# 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:** 23
**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 22, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/441 "2012-07-22T15:56:49Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The government already limits speech. > > We had limitations on this speech before and it didn’t crash our society into the rocks. Stop it. You keep throwing out these pointless generalities, ignoring the fact that the discussion has thoroughly addressed 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 22, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/442 "2012-07-22T15:58:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It is actually the law, not a guideline. Pretty scary when people call the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, a “guideline.” ---
**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 22, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/443 "2012-07-22T15:59:48Z")
> [@Untoward\_Parable](#): > > Money is the supreme law. Period. Between law and effect is so much room for muddling by bureaucrats from non-enforcement to exaggerated defense to agencies instructed not to pursue this and that and presidents deciding theyre going to do what they want and justify it later. > > You’re living in fantasy land. Yeah yeah yeah. Got any more conspiracies? ---
**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 22, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/444 "2012-07-22T16:02:16Z")
> [@Untoward\_Parable](#): > > I agree about books, documentaries, movies and cable(to some extent, the government/taxes generally bears the cost of maintaining cable lines), pamphlet distribution could also be limited. Any form of advertising basically anywhere. Theres no reason we can’t tell media companies that they have to survive on subscription fees. IF only political ads are being restricted it’s not even doing that so these big money donors can cry me a river and go picket or get involved individually like any other American. No. You can’t restrict speech. You can’t decide that some speech has too much influence, or amplifies the influence of money, or whatever. You just can’t do it. You’ll have to roll back the First Amendment first. ---
**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 22, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/445 "2012-07-22T16:04:48Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Slippery slope. Nope, not at all. You are arguing for the most broad exceptions possible. Your exceptions basically ignore the First Amendment entirely. They would do away with it. You can’t possibly argue that your exception should be accepted, but turn around and say others should be rejected. There is no grounds. You couldn’t be violating the First Amendment any more than you are now. You’re already at the bottom of that slippery slope, and you’re just waiting for others to come sliding down on your head. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/446 "2012-07-22T16:08:40Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Pretty scary when people call the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, a “guideline.” Oh yeah. It means we don’t actually have any rights. All those rights we supposedly have? Just aspirations, to be set aside as soon as they are inconvenient. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/447 "2012-07-22T16:10:32Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Nope, not at all. > > You are arguing for the most broad exceptions possible. Your exceptions basically ignore the First Amendment entirely. They would do away with it. You can’t possibly argue that your exception should be accepted, but turn around and say others should be rejected. There is no grounds. You couldn’t be violating the First Amendment any more than you are now. You’re already at the bottom of that slippery slope, and you’re just waiting for others to come sliding down on your head. The problem isn’t so much that it’s a slippery slope as much that there is no way to rewrite the 1st amendment without repealing it completely. All of the proposed anti-Citizens United amendments are either self-contradictory, rendering them legally meaningless, or give such broad censorship powers to the government that the 1st amendment no longer exists. ---
**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 22, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/448 "2012-07-22T16:46:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The problem isn’t so much that it’s a slippery slope as much that there is no way to rewrite the 1st amendment without repealing it completely. All of the proposed anti-Citizens United amendments are either self-contradictory, rendering them legally meaningless, or give such broad censorship powers to the government that the 1st amendment no longer exists. Yep. And the supreme irony is that most of the proposed amendments are being advocated by organizations that would lose rights under their own amendments or using modes of speech that could be outlawed under their own amendments. And they don’t even seem to understand that. ---
**Author:** ![Untoward\_Parable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/51bf81/32.png) [@Untoward\_Parable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Untoward_Parable)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/449 "2012-07-22T17:07:53Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yep. > > And the supreme irony is that most of the proposed amendments are being advocated by organizations that would lose rights under their own amendments or using modes of speech that could be outlawed under their own amendments. And they don’t even seem to understand that. It may have some Irony but is untrue that they don’t understand it. The factor that money brings to politics is perversive and will lead us further into a plutocratic fascist society. Abstract constitutional religiosity divorced from it’s effect on our country is not a meaningful defense. You don’t cut a baby in half because two parents each have a right to it. You look at makes sense in the real world. In the real world unlimited private money influencing our politics is destroying us. You can see the notes of the self sustaining monster in people that will gladly defend it against the interests of themselves, their friends and family. Propaganda has been able to get people to do insane things throughout history. It may not fool everyone but in a democracy you don’t need to. You just need a heap of cash to fool or otherwise neutralize most of them. Just pray that your interests never run counter to the wealthy minority. By the time you realize they’re coming from you you may barely have the time to realize how foolish your support for them was before you’re penniless and everything you care about is in ruins. If you’re lucky you could even become one of the wealthy, on the backs of millions and millions of exploited people. What a joy that would be huh? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/450 "2012-07-22T17:35:14Z")
And the rich rule us by persuading us to see things their way? So if you silence them, who will be our proper brainwashers? The government? Because historically, the only substitute for rule by the economic elite is rule by the state elite. ---
**Author:** ![Untoward\_Parable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/51bf81/32.png) [@Untoward\_Parable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Untoward_Parable)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/451 "2012-07-22T18:04:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And the rich rule us by persuading us to see things their way? So if you silence them, who will be our proper brainwashers? The government? Because historically, the only substitute for rule by the economic elite is rule by the state elite. The issues with state speech are related to private “speech”, in that the abuse of it is usually related to a private interest funding the elections and personal benefits of the state operatives that use it on their behalf. Obviously you want to fight corruption of public announcements and so on. They would not be silenced. They would have as much right to speech as anyone else. If they had good things to say people would choose to listen to them instead of it being very inconvenient not to. Right now because of money in politics most people in the relative competition have virtually no speech. To preserve the exaggerated right of speech of the wealthy you have to accept the vastly diminished right of speech for everyone else. ---
**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 22, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/452 "2012-07-22T18:17:28Z")
> [@Untoward\_Parable](#): > > The issues with state speech are related to private “speech”, in that the abuse of it is usually related to a private interest funding the elections and personal benefits of the state operatives that use it on their behalf. Obviously you want to fight corruption of public announcements and so on. > > They would not be silenced. They would have as much right to speech as anyone else. If they had good things to say people would choose to listen to them instead of it being very inconvenient not to. How much speech anyone has is irrelevant. You may not use that as a basis for determining whether to violate speech rights. Everyone has the right to as much speech as they want. No limits. > [@](#): > > Right now because of money in politics most people in the relative competition have virtually no speech. To preserve the exaggerated right of speech of the wealthy you have to accept the vastly diminished right of speech for everyone else. So money IS speech now? ---
**Author:** ![Untoward\_Parable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/51bf81/32.png) [@Untoward\_Parable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Untoward_Parable)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/453 "2012-07-22T18:25:16Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > How much speech anyone has is irrelevant. You may not use that as a basis for determining whether to violate speech rights. Everyone has the right to as much speech as they want. No limits. > > So money IS speech now? These things are not naturally true or untrue, they are man made conditions. As long as we allow money to be speech it is, when we stop it won’t be anymore. The amount of speech everyone has is supremely relevant. You don’t right the rules of society by the technicalities, you write them to deal with realities. (or you’re just a big dummy). ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/454 "2012-07-22T18:50:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If it is not the law, then no one in Congress is legally elected, and the President isn’t the President. Okay, my teminology was quite blatantly incorrect. It is the supreme law, it takes precedence over other laws as a check on the power of Congress. The Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison. > [@adaher](#): > > I notice the tendency is to go towards more and more controlled democracy, which begs the question of why we wouldn’t just chuck democracy completely if we have to regulate it so strictly. This argument is puerile. The arguments are for restricting electioneering communications in order to preserve the validity of the electoral system in the US. The validity of the electoral system derives from democratic participation in elections, indicating that the legislation passed by people’s representatives have the will of the people. In simple plurality systems, there are numerous problems with such an assumption. Incumbency is one of them, but the inordinate effect of money on elections is another. > [@John Dewey](#): > > As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. > [@adaher](#): > > I’m loving the outcome. Yeah, productive stuff like [this](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/26/1103258/--This-is-ridiculous-Harry-Reid-says-of-Rand-Paul-s-fetal-personhood-rider-on-flood-insurance-bill), [that](http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/04/rand-pauls-egypt-crusade-threatens-postal-bill-120845.html), or [these](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/house-republicans-obamacare-repeal.php). > [@adaher](#): > > You also have to prove the quid pro quo. For charges of corruption, not for charges of an inimical effect. Congress may be unduly influenced by the power of money without their contributors seeking specific remuneration. > [@adaher](#): > > A system where we go from corporations being the same as people to political parties being the same as people(or actually trumping people, as they do in Britain) is not an improvement at all. This is a deliberate obfuscation of proportional representation. To illustrate its absurdity, one would have to assume that in geographical single plurality representation, states are the same as people (or even trump people!). One must assume that individuals within a certain locale are more likely to share federal political values than those professing adherence to the charter of a certain party. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You keep throwing out these pointless generalities > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Congress either has the power to limit speech however it wants, or it has none at all. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Pretty scary when people call the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, a “guideline.” That’s precisely what it is. It is a guide for crafting legislation in ways which will not impinge on certain basic freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Calling it simply “the law” is false, when laws written by Congress have been held to be unconstitutional. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You couldn’t be violating the First Amendment any more than you are now. You’re already at the bottom of that slippery slope, and you’re just waiting for others to come sliding down on your head. I’m not violating the first amendment at all. Your argument is still fallacious. ---
**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 22, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/455 "2012-07-22T20:27:32Z")
> [@Untoward\_Parable](#): > > These things are not naturally true or untrue, they are man made conditions. As long as we allow money to be speech it is, when we stop it won’t be anymore. Then you’re side of the debate should stop saying “money isn’t speech” if you are going to treat it like it is sometimes. > [@](#): > > The amount of speech everyone has is supremely relevant. You don’t right the rules of society by the technicalities, you write them to deal with realities. (or you’re just a big dummy). The First Amendment does not allow you to ration speech, or any other right. Sorry. The fact that you think the First Amendment is a “technicality” is another problem for you. If you want the government to decide how much speech everyone gets, you will need to repeal the First Amendment first. ---
**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 22, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/456 "2012-07-22T20:32:51Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Okay, my teminology was quite blatantly incorrect. It is the supreme law, it takes precedence over other laws as a check on the power of Congress. The Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison. Be careful what you say, because we’re here and we have unlimited speech rights to call you on whatever you say. 😉 > [@](#): > > That’s precisely what it is. It is a guide for crafting legislation I thought we just settled this. “Guideline” is a biased word. It’s the law of the land, that must be followed, not just a “guideline” that might be. > [@](#): > > Calling it simply “the law” is false, when laws written by Congress have been held to be unconstitutional. It is “the law” in the general sense of the term, as in “the law of the land.” We all understand the difference between that and laws made by legislatures. You just said “supreme law” yourself, above. > [@](#): > > I’m not violating the first amendment at all. Your argument is still fallacious. Of course you are. It’s absurd to say otherwise. You want to limit speech. Your entire purpose of limiting money spent on speech is to limit the speech itself. There’s no way around it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/457 "2012-07-23T03:08:11Z")
How do you apply this doctrine equally? Michael Moore has more ability to spread his message than the rest of us, and apparently it is wrong for the Koch Brothers to attempt to do what he does. Rachel Maddow has more rights than the rest of us. She gets an hour a day to persuade the public, backed by some rather huge corporations who pay for her show, yet Sheldon Adelson isn’t allowed to spend his own money attempting to do the same thing she does? This doctrine you are pushing that everyone should have the same level of influence and money should not increase influence is unworkable. All it does is say that industry incumbents, like the mainstream media and the political class have all the speech and no one from outside those institutions may challenge their oligopoly. ---
**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 23, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/458 "2012-07-23T14:12:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > How do you apply this doctrine equally? Michael Moore has more ability to spread his message than the rest of us, and apparently it is wrong for the Koch Brothers to attempt to do what he does. > > Rachel Maddow has more rights than the rest of us. She gets an hour a day to persuade the public, backed by some rather huge corporations who pay for her show, yet Sheldon Adelson isn’t allowed to spend his own money attempting to do the same thing she does? It’s simple - instead of running ads on someone else’s media outlet, you buy your own! Then you’re suddenly not evil and fully protected by the First Amendment, and you can spew whatever crap you want 24/7, and invite guests to do the same. Ask Rupert Murdoch how. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/459 "2012-07-23T14:46:06Z")
Seems to me that we should err on the side of liberty. It’s kinda senseless to be complaining about money equalling influence, but being okay with the media and political class demagoguing 24/7. How does a few billionaires getting their two cents in endanger democracy given an environment where Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly, and Ed Schultz can spout every day? The reformers must have us believe that Sheldon Adelson is so awesome that in 30 seconds he can make us forget everything Rachel Maddow told us an hour a day for the last three years. That’s one persuasive fellow! ---
**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 23, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/460 "2012-07-23T14:49:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Seems to me that we should err on the side of liberty. It’s kinda senseless to be complaining about money equalling influence, but being okay with the media and political class demagoguing 24/7. How does a few billionaires getting their two cents in endanger democracy given an environment where Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly, and Ed Schultz can spout every day? > > The reformers must have us believe that Sheldon Adelson is so awesome that in 30 seconds he can make us forget everything Rachel Maddow told us an hour a day for the last three years. That’s one persuasive fellow! Right, that’s the fatal dilemma that those who want to limit speech, or spending on speech, in the name of “fairness” - they will still have an entirely unfair system, by their own definition, unless they ration speech or spending on it for everyone. It won’t ever be fair until everyone is limited to exactly a certain amount (time? money spent?) on speech. Every person is alloted 5 minutes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=24)