Do you fear Trump replacing RBG with a Judge off his list?

[Nap]

Yes.

Quite obviously.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Renae]

Originalist jurists are a lie.
They only follow that when they want to.

The Citizens United decision, among many others, is an example of that lie.

There is no way in hell that money should be considered speech, and it's use in politics protected by 1st Amendment.

That's your uneducated opinion

 

[The Mark]

:roll:

They didn't rule that.

Does anyone who rails on that case actually know what they ruled?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - SCOTUSblog

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf



I don't think any person or organization should be allowed to support any political speech with money.
It gives an unfair advantage in the power and reach of political speech due to how much funding is available to the speaker.
Further, the advantage larger campaign donation totals give a candidate means they are influenced and corrupted by those who donate, which further expands the imbalance, and usually drowns out the needs of those with little or no ability to financially influence the candidates.

I would prefer publicly funded elections of some sort, where every candidate gets equal funding from a public fund.
No financial support for candidates or policies, however indirect, from other sources.

That would have to include requirements for equal airing of candidates and their messages on every media platform, since media coverage given for free is easily equatable to financial support.

That couldn't be applied to social media in the same way, however, since individuals discussing candidates on their own pages/feeds/whatever are using that platform to speak.


Clearly the details will require hashing out.
But from my perspective it appears evident that the influence of large amounts of money (in it's various forms) on politics is drowning out the people these politicians are supposed to support.

It's a significant part of the reason why the Democratic party lost touch with voters in many cases, for example

 

[maxparrish]

That old fossil needs to go as she has already shown her extreme bias toward the left.

My wife completely hates her and wishes she would just die.
I tell her to quit talking like that every time she does.
Not cricket.

I like your wife!

 

[The Mark]

Would you care to elaborate?

Well, let me preface by saying that I don't think either should be allowed.

I would prefer campaign funds be equally distributed to each candidate from a public fund.

-------------------------

Donating to a candidate is clearly much different than purchasing ads supporting a candidate.

In the one case the candidate has a say in what you say, in the other they do not.

Beyond that, the laws governing each are different.
Donations to a candidate are limited by election finance law.
But purchasing ads supporting them, so long as they don't have a say in what those ads say, is effectively unlimited.

This gives individuals and groups with large amounts of money undue influence over politics and politicians.

 

[JMR]

I voted with the No It Doesn't Scare Me....not because I'm a crazy right winger, but because I believe she will outlast him. Of the two, she shows the least evidence of dementia.

 

[maxparrish]

For the first time in the history of the country the conservative decision just had to say that the second amendment meant that the right to bear arms was separate from the militia. In all that time, nobody thought about it, nobody'd considered any question on meaning, but it had to be parsed and hair splitted because of the political right and the NRA.

"The just had to say" because D.C. had effectively banned gun ownership. Traditionally Americans have been liberal about gun ownership but, as the decades rolled on, increased regulation and hostility to a traditionally exercised right has become increasingly problematical - Heller was a line in the Constitutional sand declaring "enough is enough".

The mindset of liberals are most perplexing. The trajectory of history ("the side of history" using Obama's phrase) has always been towards increasing state control of private activity, as well as increasing expropriation of private assets. In most constitutional battles of the last 50 years conservatives have, at best, fought delaying actions. Liberals, on the other hand, have fought the offense, to create new avenues of ideological advancement establishing new law against old law (e.g. protected groups).

On occasion conservatives fight a successful (but ultimately temporary) delaying action - it is unheard of them to actually regain already lost ground.

Yet, when the occasional conservative victory actually delays the liberal juggernaut , the screams of indignity and cries of horror deafen.
,
So should the conservatives actually obtain a solid 5 vote and fully conservative majority, for the first time since the Warren court "the other side" could actually regain lost ground - such as repeal of the idiotic interpretation of the commerce clause, overturn Kelo vs. New London, expand the meaning of just compensation for takings, return the civil rights legislation to its original meaning, etc.

THEN you have a right to howl, and until then your just an entitled sore winner.

 

[Nap]

Well, let me preface by saying that I don't think either should be allowed.

I would prefer campaign funds be equally distributed to each candidate from a public fund.

-------------------------

Donating to a candidate is clearly much different than purchasing ads supporting a candidate.

In the one case the candidate has a say in what you say, in the other they do not.

Beyond that, the laws governing each are different.
Donations to a candidate are limited by election finance law.
But purchasing ads supporting them, so long as they don't have a say in what those ads say, is effectively unlimited.

This gives individuals and groups with large amounts of money undue influence over politics and politicians.

Fair point on that, but I think it would be a rare situation where the candidate didn't agree with a supporter campaigning for them (someone like a David Duke or Louis Farrakhan are the obvious exception).

The reason I ask the question is that if you were to not allow people to donate to a particular campaign all that would happen is they would campaign directly for that candidate and that is most definitely protected under the 1st amendment so the end result is the exact same.

 

[PleasantValley]

Some times you might want to rethink sharing such information, just saying....

You are right!
...and thank you for pointing that out.
I took your post as I am sure it was intended.

 

[Casper]

You are right!
...and thank you for pointing that out.
I took your post as I am sure it was intended.

No offense intended, just seen this backfire more times than I can count.

 

[calamity]

On FB one of my friends said the need to defeat the GOP in 2020 is now more critical than ever because Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ability to make it to 2024 due to age is in high doubt. They are like, in total meltdown mode now. I was curious if others feel that way. Personally I'd love to see her replaced with a more originalist Jurist, obviously.

The Right has already come for your rights. You do know that right?

 

[Harshaw]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - SCOTUSblog


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

That is incorrect, or at least the way it's explained is misleading, and you're reading it incorrectly anyway.

Citizens United made a film critical of Hillary. They were fined for broadcasting it. That violated the first Amendment, because the film was speech.

The catch was that the expenditure on the film -- an electioneering communication -- was prohibited by a law.

They found that the law violated the First Amendment not because MONEY was speech, but because the FILM was speech, and the law against the expenditure was a prior restraint on speech.

They did not find that "money = speech." They found that speech = speech.

The film was protected by the First Amendment. The money was necessary to make the film, because it could not be made for free. Thus, preventing the expenditure of money prevented the actual speech.

This was NOT a case of equating political donations with speech, which is what a lot of people who don't know any better endlessly jabber it was.

I don't think any person or organization should be allowed to support any political speech with money.

So what you're saying -- and you are saying this -- is that you don't think anyone should be able to spend money to:

Create pamhplets.
Make signs.
Make political ads.
Make a political movie.
Put on a political play.
Publish a political book.
Publish an editorial in a newspaper.
Publish political columns.
Publish political magazines.
Have a political TV show.
Organize a protest.
Advertise for a protest.
Rent space for a protest.
Pay a permit fee for a protest.

Or any other a million things I could think of if I sat here all day.

That's what you're saying.

It gives an unfair advantage in the power and reach of political speech due to how much funding is available to the speaker.
Further, the advantage larger campaign donation totals give a candidate means they are influenced and corrupted by those who donate, which further expands the imbalance, and usually drowns out the needs of those with little or no ability to financially influence the candidates.

I would prefer publicly funded elections of some sort, where every candidate gets equal funding from a public fund.
No financial support for candidates or policies, however indirect, from other sources.

That would have to include requirements for equal airing of candidates and their messages on every media platform, since media coverage given for free is easily equatable to financial support.

That couldn't be applied to social media in the same way, however, since individuals discussing candidates on their own pages/feeds/whatever are using that platform to speak.


Clearly the details will require hashing out.
But from my perspective it appears evident that the influence of large amounts of money (in it's various forms) on politics is drowning out the people these politicians are supposed to support.

It's a significant part of the reason why the Democratic party lost touch with voters in many cases, for example

Perhaps that's what you think, but if you think it doesn't conflict with the First Amendment -- and indeed, you seem to think that it's outrageous to read the First Amendment as protecting expenditures on political speech -- then you're the one who's off the rails, not the Justices you're lambasting.

 

[The Mark]

Fair point on that, but I think it would be a rare situation where the candidate didn't agree with a supporter campaigning for them (someone like a David Duke or Louis Farrakhan are the obvious exception).

The reason I ask the question is that if you were to not allow people to donate to a particular campaign all that would happen is they would campaign directly for that candidate and that is most definitely protected under the 1st amendment so the end result is the exact same.

I'm perfectly OK with people donating their time to a candidate, and even OK with the current limit on individual donations.

What I have an issue with is the system allowing large amounts of money from few or single sources to support a candidate, effectively bypassing those limits, just because they're not technically working WITH the candidate.
This gives those few or single sources a vast advantage in influence over what those candidates do if elected.

And of course there's the whole lobbying issue once they do, plus the way our political campaigns have become reliant on donations, they spend way too much of their time asking for donations, and of course they'll go to the bigger donations in most cases because it's easier to hit party quotas.

 

[The Mark]

That is incorrect, or at least the way it's explained is misleading, and you're reading it incorrectly anyway.

Citizens United made a film critical of Hillary. They were fined for broadcasting it. That violated the first Amendment, because the film was speech.

The catch was that the expenditure on the film -- an electioneering communication -- was prohibited by a law.

They found that the law violated the First Amendment not because MONEY was speech, but because the FILM was speech, and the law against the expenditure was a prior restraint on speech.

They did not find that "money = speech." They found that speech = speech.

The film was protected by the First Amendment. The money was necessary to make the film, because it could not be made for free. Thus, preventing the expenditure of money prevented the actual speech.

This was NOT a case of equating political donations with speech, which is what a lot of people who don't know any better endlessly jabber it was.



So what you're saying -- and you are saying this -- is that you don't think anyone should be able to spend money to:

Create pamhplets.
Make signs.
Make political ads.
Make a political movie.
Put on a political play.
Publish a political book.
Publish an editorial in a newspaper.
Publish political columns.
Publish political magazines.
Have a political TV show.
Organize a protest.
Advertise for a protest.
Rent space for a protest.
Pay a permit fee for a protest.

Or any other a million things I could think of if I sat here all day.

That's what you're saying.




Perhaps that's what you think, but if you think it doesn't conflict with the First Amendment -- and indeed, you seem to think that it's outrageous to read the First Amendment as protecting expenditures on political speech -- then you're the one who's off the rails, not the Justices you're lambasting.

I don't have a problem with any of those exercises of free speech.

What I have a problem with is the ability of organizations with large amounts of money to be the sole or one of a few funding sources for such speech.
That gives them undue influence over that speech's content.

In effect, money in many ways currently dictates how many people hear your message, and thus how many minds are changes towards your viewpoint.
This gives such organizations power over the politicians who need that money, and thus power over the message.

And so, power over the end result.

Because if you think those politicians will tell their money source to **** off if the law they want will hurt people, you haven't been living in America.

 

[wist43]

The Right has already come for your rights. You do know that right?

How do you figure that??

Can u give an example??

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't have a problem with any of those exercises of free speech.

What I have a problem with is the ability of organizations with large amounts of money to be the sole or one of a few funding sources for such speech.
That gives them undue influence over that speech's content.

In effect, money in many ways currently dictates how many people hear your message, and thus how many minds are changes towards your viewpoint.
This gives such organizations power over the politicians who need that money, and thus power over the message.

And so, power over the end result.

Because if you think those politicians will tell their money source to **** off if the law they want will hurt people, you haven't been living in America.

why shouldn't wealthy entities who do far more to fund the government than poor ones, have a right to use their wealth to influence the government that they fund?

 

[Nap]

I'm perfectly OK with people donating their time to a candidate, and even OK with the current limit on individual donations.

What I have an issue with is the system allowing large amounts of money from few or single sources to support a candidate, effectively bypassing those limits, just because they're not technically working WITH the candidate.
This gives those few or single sources a vast advantage in influence over what those candidates do if elected.

And of course there's the whole lobbying issue once they do, plus the way our political campaigns have become reliant on donations, they spend way too much of their time asking for donations, and of course they'll go to the bigger donations in most cases because it's easier to hit party quotas.

The problem is that there is no legal way to stop it. If I am a billionaire and I really wanted a Libertarian candidate to win then you can't stop me from purchasing ads in support of that candidate, it is free speech protected by the 1st amendment (political speech at that, which is the primary reason for having the 1st amendment in the first place), just the same as if a group of people put their money together to do the same. At the end of the day having campaign contributions isn't that much of an issue imo. The politicians aren't legally able to profit personally from it and without them the odds of winning an election against someone with more disposable income than you lessens, you are essentially arguing for only allowing rich billionaires like Beto O'Rourke having the means to run for office. (Had to throw in the Beto joke because I find that race pretty hilarious)

I'm with you on lobbyists and much of the money in politics issues, however we likely have completely different views on how best to accomplish this, which is a different discussion altogether though.

 

[Master PO]

why shouldn't wealthy entities who do far more to fund the government than poor ones, have a right to use their wealth to influence the government that they fund?

but this is the problem of government because groups left and right, powerful wealthy people seek to use government for their own wishes.

if we could repeal the 17th most lobbying would go away, and government would have to act for the good of all, the people the states and the union itself.

 

[TurtleDude]

but this is the problem of government because groups left and right, powerful wealthy people seek to use government for their own wishes.

if we could repeal the 17th most lobbying would go away, and government would have to act for the good of all, the people the states and the union itself.

yep, the 17th amendment was one of those short sighted bits of progressive BS that screwed the pooch in the long run.

 

[Master PO]

yep, the 17th amendment was one of those short sighted bits of progressive BS that screwed the pooch in the long run.

it was meant to take away the power of the state legislatures and make them subject to the federal government, since the progressives were pushing for a national government.

 

[Anarchon]

Right, left, conservative, liberal, they are all just as bad as the other, for they all support the idea that a special group of people can own the rest of us.

 

[Master PO]

Right, left, conservative, liberal, they are all just as bad as the other, for they all support the idea that a special group of people can own the rest of us.

that why the 17th amendment should be repealed

 

[wist43]

Agree about the 17th Amendment... needs to be repealed yesterday.

Don't think it was "shortsighted" by those who pushed it thru... they knew full well how destructive it would be.

They wanted it passed b/c,

1) they were globalists and knew it would weaken the Constitution - making it easier to attack and dismantle our sovereignty

2) they could more easily control the appointment of cabinet officials, and direct foreign policy to ensure continual war

3) it would open up the vault doors to the federal treasury and they could help themselves

There were other nefarious reasons of course, but those were the most important reasons.

 

[Nap]

That is incorrect, or at least the way it's explained is misleading, and you're reading it incorrectly anyway.

Citizens United made a film critical of Hillary. They were fined for broadcasting it. That violated the first Amendment, because the film was speech.

The catch was that the expenditure on the film -- an electioneering communication -- was prohibited by a law.

They found that the law violated the First Amendment not because MONEY was speech, but because the FILM was speech, and the law against the expenditure was a prior restraint on speech.

They did not find that "money = speech." They found that speech = speech.

The film was protected by the First Amendment. The money was necessary to make the film, because it could not be made for free. Thus, preventing the expenditure of money prevented the actual speech.

This was NOT a case of equating political donations with speech, which is what a lot of people who don't know any better endlessly jabber it was.



So what you're saying -- and you are saying this -- is that you don't think anyone should be able to spend money to:

Create pamhplets.
Make signs.
Make political ads.
Make a political movie.
Put on a political play.
Publish a political book.
Publish an editorial in a newspaper.
Publish political columns.
Publish political magazines.
Have a political TV show.
Organize a protest.
Advertise for a protest.
Rent space for a protest.
Pay a permit fee for a protest.

Or any other a million things I could think of if I sat here all day.

That's what you're saying.




Perhaps that's what you think, but if you think it doesn't conflict with the First Amendment -- and indeed, you seem to think that it's outrageous to read the First Amendment as protecting expenditures on political speech -- then you're the one who's off the rails, not the Justices you're lambasting.

Thank you for the run down on Citizen's United, I hadn't actually looked into the details but assumed that was essentially what it was.

 

[Nap]

I don't have a problem with any of those exercises of free speech.

What I have a problem with is the ability of organizations with large amounts of money to be the sole or one of a few funding sources for such speech.
That gives them undue influence over that speech's content.

In effect, money in many ways currently dictates how many people hear your message, and thus how many minds are changes towards your viewpoint.
This gives such organizations power over the politicians who need that money, and thus power over the message.

And so, power over the end result.

Because if you think those politicians will tell their money source to **** off if the law they want will hurt people, you haven't been living in America.

To an extent you are correct, however social media is a game changer. Everyone (less so if you are a conservative due to "algorithms") has the potential to reach a limitless platform due to the internet. Simply look at people like David Pakman, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc and the popularity they have gained through making simple online videos/podcasts and the vast audiences they bring in. I would say they have changed more minds and influenced more people than any campaign ad for a politician.