# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/141 "2012-06-15T23:16:05Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > And there wouldn’t be. The wealthy would be allowed to make the same contributions to the public discourse as the rest of us; just subject to the same limits. They aren’t being silenced if they are limited to a bull horn that is twice as large as everyone else’s instead of 10,000 times as large. If we can have noise ordinances and fcc regulations without losing the first amendment, certainly we can try to limit de facto bribery. Are you actually familiar with this decision that gob-stops you so? The constitutional issue this hinged on was the fact that it placed restrictions on corporations. Bill Gates was free to do as he pleased. [It had nothing to do with “wealth.”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission) > [@](#): > > Scalia principally argued that the First Amendment was written in “terms of speech, not speakers” and that “Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker.” And he was right. Here’s the First Amendment: > [@](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. There is no basis for restricting political expression based on the entity from which it originates. Terr is right in that you’re begging the question. The constitutional question wasn’t “Should the wealthy have a greater voice?” That seems to be the issue you wish it were, and consequently you see the opposite position as one that provides the “pro” side of a debate you alone (well, not alone on this board) are conducting. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/142 "2012-06-15T23:51:36Z")
> [@George Will](#): > > Last year, Procter & Gamble, America’s largest advertiser, spent $2,949,100,000 — more than will be spent by the Obama and Romney campaigns and super PACs supporting them. The fact that more is spent to influence Americans’ choice of their detergent than of their president is … interesting Terrible argument. The US is alone in the world in terms of campaign expenditure and arguments like this are intended to keep the population insular and ignorant. In Australia, a country with mandated voting and a parliamentary system (no direct campaign contributions to individuals), both major parties raised [$130](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_donations_in_Australia)~m in AUD in from 2004-2005. In contrast, Kerry and Bush raised $880m USD. > [@Terr](#): > > Prohibiting it is abridging speech. No, they are [Time Place and Manner restrictions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone). Congress may pass laws restricting someone from entering one’s house and screaming profanities at one in the middle of the night. Congress may pass laws prohibiting “obscene” language or nudity from being broadcast on public airwaves. Property remains intact: people may use obscene language or watch political documentaries within the comfort of their own home. Yet advertising is an invasion into an individual’s property. Most people would prefer to avoid them if doing so was plausible. Demanding that advertising be broadcast because it’s been paid for is not demanding the right to speak, it’s demanding the right to be heard and viewed. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/143 "2012-06-15T23:57:04Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Demanding that advertising be broadcast because it’s been paid for is not demanding the right to speak, it’s demanding the right to be heard and viewed. Learn how to use your remote control. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/144 "2012-06-16T01:28:47Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Here’s the First Amendment:There is no basis for restricting political expression based on the entity from which it originates. So you really _do_ think the First Amendment protects the right of foreign governments to make political contributions? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/145 "2012-06-16T01:53:17Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Yet advertising is an invasion into an individual’s property. Really? Should I be able to sue Proctor and Gamble for trespass because they were just on my television without my express permission? ---
**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:** [June 16, 2012, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/146 "2012-06-16T05:40:08Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > True. So - other than using your voice (with no enhancement) in the street, what speech doesn’t require money? > > I mean - you would allow the ad, but forbid paying for it? Does that logic extend to all other types of speech? Allow the demonstration but forbid expending any money on organizing it? Allow the book but forbid spending money to print it? NOW we are getting somewhere. The reality is, as you have JUST pointed out, that the ability to buy more and bigger megaphones (i.e., more access to whatever communications media is out there) gives whatever side has more of it a CONSIDERABLE advantage over the other side. So, in a nation where 1 percent of the population controls half the wealth, unlimited campaign spending means that the 1 percent have a MUCH louder voice than the other 99 percent. It is purest plutocracy. What I would do is place reasonable limits on the campaign contributions of individuals, and not allow corporations, organizations, whatever, to contribute at all. Say $250 per person, per campaign, maximum. Chump change for the one percent, and I’m sure it would hurt their generous little hearts, but then, I have to allow people much less informed and interested than me to vote … that’s democracy! One man, one vote, not one dollar one vote. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/147 "2012-06-16T06:39:43Z")
When did the Supreme Court rule that the incorporation doctrine (no pun intended) applied to corporations? The 14th Amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” – it doesn’t say anything about corporations. Can we not therefore conclude that the Bill of Rights only applies to the states with regards to persons? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/148 "2012-06-16T09:34:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So you really _do_ think the First Amendment protects the right of foreign governments to make political contributions? I think it says Congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Give me the details of what you think the law ought to be with regard to the nature of such contributions and I’ll be glad to provide my non-expert opinion on it. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/149 "2012-06-16T12:03:35Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > When did the Supreme Court rule that the incorporation doctrine (no pun intended) applied to corporations? The 14th Amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” – it doesn’t say anything about corporations. Can we not therefore conclude that the Bill of Rights only applies to the states with regards to persons? You do know that corporations have legal personhood? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/150 "2012-06-16T13:22:26Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > You do know that corporations have legal personhood? And even if they didn’t, what are corporations other than a group of people? One person has a free speech right, but two people together can’t issue a joint statement? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/151 "2012-06-16T13:57:38Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > What I would do is place reasonable limits on the campaign contributions of individuals, and not allow corporations, organizations, whatever, to contribute at all. The Citizens United is not about campaign contributions. ---
**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:** [June 16, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/152 "2012-06-16T14:15:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The Citizens United is not about campaign contributions. True, it’s about PACS. It’s still a gateway to plutocracy. BTW, there IS a better solution to this problem, to my mind, than limiting campaign donations: we could simply make the economic playing field more even. If the wealthy controlled less of the nation’s wealth, and the middle class and lower class controlled more, we would not be in such imminent danger of becoming just another Third World plutocracy. Say, if the 1 percent only controlled 10 percent of the nation’s wealth, the ten percent only controlled 30 percent, the middle class controlled 50 percent, and the poor controlled just ten percent. Then there would be no issue about wealth and political power, everybody would have enough leverage to make their voices heard, except maybe the poor, whose welfare generally rides with the middle class’ welfare anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/153 "2012-06-16T15:17:38Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I think it says Congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Give me the details of what you think the law ought to be with regard to the nature of such contributions and I’ll be glad to provide my non-expert opinion on it. I think the law should (as it currently does) bar campaign contributions by foreign governments. Under your reading, that would be unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/154 "2012-06-16T15:53:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think the law should (as it currently does) bar campaign contributions by foreign governments. Under your reading, that would be unconstitutional. CU didn’t decide against restrictions on campaign contributions per se. Elements of that remain in the McCain Feingold legislation and were not overturned. CU said you can’t isolate certain entities and restrict their political speech based on the nature of that entity. I strongly encourage people to actually read the ruling, since there seems to be endless incorrect assumptions about it. I personally believe the Federal government has no business stifling political expression originating from any source, excluding the normal exceptions for things like inciting riots or revolution or other such “imminent lawless actions.” I am personally unafraid of others being able to express their opinions, even (gasp!) foreign governments. ---
**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:** [June 16, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/155 "2012-06-16T15:58:47Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > CU didn’t decide against restrictions on campaign contributions per se. Elements of that remain in the McCain Feingold legislation and were not overturned. CU said you can’t isolate certain entities and restrict their political speech based on the nature of that entity. I strongly encourage people to actually read the ruling, since there seems to be endless incorrect assumptions about it. > > I personally believe the Federal government has no business stifling political expression originating from any source, excluding the normal exceptions for things like inciting riots or revolution or other such “imminent lawless actions.” I am personally unafraid of others being able to express their opinions, even (gasp!) foreign governments. Well I guess if you don’t think Congress being bought, lock stock and barrel, like the Montana state government was at the turn of the century, is a bad thing, you have no reason to fear. Me, I’m terrified of America turning into a Third World plutocracy. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/156 "2012-06-16T16:03:32Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well I guess if you don’t think Congress being bought, lock stock and barrel, like the Montana state government was at the turn of the century, is a bad thing, you have no reason to fear. Me, I’m terrified of America turning into a Third World plutocracy. Not too often that such a blatant straw man is introduced. Congratulations. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/157 "2012-06-16T16:04:08Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > True, it’s about PACS. It’s still a gateway to plutocracy. BTW, there IS a better solution to this problem, to my mind, than limiting campaign donations Once again, campaign contributions are already limited. That’s not what Citizens United is about. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/158 "2012-06-16T16:05:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Once again, campaign contributions are already limited. That’s not what Citizens United is about. Honest to God, it is amazing how strenuously this point is being ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/159 "2012-06-16T17:17:01Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > CU didn’t decide against restrictions on campaign contributions per se. Elements of that remain in the McCain Feingold legislation and were not overturned. CU said you can’t isolate certain entities and restrict their political speech based on the nature of that entity. I strongly encourage people to actually read the ruling, since there seems to be endless incorrect assumptions about it. I’ve read the ruling. I’m not talking about the ruling. I’m talking, specifically, about _your_ reading of the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/160 "2012-06-16T17:37:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’ve read the ruling. I’m not talking about the ruling. I’m talking, specifically, about _your_ reading of the First Amendment. Do you mean this question: “I think the law should (as it currently does) bar campaign contributions by foreign governments. Under your reading, that would be unconstitutional.”? If so, yes, campaign contributions to candidates can be limited, both in amount and in source (no foreign contributions) just like they are today. That’s because money is not speech. It is not unconstitutional. Money transfers in the United States are regulated by Congress in all kinds of ways, and that doesn’t violate the First Amendment. But speech is speech. No matter what source. Whether it is an individual, corporation, union, church or a foreign government, their speech is speech. Thus, if a corporation, or a foreign government, or a union, or an individual, want to conduct a media campaign for or against some issue, the first amendment protects that speech. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=9)