Except when someone is bribing another in order to give a particular speech. As it stands, campaign funding is mostly about electioneering communications. If electioneering communications cannot be used to bribe, campaign funds cannot be put to personal use and electioneering communications cannot influence the public, why limit campaign contributions?
Huh?
As I’ve already reminded you, this isn’t about campaign contributions, it’s about spending, and there is no limit on spending.
I know this ruins your perfect little regulatory scheme, but that’s life. There are better, constitutional ways to deal with it.
To answer the OP:
[Updated at 10:08 a.m. ET] The court has thrown out a Montana state ruling on limiting spending in state elections, by saying it believes the historic Citizens United case applies to state elections as well. The court will not hear oral arguments on the case.
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari, and reversed the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court.
Looks like Citizens United is here to stay.
Thanks, Iggy.
Good news.
People, you can’t just go violating the First Amendment because you think it’s a good idea. Preventing this is the whole point of having a First Amendment.
P.S. Looking over the PDF you posted, there’s a case where one party is “Public Citizen” the do-gooder group that, among other things, opposes the Citizens United decision. Only Public Citizen is listed as “Public Citizen, INC.” - reminding us that they, just like Citizens United, is incorporated! And therefore they believe the government could shut down their speech too, including speech where they speak out against the decision! LOL hypocritical idiots.
Campaign funds mostly go towards electioneering communications. Limiting the amount of money one person may donate to one individual limits the amount of speech the individual is capable of expending money on. Why is it permissible to limit campaign funding being spent on electioneering communications? You can’t answer that question without referring to a belief that the people are gullible fools who can’t think for themselves, or that they don’t go find out, through easily-available and free means like the Internet, campaign events, and the media, all the information from all sources to make an informed voting choice. No matter how often I beg the question, you can’t answer it.
Their position wasn’t that corporations shouldn’t be able to be sued, it was that it was constitutional to limit disbursements on electioneering constitutions for a certain period of time.
You’ve dogmatically insisted that this isn’t about the 14th amendment or campaign funding. Yet it assumes the form of an ink blot which you can assign any meaning if you so desire.
No. It limits the amount of speech the other individual, not the one that wants to spend the money, is capable of. Which is fine. It is Congress that is not allowed to abridge the speech. I can do the abridging of someone’s speech any time, either by not donating to them, or even by something as simple as turning off the TV when they’re on.
(Somehow I double-posted a response. Can’t I delete messages here?)
No it doesn’t.
Here’s what Buckley had to say about your exact claim:
“Given the important role of contributions in financing political campaigns, contribution restrictions could have a severe impact on political dialogue if the limitations prevented candidates and political committees from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy. There is no indication, however, that the contribution limitations imposed by the Act would have any dramatic adverse effect on the funding of campaigns and political associations. [n23] The over-all effect of the Act’s contribution [p22] ceilings is merely to require candidates and political committees to raise funds from a greater number of persons and to compel people who would otherwise contribute amounts greater than the statutory limits to expend such funds on direct political expression, rather than to reduce the total amount of money potentially available to promote political expression.”
However, the answer to your question is that if we must choose between having both a limit on spending and donations, or no limits on either, we must choose no limits on either. So be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
No, their position is that corporations, even non-profit ones, have NO speech rights. NONE.
If you believe Congress can limit speech for certain periods, you believe it can limit it at any time - forever if necessary. You cannot construct a reason that the First Amendment allows Congress to deny speech rights 60 days from an election, but has no power to do it 61 days out, or all year. Congress either has the power to limit speech however it wants, or it has none at all.
I believe it’s accurate to say that YOU believe corporations have no speech rights, at any time, not just 60 days before an election. Is that not true? Do you now think corporations do have speech rights? Yes or no?
Nope. If you don’t understand my point, I’ll gladly clarify.
I’m glad. It will be good to have Westerners united with Easterners now in their hatred of Citizens United. Something we can ALL get behind, except for a few ideologues and plutocrats. This may be the best thing to happen to progressives in a long, long time.
It’s good news for plutocrats, maybe. Bad for fans of democracy. Perhaps good news for progressives: perhaps this decision will do for us what Roe V. Wade did for conservatives.
Because burning a flag doesn’t try to force speech on people who don’t want to hear it. The entire purpose of advertising is to try and make people watch your message. If it weren’t, there’d be an all advertisement channel you could turn to to watch it at your leisure.
Also, burning the flag does not in any way affect elections. It’s just a statement of protest that has no real message besides “I hate America.”
Finally, what makes you think I’d really care if burning the flag were made illegal? I’d gladly give that up if it meant that elections couldn’t be bought.
BTW, that’s the difference between normal speech and advertising. I put up something on the web, I can’t coerce people into listening to my speech. But, as long as advertising still works, it means that at least some people can be coerced into watching ads. Ads that, BTW, use images to try and manipulate people. It wouldn’t be so bad if they could just give facts.
Yeah, keep making stuff up.
Speech is never bad for democracy.
But money sometimes is.
I’m speculating, to be sure. Something wrong with that?
There is no right not to be exposed to speech.
They’re both protected speech though.
So? You’d give it up. Others wouldn’t. Your desires are irrelevant to the rights of others.
How are people “coerced” into watching ads?
How much contempt for the intelligence of the voter can you manage to show?
If the voters are so dumb that they can’t possibly ignore, or critically think about, ads, that can only mean they aren’t qualified to vote anyway.
Stop the arrogance.
Are you manipulated by ads?
Depends - is it a valid reason for me to ban your speech? Since there seem to be so many, I’m not sure any more. Let me know.