# Could Montana get the court to reconsider Citizens United? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 10, 2012, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699 "2012-06-10T08:43:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/181 "2012-06-17T17:26:01Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yeah, good luck with that. There’s not a snowball’s chance. There was a better chance when it was first decided. Not now, not 2 years later. Yeah, cause the rich man money machine is really rolling now. Democracy in America is about over. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/182 "2012-06-17T17:44:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > There is no difference. Each is a way of spending money to influence the outcome of an election. Which should not be possible. Is that your position - “spending money to influence the outcome of an election should not be possible”? Are you sure? Nobody should be able to buy a billboard with a political message. Nobody should be able to place an ad in a newspaper or on TV. Nobody should be able to rent a place for a political meeting. The candidate should have no budget whatsoever to get his message out. Wow. I don’t want to live in the country you envision. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/183 "2012-06-18T00:38:22Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > For fuck’s sake! You can slice or dice it any way you like, after Citizens United, billionaires and big corporations are writing huge checks, checks that dwarf the money that regular folks can afford. Citizens United is ENABLING plutocracy, and DESTROYING democracy. I’m sure it SUITS you to believe otherwise, but the facts on the ground all say that Citizens United is the Supreme Court’s gift to the rich of us … and an upraised middle finger to the rest of us. That’s funny. Before CU, nothing stopped a billionaire from paying for an issue advocacy ad. Same as after. The campaign contribution restrictions that existed prior to CU? They exist after CU as well. You really don’t know what CU decided, do you? But gosh darn it, you know you’re mad about it! What with all the plutocracy-enabling and democracy-destroying going on like gangbusters. It’s madness! Here, just for giggles to see if anyone will [read this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act) and actual let it sink in (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, regarding whether or not a political documentary (about Hillary Clinton) could be considered a political ad.[11] In January 2010, the Supreme Court struck sections of McCain–Feingold down which limited activity of corporations, saying, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” Specifically, Citizens United struck down campaign financing laws related to corporations and unions; law previously banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. **The ruling did not, as commonly thought, change the amount of money corporations and unions can contribute to campaigns.** The minority said the court was making a mistake treating the voices of corporations as similar to those of people. Oh, and one more thing–for fuck’s sake! Now I’m done. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/184 "2012-06-18T01:02:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wait a minute. Surely you agree that the 1st amendment protects speech that is intended to influence elections, right? So are saying that we are free to speak, but we can’t spend any money in doing so? I think it’s time we shut down the editorial pages of the country’s newspapers then! And as I said in another thread, if you agree to allow the NYT to continue operating as is, then how do you shut down the New Koch Times? I want to second this post to see if we can get a definitive answer from the other side that keeps saying that money does not equal speech. Does my free speech only extend to how loud I can shout? But then again, I had to eat food to provide energy to my body to be able to shout. Food costs money! Once again, evil money influencing speech! Do I have a right to be free from searches and seizures of my property, but damn, I’m not allowed to spend money to actually buy property? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/185 "2012-06-18T15:03:27Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Well, I’m convinced. George Will is an idiot. > > What he isn’t understanding, is that huge corporations aren’t going to lean to both sides based on the intelligent quality of their messages. They are going to side with the group that wants to slash their taxes and repeal regulations. > > Of course, you’re okay with that, since it’s _your side_ that gets to buy elections. I am a liberal Democrat, but I fully support the Citizens United decision. As did the ACLU, by the way. Speech cannot “buy” elections. If that’s true, there’s no point in having democracy anyway, is there? The “buying” elections argument is predicated on the idea that the voters are just idiots who do whatever TV ads tell them to. That notion is disrespectful to democracy, not the Citizens United decision. The people do not need protection from speech. As for corporations and who they are slanted for (not that it matters, as I’ve said) - Citizens United applies to everyone, not just corporations. That includes labor unions, or many independent liberal or reform groups that depend on wealthy individuals (George Soros is the favorite one for the rightwingers to mention, but there are many more) and small donors who want to pool their money (for example, [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org)). ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/186 "2012-06-18T15:11:44Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I want to second this post to see if we can get a definitive answer from the other side that keeps saying that money does not equal speech. > > Does my free speech only extend to how loud I can shout? But then again, I had to eat food to provide energy to my body to be able to shout. Food costs money! Once again, evil money influencing speech! > > Do I have a right to be free from searches and seizures of my property, but damn, I’m not allowed to spend money to actually buy property? Money isn’t speech (no court ever said that either) - but spending money on speech, like any other right, is part of that right. Here’s some other ways to think about it: Could the government ban the sale of bibles or donations to religious groups? You can practice your religion all you want, just don’t spend money on it. Money isn’t religion after all. Could the government ban paying a lawyer to defend you in court? You could still get it for free (good luck with that), you just can’t pay for it. Money isn’t the right to an attorney, after all. Could the government ban paying doctors for abortions and say it’s not a violation of Roe v. Wade? You can get an abortion, you just can’t pay for it. Money isn’t abortion, after all. (This is a real possibility - the states are finding all kinds of ways to get around Roe v. Wade - and abortion-rights supporters would rightly scream about it if it were tried). Back to speech - could the government ban the sale of magic markers and poster board, or megaphones, or payments to bus companies ferrying protesters to Washington DC? Could it ban this website from paying it’s host and designers and staff? The idea that the government can ban spending money on a right is ludicrous. It’s meant to limit the right itself. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/187 "2012-06-18T15:15:04Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Is that your position - “spending money to influence the outcome of an election should not be possible”? Are you sure? Nobody should be able to buy a billboard with a political message. Nobody should be able to place an ad in a newspaper or on TV. Nobody should be able to rent a place for a political meeting. The candidate should have no budget whatsoever to get his message out. > > Wow. I don’t want to live in the country you envision. Moreover, the Citizens United decision involved the possibility of a person (not a corporation) going to PRISON for daring to distribute a film criticizing a political candidate. (Kinda like, say, Michael Moore uses a corporation to distribute his films). The government lawyers who opposed it said in court that the law also gave them the power to ban any book about politics that was published by a corporation (as most are)! That should never, ever happen in America. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/188 "2012-06-18T15:16:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s about campaign **spending.** A distinction without a difference. There is an ENORMOUS difference. One is giving money to a candidate. The other is expressing your opinions using speech. The second one, if you hadn’t heard, is protected by the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/189 "2012-06-18T15:16:36Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Are you actually familiar with this decision that gob-stops you so? Actually the gob stopping quote was meant to be mostly a throw away line expressing my frustration that we are in the scenario mentioned in the first part of my post. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Megacorp’s president anonymously sets up a 20 million dollar super pac to make sure Romeny gets elected. After the election Megacorp sends a lobbyist which mentions that certain clean air quality standards would cost them 100 million dollars, and wouldn’t it be better for the people of American if an exception covering Megacorp could be arranged. He might also mention in passing how glad they are that their money helped Romney get elected and how much they hope they will be able to help him be reelected. No explicit bribery you understand, it’s just that if things don’t go their way they might not be able to find the funds to contribute the next time. Further since the super pac was anonymous no one will even be able to tie the action to the contribution. This part is what I am most interested in responses to. Stratocaster and Terr, I am seriously interested in what your views are of the situation above. Below are a few possibilities A) The scenario is unrealistic and wouldn’t/doesn’t happen because… B) The scenario represents democracy in action there is nothing wrong with those with money being able to influence legislation through campaign donations. C) The scenario is realistic and lamentable, but there is nothing we can constitutionally do about it. D) The scenario is lamentable but a constitutional solution would be to … E) ??? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/190 "2012-06-18T15:18:43Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > True, it’s about PACS. It’s still a gateway to plutocracy. . No, it’s not about PACs either. It’s about speech. If speech is “the gateway to plutocracy” - because, as this claim presumes, the people are stupid and do whatever they are told and need to be “protected” from speech - then democracy is a joke in the first place. I don’t think the people are stupid. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/191 "2012-06-18T15:19:48Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > B) The scenario represents democracy in action there is nothing wrong with those with money being able to influence legislation through campaign donations. As has already been explained, this is not about campaign donations. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/192 "2012-06-18T15:20:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wait a minute. Surely you agree that the 1st amendment protects speech that is intended to influence elections, right? So are saying that we are free to speak, but we can’t spend any money in doing so? I think it’s time we shut down the editorial pages of the country’s newspapers then! And as I said in another thread, if you agree to allow the NYT to continue operating as is, then how do you shut down the New Koch Times? Most of those newspapers are also (shudder) corporations! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/193 "2012-06-18T17:01:25Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Does my free speech only extend to how loud I can shout? But then again, I had to eat food to provide energy to my body to be able to shout. Food costs money! Once again, evil money influencing speech! I don’t know if you’re being disingenuous or what. Money does not buy speech, it buys access to media. Nobody is freaking SHOUTING to be heard. They are buying ads. Modern political campaigns, especially at the state and federal levels, are utterly dependent on mass media to succeed. So long as unlimited funds allow PACS (organizations secretly working with candidates which SUPPOSEDLY are not supporting individual candidates, but nobody believes that) permit the rich to pour money into their favored candidates and causes, in unlimited amounts, the rich will have an enormous advantage politically. They may not win EVERY election they go after, but they’ll win the vast majority. Out of state forces and Governor Walker’s campaign outspent his opponents either 7.5 to 1 or 9 to 1, depending on which figures you believe. They weren’t funded by legions of believers, they were funded by rich guys and corporations with large checks. You say that unlimited funding by the rich will not affect democracy. I suppose you might be a Pollyanna, but I think it’s more likely you are like a hound dog looking at a pork chop, and that pork chop is control of the democratic process by wealthy conservatives who presumably share your political goals.. You may be howling about Citizens United and freedom of speech, but I think it’s all about the pork chop. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/194 "2012-06-18T18:16:23Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > “Megacorp’s president anonymously sets up a 20 million dollar super pac to make sure Romney gets elected.” Work on passing a law (constitutional law, by the way) requiring disclosure of such donations. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/195 "2012-06-18T18:20:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Out of state forces and Governor Walker’s campaign outspent his opponents either 7.5 to 1 or 9 to 1, depending on which figures you believe. Again, that canard. From [http://host.madison.com/data/politics/campaign-donors/](http://host.madison.com/data/politics/campaign-donors/) Scott Walker remains the undisputed titan of political fundraising in Wisconsin, raising $22.8 million since he took office in January 2011. But pitted together, labor unions, Democratic candidates and parties and other groups aligned with the Democratic Party have raised about $35 million in that time — nearly matching the $37 million raised by GOP candidates and Republican political action committees and other groups. Data covers campaign contributions between Jan. 1, 2011, and April 23, 2012. $35M vs $37M. Such an enormous difference, it warrants running around hysterically, shouting about bought elections. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/196 "2012-06-18T18:31:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You’ll have to go back further in the exchange. **Stratocaster** takes a literalist view of the First Amendment that prohibits all forms of speech prohibitions without regard to the source. According to him, corporations have the same free speech rights as natural persons because the First Amendment doesn’t say “except corporations.” Thus, limits on corporate campaign contributions are, per him, unconstitutional. I’m using those as an example simply because that law remains in place, but you could just as easily rephrase the hypothetical to refer to foreign governments buying political advertising in favor of Obama, or whoever. Yes. There’s no basis for any other interpretation. SPEECH is protected. From any source. The idea that speech is only protected by humans is silly anyway, since only humans can speak or express ideas. All speech from corporations comes from humans. Corporations are just tools created and used by people. Saying that corporations don’t have speech rights because they aren’t people is like saying billbboard, or websites, have no speech rights, and trying to ban billboard or website messages. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/197 "2012-06-18T18:33:24Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I don’t know if you’re being disingenuous or what. Money does not buy speech, it buys access to media. Nobody is freaking SHOUTING to be heard. They are buying ads. Modern political campaigns, especially at the state and federal levels, are utterly dependent on mass media to succeed. So long as unlimited funds allow PACS (organizations secretly working with candidates which SUPPOSEDLY are not supporting individual candidates, but nobody believes that) permit the rich to pour money into their favored candidates and causes, in unlimited amounts, the rich will have an enormous advantage politically. They may not win EVERY election they go after, but they’ll win the vast majority. Out of state forces and Governor Walker’s campaign outspent his opponents either 7.5 to 1 or 9 to 1, depending on which figures you believe. They weren’t funded by legions of believers, they were funded by rich guys and corporations with large checks. > > You say that unlimited funding by the rich will not affect democracy. I suppose you might be a Pollyanna, but I think it’s more likely you are like a hound dog looking at a pork chop, and that pork chop is control of the democratic process by wealthy conservatives who presumably share your political goals.. You may be howling about Citizens United and freedom of speech, but I think it’s all about the pork chop. First of all, you don’t get to say it’s all about the pork chop, because the First Amendment says otherwise. Second, your entire argument is premised on the idea that the people are too stupid to hear certain speech, and will just vote for whoever’s TV ads they see more on TV. That premise is more a threat to democracy than any speech. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/198 "2012-06-18T18:36:18Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I don’t know if you’re being disingenuous or what. Money does not buy speech, it buys access to media. Yes. I find it funny that people are so terribly upset about people buying TV and radio time, 30 seconds a shot, and expressing their opinions - yet see nothing wrong with those who bought the whole TV network and express their opinions or give others access for free all day. Why aren’t you clamoring to ban Fox News? Isn’t it a threat to our democracy many times over what Super PACs are? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/199 "2012-06-18T18:39:22Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > First of all, you don’t get to say it’s all about the pork chop, because the First Amendment says otherwise. > > Second, your entire argument is premised on the idea that the people are too stupid to hear certain speech, and will just vote for whoever’s TV ads they see more on TV. That premise is more a threat to democracy than any speech. No, my premise is value neutral on that point. The fact that wealthy plutocrats are more able to get their message out has no bearing on the intelligence of the people they are sending messages to. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/200 "2012-06-18T18:40:48Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes. > > I find it funny that people are so terribly upset about people buying TV and radio time, 30 seconds a shot, and expressing their opinions - yet see nothing wrong with those who bought the whole TV network and express their opinions or give others access for free all day. > > Why aren’t you clamoring to ban Fox News? Isn’t it a threat to our democracy many times over what Super PACs are? What bans have I proposed, exactly? So far as I know, I have only proposed limiting the amount of campaign donations, a far cry from a ban. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=11)