Is it time to overturn Citizens United? (1 Viewer)

[independentusa]

Corporate Speech

Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in elections.

www.mtsu.edu

It seems that up until the conservatives on SCOTUS decided Citizen's the court approved of some limitations on spending by corporations and individuals. See link above. And when deciding Citizen's the court made two false assumptions about the outcome. The first was it would have little effect on our elections which we now know is totally wrong. The second was that even though it opened the flood gates for the wealthy and corporations to buy candidates by flooding the campaigns with money, that people would know who made those contributions and that would effect how they voted. As we now know, that has not happened, just the opposite. Dark money has become the rule and we do not even know if we are voting for a candidate who has taken money from foreign individuals, foreign corporations or even foreign governments. So maybe it is time to overturn Citizens or change it so we do know who is donating to campaigns.

 

[Crovax]

So you think that the SCOTUS overturning abortions rights was egregious so in retaliation you want them to overturn free speech rights

 

[Deuce]

So you think that the SCOTUS overturning abortions rights was egregious so in retaliation you want them to overturn free speech rights

Corporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.

 

[Mr Person]

Corporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.

You know how it goes.

If they want the result, it's perfectly reasonable to cherry pick a few statements from framers about one thing and claim they show they must have specifically intended that result even if they couldn't have dreamed the case up after their wildest night on the town.

if they don't want the result, it's perfectly reasonable to stop at noting that the constitution does not contain the exact words.

 

[Excast]

It says a great deal about conservative America that they view the rights of corporations as more important than those of women.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Corporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.

Exactly

 

[Deuce]

It says a great deal about conservative America that they view the rights of corporations as more important than those of women.

Ask them what they think about mandatory organ donation after their deaths. They think a corpse has more body autonomy than women.

 

[Ren]

Corporate Speech

Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in elections.

www.mtsu.edu

It seems that up until the conservatives on SCOTUS decided Citizen's the court approved of some limitations on spending by corporations and individuals. See link above. And when deciding Citizen's the court made two false assumptions about the outcome. The first was it would have little effect on our elections which we now know is totally wrong. The second was that even though it opened the flood gates for the wealthy and corporations to buy candidates by flooding the campaigns with money, that people would know who made those contributions and that would effect how they voted. As we now know, that has not happened, just the opposite. Dark money has become the rule and we do not even know if we are voting for a candidate who has taken money from foreign individuals, foreign corporations or even foreign governments. So maybe it is time to overturn Citizens or change it so we do know who is donating to campaigns.

Why are you so upset? Biden's in the White House.

 

[Crovax]

Corporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.

Yes that was my point

 

[Deuce]

Yes that was my point

Then why did you use the phrase "you think" when what you really meant was "I think?"

 

[lurchadams]

Corporate Speech

Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in elections.

www.mtsu.edu

It seems that up until the conservatives on SCOTUS decided Citizen's the court approved of some limitations on spending by corporations and individuals. See link above. And when deciding Citizen's the court made two false assumptions about the outcome. The first was it would have little effect on our elections which we now know is totally wrong. The second was that even though it opened the flood gates for the wealthy and corporations to buy candidates by flooding the campaigns with money, that people would know who made those contributions and that would effect how they voted. As we now know, that has not happened, just the opposite. Dark money has become the rule and we do not even know if we are voting for a candidate who has taken money from foreign individuals, foreign corporations or even foreign governments. So maybe it is time to overturn Citizens or change it so we do know who is donating to campaigns.

LOL - you are adorable. How are you going to overturn it? We need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything - how many republicans, who are now in power, are going to vote to overturn their pig trough?

 

[Crovax]

Then why did you use the phrase "you think" when what you really meant was "I think?"

I was inferring that was the position of the OP based on this post and several others I have seen them make on this topic

 

[Helix]

The Citizens United decision was shit.

 

[Deuce]

I was inferring that was the position of the OP based on this post and several others I have seen them make on this topic

Were you? Because the OP's post outlined a bunch of reasons you somehow appear to have missed entirely. Like you didn't read a single word written in the OP...

 

[HikerGuy83]

Corporate Speech

Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in elections.

www.mtsu.edu

It seems that up until the conservatives on SCOTUS decided Citizen's the court approved of some limitations on spending by corporations and individuals. See link above. And when deciding Citizen's the court made two false assumptions about the outcome. The first was it would have little effect on our elections which we now know is totally wrong. The second was that even though it opened the flood gates for the wealthy and corporations to buy candidates by flooding the campaigns with money, that people would know who made those contributions and that would effect how they voted. As we now know, that has not happened, just the opposite. Dark money has become the rule and we do not even know if we are voting for a candidate who has taken money from foreign individuals, foreign corporations or even foreign governments. So maybe it is time to overturn Citizens or change it so we do know who is donating to campaigns.

First...yes.

Second....dark money has always been the rule.

As long as there is power to be had, there are those who crave it (and will beg, borrow, lie, steal, and kill to get it).

 

[Cope]

Corporate Speech

Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in elections.

www.mtsu.edu

It seems that up until the conservatives on SCOTUS decided Citizen's the court approved of some limitations on spending by corporations and individuals. See link above. And when deciding Citizen's the court made two false assumptions about the outcome. The first was it would have little effect on our elections which we now know is totally wrong. The second was that even though it opened the flood gates for the wealthy and corporations to buy candidates by flooding the campaigns with money, that people would know who made those contributions and that would effect how they voted. As we now know, that has not happened, just the opposite. Dark money has become the rule and we do not even know if we are voting for a candidate who has taken money from foreign individuals, foreign corporations or even foreign governments. So maybe it is time to overturn Citizens or change it so we do know who is donating to campaigns.

To succinctly answer the thread question, YES.

It is the only way we start to reverse the corruption inherent in politics.

 

[Credence]

The Citizens United decision was shit.

And selective since it punished Disney; a corporation for exercising their free speech

 

[Noodlegawd]

Corporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.

There's no such thing as "corporate speech." Corporations don't have minds or mouths. Corporations are comprised of people. People have minds and mouths.

 

[Deuce]

There's no such thing as "corporate speech." Corporations don't have minds or mouths. Corporations are comprised of people. People have minds and mouths.

I would agree. And, apparently, so does Alito.

 

[mrjurrs]

So you think that the SCOTUS overturning abortions rights was egregious so in retaliation you want them to overturn free speech rights

Where in the Constitution does it infer corporate free speech rights?

 

[Crovax]

Where in the Constitution does it infer corporate free speech rights?

Where does it say that joining a corporation requires you to lose you free speech rights

 

[OrphanSlug]

I am starting to think everyone is forgetting how these things happen.

It took a case before the Supreme Court for Citizens United decision to happen, a challenge to a law which went their way. I do not like the decision either but it suggests that to "overturn" this would require both another law and another challenge to it that would survive the courts this time. The Justices do not sit in a corner and pick apart prior rulings just cause.

The whole issue boils down to how the Campaign Reform Act of 2001 was formed. There was like 5-6 challenges to various aspects of that law, one of which was the Citizens United case basically killing what was left of it. Not even really the money, but timing.

For this to have any prayer of being readdressed a new law is needed, ideally avoiding some of the mess from the prior effort, and good luck getting that past the political fiasco we have going on up on the hill these days.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Where in the Constitution does it infer corporate free speech rights?

Do you think Hollywood studios can be prohibited from making movies addressing political issues?

Can newspapers owned by billionaires be prohibited from publishing editorials?

 

[Deuce]

Where does it say that joining a corporation requires you to lose you free speech rights

It doesn't. People have free speech rights, but the business is not a person.

 

[Deuce]

Do you think Hollywood studios can be prohibited from making movies addressing political issues?

Can newspapers owned by billionaires be prohibited from publishing editorials?

This has not been anyone's argument.