# 3 Reasons Not To Sweat The "Citizens United" SCOTUS Ruling **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 9, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328 "2010-02-09T20:52:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/21 "2010-02-09T23:21:29Z")
The point is very simple. It’s the same reason we have two houses of Congress. We don’t want any one group of people to have more power than another. The problem is, while the individuals who make up a corporation may have differing views, the corporation is using the work of all those people to make it’s own separate point. If corporations were somewhat democratic, then the result would be democratic. But it isn’t. The CEO has the power of every single person under him in the form of their money. And finally, I stick with my old standby. If you admit something is unfair, it is your responsibility to do something about it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/22 "2010-02-09T23:30:49Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > 1. This really shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Corporations regularly donate to both parties, and in [2008](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) Obama received more corporate donations than McCain. That’s cherry picking. > [@](#): > > Obama has helped to change the direction of corporate giving. By late July, the political action committees of American companies had contributed almost $214 million to the Democrats and Republicans. For the first time in over two decades, the cash was evenly divided: Each party received roughly $107 million. > > Traditionally Democrats have always lagged in attracting money from business. During the 1996 election cycle, for instance, Republicans received almost 73 percent of corporate donations while Democrats received 27 percent, according to the Federal Election Commission. > > This uneven ratio persisted almost up to the present. In the last presidential election, in 2004, Republicans received close to 68 percent of the money that businesses gave. > > SOURCE: [http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/379678\_campaignfundsonline19.html](http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/379678_campaignfundsonline19.html) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/23 "2010-02-10T01:11:01Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Democracy has a big problem: you let half the population, with an IQ of under 100, have an equal vote to the smartest guy in the country. > > Extremists on both sides have always wanted to manage the idiot voter under the assumption that he or she is too stupid to make an independent decision. > > \ > > We get who we vote for and most of the time we vote for whoever is going to line our local pockets, be it Mr Murtha or Ms Landrieu. However, we the people do **not** get to decide which names appear on the ballot for us to choose among. That is determined by a lot of factors, but mainly by the [wealth primary.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_primary) You are missing the point, which is not that the people cannot be trusted with the final decision, but that the wealthy cannot be trusted with the preliminary gatekeeping decisions. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/24 "2010-02-10T01:19:56Z")
Personally, I’ve always wanted to see some type of voucher system for political candidates. If you vote in the last election, you get a voucher that you can donate to the candidate(s) of your choice. Theoretically, this would at least make it possible for someone to run a campaign without being beholden to any particular set of donors. The voucher levels could be adjusted to match corporate spending if it became clear that they weren’t useful. I think this also has the added benefit of providing an incentive to vote. This solution would hopefully help to reduce corporate rent-seeking. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/25 "2010-02-10T01:33:06Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > If corporations were somewhat democratic, then the result would be democratic. But it isn’t. The CEO has the power of every single person under him in the form of their money. If only there was a way that the people of the corporation could get to choose their CEO. If only… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/26 "2010-02-10T03:02:37Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > If only there was a way that the people of the corporation could get to choose their CEO. If only… Begs the question of who are “the people of the corporation.” ---
**Author:** ![IClaudius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c37758/32.png) [@IClaudius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IClaudius)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/27 "2010-02-10T03:38:05Z")
> **[The "Devastating" Decision | Ronald Dworkin](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/02/25/the-devastating-decision/)** > > Against the opposition of their four colleagues, five right-wing Supreme Court justices have now guaranteed that big corporations can spend unlimited > [@](#): > > The Court has given lobbyists, already much too powerful, a nuclear weapon. Some lawyers have predicted that corporations will not take full advantage of it: they will want to keep their money for their business. But that would still permit carefully targeted threats. What legislator tempted to vote for health care reform or Obama’s banking reorganization would be indifferent to the prospect that his reelection campaign could be swamped in a tsunami of expensive negative advertising? How many corporations fearful of environmental or product liability litigation would pass up the chance to tip the balance in a state judicial election? Most apologists for Citizens United ignore the full implications of the decision in terms of silent constraints on politicians, who change their behaviour out of fear intervention, as opposed to explicit intervention. But the calculus of making hard decisions and standing up to special interests just got a lot harder. Essentially the only thing checking this increase in corporate power in the political sphere would be requirements set by Congress for disclosures and disclaimers. And that is hardly a comforting solution in this day and age of Byzantine corporate groups and shell companies. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/28 "2010-02-10T04:18:55Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > [The "Devastating" Decision | Ronald Dworkin | The New York Review of Books](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23678) > > Most apologists for Citizens United ignore the full implications of the decision in terms of silent constraints on politicians, who change their behaviour out of fear intervention, as opposed to explicit intervention. But the calculus of making hard decisions and standing up to special interests just got a lot harder. And you seem to be missing the point that the Supreme Court doesn’t decide cases based on good results or bad results, they decide cases based on what is constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/29 "2010-02-10T04:58:33Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > And you seem to be missing the point that the Supreme Court doesn’t decide cases based on good results or bad results, they decide cases based on what is constitutional. And you seem to be missing the point that the Constitution is never perfect, and can always be changed, as [Christopher Dodd is trying to do.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/chris-dodd-seeks-consitut_n_450015.html) ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/30 "2010-02-10T05:12:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And you seem to be missing the point that the Constitution is never perfect, and can always be changed, as [Christopher Dodd is trying to do.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/chris-dodd-seeks-consitut_n_450015.html) And you seem to have made a complete non-rebuttal because you watched Colbert and got super excited. ---
**Author:** ![IClaudius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c37758/32.png) [@IClaudius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IClaudius)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/31 "2010-02-10T05:28:06Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > And you seem to be missing the point that the Supreme Court doesn’t decide cases based on good results or bad results, they decide cases based on what is constitutional. If you’d bothered to click on the link I posted, rather than just making up total conjecture about the sum total of my reasons for opposing the decision, you’d read a lengthy piece by a noted legal academic about the legal flaws in the majority’s decision. Dworkin touches on the various precedents that Citizens United overturns and he is scathing in his assessment of the majority claim to be restoring earlier precedent, citing Stevens dissent with approval. Honestly, read more careful and conjecture less. There’s nothing wrong with discussing the policy implications of a major legal change brought forth by a case, but I actually linked to a legal discussion as well which just makes you look foolish. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/32 "2010-02-10T18:41:39Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > And you seem to be missing the point that the Supreme Court doesn’t decide cases based on good results or bad results, they decide cases based on what is constitutional. Which is why it was 5 to 4 after the Bush’s stacking the court with conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/33 "2010-02-10T20:13:37Z")
Thanks for the excerpts, BrainGlutton. That is just the thing I was hoping to be able to reference in future conversations. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/34 "2010-02-10T20:49:07Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > 1. This really shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Corporations regularly donate to both parties, and in [2008](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) Obama received more corporate donations than McCain. From the second sentence in your link: > [@](#): > > The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. When individuals donate money, one of the questions asked is, “Who is your employer?” I donated a hundred bucks to Obama in 2008… but that doesn’t mean that Sony Entertainment donated a hundred bucks. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/35 "2010-02-10T22:44:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > However, we the people do **not** get to decide which names appear on the ballot for us to choose among. That is determined by a lot of factors, but mainly by the [wealth primary.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_primary) You are missing the point, which is not that the people cannot be trusted with the final decision, but that the wealthy cannot be trusted with the preliminary gatekeeping decisions. I guess I’m thinking we get to vote in primaries (the preliminary gatekeeping decisions) as well, and the major reason most of us don’t is shear laziness. Sure, parties choose nominees. But the opportunity to become part of that process as well is open to all. I just don’t buy into the construct of a big bad system run by the wealthy cabal. I blame my own inaction and laziness. The way to get elected around here is to work hard raising support and promise chickens and healthcare in every local pot, funded with public money from St Elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/36 "2010-02-12T17:16:14Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Thanks for the excerpts, BrainGlutton. That is just the thing I was hoping to be able to reference in future conversations. I have issues with the Dworkin piece. Foremost is that while he harps on the fact that the Supreme Court has taken a too-favorable view of the First Amendment rights of corporations vis-a-vis their election activities, he avails himself of the facilities of a corporation (the New York Review of Books) to publish this viewpoint. Why should some corporations be favored in their communications roles and other corporations be punished for it or prevented from doing so? That doesn’t wash with me. The First Amendment wasn’t written to protect media companies or journalists - it was written to recognize freedoms all of us possess. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/37 "2010-02-12T17:22:11Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > 1. This really shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Corporations regularly donate to both parties, and in [2008](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) Obama received more corporate donations than McCain. We agree on this much. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/38 "2010-02-12T17:23:50Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I have issues with the Dworkin piece. Foremost is that while he harps on the fact that the Supreme Court has taken a too-favorable view of the First Amendment rights of corporations vis-a-vis their election activities, he avails himself of the facilities of a corporation (the New York Review of Books) to publish this viewpoint. :dubious: You can’t possibly believe that is in any way relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/39 "2010-02-12T17:46:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: You can’t possibly believe that is in any way relevant. Sure I do - since the treatment of media companies vis-a-vis the First Amendment was an explicit part of the reasoning in the decision itself - and I am in some agreement with it: > [@](#): > > It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment , and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. Austin interferes with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment . New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres , 552 U. S. 196 . Its censorship is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit, both small and large, corporations. Pp. 32–40. [Here.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328/40 "2010-02-12T18:12:50Z")
Even if I wasn’t in agreement with this point, it would be nice for critics of the decision to address it. They seldom do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-scotus-ruling/528328.md?page=3)