Is it time to overturn Citizens United?

[Atreus21]

To think: If only Hillary weren't so thin-skinned, we'd never even have Citizens United.

 

[Noodlegawd]

This has not been anyone's argument.

How do you figure? Is Paramount not a corporation? The Washington Post?

What meaningful difference is there between a corporation paying the Washington Post for political ads or paying a movie studio to make a movie to express its political views, and a corporate billionaire buying the Washington Post to express his own political views, or a movie studio making movies to express their own political views?

Double standard?

 

[Deuce]

How do you figure? Is Paramount not a corporation? The Washington Post?

What meaningful difference is there between a corporation paying the Washington Post for political ads to express its political view, and a corporate billionaire buying the Washington Post to express his own political views?

Double standard?

Are you under some kind of strange impression that I think Jeff Bezos' blatant oligarch propaganda is a good thing?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Are you under some kind of strange impression that I think Jeff Bezos' blatant oligarch propaganda is a good thing?

I'm not talking about you or what you think. I pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of those who claim that Citizens United is so horrible. I have yet to hear any of the Democrats, who never shut up about Citizens United, complain about the obvious high-dollar corporate political speech of people who agree with them.

It's complete Backwardsville to essentially say that the only corporations who can pay for political speech are those that are big enough to own media empires.

 

[Deuce]

I'm not talking about you or what you think. I pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of those who claim that Citizens United is so horrible. I have yet to hear any of the Democrats, who never shut up about Citizens United, complain about the obvious high-dollar corporate political speech of people who agree with them.

Really? I hear about it all the time. Can you give an example?

It's complete Backwardsville to essentially say that the only corporations who can pay for political speech are those that are big enough to own media empires.

Very much not what I'm saying.

 

[Hypothetical]

absolutely they should, and then they should pass a law making it so ONLY individuals can donate to campaigns. no lobbyists.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Really? I hear about it all the time. Can you give an example?

No. I can't give an example of something someone isn't saying. I gave two examples of companies that engage in extremely expensive political speech, about which I have never heard Democrats complain.

Very much not what I'm saying.

I never said that's what you were saying. It's what "they" are saying.

You said that nobody is arguing that newspapers and movie studios can be prohibited from engaging in political speech. And I'm asking "why not?" They can be bought and paid for just as easily as ad space can be bought and paid for (well, not "just" as easily -- it takes even more money to do that, so the little guy couldn't afford it).

 

[Deuce]

No. I can't give an example of something someone isn't saying. I gave two examples of companies that engage in extremely expensive political speech, about which I have never heard Democrats complain.



I never said that's what you were saying. It's what "they" are saying.

LOL Democrats complain about Bezos all the time. He's not a liberal.

What is Paramount doing, exactly? Is there some story I've missed?

 

[Loulit01]

It's always time to overturn Citizens United, but this Court is even more neo-conservative than the court that passed it. So it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Noodlegawd]

absolutely they should, and then they should pass a law making it so ONLY individuals can donate to campaigns. no lobbyists.

Citizen's United was not about campaign donations.

 

[mrjurrs]

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

Can newspapers owned by billionaires be prohibited from publishing editorials?

The press is a different animal. Remember, the press is enumerated in the Constitution. If you are referring to actually stopping them from doing something, the idea of 'prior restraint' has a very high constitutional bar to clear before the govt could stop production.

Back to your point however...they are completely nonrelated.

 

[mrjurrs]

Citizen's United was not about campaign donations.

Just like pregnancy is unrelated to births. Campaign donations are significantly impacted by Citizens United.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The press is a different animal. Remember, the press is enumerated in the Constitution. If you are referring to actually stopping them from doing something, the idea of 'prior restraint' has a very high constitutional bar to clear before the govt could stop production.

Back to your point however...they are completely nonrelated.

So a small company can be prohibited from paying a newspaper for an ad expressing its political views, but a giant company cannot be prohibited from buying a newspaper and causing it to express its political views?

 

[Hypothetical]

Citizen's United was not about campaign donations.

?? what was it about then?

January 21, 2020 will mark a decade since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.

While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption.

What was Citizens United about?​

A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.

A 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

 

[Noodlegawd]

Just like pregnancy is unrelated to births. Campaign donations are significantly impacted by Citizens United.

How do you figure? Citizens United was about a law prohibiting private organizations from communicating their political views prior to an election. It had nothing to do with campaign donations.

 

[Noodlegawd]

?? what was it about then?




https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

You answered your own question: "A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries."

It boils down to prohibiting a private political advocacy organization from expressing its political views prior to an election.

 

[Hypothetical]

You answered your own question: "A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries."

It boils down to prohibiting a private political advocacy organization from expressing its political views prior to an election.

whatever, it does not matter. it has opened the way for corruption to occur and should be stopped. Corporations are not enumerated to have rights in the constitution, people are.

 

[Noodlegawd]

whatever, it does not matter. it has opened the way for corruption to occur and should be stopped. Corporations are not enumerated to have rights in the constitution, people are.

Corporations are run and owned by people. There's no meaningful distinction. If a billionaire who owns a company can spend all his profits from that company on political speech to benefit himself and his company, there's no principled reason that the people who run a corporation owned by shareholders shouldn't be able to do the same. That's especially true in the case of an organization like Citizens United.

 

[mrjurrs]

So a small company can be prohibited from paying a newspaper for an ad expressing its political views, but a giant company cannot be prohibited from buying a newspaper and causing it to express its political views?

The paper would be making the decision on the ad buy. Unfortunately your second statement is correct.

 

[mrjurrs]

How do you figure? Citizens United was about a law prohibiting private organizations from communicating their political views prior to an election. It had nothing to do with campaign donations.

One result of the opinion is a dramatic impact on corporate campaign donations.

THE IMPACT OF THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people and removed reasonable campaign contribution limits, allowing a small group of wealthy donors and special interests to use dark money to influence elections.

Ten Years After Citizens United, House Democrats Call on Senate to Take Up House-Passed Government Reform Measures

This month marks ten years since the Supreme Court’s major ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. The ruling removed reasonable campaign contribution limits and has allowed a small group of individuals and corporations to spend enormous sums of money on campaigns...

www.majorityleader.gov

 

[Noodlegawd]

One result of the opinion is a dramatic impact on corporate campaign donations.

THE IMPACT OF THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people and removed reasonable campaign contribution limits, allowing a small group of wealthy donors and special interests to use dark money to influence elections.

Ten Years After Citizens United, House Democrats Call on Senate to Take Up House-Passed Government Reform Measures

This month marks ten years since the Supreme Court’s major ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. The ruling removed reasonable campaign contribution limits and has allowed a small group of individuals and corporations to spend enormous sums of money on campaigns...

www.majorityleader.gov

You're not recognizing the distinction between campaign donations and spending on political speech. Campaign donations are still strictly limited.

 

[mrjurrs]

You're not recognizing the distinction between campaign donations and spending on political speech. Campaign donations are still strictly limited.

I'm going to say that you are mistaken. So you don't believe a report from Congress, here's another opportunity...
"The proliferation of controversial political advertisements in the past decade isn't a coincidence. It's a direct result of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which helped pump billions of dollars into politics from outside sources that are supposed to be untethered from candidates or political parties."

More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United

Ten years after the Supreme Court's historic decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, OpenSecrets is taking a look at the dramatic ways America's campaign finance system has been altered in the decade since.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[Noodlegawd]

I'm going to say that you are mistaken. So you don't believe a report from Congress, here's another opportunity...
"The proliferation of controversial political advertisements in the past decade isn't a coincidence. It's a direct result of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which helped pump billions of dollars into politics from outside sources that are supposed to be untethered from candidates or political parties."

More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United

Ten years after the Supreme Court's historic decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, OpenSecrets is taking a look at the dramatic ways America's campaign finance system has been altered in the decade since.

www.opensecrets.org

The sentence you quoted literally says nothing, not a thing, about campaign donations.

 

[D_NATURED]

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

The Dems aren't trying to install Biden as a dictator, like the Trump supporters have. We still have checks and balances. So, when the Supreme Court goes fascist, it's a problem that the president cannot fix.

Your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the American system works.

 

[D_NATURED]

The sentence you quoted literally says nothing, not a thing, about campaign donations.

Jesus, dude. Don't you see that political spending by PACs does as much harm as direct donations to candidates? Either way, it's FASCISM, where the rich have a megaphone and the poor must whisper into that hurricane of bullshit.