SHould we pass a amendment to curb the excesses of Citizens United?

[ttwtt78640]

No they don't, they have a repersenatitve vote in what federal law is. Huge difference, and it's precisely WHY they want to influence who gets elected in Georgia so they can expand their slice of power.

CU had nothing to do with funding a GA elected office or any other candidate’s campaign. CU vs. FEC was striking down the BS stating that MSNBC or Fox News could say whatever they wished about Hillary (right up to Election Day) but that the FEC could declare that (carefully selected?) other “private” groups could not.

Citizens United v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Citizens United v. FEC

www.fec.gov

 

[Common Sense 1]

Would be next to impossible to pass a amendment today.​

​

How many who won their election were the incumbent? ​

​

 

[ttwtt78640]

Then we just need to get use to the social unrest and hope we keep having a country.

What “social unrest” did showing the anti-Hillary movie cause?

 

[Slartibartfast]

What “social unrest” did showing the anti-Hillary movie cause?

Why are you asking intentionally misleading questions?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why are you asking intentionally misleading questions?

This thread is about the CU decision. What “social unrest” are you talking about?

 

[Elmo]

The only thing I would support is full disclosure of who contributes, who they contribute to and how much.

Anything else is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Now...after the disclosure is enacted, it'll be up to the voters to look at who they are voting for and who is paying them.

btw, neither the Republicans or Democrats in Congress want full disclosure. It doesn't benefit them and they don't care if it benefits the voters.

Disclosure as you describe would be an excellent improvement. The fact that you and I can agree on something demonstrates how bipartisan this issue really is with voters. But our representatives on both sides are too corrupt to make changes.

I'll just note that the few representatives who WOULD support this sort of thing are progressives. Campaign finance reform was a big part of Bernie Sanders' campaigns.

 

[vanceen]

A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?

As far as I can tell, Citizens United was correctly decided based on the law and precedent.

However, its effects are obviously bad.

That means the law has to change. So yes, I would support an amendment that excludes cash contributions from the category of free speech, and (even better) provide for public funding of elections.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This thread is about the CU decision. What “social unrest” are you talking about?

The social unrest that is a result of dark money with a political message filtering into our country.

 

[vanceen]

I reject the idea that if people join together in a corporation they lose their 1st amendment rights.



No one candidate passes legislation, the representative should be a representative of that district no outside influences

But the whole idea of corporate personhood is that a corporation is legally a separate person from its shareholders. The shareholders are protected from liability or debts that the corporation might have. Also, corporate personhood allows a corporation to enter into contracts and conduct business as a person legally distinct from any individual.

So why should this arrangement give corporations to right to political free speech? Limited liability corporations exist to encourage shareholder to invest without fear of losing everything they have if things go badly. I think that's a good idea, but it has nothing to do with politics and elections.

As for the individual employees (not shareholders), they would not give up their rights to free speech. They are all free as individuals to endorse and support any candidate they choose. Under the status quo, corporate management makes the decision to support one or several candidates for business reasons. Those employees who don't support the candidates the management picks don't have any say in it. It's not about people joining together, it's about what gets decided to be in the best interests of the business by management. The same applies to unions.

So forbidding corporate contributions from political contributions doesn't infringe the free speech of the shareholders or the employees. Only the legal corporate person, which has only the most dubious claims to a right to political speech.

 

[Crovax]

But the whole idea of corporate personhood is that a corporation is legally a separate person from its shareholders. The shareholders are protected from liability or debts that the corporation might have. Also, corporate personhood allows a corporation to enter into contracts and conduct business as a person legally distinct from any individual.

So why should this arrangement give corporations to right to political free speech? Limited liability corporations exist to encourage shareholder to invest without fear of losing everything they have if things go badly. I think that's a good idea, but it has nothing to do with politics and elections.

As for the individual employees (not shareholders), they would not give up their rights to free speech. They are all free as individuals to endorse and support any candidate they choose. Under the status quo, corporate management makes the decision to support one or several candidates for business reasons. Those employees who don't support the candidates the management picks don't have any say in it. It's not about people joining together, it's about what gets decided to be in the best interests of the business by management. The same applies to unions.

So forbidding corporate contributions from political contributions doesn't infringe the free speech of the shareholders or the employees. Only the legal corporate person, which has only the most dubious claims to a right to political speech.

Let's take an example. The New York times is corporation. So in your opinion they shouldn't have 1st amendment rightsbecause each of the individual writers have 1A protections. So let's say a politician, we will call him Frump, is then able to ban news corporations since they are no longer protected by 1A. The writers no longer have a profession or a means to publish their work. So while they have still have 1A rights, in actuality 1A has been severly chilled.


So where are we now with corporate 1st amendment rights?

 

[btthegreat]

A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?

yes we should, but it would be incredibly difficult if for you, me, and our allies in cause to come up with wording that will please us and then you have to come up with some sense of unity among all these states including red ones and pass the damn thing. Never ever going to happen. We have seen our last successful effort to amend that document.

Very very cynical on this constitutional amendment thing. We could not pass one saying mothers should not be murdered by their children on their 18th birthday. I wouldn't waste the time on what is a very esoteric but futile exercise.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

A study showed that 86% of elections in this country are won by the candidate who send the most. THe wealthy donors who can donate huge amounts without letting the public know who they are own our elections and our candidates after they win. When the Citizens decision was handed down, many constitutional experts said it was a terrible decision, but one of the conservative justices oh the court said it would have no effect on our elections. Do not know if he was naive or just plain lying. Is it time to pass and amendment to limit the excesses of Citizens?

YES

 

[dockside]

I reject the idea that if people join together in a corporation they lose their 1st amendment rights.



No one candidate passes legislation, the representative should be a representative of that district no outside influences

Where in the world did you get the idea that a person who is part of a business or corporation loses any rights at all? He/she still has them as a person.

 

[independentusa]

Why should the FEC (or any government agency) have any say in which groups (or corporations) can (or can’t) engage in “political speech” (CU was about releasing an anti-Hillary movie) within 30 to 60 days of a federal election? If “news” corporations are allowed to do so then why not others?

Citizens United v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Citizens United v. FEC

www.fec.gov

It would not be a government agency, but congress itself. And the problem is that corporations should never have the rights of citizens, never. There is nothing in the constitution that give them that right, only some loony justices on q court that is now a GOP controlled court. If there is something in the constitution that says that corporations should have the same rights as citizens, please point it out.

 

[KLATTU]

republicans won't have it, so its pointless. they like power, enriching themselves,

Democrats won't have it, so it's pointless,they crave power ,enriching themselves.
Sanders:
Birthdate: Sept. 8, 1941
Net worth: $3 million
Primary source of income: U.S. Senate salary
Career highlights: Mayor of Burlington, Vermont; U.S. representative and senator from Vermont

How Elizabeth Warren Built A $12 Million Fortune

Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren identifies as a capitalist, which makes sense, given her estimated $12 million fortune.

www.forbes.com

BOOM!!!
#CHECKMATE

 

[ttwtt78640]

The social unrest that is a result of dark money with a political message filtering into our country.

Without providing some specific examples, that seems like partisan BS.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It would not be a government agency, but congress itself. And the problem is that corporations should never have the rights of citizens, never. There is nothing in the constitution that give them that right, only some loony justices on q court that is now a GOP controlled court. If there is something in the constitution that says that corporations should have the same rights as citizens, please point it out.

Hmm… does taxation without representation ring a bell? The idea that corporate, union, NGO or other group (funded) speech is not constitutionally protected speech is rather bizarre.

I see that you failed to answer: why should “news” corporations be allowed to address political matters (close to election time by the FEC) yet others should not?

 

[vanceen]

Let's take an example. The New York times is corporation. So in your opinion they shouldn't have 1st amendment rightsbecause each of the individual writers have 1A protections. So let's say a politician, we will call him Frump, is then able to ban news corporations since they are no longer protected by 1A. The writers no longer have a profession or a means to publish their work. So while they have still have 1A rights, in actuality 1A has been severly chilled.


So where are we now with corporate 1st amendment rights?

That's a good counter-example, and it's led me to consider and qualify some of what I said above.

I think there's two answers, a narrow one and a broad one.

The narrow answer is that Citizens United concerns itself specifically with political donations as speech. It would be entirely possible for an amendment to forbid political donations on behalf of corporations and unions (as the McCain-Feingold law did), but not to touch the liberty of organizations to express themselves in political speech.

A broader answer would take into consideration exactly when it is the corporate person acting and when it is individuals or groups of individuals. I think it can be reasonably argued that an editorial in the NYT is not the corporate person speaking, but from individuals in its employ. In fact, the product of the NYT is reporting and opinions, all from individuals. I realize that this is a bit philosophical and abstract, and it's probably not necessary to take into account as long as only cash contributions from organizations are excluded from free speech protections.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's a good counter-example, and it's led me to consider and qualify some of what I said above.

I think there's two answers, a narrow one and a broad one.

The narrow answer is that Citizens United concerns itself specifically with political donations as speech. It would be entirely possible for an amendment to forbid political donations on behalf of corporations and unions (as the McCain-Feingold law did), but not to touch the liberty of organizations to express themselves in political speech.

A broader answer would take into consideration exactly when it is the corporate person acting and when it is individuals or groups of individuals. I think it can be reasonably argued that an editorial in the NYT is not the corporate person speaking, but from individuals in its employ. In fact, the product of the NYT is reporting and opinions, all from individuals. I realize that this is a bit philosophical and abstract, and it's probably not necessary to take into account as long as only cash contributions from organizations are excluded from free speech protections.

Who, exactly, did CU donate to? When advertisers buy time from “news” providers are they not directly contributing to support that “news” provider’s program content?

 

[vanceen]

Who, exactly, did CU donate to? When advertisers buy time from “news” providers are they not directly contributing to support that “news” provider’s program content?

It's pretty easy to make a legal distinction between paying for a product and making a cash contribution.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The real issue with citizens united though is how it killed transparency in how ads are paid for, which has allowed money to flow into our elections from other countries.

Foreigners buy advertising from US “news” corporations (as well as own stock in them), should those “news” corporations be banned from any speech deemed to be political within 30 days of any primary election or within 60 days of the general election? I’m getting tired of the idea that CU’s political speech was ‘icky’ (thus should be banned), but that MSNBC and Fox News can say whatever they feel like.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's pretty easy to make a legal distinction between paying for a product and making a cash contribution.

The product of CU was a movie about Hillary. What is the product of MSNBC or Fox News?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Foreigners buy advertising from US “news” corporations (as well as own stock in them), should those “news” corporations be banned from any speech deemed to be political within 30 days of any primary election or within 60 days of the general election? I’m getting tired of the idea that CU’s political speech was ‘icky’ (thus should be banned), but that MSNBC and Fox News can say whatever they feel like.

News is a completely different topic, I am not sure why you would be conflating the two.

 

[ttwtt78640]

News is a completely different topic, I am not sure why you would be conflating the two.

If you can’t see political bias in the news, as well as loads of political option being presented by “news” media corporations then you are simply blind. IIRC, the “news” corporations talked about the anti-Hillary movie quite a bit.

The “news” also talked about the Hunter Biden laptop content. Not much of that “news” reporting was ‘just the facts’ - most of it was ‘news analysis’ (aka opinion).

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

We don't need an amendment, a bill on campaign finance would suffice.

And the argument that money is pseech is bullshit. It's illegal to bribe people, why is that not considered freedom of speech? But buying politicians, even if foreign money, is not? Seriously, its not based on law, its based on pro corporate hacks that SCOTUS has become.

Anyway, wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have republican blocking needed legislation.