Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

(Wikipedia article)

(decision)

I'm in agreement with this decision. There's no reason to bar political speech just because it is paid speech or who the speaker is, yet the voters should be aware who is paying. Thomas' hyperlibertarian dissent to Part IV of Kennedy's opinion is to be expected, yet ignores that there are remedies for threats to life and limb because of one's political views.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support the decision as well. McCain-Feingold is nothing more then an incumbency protection bill. I am glad a section of that has been declared unconstitutional.

[Purple State]

I'm not yet familiar enough with campaign finance law to form an opinion of the decision or the ramifications of the decision, but I do hope that Congress passes a law so that political speech by corporations is subject to the same rules as those by political individuals.

As a quick example, if Goldman Sachs wants to run an ad for Candidate X, the ad should have to include Lloyd Blankfein saying, "I am Lloyd Bankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and I approve this message."

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not yet familiar enough with campaign finance law to form an opinion of the decision or the ramifications of the decision, but I do hope that Congress passes a law so that political speech by corporations is subject to the same rules as those by political individuals.

As a quick example, if Goldman Sachs wants to run an ad for Candidate X, the ad should have to include Lloyd Blankfein saying, "I am Lloyd Bankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and I approve this message."

I would support that. I also think we should have next day full disclosure on the internet of all campaign donations.

Other then that, I would oppose any restrictions on fundraising.

If Five or Six Millionaries want to fund an anti-War candidate for President like Gene McCarthy in 1968, they should be able to. Just require them to put it on the internet the next day, that
George Soros gave them $12 Million, Warren Buffet gave that person $10 Million and so on.

If Jon Corzine can buy the Governorship of New Jersey or Meg Whitman the Governorship of California. Then a middle class candidate should be able to get support from Conservative or Liberal donors larger then 2,500 a cycle. Its a simple case of fairness.

If Unions can campaign for Card Check, The corporations should be able to campaign against it.

If environmental groups can promote their debatable theory as the undeniable fact. Oil companies should be able to respond by pointing out that it is questionable.

If GE can promote Altnerative energy and its gov't subsidies by promoting Global Warming via MSNBC then oil companies should be able to promote offshore oil drilling.

It is also not surprising that the people most pissed off about this are Liberal Democrats even though Unions would on paper benefit from this rulling.

[pbrower2a]

Unmitigated disaster.

Corporate funding will overpower all other political discussion, and the only politicians capable of winning will be either corporate stooges or those few who represent ultra-safe Democratic districts.

With complete control of legislatures, the government will eventually represent wealth instead of people, much as happened in Mussolini's Italy. We might not have a strutting poseur like Mussolini, but we might have corporations gaining the power to do such things as form private militias that will make the Bloods and Crips look like elementary students resorting to their fists.  

The Supreme Court ruling has all but disenfranchised anyone not a millionaire even if the process will take fully four years to show its fullest ugliness. If you think that Dred Scott was bad, that one at least spared the majority of Americans the fullest effects of tyranny. By no means do I trivialize the nastiness of Dred Scott to blacks -- they had little to lose in 1857 as things were.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not yet familiar enough with campaign finance law to form an opinion of the decision or the ramifications of the decision, but I do hope that Congress passes a law so that political speech by corporations is subject to the same rules as those by political individuals.

As a quick example, if Goldman Sachs wants to run an ad for Candidate X, the ad should have to include Lloyd Blankfein saying, "I am Lloyd Bankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and I approve this message."

Part IV of Kennedy's opinion, which was supported 8-1, addressed that issue and corporations do have disclosure requirements.  Thomas, who dissented from that part of Kennedy's opinion, also prefers uniformity in treatment, but with everyone allowed to be anonymous.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unmitigated disaster.

Corporate funding will overpower all other political discussion, and the only politicians capable of winning will be either corporate stooges or those few who represent ultra-safe Democratic districts.

With complete control of legislatures, the government will eventually represent wealth instead of people, much as happened in Mussolini's Italy. We might not have a strutting poseur like Mussolini, but we might have corporations gaining the power to do such things as form private militias that will make the Bloods and Crips look like elementary students resorting to their fists.  

The Supreme Court ruling has all but disenfranchised anyone not a millionaire even if the process will take fully four years to show its fullest ugliness. If you think that Dred Scott was bad, that one at least spared the majority of Americans the fullest effects of tyranny. By no means do I trivialize the nastiness of Dred Scott to blacks -- they had little to lose in 1857 as things were.

This will move us back to the days when you could have rapid swings in the party composition of the House and Senate.

With the exception of wave years. 80% to 90% of incumbents are safe. The big problem has been fundraising. The second big problem is gerrymandering.

If you require full disclosure, what do you guys fear so much about this? Most companies won't back candidates for fear of losing customers. They will however run commericials educating and encouraging support for policies.

I would much prefer Rich people donating to campaigns that have an incumber have 10-1 fundraising advantage and never have to be held accountable to the voters. As I said, Gene McCarthy was backed by a few rich people and he drove LBJ out of the race by doing so well in NH.

[pbrower2a]

Unmitigated disaster.

Corporate funding will overpower all other political discussion, and the only politicians capable of winning will be either corporate stooges or those few who represent ultra-safe Democratic districts.

With complete control of legislatures, the government will eventually represent wealth instead of people, much as happened in Mussolini's Italy. We might not have a strutting poseur like Mussolini, but we might have corporations gaining the power to do such things as form private militias that will make the Bloods and Crips look like elementary students resorting to their fists.  

The Supreme Court ruling has all but disenfranchised anyone not a millionaire even if the process will take fully four years to show its fullest ugliness. If you think that Dred Scott was bad, that one at least spared the majority of Americans the fullest effects of tyranny. By no means do I trivialize the nastiness of Dred Scott to blacks -- they had little to lose in 1857 as things were.

This will move us back to the days when you could have rapid swings in the party composition of the House and Senate.

With the exception of wave years. 80% to 90% of incumbents are safe. The big problem has been fundraising. The second big problem is gerrymandering.

If you require full disclosure, what do you guys fear so much about this? Most companies won't back candidates for fear of losing customers. They will however run commericials educating and encouraging support for policies.

I would much prefer Rich people donating to campaigns that have an incumber have 10-1 fundraising advantage and never have to be held accountable to the voters. As I said, Gene McCarthy was backed by a few rich people and he drove LBJ out of the race by doing so well in NH.

This is far worse.

Freedom of speech does not mean the right to a pliant audience, the right to monopolize the media, or the right to drown out alternatives, let alone to slander at will.  Corporate America just won those dubious rights, and it now has the potential to kill democracy. Gross inequality of freedom of speech implies the absence of the freedom of speech.

Politicians will be accountable only to the interests who buy their campaigns, and once those interests buy those campaigns the politicians will remain bought.  If you think incumbency is a problem now, then wait until the only people who can get elected have the predominant cash behind them -- and employers end up with the right to fire people who support the "wrong" politician. There will be political freedom to oppose the leadership, which will become increasingly servile to giant corporations at the expense of everyone else.

Giant businesses will use their legislative power to get even more authority -- including perhaps the "right" to form militias that use deadly force on strikers. After all, workers have the duty to work 70-80 hour workweeks for the bare essence of survival, right?  Such will be the decision of tycoons and executives when they have nothing to fear from democratic opposition.  And if you think that small business will be a viable option, then think again; giant corporations will push legislation that destroys such competition. 

This decision will not cause the immediate cessation of democracy in America, but it could bring about its effective end as early as November. The House and Senate could end up with enough seats filled with enough myrmidons in the Reichstag or Supreme SovietCongress even to impeach in turn Barack Obama and Joseph Biden for strictly-political grounds.

There will be no book burnings; most people will be lacking the money with which to buy books, or even with the aid of the public library, the time in which to read them. There will be no mass rallies;  those take time from toil. Thugs on the street to rough up opponents? The opponents will have nothing to live for but cheap booze. 

Corporate America has behaved badly over the last few decades, and given unlimited power it will act even more atrociously.

Bad as Dred Scott was,  it was nullified in eight years.

I am ready to become a citizen of the Republic of Michigan.

[Franzl]

Giant businesses will use their legislative power to get even more authority -- including perhaps the "right" to form militias that use deadly force on strikers. After all, workers have the duty to work 70-80 hour workweeks for the bare essence of survival, right?  Such will be the decision of tycoons and executives when they have nothing to fear from democratic opposition.  And if you think that small business will be a viable option, then think again; giant corporations will push legislation that destroys such competition. 

This decision will not cause the immediate cessation of democracy in America, but it could bring about its effective end as early as November. The House and Senate could end up with enough seats filled with enough myrmidons in the Reichstag or Supreme SovietCongress even to impeach in turn Barack Obama and Joseph Biden for strictly-political grounds.

And you're sure you don't have any mental problems?

[Sam Spade]

I basically agree with you on the opinion.  I also agree with requiring disclosure for corporations.

[The Duke]

Is there anyone here who still is foolish enough to believe that you can get money out of politics?  I mean other than pbrower?

I wonder, pbrower, would you ban newspapers, tv channels and radio stations from publishing editorial content?  Isn't an editorial by a large media conglomerate corporate funding of political speech?

If you ban spending on politics by corporations, you don't end the ability of corporations to engage ins peech.  You just advantage certain corporations (Media conglomerates) over others.  A company can't buy a 30 second tv spot, but they can buy a tv station and run eidtorials all day?  A citizens actions group can afford a 30 second tv ad to compete with corporate speech, but McCain-Feingold would bar them from doing so.  A citizen's group cannot buy a tv station to compete with editorial content from Viacom and General Electric.  I don't think you and you allies have thought through the consequences of what you propose.  You just rail about corporate power, as if that were and argument.

[You kip if you want to...]

I don't know any big specifics about the ruling, but it seems like a horrific decision.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unmitigated disaster.

Corporate funding will overpower all other political discussion, and the only politicians capable of winning will be either corporate stooges or those few who represent ultra-safe Democratic districts.

With complete control of legislatures, the government will eventually represent wealth instead of people, much as happened in Mussolini's Italy. We might not have a strutting poseur like Mussolini, but we might have corporations gaining the power to do such things as form private militias that will make the Bloods and Crips look like elementary students resorting to their fists.  

The Supreme Court ruling has all but disenfranchised anyone not a millionaire even if the process will take fully four years to show its fullest ugliness. If you think that Dred Scott was bad, that one at least spared the majority of Americans the fullest effects of tyranny. By no means do I trivialize the nastiness of Dred Scott to blacks -- they had little to lose in 1857 as things were.

This will move us back to the days when you could have rapid swings in the party composition of the House and Senate.

With the exception of wave years. 80% to 90% of incumbents are safe. The big problem has been fundraising. The second big problem is gerrymandering.

If you require full disclosure, what do you guys fear so much about this? Most companies won't back candidates for fear of losing customers. They will however run commericials educating and encouraging support for policies.

I would much prefer Rich people donating to campaigns that have an incumber have 10-1 fundraising advantage and never have to be held accountable to the voters. As I said, Gene McCarthy was backed by a few rich people and he drove LBJ out of the race by doing so well in NH.

This is far worse.

Freedom of speech does not mean the right to a pliant audience, the right to monopolize the media, or the right to drown out alternatives, let alone to slander at will.  Corporate America just won those dubious rights, and it now has the potential to kill democracy. Gross inequality of freedom of speech implies the absence of the freedom of speech.

Politicians will be accountable only to the interests who buy their campaigns, and once those interests buy those campaigns the politicians will remain bought.  If you think incumbency is a problem now, then wait until the only people who can get elected have the predominant cash behind them -- and employers end up with the right to fire people who support the "wrong" politician. There will be political freedom to oppose the leadership, which will become increasingly servile to giant corporations at the expense of everyone else.

Giant businesses will use their legislative power to get even more authority -- including perhaps the "right" to form militias that use deadly force on strikers. After all, workers have the duty to work 70-80 hour workweeks for the bare essence of survival, right?  Such will be the decision of tycoons and executives when they have nothing to fear from democratic opposition.  And if you think that small business will be a viable option, then think again; giant corporations will push legislation that destroys such competition.  

This decision will not cause the immediate cessation of democracy in America, but it could bring about its effective end as early as November. The House and Senate could end up with enough seats filled with enough myrmidons in the Reichstag or Supreme SovietCongress even to impeach in turn Barack Obama and Joseph Biden for strictly-political grounds.

There will be no book burnings; most people will be lacking the money with which to buy books, or even with the aid of the public library, the time in which to read them. There will be no mass rallies;  those take time from toil. Thugs on the street to rough up opponents? The opponents will have nothing to live for but cheap booze.  

Corporate America has behaved badly over the last few decades, and given unlimited power it will act even more atrociously.

Bad as Dred Scott was,  it was nullified in eight years.

I am ready to become a citizen of the Republic of Michigan.

You need help.

First off, Corporations are not going to back candidates because they don't want to risk losing customers. They will back ideas and issues like drilling off shore, investments in Alternative energy, etc, etc.

Second these people are already buying Candidates. Last year, Obama called John McCain, Exxon John. Do you want to know who actually got more money from Exxon, BARACK OBAMA, thats where the change we can beleive in went by the way. They do it through bundling and through personal contributions from the Executives of the Corporations, so technically they aren't directly from the corporation. But the idea that we are not currenltly awash in money is reall, really LOL.

Lastly, did you know, that pryor to 1972, political donations were completely, unregulated. It didn't stip Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ from acheiving progressive reforms. In 1968, Gene McCarthy, the anti-War Senator who drove LBJ out of the 1968 Presidential race, was bank rolled by 5 or 6 millionaries out of California who were tired of Vietnam War.

[Beet]

It's impossible for the vast majority of people to understand what this decision really means right now. It'll be 15 or 20 years before the full impact begins to be apparent. By that time I expect the skepticism towards this decision will be much greater. But for now it's as if the Supreme Court struck down laws against child labor. "Child labor? What's that? Why's that so bad?"

[Sam Spade]

It's impossible for the vast majority of people to understand what this decision really means right now. It'll be 15 or 20 years before the full impact begins to be apparent. By that time I expect the skepticism towards this decision will be much greater. But for now it's as if the Supreme Court struck down laws against child labor. "Child labor? What's that? Why's that so bad?"

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.  I'm really surprised to see you say this.

[Beet]

It's impossible for the vast majority of people to understand what this decision really means right now. It'll be 15 or 20 years before the full impact begins to be apparent. By that time I expect the skepticism towards this decision will be much greater. But for now it's as if the Supreme Court struck down laws against child labor. "Child labor? What's that? Why's that so bad?"

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.  I'm really surprised to see you say this.

Why?

[Sam Spade]

It's impossible for the vast majority of people to understand what this decision really means right now. It'll be 15 or 20 years before the full impact begins to be apparent. By that time I expect the skepticism towards this decision will be much greater. But for now it's as if the Supreme Court struck down laws against child labor. "Child labor? What's that? Why's that so bad?"

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.  I'm really surprised to see you say this.

Why?

Because it's hyperbole to the most extreme extent in terms of effect.  Legally, the Supreme Court's decision was correct here - I can't make the same argument about the child labor cases (or the minimum wage cases, etc..)

[Beet]

It's impossible for the vast majority of people to understand what this decision really means right now. It'll be 15 or 20 years before the full impact begins to be apparent. By that time I expect the skepticism towards this decision will be much greater. But for now it's as if the Supreme Court struck down laws against child labor. "Child labor? What's that? Why's that so bad?"

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.  I'm really surprised to see you say this.

Why?

Because it's hyperbole to the most extreme extent in terms of effect.  Legally, the Supreme Court's decision was correct here - I can't make the same argument about the child labor cases (or the minimum wage cases, etc..)

Maybe. The point is just that people intellectually know this is a huge decision. But that's not the same as years or decades of evidence of the decision's effects on politics and policies, and the real stories, the real people, the real examples, that these decades of history present. People today understand that child labor is deeply wrong intellectually, but unless they've done some unconventional overseas tourism, they've never seen long lines of children manning assembly lines, never had their own children work instead of school, the idea seems distant, difficult to imagine.

The Justices of 1907 saw what unfettered corporate political speech meant; the Justices of 2010 never have.

[Sam Spade]

The Justices of 1907 saw what unfettered corporate political speech meant; the Justices of 2010 never have.

I simply disagree - legal interpretation of the extent of political free speech rights (whether individual or corporate) in 1907 were extremely limited in comparison to today (and had been considerably expanded in comparison to earlier periods in American history). 

In other words, you could spend as much money as you wanted but the manner in which you could spend your money in promoting ideas was quite limited.

I know where you're coming from - the idea that corporations had rights protected by the Constitution is a Lochnerian concept.  That being said, the weakness in the logic promoted by those against this decision is the assumption that corporations are not already deeply involved in political speech, if not driving it entirely.  Lest I return to the issue of Obama's campaign contributions as a classic problem with this theory.

Moreover, present campaign finance laws inevitably choose which corporations have enhanced political speech rights and which ones don't, not to mention encouraging corporations to find loopholes in the laws to circumvent such restrictions.  I honestly believe that this would even occur even in a highly regulated system which removed all money from politics.  So, we'll end up trying the other way - corporations can spend whatever they want, but will end up having to disclose information about who created the advertising and hopefully in the laws written, disclose all those persons behind the scenes.

[Beet]

You may well be right, Sam. Of course, the Justices of 1907 will not be able to see how Citizens United would affect the world of today.

But this just feeds back into my point that it is impossible for the vast majority if not anyone to fully appreciate what the effect of this case will be-- if, as in your own hypothesis, corporations are already as deeply embedded in political speech as possible and regulation is having little effect, then perhaps this decision will one day be seen as not the monumental case it is today. It will be like the Concorde or the Marlboro price cut of 1993- seen as landmark at the time, but in retrospect having little impact.

That's a possibility too.

My personal forebodings aren't particularly good-- yes, corporations will always try to find ways around restrictions, but that doesn't mean the restrictions are entirely ineffective. Even ineffective restrictions raise the cost of entry and limit the scope of action. The point though, is that we don't know.  But we would do well to keep a close watch.

[feedtheworld]

You know how it's easier to see from outside sometimes?  Like the other UK poster, it seems a stunning decision to me, and I really despair of seeing a great country doing these things to itself.  It's a strong blow to the idea of democracy, surely.  A fraction of a percentage of people with the power to have the loudest voice.  The process continues of making normal people's voices smaller and smaller as it becomes impossible to compete with people/corporations with the most buying/bribing power.  The internet had slightly done us all a favor by returning a voice to the masses (after television had been hijacked by people who wanted to force their opinions on people that couldn't talk back) - it still will have that power, and may be the tool that allows sense to prevail still.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know how it's easier to see from outside sometimes?  Like the other UK poster, it seems a stunning decision to me, and I really despair of seeing a great country doing these things to itself.  It's a strong blow to the idea of democracy, surely.  A fraction of a percentage of people with the power to have the loudest voice.  The process continues of making normal people's voices smaller and smaller as it becomes impossible to compete with people/corporations with the most buying/bribing power.  The internet had slightly done us all a favor by returning a voice to the masses (after television had been hijacked by people who wanted to force their opinions on people that couldn't talk back) - it still will have that power, and may be the tool that allows sense to prevail still.

Well we do have a little something called the Bill of Rights an in that is a Freedom of Speech and the freedom of Association clause. And thus the freedom of those associations as groups of individuals to speak freely.

[feedtheworld]

Sorry for the direct lifting from Wikipedia, but..

"First Amendment interpretation

Freedom of speech in the U.S. follows a graduated system, with different types of regulations subject to different levels of scrutiny in court challenges based on the First Amendment, often depending on the type of speech.

Types of Speech

Core Political Speech
This is the most highly guarded form of speech because of its purely expressive nature and importance to a functional democracy. Most simply, core political speech is interactive communications about political ideas or issues that are not motivated by profit."


So, I wonder how they will get past that last part, as that will be their motivation ultimately.  But excuse my not feeling confident that they won't be allowed to ride roughshod all over it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sorry for the direct lifting from Wikipedia, but..

"First Amendment interpretation

Freedom of speech in the U.S. follows a graduated system, with different types of regulations subject to different levels of scrutiny in court challenges based on the First Amendment, often depending on the type of speech.

Types of Speech

Core Political Speech
This is the most highly guarded form of speech because of its purely expressive nature and importance to a functional democracy. Most simply, core political speech is interactive communications about political ideas or issues that are not motivated by profit."


So, I wonder how they will get past that last part, as that will be their motivation ultimately.  But excuse my not feeling confident that they won't be allowed to ride roughshod all over it.

Because that is not what the Consitution says. The Courst job is to interpret the constitution and strike down any statutes or even previous Precedent(including previous interpretations) that ride roughshod over the "Constitution".

What the hell is that from, anyway, I have never seen that before? Its not the constitution thats for sure, and thats what matters not some unidentified text lifted from wikipedia.

[feedtheworld]

Yes about Wikipedia.. one leaves themselves wide open when using it without researching what they used.

However, does a thing really need to be written for people to display common decency?  I would suggest that thinly-veiled support of parties as a means to ensure future profits isn't decent, and that needs no constitution to know that.  Just a right-thinking mind.

And (I know I tried to use the Constitution as part of my argument, but that's because I know you all like to fall back on it to determine your morals when you need back-up), whoever gave people a right to tell people that haven't even been born yet, and had no choice WHERE they'd be born what's what... that seems very un-democratic to me, especially as it's main use seems to be getting mis-used by Republicans to further their own cause, which is possible only because it's outdated like them.  But I guess that's for another thread.