Citizens United

[turnandshoot4]

Was it a good decision?

A bad one?

Why?

Wiki link for those that don't know what it is.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would say that it is a good decision. On one hand, I don't like the idea of allowing special interest groups collectively or severally buying elections by dominating the information (correct or otherwise) made available to voters, but then again, when the federal government gets involved in abridging free speech (which itself is categorically unconstitutional) it inevitably will be crafted in such a way as to silence one side of the argument while leaving the other relatively unaffected. I would much rather have everyone entitled to all the voice they can afford.

 

[eatsnopaste]

I'll go along with "everyone" but I don't believe that PAC's or Corporations are people. They don't deserve the same rights as individuals. If the corporation I work for throws humongous amounts of money towards a candidate it wants elected, then the CEO and the other members of the board exercise their free speech right and do likewise...doesn't that negate my speech? Or at least drown it out?

 

[shibumiseeker]

The day we made corporations people was the day we officially acknowledged we are a corporatocracy. We've been one for a long time, but at least we're being honest about it now.

Next corporations will be running for office instead of just running the offices.

 

[Denny347]

Corporations will decide elections. He who has the biggest budget will likely get elected.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Corporations will decide elections. He who has the biggest budget will likely get elected.

"Money is the mother's milk of politics." As long as advertising in news media - or any other medium for that matter - is allowed, money will be a big issue in elections. Before the Citizens United decision, corporations were limited in their donations, but unions were not; where is the "fairness" in that?

Offhand, I can't think of a way that money will not be an influence in politics, whether it's being used for election advertising or being used in various ways to influence politicians and bureaucrats at all levels of government. Any time money is involved there will be some way to manage accumulations so as to provide political leverage, whether it's superPACs, unions collecting dues, or grassroots political fundraising. While you'd think the latter would be the most "fair" means of funding politics, how would it be more "fair" in practice when it wouldn't change much other than (possibly) the dollar amount of the funding provided?

 

[CarmelHP]

The day we made corporations people was the day we officially acknowledged we are a corporatocracy. We've been one for a long time, but at least we're being honest about it now.

Next corporations will be running for office instead of just running the offices.

Citizens United did not address corporate personhood. It addressed whether corporations, as associations of individuals, have speech rights derived from those individuals. Noone said that corporations are natural person that could vote or hold office. The Court held to an expansive First Amendment view that more speech is better, and the marketplace of ideas should be allowed to sort out which speech is good and which is bad, not the government. The public should be allowed to decide who to listen to, and the government shouldn't be in the game to decide what is fair, or deciding that PACs were bad corporations and unions were good corporations.

I think the Court's decision is absolutely correct.

 

[KLB]

Citizens United did not address corporate personhood. It addressed whether corporations, as associations of individuals, have speech rights derived from those individuals. Noone said that corporations are natural person that could vote or hold office. The Court held to an expansive First Amendment view that more speech is better, and the marketplace of ideas should be allowed to sort out which speech is good and which is bad, not the government. The public should be allowed to decide who to listen to, and the government shouldn't be in the game to decide what is fair, or deciding that PACs were bad corporations and unions were good corporations.

I think the Court's decision is absolutely correct.

+1

 

[CampingJosh]

I'll go along with "everyone" but I don't believe that PAC's or Corporations are people. They don't deserve the same rights as individuals. If the corporation I work for throws humongous amounts of money towards a candidate it wants elected, then the CEO and the other members of the board exercise their free speech right and do likewise...doesn't that negate my speech? Or at least drown it out?

Huh?

Corporations are pretty stinking common in the US. I have friends who are the sole stock holders in multiple corporations (mostly LLCs). Incorporating a business is simply a way to protect people and money. If the owner can't use the money inside a corporation as she chooses, do we have private property?

Would we argue that the New York Times (a corporation) doesn't have freedom to engage in political speech? Would it make sense for me to complain that their speech negates or drowns out my free speech?

Either all companies must be allowed to participate in the political speech arena, or none must be. And we're way too far along to make it none.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'll go along with "everyone" but I don't believe that PAC's or Corporations are people. They don't deserve the same rights as individuals. If the corporation I work for throws humongous amounts of money towards a candidate it wants elected, then the CEO and the other members of the board exercise their free speech right and do likewise...doesn't that negate my speech? Or at least drown it out?

1. The PACs and Corporations you mention are associations of people who cannot reasonably be expected to forfeit their rights by virtue of a group association.

2. Would you prefer to have a one-sided narrative presented by teh leftist media and money from groups deemed acceptable, like unions for example? Sometimes tehy are exempted and sometimes not, but the rest of us are NEVER exempted when it comes to legislatively-mandated muzzling.

 

[level.eleven]

Middle class, republican masochism. Sometimes you just have to shake your head.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Middle class, republican masochism. Sometimes you just have to shake your head.

?

What do you mean by that?

 

[Tsigos]

Would we argue that the New York Times (a corporation) doesn't have freedom to engage in political speech? Would it make sense for me to complain that their speech negates or drowns out my free speech?

The New York Times is a news outlet and is also responsible to its readership and customers. An anonymous corporation formed for the purpose of allowing individuals to make false accusations with repercussions is different. This is not a right/left issue. Money's influence harms everyone.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The New York Times is a news outlet and is also responsible to its readership and customers. An anonymous corporation formed for the purpose of allowing individuals to make false accusations with repercussions is different. This is not a right/left issue. Money's influence harms everyone.

How do you suggest we take the money out of politics? Keep in mind that, in many ways, politics is all about money: who has it; who wants it; who will do what for it.

 

[Tsigos]

How do you suggest we take the money out of politics? Keep in mind that, in many ways, politics is all about money: who has it; who wants it; who will do what for it.

Personal contributions only with a cap on maximum contributions. Make it more about inspiring the public to make small contributions than inspiring big money donors.

 

[spearheadersarge]

The New York Times is a news outlet and is also responsible to its readership and customers. An anonymous corporation formed for the purpose of allowing individuals to make false accusations with repercussions is different. This is not a right/left issue. Money's influence harms everyone.

Yeah Right! The NYT is nothing more than a liberal rag! Their declining readership confirms it! They have been bleeding red ink for years due to their strict adherence to the democratic party line/talking points. News reporting is a far distant second to all who work there. Unions and the lamestream media have most communications in a stranglehold. If not for ths decision and the internet, relatively few opposing views would ever be heard. Thanks for FOX news being about the only conservative view available!

 

[CampingJosh]

The New York Times is a news outlet and is also responsible to its readership and customers. An anonymous corporation formed for the purpose of allowing individuals to make false accusations with repercussions is different. This is not a right/left issue. Money's influence harms everyone.

There are no anonymous corporations. Everything is publicly filed. You can go look it up.
All corporations are responsible to their owners and customers. News outlets are not unique in that aspect.
And crimes committed "by a corporation" are still crimes, and the people responsible can still be prosecuted. All the repercussions are still there.

Without money in the system, there is no way to use your free speech.

 

[Hoosier8]

I think everyone has the right to hear all views, no matter who is paying for them.

What has been the most damaging thing to happen in this elections cycle so far? Has it been the money spent? I don't think so, millions have been spent and the percentages have stayed relatively the same.

The most damage has been done when a candidate opens his/her mouth. Obama off teleprompter speaking his mind about business, Reid with his apparent lie about Romney not paying taxes, Romney not always sounding like he is in tune. They do more damage opening their mouths than all the money spent.

Let these idiots spend all they want, besides, they are creating jobs. Give people enough credit to make up their own minds.

CU was a proper decision, the government should not be in the business to tell us what is or isn't proper political speech.

 

[Tsigos]

There are no anonymous corporations. Everything is publicly filed. You can go look it up.

You are mistaken. Corporations that trade on the stock exchange are public but there are millions of non-public corporations that have no obligation to disclose their shareholders, board of directors or officers. You can go look it up.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You are mistaken. Corporations that trade on the stock exchange are public but there are millions of non-public corporations that have no obligation to disclose their shareholders, board of directors or officers. You can go look it up.

Their political contributions are public as the candidates are required to file quarterly paperwork accounting for the sources of their campaign money. I don't think claiming to have scooped up $10M passing the hat at the county fair is going to fly.