed that topic and the foreigners lost.

No it didn't. When a corporation gives money... what reporting requirements are there to determine who owns the corporation before they can give money?

 

[jaeger19]

Giving corporations the same rights that both Public and Private sector Unions have had for decades is not comparable to the highly destructive effects that groups like ACORN have had on our economy.

I can prove that group like ACORN were highly corrupt, and can prove that they were highly influential in creating the policies that are at the root of the 2008 Financial Crisis. I can prove they received Billions...with a B, in kickbacks.

Show some real proof that their influence is destructive and I'll listen, otherwise it's just your opinion.

Its rather simple really. You now have no idea who is giving money for and for what.

Your "proof" that ACORN was corrupt? It comes from the fact that public and private sector unions had reporting requirements as did ACORN.. when it comes to political giving. You could tell who was giving and how much because their were rules to how you gave and how you reported your lobbying.

AND very importantly the money that was used for lobbying could only be money that a person WANTED to be used for lobbying. Unlike now.. where a corporation that I own share in.. can now lobby for individuals.. maybe Hillary Clinton.. and do so WITH MY MONEY.

So now after Citizen's United.. you really have much less chance of knowing WHO is corrupt and who is backing who and what their agenda is.. and worse.. those organizations could be using YOUR OWN MONEY to do it.

 

[fmw]

I would support the concept of making political giving illegal. Or at least I would tax it to the hilt. I would give the candidates some air time to debate and I would end political advertising completely. Political giving is corruption and it does corrupt. There has to be a better way.

 

[newpublius]

No it didn't. When a corporation gives money... what reporting requirements are there to determine who owns the corporation before they can give money?

You're discussing the impact of the case, ie that the case 'opened the door' for something and that's false, because the disclosure requirements Congress decided to impose were upheld in that case. Aside from strongly suggesting that a fact pattern similar to the NAACP v Alabama would be upheld, those disclosure requirements remain within Congress' legislative prerogative and were not in fact limited by the case. Just as an aside, Azano was arrestsed out in California for making illegal campaign contributions because of his status as a Mexican national.

All you're pointing out is the obvious, that any person not otherwise permitted to contribute might seek a straw donor to make the donation on his or her behalf....

 

[jaeger19]

You're discussing the impact of the case, ie that the case 'opened the door' for something and that's false, because the disclosure requirements Congress decided to impose were upheld in that case. Aside from strongly suggesting that a fact pattern similar to the NAACP v Alabama would be upheld, those disclosure requirements remain within Congress' legislative prerogative and were not in fact limited by the case. Just as an aside, Azano was arrestsed out in California for making illegal campaign contributions because of his status as a Mexican national.

All you're pointing out is the obvious, that any person not otherwise permitted to contribute might seek a straw donor to make the donation on his or her behalf....

That's not really true. First of all the majority decision was not really based on Citizens United and the case that was before the court. The court went out of its way to create another argument that was unlike Citizens united.

The Court DID NOT uphold the original disclosure requirments.

In Citizens United... the case that was before the court regarded the use of Citizens united using funds from its CORPORATION to make the video adds in question. The law at the time stipulated that Citizens united could NOT use funds from its general corporation but that it could use its PAC funds.. and a PAC fund has certain requirements as far as donations reporting requirements etc... most importantly people donating to a PAC know that its being used for lobbying. (and Citizens united HAD a PAC with money that they could have used. so in no way did the federal law prevent them from free speech. Thus the reason that the Justices had to make their own case)

Citizens united did NOT use its PAC money but instead used money from its general corporation to make the video adds in question. This was in direct violation of federal law. The Supreme court determined that the law preventing citizens united from using corporate money was unconstitutional.

Thus this decision opened the door for corporate giving and bypassed the prior rules of political action committees with their reporting requirements restrictions etc.

In your language. citizen united removed the restrictions that helped prevent the straw man.

 

[newpublius]

First of all the majority decision [in Bluman] was not really based on Citizens United

The appellant's argument was and it lost. Bluman distinguished itself from Citizens United accordingly and this meme that Citizens United opened the door for 'foreign money' is false.

The court went out of its way to create another argument that was unlike Citizens united.

The word used is to distinguish itself and that's surely what the decision did.

The Court DID NOT uphold the original disclosure requirments.

"The disclaimer and disclosure requirements are valid......" - not sure exactly why you would say such a thing.

In Citizens United... the case that was before the court regarded the use of Citizens united using funds from its CORPORATION to make the video adds in question.

Absolutely no bearing on foreigners whatsoever.

In your language. citizen united removed the restrictions that helped prevent the straw man.

Yeah, unfortunately the law flat out proscribes the conduct you're saying the case permits and your argument is an indirect and convoluted contrivance.