# 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:** 27
**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 26, 2012, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/521 "2012-07-26T23:54:03Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > The POINT of free speech is to protect democracy. If you are destroying democracy in the name of free speech, you are still destroying democracy. Democracy is not advanced by allowing plutocrats to buy your government. When they can openly write half million dollar checks to political organizations, it’s all over but the crying, baby. Anyone who thinks that freedom of speech can possibly destroy democracy, or that it is necessary or even possible to suppress speech to improve democracy, is to be feared. ---
**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 26, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/522 "2012-07-26T23:55:19Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > If individuals do not have fewer rights, then corporations should be content with being able to spend as much on campaigns as the average person. A person’s spending on campaigns (speech) is unlimited. Some people spend millions of their own money on speech, just like a corporation. ---
**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 27, 2012, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/523 "2012-07-27T04:45:29Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Anyone who thinks that freedom of speech can possibly destroy democracy, or that it is necessary or even possible to suppress speech to improve democracy, is to be feared. Bah. You profess no understanding of the distinction between “freedom of speech” and plutocrats writing half million dollar checks to political campaigns of direct benefit to officeholders. This leaves me exactly two options for describing you, neither of which I can use outside the pit. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/524 "2012-07-27T05:20:36Z")
How much does MSNBC pay to give rachel Maddow her soapbox? This doesn’t count as a campaign contribution? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/525 "2012-07-27T10:26:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This doesn’t count as a campaign contribution? For which candidate? > [@adaher](#): > > There is no restriction on speech that can possibly be pro-democracy. Corruption laws. If you don’t think they limit speech, then limiting expenditure on electioneering communications are not limits on speech. > [@adaher](#): > > If you don’t allow corporations to run political ads, then do the people now have a bigger voice? Relatively, yes. You used the analogy “marketplace of ideas”. The issue is, when the marketplace of ideas is tied to the wealth of the individuals propounding the ideas, that has a distorting effect on public discourse. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/526 "2012-07-27T10:45:11Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > For which candidate? Barack Obama, or the Democrats in general. > [@](#): > > Corruption laws. If you don’t think they limit speech, then limiting expenditure on electioneering communications are not limits on speech. They do not limit speech. Anti-corruption laws do not even address speech. > [@](#): > > Relatively, yes. You used the analogy “marketplace of ideas”. The issue is, when the marketplace of ideas is tied to the wealth of the individuals propounding the ideas, that has a distorting effect on public discourse. Sorry, the only thing limits on independent advocacy accomplish is to increase the relative power of the mainstream media and the political class. It reduces the viewpoints people hear. ---
**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 27, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/527 "2012-07-27T15:01:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Bah. You profess no understanding of the distinction between “freedom of speech” and plutocrats writing half million dollar checks to political campaigns of direct benefit to officeholders. YOU are the one who can’t understand the 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 27, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/528 "2012-07-27T15:04:00Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Corruption laws. If you don’t think they limit speech, then limiting expenditure on electioneering communications are not limits on speech. There ARE no limits on expenditures on electioneering communications. They are unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/529 "2012-07-27T15:48:41Z")
That’s not to say that money is speech. Money spent on political activities unrelated to speech can be regulated. But once money is converted into speech, that speech may not be censored. ---
**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 28, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/530 "2012-07-28T14:45:17Z")
Don’t you realize that unlimited money in politics can only lead to situations like[this?](http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hindsight-maybe-we-shouldnt-have-let-lord-voldemort-start-his-own-super-pac) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/531 "2012-07-28T15:17:09Z")
Independent advertising is an attempt to influence the public, not politicians. Influencing the public is what they are supposed to be doing. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/532 "2012-07-28T22:03:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Sorry, the only thing limits on independent advocacy accomplish is to increase the relative power of the mainstream media and the political class. This isn’t independent advocacy, it’s corporate expenditure on electioneering communications. The political class includes everyone of voting age in a democracy. > [@adaher](#): > > It reduces the viewpoints people hear. Nope, it limits their effective frequency. Limiting the times and places specific contributors can place specific ads (electioneering communications) does not limit public discourse in any appreciable way. > [@adaher](#): > > Barack Obama, or the Democrats in general. Cite? > [@adaher](#): > > Anti-corruption laws do not even address speech. Neither did the relevant provision of BCRA. ---
**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 28, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/533 "2012-07-28T23:44:10Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > This isn’t independent advocacy, it’s corporate expenditure on electioneering communications. It’s both. So what? Doesn’t change anything. > [@](#): > > Nope, it limits their effective frequency. Limiting the times and places specific contributors can place specific ads (electioneering communications) does not limit public discourse in any appreciable way. No, it completely banned certain sources of speech from spending money on it. It effectively banned a film from being shown. ---
**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 28, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/534 "2012-07-28T23:45:13Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Neither did the relevant provision of BCRA. Stop this nonsense. Of course it did. That was its entire purpose. And it is for you too. You think certain sources of speech have too much speech so you want to ban 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 28, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/535 "2012-07-28T23:46:16Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Nope, it limits their effective frequency. Limiting the times and places specific contributors can place specific ads (electioneering communications) So you admit this limits speech, and that the purpose is to limit speech. ---
**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 28, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/536 "2012-07-28T23:53:21Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So you admit this limits speech, and that the purpose is to limit speech. We currently limit speech. You aren’t allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or commit sedition. You’ve been told this before, and you have refused to accept it. Why do you ignore these facts? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/537 "2012-07-29T00:16:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > We currently limit speech. Thanks for admitting it too. My point, which went over your head, was that Gamer is trying to say it’s not about speech, but money. Of course it’s about speech. > [@](#): > > You aren’t allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or commit sedition. > > You’ve been told this before, and you have refused to accept it. Why do you ignore these facts? Oh, for God’s sake. We’ve covered this over and over. I’m not going to explain it again. Instead, I’ll ask you a question - can we limit speech any way we want? Yes or no? Read the First Amendment and then tell me. Simple yes or no will suffice. ---
**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 29, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/538 "2012-07-29T00:25:17Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Thanks for admitting it too. > > My point, which went over your head, was that Gamer is trying to say it’s not about speech, but money. Of course it’s about speech. Your quote seemed to suggest that limiting speech wasn’t possible. > [@](#): > > Oh, for God’s sake. We’ve covered this over and over. Yeah, and you ignore it and reset. Every time. > [@](#): > > I’m not going to explain it again. Instead, I’ll ask you a question - can we limit speech any way we want? Yes or no? Read the First Amendment and then tell me. Simple yes or no will suffice. We can do it when the cause is serious enough. Like fire in a theater or sedition. Buying elections is directly analogous to sedition. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/539 "2012-07-29T02:45:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Buying elections is directly analogous to sedition. Two can play this game. “Advocating violating of the first amendment is directly analogous to sedition”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2012, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/540 "2012-07-29T03:53:32Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > This isn’t independent advocacy, it’s corporate expenditure on electioneering communications. The political class includes everyone of voting age in a democracy. When I say political class I mean the people privileged enough to get on Meet the Press or who can command TV time to talk to the public. they have outsized influence, as does the media. No amount of outside spending can drown that out, so the primary argument against outside spending is bogus. > [@](#): > > Nope, it limits their effective frequency. Limiting the times and places specific contributors can place specific ads (electioneering communications) does not limit public discourse in any appreciable way. Time and place limits are reasonable, as long as the message can be gotten out. However, you cannot restrict WHO speaks. Time, place, and manner restrictions must apply to all equally. BCRA had exceptions. Those exceptions were part of what made the law unconstitutional. Favored speakers. Disfavored speakers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=28)