# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/301 "2012-07-03T11:10:27Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > 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. The _majority_ of voters. Why do you have democracy? That may not have even been their motivation. Perhaps they wanted unions to participate in a Ghent system, perhaps they wanted corporations to fulfil their primary legal obligation of making money for their shareholders instead of campaigning. ---
**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 3, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/302 "2012-07-03T13:24:00Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > The _majority_ of voters. Why do you have democracy? You do understand that we also have a Bill of Rights that prevents even a majority of voters from doing certain things, right? That’s on purpose. “Tyranny of the majority” is one thing the Bill of Rights protects us from. This situation is a perfect example. It’s shocking that you don’t understand that. This is why I keep saying blanket statements like “you can’t ban speech” - you don’t seem to understand even that. No, you can’t just ban speech you don’t like or you personally find distasteful or you think causes election outcomes you don’t like. You can’t do that. Nor can the voters. No. > [@](#): > > That may not have even been their motivation. Perhaps they wanted unions to participate in a Ghent system, perhaps they wanted corporations to fulfil their primary legal obligation of making money for their shareholders instead of campaigning. Their motivation is irrelevant. They can’t do it, period. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/303 "2012-07-04T15:42:37Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > This is why I keep saying blanket statements like “you can’t ban speech” I was wondering why you continued to braise that rotting canard. Guess it’s because you hate democracy then! ---
**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 4, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/304 "2012-07-04T17:51:10Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > I was wondering why you continued to braise that rotting canard. Guess it’s because you hate democracy then! Because you’re incredibly arrogant and think you can ban it simply because you think the voters are too stupid to handle it. Your contempt for democracy couldn’t go much lower. Happy July 4! ---
**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 4, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/305 "2012-07-04T19:22:50Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Because you’re incredibly arrogant and think you can ban it simply because you think the voters are too stupid to handle it. > > Your contempt for democracy couldn’t go much lower. > > Happy July 4! You think that ad hominem attacks are all you need to prove a point? You don’t have an _argument_, you have an _assertion_. You are asserting that wanting limits on spending in political campaigns destroys democracy. You certainly have not demonstrated that. And all you do otherwise is decry those that support such limits. You’re screaming, not debating. There is a difference. ---
**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 4, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/306 "2012-07-04T19:39:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You think that ad hominem attacks are all you need to prove a point? Sorry - your argument is arrogant. > [@](#): > > You don’t have an _argument_, you have an _assertion_. You are asserting that wanting limits on spending in political campaigns destroys democracy. No better than yours. > [@](#): > > You’re screaming, not debating. There is a difference. Same with you. You think you’re smarter than everyone else. You can’t see that. People like that sometimes need to be just told no. No. You may not limit speech. You may not declare the voters are too stupid to hear something. Read the First Amendment. The answer is no. ---
**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 4, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/307 "2012-07-04T19:44:56Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Sorry - your argument is arrogant. > > No better than yours. > > Same with you. > > You think you’re smarter than everyone else. You can’t see that. People like that sometimes need to be just told no. > > No. I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else. In any case, one doesn’t need to be particularly smart to see the vast, open stretches of \*derp \*in your side of the issue. > [@](#): > > You may not limit speech. You may not declare the voters are too stupid to hear something. Read the First Amendment. The answer is no. Again, speech is limited currently. So the first amendment allows it. Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves sedition is limited. Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves yelling fire in a theater is limited. Fact: The government says that your speech, if it is claiming something you product cannot do is limited. Since speech can be limited for good reason, the question is, is manipulating elections with unlimited money a good reason. I say yes. You say, “Speech can’t be limited!” Which, as I have shown above, isn’t correct. Your entire position is predicated on not knowing what you’re talking about. ---
**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 5, 2012, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/308 "2012-07-05T00:18:22Z")
[quote=“Lobohan, post:307, topic:624699”] I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else. [QUOTE] Yes, you do. You think the voters are stupid and need you to limit what they see and hear. Yet somehow you are smart enough to see that advertising works - because of course it doesn’t work on YOU, because YOU are smarter than those idiots. > [@](#): > > Again, speech is limited currently. So the first amendment allows it. Sigh. If you can just make any exception to a rule that you want, there would be no rule. > [@](#): > > Since speech can be limited for good reason, the question is, is manipulating elections with unlimited money a good reason. Well, finally! > [@](#): > > I say yes. Because you think the voters are too stupid to handle it, and can be “manipulated.” No, they are not. That’s the basic premise of the First Amendment - that the voters can handle unlimited amounts of speech. > [@](#): > > You say, “Speech can’t be limited!” Which, as I have shown above, isn’t correct. Your entire position is predicated on not knowing what you’re talking about. Yes, I know that I have to spell things out to you in elaborate detail over and over and you still won’t listen. So I’m done wasting my speech on you. The First Amendment is still safe from people like you. Happy July 4th! ---
**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 5, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/309 "2012-07-05T01:36:14Z")
[quote=“lance\_strongarm, post:308, topic:624699”] [quote=“Lobohan, post:307, topic:624699”] I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else. > [@](#): > > Yes, you do. You think the voters are stupid and need you to limit what they see and hear. Yet somehow you are smart enough to see that advertising works - because of course it doesn’t work on YOU, because YOU are smarter than those idiots. > > Sigh. > > If you can just make any exception to a rule that you want, there would be no rule. > > Well, finally! > > Because you think the voters are too stupid to handle it, and can be “manipulated.” > > No, they are not. That’s the basic premise of the First Amendment - that the voters can handle unlimited amounts of speech. > > Yes, I know that I have to spell things out to you in elaborate detail over and over and you still won’t listen. > > So I’m done wasting my speech on you. > > The First Amendment is still safe from people like you. Happy July 4th! I understand why you want to run away, since you have made literally no argument and are doing nothing more to make your case that repeating it over and over. No wonder you want unlimited political spending. 😃 ---
**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 5, 2012, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/310 "2012-07-05T13:29:30Z")
[quote=“Lobohan, post:309, topic:624699”] [quote=“lance\_strongarm, post:308, topic:624699”] > [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else.I understand why you want to run away, since you have made literally no argument and are doing nothing more to make your case that repeating it over and over. > > No wonder you want unlimited political spending. 😃 I’m not running away. I’m right here. If you have something new to add, I’ll be ready. But you’ve stooped to insults, taunts, claims that I’ve said things I haven’t, repeating your same points and ignoring my responses, etc. You’ve run out of steam. There’s no point. When you want to discuss what I say instead of just talking to yourself, I’m here. ---
**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 5, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/311 "2012-07-05T14:41:23Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’m not running away. I’m right here. If you have something new to add, I’ll be ready. > > But you’ve stooped to insults, taunts, claims that I’ve said things I haven’t, repeating your same points and ignoring my responses, etc. You’ve run out of steam. There’s no point. > > When you want to discuss what I say instead of just talking to yourself, I’m here. Wait, you’re saying I’m resorting to insults? You’re the one who keeps pretending I’m calling the voting populace stupid and calling me arrogant. Lance, bubbie, you are screaming and I’m debating. That’s why you’re losing. Well, that and, you don’t have a leg to stand on since you’re on the side of the issue that is pro-corporate-oligarchy. ---
**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 5, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/312 "2012-07-05T14:47:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Wait, you’re saying I’m resorting to insults? You’re the one who keeps pretending I’m calling the voting populace stupid and calling me arrogant. > > Lance, bubbie, you are screaming and I’m debating. That’s why you’re losing. Well, that and, you don’t have a leg to stand on since you’re on the side of the issue that is pro-corporate-oligarchy. If all you can do is make accusations, then we’re done here. Clearly there’s no productive conversation 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:** [July 5, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/313 "2012-07-05T14:48:38Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Wait, you’re saying I’m resorting to insults? You’re the one who keeps pretending I’m calling the voting populace stupid and calling me arrogant. > > Lance, bubbie, you are screaming and I’m debating. That’s why you’re losing. Well, that and, you don’t have a leg to stand on since you’re on the side of the issue that is pro-corporate-oligarchy. If all you can do is make accusations and circumstantial ad hominems, then we’re done here. Clearly there’s no productive conversation happening. If you believe I’m not debating, stop trying to debate me. The thread speaks for itself. ---
**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 5, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/314 "2012-07-05T15:11:36Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If all you can do is make accusations and circumstantial ad hominems, then we’re done here. Clearly there’s no productive conversation happening. If you believe I’m not debating, stop trying to debate me. The thread speaks for itself. I can’t force you to honestly evaluate the issue, but I can point out where you’re laughably wrong. ---
**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 5, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/315 "2012-07-05T15:15:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I can’t force you to honestly evaluate the issue, but I can point out where you’re laughably wrong. If you think that’s the case, then stop trying. Stop posting. Just coming back here to insist you’re right or throw insults at me is pointless. I’ll let you have the last word if that’s what you want. ---
**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 5, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/316 "2012-07-05T15:30:46Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If you think that’s the case, then stop trying. Stop posting. Just coming back here to insist you’re right or throw insults at me is pointless. I’ll let you have the last word if that’s what you want. I don’t want the last word. I want to rebut your assertions. Which is easy, because you don’t support them. ---
**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 5, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/317 "2012-07-05T17:08:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t want the last word. I want to rebut your assertions. Which is easy, because you don’t support them. Good, then I’ll take the last word. I have exhaustively answered all your questions and objections. Several times. You have ignored them. You are now alleging the same from me. So until you have something new to say, I’ll refer you to the thread. It speaks for itself. ---
**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 5, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/318 "2012-07-05T17:12:11Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Good, then I’ll take the last word. > > I have exhaustively answered all your questions and objections. Several times. You have ignored them. You are now alleging the same from me. So until you have something new to say, I’ll refer you to the thread. It speaks for itself. Your version of answer objections is to scream that I think Americans are stupid. Hardly a reasonable conclusion to draw. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/319 "2012-07-05T17:44:29Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your version of answer objections is to scream that I think Americans are stupid. > > Hardly a reasonable conclusion to draw. You contend that voters are not smart enough to avoid being controlled by advertising for political candidates, do you not? ---
**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 5, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/320 "2012-07-05T17:53:47Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your version of answer objections is to scream that I think Americans are stupid. > > Hardly a reasonable conclusion to draw. Yes, it’s very clear that’s exactly what you think. It’s not possible for you to have your opinion otherwise. Your argument is: 1. Lobohan thinks certain election outcomes are undesirable. 2. Advertising brings about those outcomes. 3. Therefore we must suppress advertising. What’s missing from your argument, but must be there for it to work, is: 1. The voters cannot simply ignore, disagree, or critically think about the ads, nor can they be trusted to actually desire to vote for who they voted for because they choose to, rather than simply because the ads told them to. Your argument assumes the voters are stupid. You can’t escape that. That the voters are not stupid is the fundamental premise behind freedom of speech - they can handle speech, and they can decide what to do with it. The First Amendment was designed to prevent exactly your reasoning - which is why it’s not at all an allowable exception to the First Amendment. It goes directly to the heart of it, and of democracy itself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=17)