# 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:** 11
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/201 "2012-06-18T18:42:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > 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. False. If that were true, you wouldn’t be worried about what speech the people hear. You just haven’t thought this through hard enough. Your premise is that the government must control what the people hear because of its affect on the outcome of elections. You can’t disconnect the two. Tell me, WHY are you worried about wealthy plutocrats getting their message out easier? You can’t answer that question without referring to a belief that the people are gullible fools who can’t think for themselves, or that they don’t go find out, through easily-available and free means like the Internet, campaign events, and the media, all the information from all sources to make an informed voting choice. You think they just sit on their couches and wait to be told who to vote for. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/202 "2012-06-18T18:54:43Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > When you’re running ads - whether attack ads or not - it’s YOUR political expression. Clearly. No ands ifs or buts. Prohibiting it is abridging speech. When you give your money to Carl Rove’s superpac, you don’t have any control over what Carl Rove does with that money. You aren’t expressing yourself, you are helping Carl Rove express himself by giving him money. you ONLY connection with the speech taht ultimately occurs is money. The only connection you have to the speech that ultimately occurs is your money. In what way are you expressing speech that is disconnected from your money? I think the disconnect here is taht you are focusing on the weeds of CU (corporations have the same first amendment rights to political speech as natural persons) while others are concerned about the principles involved. I would say that when it comes to political speech and corporations, it seems obvious to me that there are some distinct differences in rights afforded to people and corporations that might justify treating them differently wrt the first amendment. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > I take no offense from the free exchange of ideas and opinion. That’s the thing, it ain’t free and those with more money get a LOT more speech under this system. > [@](#): > > BTW, if we don’t like the disclosure laws for Super PACs, nothing stops us from changing them. We needn’t raze the First Amendment as a solution. We place all sorts of limits on the first amendment. This is hardly the nail in the coffin. > [@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. So you agree that it is only unconstitutional NOW because SCOTUS says so, that the argument pre-CU was not nearly as strong. > [@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? The NYT doesn’t pay radio stations to read their editorials on the air, you are generally expected to pay for the privelege of reading their opinions. There once wasa time when newspapers were politically affiliated (the word Democrat or Whig would appear in their name) and that was fine. I think that if the East India trading company started paying for half the money that went into elections, the founding fathers would have had a problem with the notion that it was merely free speech. > [@Terr](#): > > Work on passing a law (constitutional law, by the way) requiring disclosure of such donations. Thats probably a good first step. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/203 "2012-06-18T18:58:36Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. the source of the disparity, from USA Today: > [@USA Today](#): > > Romney can hope to replicate Walker’s model in two areas. The first is money. Walker raised more than $30million for his recall campaign, with some from large donations that exceeded the normal limits because of the laws governing recall elections. Barrett raised $4million [Source.](http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Front%20Page/2012-06-07-PNI0607wir-Wisconsin-Analysis_ST_U.htm) Your source measured the amount of money raised for all Republicans in all the races that were run that day. And mentions that Walker got two thirds of his money from big donors from outside the state, whereas Barrett got only a quarter of his money from outside the state. Your cite also notes that contributions from “issues” groups that ran ads that just barely stopped short of endorsing a particular candidate were not included, because they are not well regulated and are hard to quantify … but DID offer a rough estimate that such issues groups on the Republican side outspent Democratic groups by $22 million to $5 million. So, overall, your quote supports my thesis that big money people and contributions can and do weigh in heavily to support Republican/conservative candidates, much more so than Democrats. Thanks! ---
**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, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/204 "2012-06-18T19:00:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > 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. Campaign donations are already limited for some and banned for others (including corporations). This is not about campaign donations. I apologize if I’m confused about your position - I’m a noob here and this thread is long - but do you oppose the Citizens United decision? If so, you support the power of the government to ban or limit speech by certain groups. (Let’s not get into it over ban vs. limit). ---
**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, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/205 "2012-06-18T19:03:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I would say that when it comes to political speech and corporations, it seems obvious to me that there are some distinct differences in rights afforded to people and corporations that might justify treating them differently wrt the first amendment. There are no such distinctions. The First Amendment simply says you can’t limit speech. Nothing about persons. > [@](#): > > That’s the thing, it ain’t free and those with more money get a LOT more speech under this system. So money IS speech? > [@](#): > > We place all sorts of limits on the first amendment. This is hardly the nail in the coffin. A few logical, limited exception to a rule doesn’t justify massive ones that cut straight to the heart of it. > [@](#): > > I think that if the East India trading company started paying for half the money that went into elections, the founding fathers would have had a problem with the notion that it was merely free speech. Support that with historical facts please. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/206 "2012-06-18T19:44:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The NYT doesn’t pay radio stations to read their editorials on the air, you are generally expected to pay for the privelege of reading their opinions. There once wasa time when newspapers were politically affiliated (the word Democrat or Whig would appear in their name) and that was fine. I think that if the East India trading company started paying for half the money that went into elections, the founding fathers would have had a problem with the notion that it was merely free speech.. The poster was saying you shouldn’t be able to spend money to influence elections. Newspapers (which are corporations, btw) spend money to influence elections. If you think otherwise, tell me why. ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/207 "2012-06-18T20:20:44Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > the source of the disparity, from USA Today: > > [Source.](http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Front%20Page/2012-06-07-PNI0607wir-Wisconsin-Analysis_ST_U.htm) Yes, it tells you the direct donations to the candidates. If you count third party spending, the numbers get much closer (which, by the way, means there was more third party spending from Democrats than from Republicans). > [@](#): > > So, overall, your quote supports my thesis that big money people and contributions can and do weigh in heavily to support Republican/conservative candidates, much more so than Democrats. Thanks! Of course they do. To the tune of $37M for Republicans vs. $35 for Democrats. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/208 "2012-06-18T20:22:53Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > When you give your money to Carl Rove’s superpac, you don’t have any control over what Carl Rove does with that money. You aren’t expressing yourself, you are helping Carl Rove express himself by giving him money. you ONLY connection with the speech taht ultimately occurs is money. The only connection you have to the speech that ultimately occurs is your money. In what way are you expressing speech that is disconnected from your money? Would it make you feel better if the donations to Carl Rove’s SuperPAC were earmarked for specific ads? Would that convince you that that would be speech? ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/209 "2012-06-18T22:39:55Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So you agree that it is only unconstitutional NOW because SCOTUS says so, that the argument pre-CU was not nearly as strong. No, the argument was as strong then as now. But the time to hope for an asinine decision was the first time, when it was 5 - 4 and only one more Justice needed to detect a penumbra hiding in the back of a drawer somewhere. Two years later, it ain’t happening. ---
**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, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/210 "2012-06-18T22:57:13Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > No, the argument was as strong then as now. But the time to hope for an asinine decision was the first time, when it was 5 - 4 and only one more Justice needed to detect a penumbra hiding in the back of a drawer somewhere. Two years later, it ain’t happening. Hey, go read the 9th amendment! ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/211 "2012-06-18T23:12:28Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Hey, go read the 9th amendment! No need, I’m already very familiar with it. Your point is? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/212 "2012-06-18T23:15:32Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > The First Amendment simply says you can’t limit speech. No, it says Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has determined that, subject to the _Central Hudson_ test, commercial speech can be limited (think tobacco advertising). They have also determined that Congress can make laws dictating the time, place and manner of political speech. They have also determined that the First Amendment defends [associations of individuals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Opinions_of_the_Court). > [@lance strongarm](#): > > 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. If political ads do not have an influence on the election, then banning them will have no tangible effect and thus is not a threat to democracy. ---
**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, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/213 "2012-06-18T23:20:42Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > No need, I’m already very familiar with it. Your point is? Keep your hands off my penumbra. 😉 ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/214 "2012-06-18T23:24:15Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > No, it says Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has determined that, subject to the _Central Hudson_ test, commercial speech can be limited (think tobacco advertising). And also said that political speech enjoys the highest level of protection, far above commercial speech. > [@](#): > > They have also determined that Congress can make laws dictating the time, place and manner of political speech. This is not a time, place, manner issue. > [@](#): > > They have also determined that the First Amendment defends [associations of individuals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Opinions_of_the_Court). Huh? Not sure what you mean, though corporations are associations of individuals. > [@](#): > > If political ads do not have an influence on the election, then banning them will have no tangible effect and thus is not a threat to democracy. Of course political ads have an affect on elections? So what? Doesn’t matter anyway - they are protected speech, period. There is simply no way to ban a political ad and not violate the First Amendment. That should be obvious. It’s pathetic and scary that people have so many convoluted theories on how to ban speech these days. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/215 "2012-06-18T23:26:01Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Keep your hands off my penumbra. 😉 Hey, if they keep hanging around with all those disgraceful emanations, they’re asking for it! ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/216 "2012-06-19T00:26:36Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > So what? Will you retract this statement as a strawman? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You think they just sit on their couches and wait to be told who to vote for. ---
**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 19, 2012, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/217 "2012-06-19T13:03:07Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Hey, if they keep hanging around with all those disgraceful emanations, they’re asking for it! My body, my emanation. ---
**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 19, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/218 "2012-06-19T13:05:36Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Will you retract this statement as a strawman? Nope. I still think it’s your premise. Feel free to convince me otherwise though, that’s why we’re here. Anyone who holds that certain speech should be banned because of how it affects the outcome of elections holds this premise. It’s inescapable. ---
**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 19, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/219 "2012-06-19T13:35:15Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Nope. I still think it’s your premise. Feel free to convince me otherwise though, that’s why we’re here. > > Anyone who holds that certain speech should be banned because of how it affects the outcome of elections holds this premise. It’s inescapable. You can say anything. But money is not speech. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/220 "2012-06-19T14:10:13Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > You can say anything. But money is not speech. Is anyone actually claiming that here? I think Lance, the noob, was saying that your position kinda sorta implied that it was when you said: > [@](#): > > it ain’t free and those with more money get a LOT more speech under this system. Not much of an argument, I will agree, but that’s not him saying “money is speech”. Still, surely Congress can stifle speech by putting monetary restrictions on it. Is paper speech? Suppose the government said newspapers could only buy 4 sheets of paper per week (interstate commerce clause, dude!). Would freedom of the press still be intact? Paper isn’t “the press”, right? If all that free speech means is that you get to stand on the corner and say whatever you want, that is not the “free speech” that we have enjoyed for about 250 years in this country. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=12)