# Citizens United: How do other countries get around the problems?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [July 7, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699 "2017-07-07T15:26:31Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/21 "2017-07-07T19:59:17Z")
> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> Fair enough. And if there were laws written that didn’t limit the amount an individual could spend of his or her money, while simultaneously limiting it for corporations or other organization, then I would be for that. But I’m not for any law that could limit individuals to a dollar amount they could spend of their own money to promote or denigrate a candidate, which is what Canada seems to have. Again, I am open to being told I am reading the Canadian rules wrong.
Why is that so important to you?
---
### Author:  [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/22 "2017-07-07T20:14:18Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#):
>
> Why is that so important to you?
Why is what so important to me?
---
### Author:  [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/23 "2017-07-07T20:25:11Z")
> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> Why is what so important to me?
Being able to spend unlimited amounts of personal money to support political candidates?
---
### Author:  [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/24 "2017-07-07T20:41:57Z")
> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> So according to that, I can only spend $3,000 (give or take) to put signs on my yard to promote a candidate. After that, I can’t even buy a T-shirt with the candidates name on it. I’m glad we don’t have that system in the US.
Let’s take this to the other extreme: As a multimillionaire, you can spend a million bucks buying airtime for a candidate during the Superbowl. Another $20 million making a series of books and documentaries attacking them. Another $15 million hiring college kids to go door to door for you campaigning for their opponent, and another $10 million hiring lobbyists to wine & dine and win over lobbyists to your cause, let’s say textile industry regulations.
Come election day, your candidate wins by a landslide and passes a rider that grants your industry a huge reduction in trade tariffs and several new deductions for your tax bracket. They also roll back ethics rules, textbook oversight, DMV staffing, and clean water protections to help pay for those new breaks. You walk away $20 million richer than last year net, but the general public has suffered from your actions. Meanwhile, some dude in a small town is ecstatic that the tyrannical government didn’t stop him from printing 400 t-shirts instead of 150, with another 100 yard signs thrown in as a “fuck you”.
How is that good for democracy?
---
### Author:  [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/25 "2017-07-07T20:47:27Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#):
>
> Being able to spend unlimited amounts of personal money to support political candidates?
Because there’s no limit to the potential costs of producing and spreading political ideas? What if I want Michael Bay to produce and direct my summer blockbuster about Donald Trump? What if I want to air an ad critical of Congress during the Superbowl? What if I want to put a billboard up by every interstate highway on-ramp urging people to vote pro-choice? What if I want to buy every American a t-shirt that supports the Republican party? How can you justify banning those activities while claiming to support free speech?
---
### Author:  [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/26 "2017-07-07T20:53:05Z")
> [@Reply](#):
>
> [snip] … How is that good for democracy?
It’s not good for democracy … but it’s very good for capitalism …
I think you might have your ratios a bit wrong … if I spend $46m to get a candidate elected, and I only get back $66m in tax savings … I would look for a better candidate … I want a 10 to 1 return … that $46m should get me $460m in tax relief …
I’m creating minimum wage jobs in the luxury aircraft industry after all …
---
### Author:  [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/27 "2017-07-07T20:55:04Z")
> [@Reply](#):
>
> You walk away $20 million richer than last year net, but the general public has suffered from your actions.
>
> How is that good for democracy?
Citizens freely voted for the candidate in your hypothetical. You’ll have a hard time convincing them that they have suffered. Either you trust the voters to make decisions for themselves or you don’t. Regardless of how they came to make those decisions. I’d say casting doubt on their decision, just because someone convinced them to vote differently than you would have liked them to, is a good deal more antithetical to democracy than spending personal money to get your ideas heard.
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/28 "2017-07-07T20:57:18Z")
> [@Reply](#):
>
> Let’s take this to the other extreme: As a multimillionaire, you can spend a million bucks buying airtime for a candidate during the Superbowl. Another $20 million making a series of books and documentaries attacking them. Another $15 million hiring college kids to go door to door for you campaigning for their opponent, and another $10 million hiring lobbyists to wine & dine and win over lobbyists to your cause, let’s say textile industry regulations.
>
> …
>
> How is that good for democracy?
Because Meg Whitman _didn’t_ get elected.
It’s true that unlimited spending is not exactly good (nor bad) for democracy. No one really likes it. But it’s a _side effect o_f the 1st Amendment, not it’s goal.
In order to stop spending, you’d have to get rid of the 1st Ad, and that would be bad.
---
### Author:  [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/29 "2017-07-07T21:06:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> [snip] … In order to stop spending, you’d have to get rid of the 1st Ad, and that would be bad.
Or add a new Amendment … “Donation of money for political purposes can be regulated” … the problem is that the folks who are gaining the most under the current system are the very folks who have to initiate such an Amendment … perhaps a flaw in the US Constitution? …
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/30 "2017-07-07T21:10:29Z")
> [@DrCube](#):
>
> Citizens freely voted for the candidate in your hypothetical. You’ll have a hard time convincing them that they have suffered. Either you trust the voters to make decisions for themselves or you don’t. Regardless of how they came to make those decisions. I’d say casting doubt on their decision, just because someone convinced them to vote differently than you would have liked them to, is a good deal more antithetical to democracy than spending personal money to get your ideas heard.
If, at one extreme, the wealthy control the lion’s share of political promotion, then only the interests of the wealthy will be represented in the public sphere of ideas.
This strikes many as a greater threat to democracy than curbing the ability of the wealthy to spend their own money on whatever they want.
In an ideal world, absolute control over political promotion ought not to make a difference, as we ought to trust the voters to make up their own minds no matter how much they are bombarded with promotion. We do not live in that ideal world, as evidenced by the efforts made to spend as much as possible on promotion.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/31 "2017-07-07T21:12:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> Because Meg Whitman _didn’t_ get elected.
>
> It’s true that unlimited spending is not exactly good (nor bad) for democracy. No one really likes it. But it’s a _side effect o_f the 1st Amendment, not it’s goal.
>
> In order to stop spending, you’d have to get rid of the 1st Ad, and that would be bad.
Yet Americans are able to regulate (say) obscenity, without abolishing the 1st amendment.
---
### Author:  [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/32 "2017-07-07T21:27:30Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> If, at one extreme, the wealthy control the lion’s share of political promotion, then only the interests of the wealthy will be represented in the public sphere of ideas.
>
> This strikes many as a greater threat to democracy than curbing the ability of the wealthy to spend their own money on whatever they want.
>
> In an ideal world, absolute control over political promotion ought not to make a difference, as we ought to trust the voters to make up their own minds no matter how much they are bombarded with promotion. We do not live in that ideal world, as evidenced by the efforts made to spend as much as possible on promotion.
Seems like the solution would be for opponents to spend as much as _they_ like to counter the spending of the rich guy they disagree with. Rather than to ban his speech, which is just shooting themselves in the foot. I’m unsure why “the solution to bad speech is more speech” is the right idea when it comes to the KKK and Illinois Nazis, but not when it comes to politicians and campaigning?
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/33 "2017-07-07T21:27:33Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> Yet Americans are able to regulate (say) obscenity, without abolishing the 1st amendment.
Mostly only kiddie porn, and that is because in order to have kiddie porn, a child must have been harmed. You’re comparing child rape to people spending their own money how they wish.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/34 "2017-07-07T21:43:52Z")
> [@DrCube](#):
>
> Seems like the solution would be for opponents to spend as much as _they_ like to counter the spending of the rich guy they disagree with. Rather than to ban his speech, which is just shooting themselves in the foot. I’m unsure why “the solution to bad speech is more speech” is the right idea when it comes to the KKK and Illinois Nazis, but not when it comes to politicians and campaigning?
So the poor ought to just spend as much as the rich? I see a … minor … structural issue with that.
It is akin to saying “a law prohibiting sleeping rough under bridges applies equally to rich and destitute alike”. 😃
The concern is that, without limits, in the Darwinian struggle of politics the wealthy will simply capture the field and then pass laws to benefit themselves - eventually damaging the very things that make capitalist democracy “good” - namely, social mobility based on merit. What you risk is ending up getting is a permanent aristocracy of the wealthy.
We set limits in other areas - such as control of monopolies - for exactly this reason. Why not consider limits on political spending?
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/35 "2017-07-07T21:51:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> Mostly only kiddie porn, and that is because in order to have kiddie porn, a child must have been harmed. You’re comparing child rape to people spending their own money how they wish.
Well, that’s a stretch.
First, no, obscenity - including child porn - isn’t based on actually raping children; for example, cartoon child porn is outlawed in the US. Proof:
> **[18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of...](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A)**
> [@](#):
>
> (a) In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
> (1)
> (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
>
> (B) is obscene; or
>
> (2)
> (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
>
> (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
>
> or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
I don’t see any necessity for the rape of an actual child in order to produce such materials: an obscene “cartoon” is, of necessity, not an actual depiction of a (living) child.
Point here is that. somehow, US law makers have been able to live with limitations on free speech _in other areas_ without utterly abolishing the 1st Amendment.
So, clearly, an “argument from necessity” must be invalid.
---
### Author:  [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/36 "2017-07-07T22:01:43Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> So the poor ought to just spend as much as the rich? I see a … minor … structural issue with that.
>
> It is akin to saying “a law prohibiting sleeping rough under bridges applies equally to rich and destitute alike”. 😃
There’s a lot more poor people than rich people though. A million poor people spending a dollar can buy as much as one rich guy spending a million dollars. There’s also the fact that those million people can cast a million votes, whereas Mr. Millionaire only gets one vote.
This can be illustrated by looking at the federal budget. The vast majority of which is spent on things like Medicare and Social Security, things that average voters want, while comparatively little (though still huge in absolute numbers) is spent on things like tax breaks and corporate welfare.
Besides, of all the ways the poor have it worse than the rich, I’m not sure “they can spend more money on commercials” is the one I have the most sympathy for.
And finally, doesn’t the passage of campaign spending limits by itself pretty definitively prove that the rich _can’t_ buy whatever legislative outcomes they desire? I mean, if the problem were as severe as some have made it out to be, those laws couldn’t be passed in the first place.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/37 "2017-07-07T22:36:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> Mostly only kiddie porn, and that is because in order to have kiddie porn, a child must have been harmed. You’re comparing child rape to people spending their own money how they wish.
No, you’re just taking the discussion to an absurd extreme. Child pornography is [hardly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscenity_Enforcement_Act) the only thing suppressed under the guise of banning obscenity. And that’s hardly the [only exception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dark_Heart) to our “freedom of speech.” The fact is that US law infringes on speech rights as much as the laws of most democracies - just in different ways.
---
### Author:  [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/38 "2017-07-07T22:59:46Z")
> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> Can a private citizen spend his or her own money to purchase billboard advertising and such? Is there a limit on the amount a private citizen can spend of their own money?
I believe that during the Quebec referendum, that would not have been allowed. You can argue that till the end of time, but that was the law. How it could have been enforced is a different matter.
---
### Author:  [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/39 "2017-07-08T01:02:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> No, you’re just taking the discussion to an absurd extreme. Child pornography is [hardly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscenity_Enforcement_Act) the only thing suppressed under the guise of banning obscenity. And that’s hardly the [only exception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dark_Heart) to our “freedom of speech.”
I appreciate the “absurd extreme” comment, but your two examples go further as to be irrelevant … I’m not going to read that Alabama statute just to find out that, no, it does not outlaw publicly claiming the law is wrong and should be repealed … I can still put a sign in my front yard saying “Free the sex toys” … the second example doesn’t even concern the Constitution, but rather the UCMJ … but we can use the local VA hospital as an example, we have to agree to not make public any private information we find in the records room, or the VA won’t let us into the records room … that won’t stop us from demanding these medical records be made public, just we ourselves can’t release them … breech of contract is not nitpicking …
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> The fact is that US law infringes on speech rights as much as the laws of most democracies - just in different ways.
This is very true from what I understand … kinda surprised more people haven’t jumped to the defense of their country’s Free Speech rights … many mature democracies have extensive rights regarding speech … perhaps only different in what Citizens United allows … how other democracies get around it is their Supreme Court says they can, SCOTUS says we can’t …
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2017, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699/40 "2017-07-08T07:24:19Z")
In Canada, the leading Supreme Court case is [_Harper v Canada (Attorney General)_](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2146/index.do). (The plaintiff, Harper, was Stephen Harper, who at the time the action started in the late 1990s was a private citizen with a conservative think-tank. He later became Prime Minister.)
Harper challenged the federal electoral law which imposed spending limits in federal elections. The law limited third party spending to $3000 in a given electoral district and $150,000 nationally. He argued that the limitations infringed the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression.
The Court upheld the restrictions. It recognized that restrictions on spending did amount to a limitation on freedom of expression. However, that was not the end of the analysis. The Charter also contains a constitutional guarantee of the right of each citizen to vote. The restriction on spending had to be considered in light of the constitutional commitment to equality of citizens in the electoral process. The purpose of spending limits is to further that goal of equality of participation in the electoral process, by preventing those with money from drowning out those without money. That constitutional guarantee of voter equality provided strong support for the restrictions: the guarantee of freedom of expression could not be read in isolation. The two constitutional provisions had to be read together, and the constitutional principle of voter equality supported the restrictions on spending.
Note as well that the limits only apply to direct support or opposition for a candidate or a party. The limits don’t apply to advertising on specific issues. So for instance, if you oppose abortion, you can spend as much as you like on signs that say “Abortion should be banned”. That’s not supporting or opposing any particular candidate or party, so is not subject to the spending limits. Same for any other issue. It’s only if you want to say: “Vote for Candidate Smith because she opposes abortion” that your spending is subject to the limit.
Another point is that the federal law also provides that only living, breathing individuals can donate to a political party. Corporations, unions and other such groups cannot contribute to political parties. This part of the law wasn’t challenged in _Harper_, but is tied to the constitutional principle that only real people get to vote, so only real people can contribute to the political parties.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citizens-united-how-do-other-countries-get-around-the-problems/790699.md?page=3)