# 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:** 18
**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 6, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/341 "2012-07-06T17:09:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s not a an accurate summation of my position. You’re pretending it’s not, but it’s very clear. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/342 "2012-07-06T17:10:01Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Your argument assumes the voters are stupid. You can’t escape that. So does spending hundreds of millions of dollars on electioneering communications. The voters responded to that arrogant assumption of stupidity on their part by rejecting it. You fully endorse it. ---
**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 6, 2012, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/343 "2012-07-06T17:15:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > First off, you are inaccurately framing it. Limits on spending aren’t limits on content. And a cap on spending would apply to everyone. We already have campaign finance limits. No, we do not have any limits on spending on speech. Not even for campaigns. > [@](#): > > The first amendment wasn’t designed to be a lever that would allow an oligarchy to form. Bull. The First Amendment was designed to protect speech. You don’t get to say it was deigned to be violated for any particular reason. You can’t just make up excuses for violating it. > [@](#): > > That’s just stupid. I’ve shown you that there are already limits on speech when the need is great. You being unable to insert that information into your brain is what causes you to make such nonsense declarations. Sigh. No, “the need is great” is not a test for the constitutionality of violating free speech. That test would justify pretty much any ridiculous idea. Which is why you propose it, of course. > [@](#): > > No one is asking for the repeal of the First Amendment. Could you please stop dishonestly characterizing what I’m saying? Not dishonest. You said “I’d support a convention to change the constitution.” You’d have to repeal it, or at least roll it back. > [@](#): > > Fighting fair is what this is about. You may not care if the country descends into a new gilded age. But I do. Of course I do. But it doesn’t justify violating the Constitution to prevent it. That’s not fighting fair. The VOTERS will decide whether we descend into a new gilded age. ---
**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 6, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/344 "2012-07-06T17:19:45Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > So does spending hundreds of millions of dollars on electioneering communications. The voters responded to that arrogant assumption of stupidity on their part by rejecting it. You fully endorse it. You are so unbelievably absurd. The voters reject ads when they vote in elections. Or not. As you said, advertising works. They cannot vote to deny other voters the right to do that. They will decide whether they want to believe an ad - by SEEING it. Your preposterous logic asks us to believe that the voters are smart enough to know how stupid they are. They vote to shield themselves from speech because they know they can’t handle the speech? That’s just plain bullshit. Does this mean that YOU can’t handle ads? YOU will do whatever an ad tells you? YOU can’t resist or think critically about ads? No, I don’t think so. I think you’d say you can handle them. Why do you think you’re special? ---
**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 6, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/345 "2012-07-06T17:21:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It isn’t a slippy slope, silly. Additional regulations as they become necessary isn’t an example of snowballing. Saying that we can put limits on speech to change the outcome of elections because we can put limits on sedition is the slippery slope. It’s complete looniness. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/346 "2012-07-06T17:36:10Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The VOTERS will decide whether we descend into a new gilded age. We’re already in one, have you looked at the numbers? The voters will decide if we get OUT of this one, with the billionaires using their huge economic advantage to keep us in one. And though you would LIKE to see the First Amendment perverted into a rationale for an unequal, unending advantage for the wealthy in the use of the mass media, a lot of people will see your desire for what it is, and fight you ever step of the way. For the record, I think that, with the billionaires backing, you are very likely to win for the forseeable future, and that American democracy will continue to be a plutocracy for a time. A very dark time for the not-rich of us. Enjoy! ---
**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:** [July 6, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/347 "2012-07-06T17:39:48Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Saying that we can put limits on speech to change the outcome of elections because we can put limits on sedition is the slippery slope. It’s complete looniness. Allowing plutocrats to hold a perpetual, unequal advantage in the use of the mass media is a DIRECT THREAT to democracy. Nothing loony about 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 6, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/348 "2012-07-06T17:58:40Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > For the record, I think that, with the billionaires backing, you are very likely to win for the forseeable future, and that American democracy will continue to be a plutocracy for a time. A very dark time for the not-rich of us. Enjoy! I don’t want a plutocracy either, so that would be a loss. But that’s for the voters to decide. Isn’t it? ---
**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 6, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/349 "2012-07-06T18:01:19Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Allowing plutocrats to hold a perpetual, unequal advantage in the use of the mass media is a DIRECT THREAT to democracy. Nothing loony about that. So let’s get this straight - election results are a direct threat to democracy. Yeah, makes sense. Nothing loony about that. The First Amendment says you cannot declare that someone has an unequal advantage in the use of mass media and try to “fix” that. You simply can’t do it. You need to finally accept that. I know it’s hard to accept that others have rights, and that they use them in ways you don’t like. But that’s life. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/350 "2012-07-06T18:46:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > And though you would LIKE to see the First Amendment perverted into a rationale for an unequal, unending advantage for the wealthy in the use of the mass media, a lot of people will see your desire for what it is, and fight you ever step of the way. Rah rah. Just out of curiosity, what’s the next step in the glorious battle? ---
**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 6, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/351 "2012-07-06T18:53:10Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > We’re already in one, have you looked at the numbers? The voters will decide if we get OUT of this one They will? ---
**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:** [July 6, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/352 "2012-07-06T20:45:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Rah rah. > > Just out of curiosity, what’s the next step in the glorious battle? Keeping campaign donations (including PAC donations) to a limit of $250 is about all I had in mind. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/353 "2012-07-06T20:48:48Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > They will? Sure, they will. We agree on that. You just think it’s OK to let the wealthy have machine guns and cannon while the rest of us fight it out in the media with the equivalent of with bow and arrows. I just don’t want to see it get down to actual bullets, cause if ballots get meaningless, things can get to bullets fast. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/354 "2012-07-06T20:50:46Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I don’t want a plutocracy either, so that would be a loss. I really, really, really do not believe 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 6, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/355 "2012-07-06T21:08:45Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Keeping campaign donations (including PAC donations) to a limit of $250 is about all I had in mind. Campaign donations are already limited. The limit is higher than $250, but you basically have what you want. And it has nothing to do with Citizens United, which didn’t alter donation limits to campaigns. You may want nothing more than limits on donations, but others want far more. But I’m still not sure that’s all you want. ---
**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 6, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/356 "2012-07-06T21:10:01Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I really, really, really do not believe that. I don’t care what you believe. I am not here to prove anything about myself to you. I could, but this isn’t about me. Go read the ACLU’s brief in support of the Citizens United decision. That will blow your mind too. ---
**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 6, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/357 "2012-07-06T21:12:05Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Sure, they will. We agree on that. You just think it’s OK to let the wealthy have machine guns and cannon while the rest of us fight it out in the media with the equivalent of with bow and arrows. I just don’t want to see it get down to actual bullets, cause if ballots get meaningless, things can get to bullets fast. No, I don’t believe that at all. (Remember, people can and do pool their money to meet the big guns with their own). But when you compare speech with weapons, you’re never going to get it. If you think everyone should have the same amount of speech, then you are for limits on ALL speech, and you want to ration it. Do you? Should everyone be limited to exactly the same amount of speech? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/358 "2012-07-06T23:29:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I really, really, really do not believe that. As has been pointed out, the ACLU was in favor of the Citizens United outcome. Do you also believe they seek a plutocracy? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2012, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/359 "2012-07-07T12:51:50Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > The voters reject ads when they vote in elections. Like they did when they voted for the politicians responsible for BCRA 2005. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > But that’s for the voters to decide. Isn’t it? No, it’s for five justices to decide. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > The First Amendment says you cannot declare that someone has an unequal advantage in the use of mass media and try to “fix” that. Guess we’d better shut down PBS then. ---
**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:** [July 7, 2012, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/360 "2012-07-07T13:09:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As has been pointed out, the ACLU was in favor of the Citizens United outcome. > > Do you also believe they seek a plutocracy? They’re lawyers, very compartmentalized thinkers. They probably don’t realize that they are the unwitting dupes of plutocrats. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=19)