# 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:** 15
**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 27, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/281 "2012-06-27T20:03:34Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Speech is never bad for democracy. Sometimes you have a crowding out effect. I’m not saying that the Democratic or Republican message are getting crowded out but almost every third party message is getting crowded out and the message of moneied interests get more exposure than is good for a democracy. > [@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. So giving money to a SuperPAC isn’t speech so we should be able to limit donations to superPACs. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > 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. I disagree. Giving your money to Carl Rove’s superPAC is not indistinguishable from spending the money on speech yourself, you are funding Carl Rove’s speech (and expense account). > [@Terr](#): > > 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. And money you donate to a SuperPAC is earmarked for speech? I am pretty sure Carl Rove can use the money for meals, transportation costs, massive staff, etc. ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/282 "2012-06-27T20:11:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I disagree. Giving your money to Carl Rove’s superPAC is not indistinguishable from spending the money on speech yourself, you are funding Carl Rove’s speech (and expense account). Carl Rove is not a politician or legislator. There is cannot be any conflict of interest or bribery issue with money he or his PAC receives. > [@](#): > > And money you donate to a SuperPAC is earmarked for speech? I am pretty sure Carl Rove can use the money for meals, transportation costs, massive staff, etc. Carl Rove is not a politician or legislator. There is cannot be any conflict of interest or bribery issue with money he or his PAC receives. ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/283 "2012-06-27T22:44:45Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Sometimes you have a crowding out effect. I’m not saying that the Democratic or Republican message are getting crowded out but almost every third party message is getting crowded out and the message of moneied interests get more exposure than is good for a democracy. How is anyone “crowded out”? Describe exactly what is happening in that scenario. (Not that this is a valid reason to censor speech either, but I want to hear it). > [@](#): > > I disagree. Giving your money to Carl Rove’s superPAC is not indistinguishable from spending the money on speech yourself, you are funding Carl Rove’s speech (and expense account). How is it different? Karl says what you want to say with your money. It’s no different from sending money to the TV station to buy the ad yourself. If you send it to an ad agency or media buyer first, is that also going to be illegal because you don’t buy the ad directly? It’s a meaningless distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Randvek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Randvek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randvek)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/284 "2012-06-28T17:36:25Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > How is it different? Karl says what you want to say with your money. It’s no different from sending money to the TV station to buy the ad yourself. If you send it to an ad agency or media buyer first, is that also going to be illegal because you don’t buy the ad directly? It’s a meaningless distinction. How is organized price fixing different than letting the market settle at a certain number and everyone follows suit? They still result in everyone having essentially the same prices. And yet, there is a world of difference if you look beyond that superficial distinction, isn’t there? ---
**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 28, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/285 "2012-06-28T18:10:05Z")
> [@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? you can cast a ballot and have it be meaningless. Because I live in a metro Atlanta suburban county, my ballot on national elections rarely has any meaning at all. That’s OK … other people in the area are outvoting me, fair and square. But with billionaires writing checks to give their favored candidates (Democratic or Republican, I don’t really care WHICH party they control, the billionaires’ candidates are going to have a lot more ability to communicate their message than others. The billionaires win. The people lose. You are either being extremely naive or disingenuous in ignoring these facts. ---
**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 28, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/286 "2012-06-28T19:25:48Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > you can cast a ballot and have it be meaningless. Because I live in a metro Atlanta suburban county, my ballot on national elections rarely has any meaning at all. That’s OK … other people in the area are outvoting me, fair and square. But with billionaires writing checks to give their favored candidates (Democratic or Republican, I don’t really care WHICH party they control, the billionaires’ candidates are going to have a lot more ability to communicate their message than others. The billionaires win. The people lose. You are either being extremely naive or disingenuous in ignoring these facts. Um, no. In the case of the billioniares, the voters CHOOSE to listen to them, and they CHOOSE to vote a certain way. It’s still entirely their CHOICE. The scenario is exactly the same as the first one - a majority of voters outvote you. The reasons why are irrelevant. They can vote for any reason they want, including because billionaires ran ads imploring them to vote a certain way. Or they can choose not to. Nothing stopping them from voting against the billionaires. The idea that “the people lose” because they go to the polls and choose a candidate is beyond absurd. ---
**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 28, 2012, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/287 "2012-06-28T19:26:52Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > How is organized price fixing different than letting the market settle at a certain number and everyone follows suit? They still result in everyone having essentially the same prices. And yet, there is a world of difference if you look beyond that superficial distinction, isn’t there? I’m going to need more detail to understand your point. I don’t think that analogy works at all. ---
**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 28, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/288 "2012-06-28T19:54:18Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > you can cast a ballot and have it be meaningless. Because I live in a metro Atlanta suburban county, my ballot on national elections rarely has any meaning at all. That’s OK … other people in the area are outvoting me, fair and square. But with billionaires writing checks to give their favored candidates (Democratic or Republican, I don’t really care WHICH party they control, the billionaires’ candidates are going to have a lot more ability to communicate their message than others. The billionaires win. The people lose. You are either being extremely naive or disingenuous in ignoring these facts. I have to come back to this. You’re actually saying that the people, after going to the polls and freely and voluntarily making their choices on who to vote for, “lose” because of the choices THEY made. That’s just truly bizarre. It really does go to the heart of this absolutely ricidulous premise that somehow money or speech can control what people do or think. The voters are making the choice of who is elected! Did you forget that obvious and undeniable fact? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/289 "2012-06-29T01:26:16Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > (I don’t think I posted that). [#250](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15204870&postcount=250) > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Because spending and donations are two different things. And it matters who you are donating too. Donations to broadcasting companies. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > The reasons why are irrelevant. Not so. If someone is paid to vote a certain way, for instance, that’s highly relevant. ---
**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 29, 2012, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/290 "2012-06-29T13:56:13Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > [#250](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15204870&postcount=250) Ah, you’re referring to the Buckley quote? > [@](#): > > Donations to broadcasting companies. Sigh. Now payments for services are political donations? When you buy an Obama T-shirt from some guy who has no connection with the Obama campaign, and is just making a buck, is that a “donation” too? You keep making absurd statements. > [@](#): > > Not so. If someone is paid to vote a certain way, for instance, that’s highly relevant. Nobody is being paid to vote a certain way though. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/291 "2012-07-01T02:09:15Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Ah, you’re referring to the Buckley quote? Yes, which you posted. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > When you buy an Obama T-shirt from some guy who has no connection with the Obama campaign, and is just making a buck, is that a “donation” too? Does producing shirts form the majority of a candidate’s political expenditure? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Nobody is being paid to vote a certain way though. Doesn’t mean that the reasons why people vote are irrelevant. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2012, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/292 "2012-07-01T22:11:19Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Does producing shirts form the majority of a candidate’s political expenditure? Oh, so now that matters. You’ve never once mentioned that before. So now you think a First Amendment exception is justified based on how much money is being spent by a third party relative to how much candidate is spending. Your desperation is getting complicated. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t mean that the reasons why people vote are irrelevant. They are none of your damn business, so yeah, they are irrelevant. Deciding that you don’t like why someone votes the way they do is not an excuse for violating the Bill of Rights. See why your view is so fundamentally arrogant and disrespectful of democracy? Stay the hell out of the voters’ minds. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/293 "2012-07-01T23:25:46Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Oh, so now that matters. You’ve never once mentioned that before. So now you think a First Amendment exception is justified based on how much money is being spent by a third party relative to how much candidate is spending. > > Your desperation is getting complicated. > > They are none of your damn business, so yeah, they are irrelevant. Deciding that you don’t like why someone votes the way they do is not an excuse for violating the Bill of Rights. See why your view is so fundamentally arrogant and disrespectful of democracy? Stay the hell out of the voters’ minds. Your view is based on the nonsense notion that advertising doesn’t work. Swaying elections with unlimited money isn’t what democracy is about. If you want to live in a plutocracy, just say so. But I think you’d find the gilded age wasn’t good for most Americans. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/294 "2012-07-02T00:48:11Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your view is based on the nonsense notion that advertising doesn’t work. False. I have said so many times - of course it works. YOUR view is based on the arrogant notion that the fact that advertising works means the people are stupid and need the government to control what they see and here. > [@](#): > > Swaying elections with unlimited money isn’t what democracy is about. You don’t get to say what democracy is all about. The voters do. They can vote for whoever they want for any reason they want. Get your nose out of their business. > [@](#): > > If you want to live in a plutocracy, just say so. But I think you’d find the gilded age wasn’t good for most Americans. You don’t get to decide that the voters are too stupid to decide for themselves that they don’t want to live in a plutocracy. They decide, not you. Stop your arrogant 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:** [July 2, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/295 "2012-07-02T01:12:53Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your view is based on the nonsense notion that advertising doesn’t work. So you’re saying you’re too stupid to think about ads critically? You see 10 Obama ads and 15 Romney ads and you’re going out to vote for Romney? Yes or no? Or is it not you, because you’re sooooooo smart, but the rest of us voters who are too stupid to handle ads and need the government to protect us from them? On behalf of the millions of voters you’re insulting: stuff it, you arrogant jerk. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/296 "2012-07-02T05:46:17Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So you’re saying you’re too stupid. . . > . . . > On behalf of the millions of voters you’re insulting: stuff it, you arrogant jerk. Name calling and personal insults are not permitted outside The BBQ Pit. This is a Warning to refrain from such posts in the future. [/Moderating] ---
**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:** [July 2, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/297 "2012-07-02T13:49:20Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Name calling and personal insults are not permitted outside The BBQ Pit. > > This is a Warning to refrain from such posts in the future. > > [/Moderating] I apologize. I should have said it a different way. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/298 "2012-07-02T17:37:18Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > You’ve never once mentioned that before. [?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15212292&postcount=272) I’ve linked [this](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cid=N00009638) too in one thread or another. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > They are none of your damn business, so yeah, they are irrelevant. Deciding that you don’t like why someone votes the way they do is not an excuse for violating the Bill of Rights. See why your view is so fundamentally arrogant and disrespectful of democracy? Stay the hell out of the voters’ minds. My paying someone to vote the way I want is none of your damn business. Deciding that you don’t like why someone votes the way they do is not an excuse for violating the Bill of Rights (since paying for something is functionally the same as saying it). See why your view is so fundamentally arrogant and disrespectful of democracy? Stay the hell out of the voters’ minds. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > They can vote for whoever they want for any reason they want. Get your nose out of their business. Unless they vote for candidates wanting to limit the influence of money on voters, in which five people can determine they’re not allowed to do that. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/299 "2012-07-02T17:49:17Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > My paying someone to vote the way I want is none of your damn business. Huh? Nobody is paying anyone to vote here. That’s illegal already. > [@](#): > > Unless they vote for candidates wanting to limit the influence of money on voters, in which five people can determine they’re not allowed to do that. Wow. So your argument is that the voters didn’t want their votes to be influenced by certain speech - so they VOTED not to be? Since you’re the one actually saying this, with a straight face, I guess I’ll have to be very explicit in explaining the silliness in that: 1. It means the voters declared that they are just too weak-minded to simply ignore, or think critically about, certain speech. 2. It means the voters were capable of thinking critically about the speech, by voting to ban it. In short, voters are smart enough to know how dumb they are. That’s your argument. No, here’s what really happened: SOME voters were sore losers and didn’t like the fact that other voters voted a certain way, so they decided those voters are stupid and need to be shielded from certain speech. Then the courts said no. In other words, the First Amendment worked just an intended. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/300 "2012-07-03T03:14:27Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So you’re saying you’re too stupid to think about ads critically? You see 10 Obama ads and 15 Romney ads and you’re going out to vote for Romney? No. But I’m uncommonly informed. In fact I think I heard today that over 40% of people didn’t know the SCOTUS had ruled on Obamacare. Being misinformed doesn’t mean you’re stupid. It means that you base your choices on the information you have. And a monolithic wall of advertising can sway a lot of people. > [@](#): > > Yes or no? Answered. > [@](#): > > Or is it not you, because you’re sooooooo smart, but the rest of us voters who are too stupid to handle ads and need the government to protect us from them? > > On behalf of the millions of voters you’re insulting: stuff it, you arrogant jerk. I’m not insulting anyone. I just think that unlimited donations allow the rich to have the donating power of millions of Americans. If someone is going to blanket the airways with ads, I’d prefer it to be with money from millions of donors, not with money from one or two big money guys who have very specific desires for the rules and regulations that we live by. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=16)