# 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:** 9
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/161 "2012-06-16T18:01:49Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Not too often that such a blatant straw man is introduced. Congratulations. It’s my honest opinion about the situation. ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/162 "2012-06-16T18:11:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. You’ll have to go back further in the exchange. **Stratocaster** takes a literalist view of the First Amendment that prohibits all forms of speech prohibitions without regard to the source. According to him, corporations have the same free speech rights as natural persons because the First Amendment doesn’t say “except corporations.” Thus, limits on corporate campaign contributions are, per him, unconstitutional. I’m using those as an example simply because that law remains in place, but you could just as easily rephrase the hypothetical to refer to foreign governments buying political advertising in favor of Obama, or whoever. ---
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/163 "2012-06-16T18:17:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You’ll have to go back further in the exchange. **Stratocaster** takes a literalist view of the First Amendment that prohibits all forms of speech prohibitions without regard to the source. According to him, corporations have the same free speech rights as natural persons because the First Amendment doesn’t say “except corporations.” Thus, limits on corporate campaign contributions are, per him, unconstitutional. Wrong. Limits on corporate spending on speech are unconstitutional. Limits on campaign contributions aren’t. > [@](#): > > I’m using those as an example simply because that law remains in place, but you could just as easily rephrase the hypothetical to refer to foreign governments buying political advertising in favor of Obama, or whoever. What “law remains in place”? And if you rephrase the hypothetical to refer to anyone - foreign governments, corporations, unions, clubs or individuals - buying political advertising in favor of anything, then correct, any restrictions on that would be unconstitutional. Is that the “gotcha” you were looking for? ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/164 "2012-06-16T18:23:35Z")
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Pay attention. I am not discussing the First Amendment as it is generally interpreted. I am talking about **Stratocaster** ’s interpretation of it, under which campaign contribution limitations would be unconstitutional. It’s right there in the post you quoted. To address your second point, no, I mean rephrasing the hypothetical to reference a different form of political speech. The “foreign governments” part is kind of important, because it’s what makes his interpretation absurd. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/165 "2012-06-16T18:58:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Oh, for fuck’s sake. Pay attention. I am not discussing the First Amendment as it is generally interpreted. I am talking about **Stratocaster** ’s interpretation of it, under which campaign contribution limitations would be unconstitutional. It’s right there in the post you quoted. Oh, for fuck’s sake. Pay attention. Nowhere can I see **Stratocaster** saying that campaign contributions are speech covered by the First Amendment. Maybe you can provide a quote from him? ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/166 "2012-06-16T19:27:50Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Oh, for fuck’s sake. Pay attention. Nowhere can I see **Stratocaster** saying that campaign contributions are speech covered by the First Amendment. Maybe you can provide a quote from him? Correct. I have consistently pointed out one principal thing: CU decided, correctly, that the government may not restrict political expression by isolating that restriction to corporations. I have pointed out ad infinitum what the First Amendment says–no exceptions noted for any type of speaker, based on the simple English words. I said this: > [@](#): > > Here’s the First Amendment \ There is no basis for restricting political expression based on the entity from which it originates. Not for the first time, I’ll note. RNATB responded to this specific post with this: > [@](#): > > So you really do think the First Amendment protects the right of foreign governments to make political contributions? It’s an ongoing non sequitur, I believe, where someone says “free speech cannot be restricted” and it gets translated into “so, you believe campaign contributions must be unrestricted, based on the First Amendment.” RNATB is not the only one reacting this way. Evil Captor, for example, also wants to debate campaign contributions, in a thread about reversing CU. In fact, it’s not only in this particular thread. There seems to be a strong preference about making this a “payola for evil politicians” issue. CU is about First Amendment protections. The campaign contribution limits in McCain Feingold, as has been pointed out, survived CU. And I’ll add in closing, oh, for fuck’s sake. No reason, just felt like it. ---
**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, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/167 "2012-06-16T19:47:58Z")
Okay, so you don’t think political contributions are speech. Do as I suggested, and rephrase the hypothetical to refer to foreign governments buying political advertising. Now, is that a problem? ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/168 "2012-06-16T20:39:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Okay, so you don’t think political contributions are speech. Do as I suggested, and rephrase the hypothetical to refer to foreign governments buying political advertising. Now, is that a problem? Are you still asking me how I read the First Amendment? I don’t see anything in the First Amendment that would restrict a foreign government from paying for a political advertisement, if there were (for example) a network willing to air it. The Prime Minister of Elbonia may also express his own views on the street corner while he’s here. If there’s a constitutional nuance I’m missing, someone can point it out, because I don’t see it in the First Amendment. ---
**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, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/169 "2012-06-16T20:47:45Z")
Under your reading, no, there’s no constitutional nuance. I admire your consistency, in fact. However, there is a common sense nuance, if you will, which is that this means the Chinese government can spend billions of dollars to elect a China-friendly POTUS, if it wants. In fact, under the Super PAC system, it can presumably do it _anonymously_. You really don’t see a problem with that? ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/170 "2012-06-16T21:00:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Under your reading, no, there’s no constitutional nuance. I admire your consistency, in fact. However, there is a common sense nuance, if you will, which is that this means the Chinese government can spend billions of dollars to elect a China-friendly POTUS, if it wants. In fact, under the Super PAC system, it can presumably do it _anonymously_. You really don’t see a problem with that? It doesn’t matter if I see a problem with it. Because even if I did, there is no First Amendment remedy. But not to be coy, I have no such fear over this circumstance. Let China pay for what it will, and we can all assess the message for what it is. Then, as always, we’ll get the POTUS we collectively deserve. I am frankly amused at the Left’s (it’s largely the Left, I think) belief that the American public is so susceptible to brainwashing via advertising. Let 'em spend billions. I really don’t care. So long as no laws are broken, I take no offense from the free exchange of ideas and opinion. BTW, if we don’t like the disclosure laws for Super PACs, nothing stops us from changing them. We needn’t raze the First Amendment as a solution. ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/171 "2012-06-16T21:32:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Okay, so you don’t think political contributions are speech. Do as I suggested, and rephrase the hypothetical to refer to foreign governments buying political advertising. Now, is that a problem? Twice, upthread, I said it wasn’t. Did you miss my posts? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/172 "2012-06-16T23:14:18Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > It doesn’t matter if I see a problem with it. Because even if I did, there is no First Amendment remedy. Of course there is. Government can restrict speech if it has a compelling reason to do so, this is nothing new. The issue is whether the “corruption or the appearance of corruption” is compelling enough. ---
**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 17, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/173 "2012-06-17T01:08:26Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Of course there is. Government can restrict speech if it has a compelling reason to do so, this is nothing new. The issue is whether the “corruption or the appearance of corruption” is compelling enough. Yeah, good luck with that. There’s not a snowball’s chance. There was a better chance when it was first decided. Not now, not 2 years later. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/174 "2012-06-17T04:32:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Once again, campaign contributions are already limited. That’s not what Citizens United is about. It’s about campaign **spending.** A distinction without a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/175 "2012-06-17T05:34:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s about campaign **spending.** A distinction without a difference. Wrong. One (contribution to a candidate) is a monetary transaction. The other (publishing an ad, for example) is political speech. Learn the difference. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/176 "2012-06-17T05:51:56Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Wrong. > > One (contribution to a candidate) is a monetary transaction. The other (publishing an ad, for example) is political speech. Learn the difference. There is no difference. Each is a way of spending money to influence the outcome of an election. Which should not be possible. ---
**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 17, 2012, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/177 "2012-06-17T10:40:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s about campaign **spending.** A distinction without a difference. You’re one more in the chorus of people railing against a CU effect that did not occur. The outrage toward the unlimited campaign spending that CU permitted (it didn’t) is truly amusing. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/178 "2012-06-17T14:38:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > There is no difference. Each is a way of spending money to influence the outcome of an election. Which should not be possible. Wait a minute. Surely you agree that the 1st amendment protects speech that is intended to influence elections, right? So are saying that we are free to speak, but we can’t spend any money in doing so? I think it’s time we shut down the editorial pages of the country’s newspapers then! And as I said in another thread, if you agree to allow the NYT to continue operating as is, then how do you shut down the New Koch Times? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/179 "2012-06-17T14:53:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wait a minute. Surely you agree that the 1st amendment protects speech that is intended to influence elections, right? So are saying that we are free to speak, but we can’t spend any money in doing so? I think it’s time we shut down the editorial pages of the country’s newspapers then! And as I said in another thread, if you agree to allow the NYT to continue operating as is, then how do you shut down the New Koch Times? Personally I have no problem with the “New Koch Times” or whatever. If you want to convert your money into speech, by all means, buy yourself a media empire. Anything that improves the ability to trace media campaigns back to the individuals and interests that drive them. The speaker’s reputation is part of the message. Corporations already enjoy huge benefits over individual people; this is why we keep them as engines of the free market. One important benefit is that it allows people to duck liability and responsibility for the responsibilities and deeds of the corporation. Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to double-dip on that bonus of avoiding accountability by using it to hide their influence in elections. ---
**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 17, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/180 "2012-06-17T17:23:37Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Correct. I have consistently pointed out one principal thing: CU decided, correctly, that the government may not restrict political expression by isolating that restriction to corporations. I have pointed out ad infinitum what the First Amendment says–no exceptions noted for any type of speaker, based on the simple English words. I said this:Not for the first time, I’ll note. RNATB responded to this specific post with this:It’s an ongoing non sequitur, I believe, where someone says “free speech cannot be restricted” and it gets translated into “so, you believe campaign contributions must be unrestricted, based on the First Amendment.” RNATB is not the only one reacting this way. Evil Captor, for example, also wants to debate campaign contributions, in a thread about reversing CU. In fact, it’s not only in this particular thread. There seems to be a strong preference about making this a “payola for evil politicians” issue. CU is about First Amendment protections. The campaign contribution limits in McCain Feingold, as has been pointed out, survived CU. > > And I’ll add in closing, oh, for fuck’s sake. No reason, just felt like it. For fuck’s sake! You can slice or dice it any way you like, after Citizens United, billionaires and big corporations are writing huge checks, checks that dwarf the money that regular folks can afford. Citizens United is ENABLING plutocracy, and DESTROYING democracy. I’m sure it SUITS you to believe otherwise, but the facts on the ground all say that Citizens United is the Supreme Court’s gift to the rich of us … and an upraised middle finger to the rest of us. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=10)