# 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:** 14
**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 25, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/261 "2012-06-25T17:17:01Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > But money sometimes is. Sometimes it is, yes. So? ---
**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 25, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/262 "2012-06-25T17:19:16Z")
On behalf of corporate America, I apologize that all of you will be manipulated and brainwashed by political ads, because you’re not smart enough to think about them critically or ignore them. Whichever ones you see more than those of the other side, you’ll mindlessly believe. You might as well just not vote, since your vote is now meaningless since you just can’t control yourselves. It’s all corporate America’s fault. ---
**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 25, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/263 "2012-06-25T17:21:56Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > BTW, that’s the difference between normal speech and advertising. I put up something on the web, I can’t coerce people into listening to my speech. But, as long as advertising still works, it means that at least some people can be coerced into watching ads. Ads that, BTW, use images to try and manipulate people. It wouldn’t be so bad if they could just give facts. So this would mean that you want to ban ALL political ads. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/264 "2012-06-26T00:20:50Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > However, when the Supreme Court granted a stay of a Montana state court ruling, When you combine the amazing unpopularity of this Supreme Court ruling with the legal actions that started with Montana and is apparently ending right back in the country’s high court, how likely is it that the court will be willing or able to backtrack against a ruling that was made such a short time ago? > > I am quite biased, although I am not alone in my bias, that Citizens United was a terrible ruling for democracy and the chilling effects of the ruling have already been felt. However, this seems like a solid foundation for a rare (but not unheard of) reversal from the High Court. > > What do the legal beagles of the Dope think? This question seems to now be definitively answered in the negative. ---
**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 26, 2012, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/265 "2012-06-26T01:19:45Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > On behalf of corporate America, I apologize that all of you will be manipulated and brainwashed by political ads, because you’re not smart enough to think about them critically or ignore them. Whichever ones you see more than those of the other side, you’ll mindlessly believe. You might as well just not vote, since your vote is now meaningless since you just can’t control yourselves. It’s all corporate America’s fault. I know you are having fun with your strawman there, but you DO know what the alternative to ballots is, don’t you? ---
**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 26, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/266 "2012-06-26T01:28:03Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I know you are having fun with your strawman there, but you DO know what the alternative to ballots is, don’t you? It’s not a strawman. Not at all. Did you mention ballots? The things that the people have when they vote, and therefore have 100% control of election outcomes? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/267 "2012-06-27T03:02:29Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It is Congress that is not allowed to abridge the speech. By limiting the amount of money that can be given in campaign contributions, they do so. > [@Buckley](#): > > contribution restrictions could have a severe impact on political dialogue if the limitations prevented candidates and political committees from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy Which is a fine standard for determining whether expenditure on speech is warranted: a point where one side cannot advocate effectively. Shouldn’t be hard establishing a ratio, eh? Unless we are determined that any restriction on speech is unwarranted and that limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a candidate is as bad as limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a TV station. After all, outlawing the printing paper is as bad as outlawing the sign, right? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > So be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Great argumentum ad consequentiam there. As it turns out, the big bucks roll out for the [Democrats](http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php). > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Congress either has the power to limit speech however it wants, or it has none at all. Yeah, as in the case of Free Speech Zones, limits on commercial speech, libel and bribery. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/268 "2012-06-27T05:02:14Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > By limiting the amount of money that can be given in campaign contributions, they do so. No, they don’t. As the left keeps saying (correctly) money isn’t speech. But speech is speech, even if it takes money to express it. So - giving money to someone isn’t speech. Paying for a political ad on TV or in a newspaper is. Hope this makes it clearer for you. ---
**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 27, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/269 "2012-06-27T05:45:44Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > It’s not a strawman. Not at all. > > Did you mention ballots? The things that the people have when they vote, and therefore have 100% control of election outcomes? Well Lance, you seem determined not to hear my arguments. And I think I have made them thoroughly enough that readers not so invested in one side or other of the argument can evaluate their worth. So I see no further point to this discussion. ---
**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 27, 2012, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/270 "2012-06-27T05:46:52Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No, they don’t. As the left keeps saying (correctly) money isn’t speech. But speech is speech, even if it takes money to express it. So - giving money to someone isn’t speech. Paying for a political ad on TV or in a newspaper is. Hope this makes it clearer for you. No, using money to buy political ads doesnt magically turn money into speech. It’s still just a medium for exchange. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/271 "2012-06-27T06:08:56Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > No, using money to buy political ads doesnt magically turn money into speech. It’s still just a medium for exchange. It doesn’t turn money into speech. It is producing speech, directly. You cannot separate paying for the ad from the act of publishing the ad - no one gives you ad space for free, the only way you can put up an ad is to pay 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 27, 2012, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/272 "2012-06-27T12:29:22Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So - giving money to someone isn’t speech. Paying for a political ad on TV or in a newspaper is. In one instance, people are pooling money which is handled by corporate or union staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. In the other instance, people are pooling money which is handled by campaign staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. Banning the expenditure of money on the former for a period of time is a restriction on free speech, but not the latter? I see no functional difference other than the “capacity for advocacy” test lance strongarm posted, which seems like a special plea. Why not rewrite the law stating that people can spend a certain amount on electioneering communications, just as there’s a cap on campaign contributions subject to capacity for advocacy? ---
**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 27, 2012, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/273 "2012-06-27T12:58:13Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well Lance, you seem determined not to hear my arguments. And I think I have made them thoroughly enough that readers not so invested in one side or other of the argument can evaluate their worth. So I see no further point to this discussion. I hear them fine. I reject them. Funny how you are the one who thinks certain arguments should be censored though. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/274 "2012-06-27T13:01:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It doesn’t turn money into speech. It is producing speech, directly. You cannot separate paying for the ad from the act of publishing the ad - no one gives you ad space for free, the only way you can put up an ad is to pay for it. Okay, Terr, if the government can’t abridge a right, but it CAN ban spending money on that right, please tell me if you agree with these hypotheticals too: 1. The government can ban any spending of money on religion. Bible or other religious text sales or buying? Banned. Collecting and spending money to build a church? Banned. 2. The government can ban accused criminals from paying a lawyer. They have a right to representation by a lawyer, but they just can’t pay him for his services, nor can anyone else. 3. The government may ban paying a doctor for an abortion, or anyone else. Abortion is still a right, so this doesn’t violate Roe v. Wade, but the doctors may not get paid for abortions, they must do them for free. 4. All spending on the media - TV, radio, newspapers - is banned. You can print or broadcast all you want, but you may not spend money on it. No buying paper and ink, no paying reporters. Please give a simple yes or no with a justification. Thanks. Same goes for anyone else who wants to wade into this. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/275 "2012-06-27T13:05:18Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > In one instance, people are pooling money which is handled by corporate or union staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. In the other instance, people are pooling money which is handled by campaign staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. Banning the expenditure of money on the former for a period of time is a restriction on free speech, but not the latter? I see no functional difference Um, you realize that this dissolves your argument against spending limits, right? > [@](#): > > other than the “capacity for advocacy” test lance strongarm posted, which seems like a special plea. (I don’t think I posted that). > [@](#): > > Why not rewrite the law stating that people can spend a certain amount on electioneering communications, just as there’s a cap on campaign contributions subject to capacity for advocacy? Because spending and donations are two different things. And it matters who you are donating too. Donations to a candidate are vastly different from donations to an independent group engaged in speech. The latter is pretty much indistinguishable from simply spending the money on speech yourself. That’s why one is limited and the other isn’t. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/276 "2012-06-27T13:13:01Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > By limiting the amount of money that can be given in campaign contributions, they do so. Well, no, and Buckley explained this. But if you insist - fine, we must abolish all donation limits to candidates too. Be careful what you wish for. > [@](#): > > Which is a fine standard for determining whether expenditure on speech is warranted: a point where one side cannot advocate effectively. Shouldn’t be hard establishing a ratio, eh? Unless we are determined that any restriction on speech is unwarranted and that limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a candidate is as bad as limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a TV station. After all, outlawing the printing paper is as bad as outlawing the sign, right? You have it backwards. If a campaign or group has difficulty expressing itself due to restrictions on donations, you have to loosen or abolish those, not tighten them on others. > [@](#): > > Great argumentum ad consequentiam there. Wow. That’s exactly what you’re doing. Not me. > [@](#): > > As it turns out, the big bucks roll out for the [Democrats](http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php). So? > [@](#): > > Yeah, as in the case of Free Speech Zones, limits on commercial speech, libel and bribery. Yep, narrow, logical expections that don’t even come close to justifying your ridiculous massive ones. Stop this nonsense. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/277 "2012-06-27T13:14:43Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > In one instance, people are pooling money which is handled by corporate or union staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. In the other instance, people are pooling money which is handled by campaign staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. To elaborate - This means you should reject SPENDING limits on either. Do you? Once we clarify that, you can talk about your proposed limit on donations. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/278 "2012-06-27T15:37:33Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > In one instance, people are pooling money which is handled by corporate or union staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. In the other instance, people are pooling money which is handled by campaign staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. Because in the second case you’re not “pooling money” for political speech. You’re donating to the candidate, which can go for any kind of expenditure, like his meals on campaign trail, paying for his transportation costs, paying the massive campaign staff, etc. etc. - all of which are not political speech. If there was a way to earmark the donation (and enforce the earmark) to say “this donation is strictly for political speech” then I would agree it’s the same thing. But there isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/279 "2012-06-27T15:39:26Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Okay, Terr, if the government can’t abridge a right, but it CAN ban spending money on that right, please tell me if you agree with these hypotheticals too: You misunderstood what I wrote. I say it cannot band spending money on that right. ---
**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 27, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/280 "2012-06-27T15:48:06Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You misunderstood what I wrote. I say it cannot band spending money on that right. So you would answer no to all those questions? The government cannot ban spending money on those rights? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=15)