# 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:** 24
**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:** [July 23, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/461 "2012-07-23T21:37:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In order to justify speech restrictions, substantial harm must be caused by the speech. Cite please. > [@adaher](#): > > The Constitution is the law. Nothing more and nothing less. Now if we’re talking about amending it, … I thought we were talking about interpreting it. Defining the boudaries or free speech. > [@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. Thats pretty cynical. If we removed the influence of money in politics you think that the government would step in and fill the vaccuum? Its one thing for the rich to convince me to drink Coca Cola. its another thing for the rich to lie about John Kerry’s war record and then hide behind a shroud of anonymity as their lies subvert democracy (and I don’t even like Kerry). > [@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. Thats like saying everyone can have as many guns as they want. No limits. Of COURSE there can be limits. > [@](#): > > So money IS speech now? Money can buy a pretty big megaphone. One loud enough to drown out all other speech (just as Romney’s primary opponents). > [@adaher](#): > > 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. I’d actually be happy if there were just better disclosure rules. > [@adaher](#): > > 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! Its not one 30 second ad. Its tens of millions of dollars worth of ads. At least we know where the money is coming from. ---
**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, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/462 "2012-07-23T22:20:50Z")
Damuri Ajashi, you’re making several points that have already been covered in this thread, so I won’t touch them all. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thats like saying everyone can have as many guns as they want. No limits. Of COURSE there can be limits. Really bad analogy between guns and speech. Do you believe that the government can limit how much speech anyone can have? It could limit everyone to, say, 20 minutes of speech per year? > [@](#): > > Money can buy a pretty big megaphone. One loud enough to drown out all other speech (just as Romney’s primary opponents). Nobody is “drowned out.” There is plenty of opportunity for speech, and unlimited opportunity for voters to get any information they want. ---
**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 23, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/463 "2012-07-23T23:53:53Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Damuri Ajashi, you’re making several points that have already been covered in this thread, so I won’t touch them all. > > Really bad analogy between guns and speech. > > Do you believe that the government can limit how much speech anyone can have? It could limit everyone to, say, 20 minutes of speech per year? > > Nobody is “drowned out.” There is plenty of opportunity for speech, and unlimited opportunity for voters to get any information they want. Sure they do, at least in the alternate universe where humans have more leisure time and more intelligence and objectivity. Unfortunately we live in this world with this version of humanity. With this version you can buy elections. Democracy only works when the vast majority have the ability to understand what theyre voting for and what candidates represent. It doesn’t work just because a small minority can parse the BS well. Abstract concepts of all or nothing, black and white systems do not work with real life. Stop trying to collapse the future of humanity in zealotry divorced from rationality. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/464 "2012-07-23T23:58:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Cite please. These are the limitations on the 1st amendment. All except one involve substantial harm to an identifiable victim: > **[United States free speech exceptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Communicative_impact_restrictions)** > > In the United States, some categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing limitations on certain categories of speech. > Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that... The exception is obscenity, which can be chalked up to justices being prude old men, and obscenity laws aren’t enforced anymore anyway. The court even recently upheld virtual child porn as protected speech. It’s child porn, but no children are harmed, so it’s protected. In addition, all free speech restrictions have to survive a legal doctrine called strict scrutiny: ``` It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately. ``` > **[Strict scrutiny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny)** > > In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that ... > [@](#): > > I thought we were talking about interpreting it. Defining the boudaries or free speech. Political speech is the entire reason for the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech clause. There are no boundaries to purely political speech. A case just last week protecting streaking of all things if it was a political statement further demonstrates that: > **[Northeast Portland man who stripped naked at airport is acquitted of indecent...](https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2012/07/northeast_portland_man_who_str.html)** > > John E. Brennan smiled and hugged friends after he was cleared of a charge of indecent exposure. \*\*Judge David Rees said 50-year-old John E. Brennan was indeed stripping in protest of what Brennan saw as invasive Transportation Security Administration screening procedures. “It is the speech itself that the state is seeking to punish, and that it cannot do,” Rees said.\*\* Exactly. The government can punish the HARM speech does, but not speech itself. Who is the victim when Sheldon Adelson asks you to vote for Mitt Romney? Society? Sorry, doesn’t cut it. > [@](#): > > Thats pretty cynical. If we removed the influence of money in politics you think that the government would step in and fill the vaccuum? Its one thing for the rich to convince me to drink Coca Cola. its another thing for the rich to lie about John Kerry’s war record and then hide behind a shroud of anonymity as their lies subvert democracy (and I don’t even like Kerry). Currently, two entities have undisputed, unrestricted speech rights: the state itself, and the news media. If no one else is allowed to spread their views in an unrestricted way, then those are the entities that decide what points of view we will hear. > [@](#): > > Thats like saying everyone can have as many guns as they want. No limits. Of COURSE there can be limits. The 2nd amendment allows specifically for regulation. The 1st amendment specifically prohibits regulation. > [@](#): > > Money can buy a pretty big megaphone. One loud enough to drown out all other speech (just as Romney’s primary opponents). This is a provable assertion. And easily disproven. Was the public unaware of what the other candidates’ messages were? It’s true that they saw more of Romney, but did that truly drown out the other candidates? It’s pretty clear that voters were aware of the other candidates and Romney lost many states despite his money advantage. Secondly, campaign advertising is a drop in the pond compared to the advantages of incumbency and the influence of the news media. The drowning out effect can only be seen purely locally, in cases where there is an incumbent with a big money advantage. And the only proven solution to that problem has been for the challenger to be supported by third party advertising. All public financing would do is give them equal amounts of campaign advertising, while the incumbent still enjoys the commanding heights that his office gives him. It’s still uneven. > [@](#): > > I’d actually be happy if there were just better disclosure rules. I’m fine with disclosure, but I’m under no illusions that reformers will ever be satisfied. They limited direct donations to candidates, and so corporations and rich individuals started advertising directly themselves. If one cared about open debate, this would be a plus. Donating to candidates is truly shadowy and truly bribery. Taking your case directly to the people, even if anonymously, should be far more preferable. > [@](#): > > Its not one 30 second ad. Its tens of millions of dollars worth of ads. At least we know where the money is coming from. It’s still nothing compared how many people one of the more important pundits reaches. I’d even question whether 30 second ads are more decisive than some of the bigger blogs these days. And don’t think reformers don’t have their eyes on the internet. Lots of people having “undue influence” on the internet. ---
**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 24, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/465 "2012-07-24T00:19:53Z")
> [@Untoward\_Parable](#): > > Sure they do, at least in the alternate universe where humans have more leisure time and more intelligence and objectivity. Unfortunately we live in this world with this version of humanity. With this version you can buy elections. No, you can’t buy elections. You have to have the most votes to win an election. > [@](#): > > Democracy only works when the vast majority have the ability to understand what theyre voting for and what candidates represent. It doesn’t work just because a small minority can parse the BS well. Abstract concepts of all or nothing, black and white systems do not work with real life. Stop trying to collapse the future of humanity in zealotry divorced from rationality. If you think the people are too dumb to handle voting, propose an appropriate Constitutional amendment to restrict their power. Stop beating around the bush and pretending that you want to protect democracy. You hate democracy. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/466 "2012-07-24T00:25:46Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > The First Amendment does not allow you to ration speech, or any other right. Which is what PBS is doing in effect. It is diluting the power of money to exert influence by providing a public alternative. Likewise with public education. It limits the power of parochial schools to instruct children. Would creating technology allowing users to skip ads be an appropriate response? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You just said “supreme law” yourself, above. My intention in separating the constitution from the laws passed by Congress was to assert its higher authority in legal disputes, nothing more. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Of course you are. I’m not Congress, I am not subject to the proscriptions of the first amendment. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > 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! Two wrongs fallacy. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > There is plenty of opportunity for speech, and unlimited opportunity for voters to get any information they want. This is false. Even discounting strictures of convention, there are still illiterate citizens and numerous other socioeconomic barriers to entry. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/467 "2012-07-24T00:32:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The 1st amendment specifically prohibits regulation. It takes some creative interpretation to arrive at that conclusion. The first amendment claims that Congress cannot make a law restricting the right of the people to peaceably assemble: indicating through deduction they can regulate and determine when people are assembling unpeaceably. Not to mention, the right to bear arms is in service of having a regulated militia, not the regulation of bearing arms in order to service a militia. > [@adaher](#): > > Donating to candidates is truly shadowy and truly bribery. You have to demonstrate actual corruption though. Especially since campaign donations are mostly spent on electioneering communications. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You hate democracy. What is the opinion of five people trumping the position of the populace again? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/468 "2012-07-24T00:44:32Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > It takes some creative interpretation to arrive at that conclusion. The first amendment claims that Congress cannot make a law restricting the right of the people to peaceably assemble: indicating through deduction they can regulate and determine when people are assembling unpeaceably. Not to mention, the right to bear arms is in service of having a regulated militia, not the regulation of bearing arms in order to service a militia. In regards to speech though, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the speech. Note also that speech is the thing that cannot be abridged, the speaker is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > You have to demonstrate actual corruption though. Especially since campaign donations are mostly spent on electioneering communications. That’s easy. Many Congressmen steer earmark money to their campaign contributors. A few won’t even consider earmark requests unless a donation to the campaign is made. Jack Murtha was notorious for his “pay to play” policy. And it was all perfectly legal, he didn’t even have to hide it. There is as of yet no proven relation between independent electioneering and political favors. Which means there is also as of yet no legal justification for limiting independent electioneering. But let’s be clear, corruption doesn’t seem to be the primary worry of reformers anymore. There’s been a lot of talk about the California ballot initiative that was initially supported by the public, but a blitz of corporate advertising turned the public against it. There is no corruption issue here. It’s a ballot initiative. The real issue seems to be a lack of trust in the judgment of the voters to weigh opposing arguments. Democracy worked exactly as it should have in California. The media and political class supported the initiative. Now according to reformers, apparently that should have been the last word, since apparently those two groups enjoy rights not available to anyone else by virtue of their special status or something. But then corporations and independent advocacy groups gave the other side of the argument, and they won, despite the media and political class still bleating in favor of the initiative. That’s how it’s SUPPOSED to happen. But Rachel maddow lamented that something was broken in the system. > [@](#): > > What is the opinion of five people trumping the position of the populace again? The things subject to legislation in this country are limited and everyone knows that. Kennedy in his majority decision in Citizens United even pointed out that BCRA divided speakers into “favored” and “disfavored”, which not only violates the 1st amendment, but the 14th and basic decency as well. While the public may want to grant certain entities unlimited free speech rights while censoring others, it can’t be done. We are a nation of laws, not of men. The law says we have free speech, which means we have free speech. Not “You can only have as much speech as you can share with the whole class”. ---
**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 24, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/469 "2012-07-24T01:22:23Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > What is the opinion of five people trumping the position of the populace again? Do you oppose judicial review powers by the courts? If so, then explain why. If not, stop this nonsense already. We’ve already covered this. Supporting a Constitutional republic isn’t contempt for democracy, but calling for limits on speech because you say the people are too stupid to handle it is. ---
**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 24, 2012, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/470 "2012-07-24T04:39:12Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No, you can’t buy elections. You have to have the most votes to win an election. > > If you think the people are too dumb to handle voting, propose an appropriate Constitutional amendment to restrict their power. Stop beating around the bush and pretending that you want to protect democracy. You hate democracy. Tell me how many of the last 10 presidents have had less campaign money. Tell me what the percentage of senate and congressmen winning with less money is: ok, won that argument, next. People that hate democracy wish to concentrate decision making into a few hands while diminishing the influence of the majority. You are the one who hates democracy. It’s very simple to understand. You are not fooling anyone (maybe yourself?). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/471 "2012-07-24T10:55:46Z")
> [@Untoward\_Parable](#): > > Tell me how many of the last 10 presidents have had less campaign money. Tell me what the percentage of senate and congressmen winning with less money is: ok, won that argument, next. > > . You haven’t won that argument, unless the results are skewed by incumbents in Congress who raise lots of money against token opposition. A guy like Charlie Rangel would raise $500,000 and face an opponent who raised $5000. But if you look at races where the incumbent raised $500,000 and his opponent say, $250,000, and his opponent had a pretty good chance of winning. In the post-Citizens United world, incumbent money advantages have meant less. Citizens United evened the playing field between incumbents and cash-poor challengers. Also, in 2006 and 2010, the party that raised the least money won Congress. ---
**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 24, 2012, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/472 "2012-07-24T11:03:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You haven’t won that argument, unless the results are skewed by incumbents in Congress who raise lots of money against token opposition. A guy like Charlie Rangel would raise $500,000 and face an opponent who raised $5000. But if you look at races where the incumbent raised $500,000 and his opponent say, $250,000, and his opponent had a pretty good chance of winning. > > In the post-Citizens United world, incumbent money advantages have meant less. Citizens United evened the playing field between incumbents and cash-poor challengers. > > Also, in 2006 and 2010, the party that raised the least money won Congress. You’re just saying that unless a candidate is sufficiently greased by rich guys, they’ll never win. We get that. Now here is where we part ways: WE don’t approve of this state of affairs. You do. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/473 "2012-07-24T11:11:12Z")
Another way of looking at it is that only the incumbent can win if neither candidate can get their message out. Which requires donations, not necessarily from rich guys. Lots of candidate raise large amounts of money from small donors. The alternative is a system in which no candidate can win without the support of the corporate news media or the political establishment. Another positive side effect of Citizens United has been that anti-establishment candidates have found it easier to defeat long entrenched incumbents. These incumbents tended to be backed not only by the party bosses, but also by the news media, who had gotten used to the access. Without free speech, there is no way to counteract the influence of the news media and the political establishment. What they say goes. Which is why those two entities are trying very hard to convince well meaning people that something is broken when they can’t monopolize the airwaves. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/474 "2012-07-24T11:25:19Z")
Another “money in politics” problem, one that actually is corrupting, is turning out all the people who benefit from government money. For some reason the reformers don’t see a problem with votes literally being bought in this way. Give people money and make it clear that receiving the money is dependent on their support for the party that gave them money= democracy? Use far smaller amounts to persuade people to vote a certain way= corruption? ---
**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 24, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/475 "2012-07-24T15:03:22Z")
> [@Untoward\_Parable](#): > > Tell me how many of the last 10 presidents have had less campaign money. Tell me what the percentage of senate and congressmen winning with less money is: ok, won that argument, next. Were they elected with a majority of the votes? (Leave out Al Gore) If so, that’s all that matters. That’s democracy. The voters had a choice and made it. The reason they make it is none of your business. > [@](#): > > People that hate democracy wish to concentrate decision making into a few hands while diminishing the influence of the majority. You are the one who hates democracy. It’s very simple to understand. You are not fooling anyone (maybe yourself?). The MAJORITY elects people, every time (again, save Al Gore). YOU are the one who doesn’t like the results of elections where a MAJORITY of voters make their choice. Ergo, you are the one who hates democracy, not me. I respect it. I respect the intelligence of the voters and their right to make their choice for any reason. You don’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:** [July 24, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/476 "2012-07-24T15:11:12Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > You’re just saying that unless a candidate is sufficiently greased by rich guys, they’ll never win. We get that. Now here is where we part ways: WE don’t approve of this state of affairs. You do. The VOTERS approve of that state of affairs. They keep affirming it. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from voting for the candidates without money. They are on the ballot like everyone else. Democracy. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/477 "2012-07-24T15:30:31Z")
The voters often do vote for the guy with less money. Just ask Alan Grayson, who was defeated despite having a lot more money than his opponent. And who is now trying to move to a new district in hopes of an easier race where he’ll have more money than his opponent and likely lose again. And Grayson, this guy is a hero to the same kind of people who want to limit money in politics. In reality, he’s the poster boy for why money in politics doesn’t matter. ---
**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 24, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/478 "2012-07-24T15:34:19Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Which is what PBS is doing in effect. It is diluting the power of money to exert influence by providing a public alternative. Likewise with public education. It limits the power of parochial schools to instruct children. Would creating technology allowing users to skip ads be an appropriate response? No, PBS does not ration speech. Don’t be silly. > [@](#): > > My intention in separating the constitution from the laws passed by Congress was to assert its higher authority in legal disputes, nothing more. Okay. > [@](#): > > I’m not Congress, I am not subject to the proscriptions of the first amendment. When I say “you” I mean your proposed actions by Congress. > [@](#): > > Two wrongs fallacy. I don’t think I said that. > [@](#): > > This is false. Even discounting strictures of convention, there are still illiterate citizens and numerous other socioeconomic barriers to entry. The answer to illiteracy and poverty is not to ban speech! ---
**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 24, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/479 "2012-07-24T16:02:04Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The VOTERS approve of that state of affairs. They keep affirming it. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from voting for the candidates without money. They are on the ballot like everyone else. > > Democracy. Deal with it. You can call a system where plutocrats buy elected officials like clothes off a rack “democracy” all you like, doesn’t change a thing, Lance. It’s still a plutocracy. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/480 "2012-07-24T16:26:22Z")
You can’t buy an official by persuading voters to support him. If that was true, then in some small way I’m making campaign contributions on the internet. Which means that my right to speak on the internet is limited by how influential I become. If I start making too much of a contribution, then in theory Congress can forcibly limit my influence by limiting my posting and/or blogging. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=25)