Because billionaires are more likely to vote Republican.
I would bet my house that all these free-speech or death types would be screaming from the rooftops if Citizens United meant that the Democrats would get the majority of the money.
In any case, speech can be limited when society thinks there is a compelling reason.
It’s just to conservatives, their side buying elections isn’t compelling enough.
There is no “entitlement” to more political expression. Each person expresses himself to the extent of his desire and ability to do so. The government is not allowed to abridge such expression.
Well at least you’re not trying to pretend that you’re all anti-“money equals speech”. You’re honest about being purely anti-speech. For a “compelling reason” of course.
You don’t t have the right to start a riot. You don’t have the right to scream fire in a crowded theater. And you shouldn’t have the right to steal elections, just because you identify with the guys stealing it.
So one rich guy can shout down, and drown out the voices of millions, that’s freedom to you?
Looks more like like tyranny to me.
I think this is all I need to reply to:
Why is it you care very much what the average person is thinking when you are measuring his or her confidence that you seem to value greatly when it comes to Voter ID laws.
But when it comes to the appearance of corruption, you don’t care what the average person thinks?
It’s nice that you don’t even bother to conceal your inconsistancies anymore.
Incidentally, you still have not commented on the West Virginia judges…
Let’s try again, with emphasis added:
Given your demonstrations here and elsewhere, I hope you can now see that while I care very much what the average person thinks, i don’t place much credence in your analysis of that, or, indeed, anything. That’s twice now you have ignored, or changed, quotes of mine.
For the same reason he’s entitled to fuck more runway models, drink more Krug champagne, own more lakefront property, sit in more courtside NBA seats, and get more herbal massages than the working Joe. That has nothing to do with Citizen’s United – it has to do with the nature of the world. The billionaire can fund more think tanks, underwrite more studies, and hire more celebrity spokesmodels to deliver his message.
In the pre-Citizen’s United world, a billionaire had more political expression than a working Joe.
And you have still ignored the very real corruption in West Virginia.
Your “being rich means you can buy anything” is laughable… Being rich doesn’t mean you can buy more underage hookers, it doesn’t mean you should be able to buy more illegal drugs, and it shouldn’t mean that you can buy elections.
You are so concerned about Voter Confidence, meanwhile…
If you look at the poll linked above, the question asked of nearly 9600 voters is “Which of these 2 statements do you agree with more? (statements rotated) One: Corporate election spending is an attempt to bribe politicians. Two: Corporate election spending is a form of free speech, so there should be no limit on how much corporations can spend to influence elections.” Even 70% of Republicans thought it was a bribe.
You get all in a huff about “voter confidence” (which means shit legally) when it comes to Voiter ID but when three-quarters of Americans have “confidence” that such things are tantamount to bribery, that suddenly doesn’t matter to you.
Your arguments are very inconsistant. Your partisanship is showing. It’s pretty obvious to anyone reading your posts.
When I offered a poll conducted by Rasmussen in the Voter ID thread, there was outcry about them being biased.
But moveon.org is a valid source? Especially with those questions?
And if my arguments are inconsistent, why do you have such trouble actually refuting them? Except, of course, when you manufacture my arguments by either changing a word or ignoring a phrase in quotes. Then you do fine.
You haven’t cited it.
Yes, I did. Post #18.
I linked to the actual survey with the actual methodology. But by all means, ad hominem the source and ignore the methodology.
I was here in WV in 2004 when that controversy happened. During that time, the makeup of the State Supreme Court was 3 very Plaintiff friendly justices and 2 very business friendly justices. There are staggered terms, so only one seat was up for election. You had one of the Plaintiff friendly justices (Warren McGraw) running for reelection against a conservative pro-business Republican (Brent Benjamin).
McGraw wasn’t just pro-plaintiff. He’s insanely pro-plaintiff. He hasn’t found a Plaintiff’s case that he doesn’t like.
Now, if you are Don Blankenship, one of the largest business owners in the state, who would you support? Who would you give as much money as possible to?
And knowing that he’s on your side anyways, is it a bribe or a campaign contribution? I didn’t then and still don’t see the underhanded part of those contributions.
I missed it, in the seventy kajillion other links.
So here is my address: there was no evidence at all of bias. The court had two good reasons to rule as they did.
But the highly unique circumstances of the case coming right after the election and Blankenship’s large role in the election means recusal was proper.
the problem wasn’t the election contributions, but the failure to recuse after such a large and recent contribution.
Ultimately, of course, Justice Benjamin was recused and the result of the case was still the same.
So – what corruption, specifically, happened here?
Some of us hold Democracy to a higher standard than fluzzy gold diggers, and gold spit buckets. Lady Liberty is not Donald Trump’s whore.
Before the Supreme Court made their incorrect ruling, the working Joe had more potential to fight back.
Do you wish to dispute mass propaganda, lies, and half truths have shown to be very influencing, and very destructive historically?
If so, if one side can shout down the other, what’s to the prevent the use of propaganda techniques? Ideas shouldn’t be censored from the public, but one lone faction should not have such a monopoly on advocacy.
Not enough of you. Enjoy sitting around and assuring each other how right you are: apparently the real purpose of the SDMB.
What you describe simply isn’t happening. Has there ever been a case of a candidate seeking to buy ad time and being refused because the ad time wasn’t available?
Argumentum ad populum, ad hominem.
However, if you wish to continue to be petty and irrational, that’s your call.
Well Republicans are planning on spending a billion dollars, if money spent doesn’t bring influence --are you saying the party you rally for, (to among other things manage the nation’s finances) is into stupidly wasting money?
See that’s the problem. If truth rises to the surface, why spend all that money?
It took the SCOTUS to get that recusal:
Although they did not say there was bias, they did see “a serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions—when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.”
So to the Supreme Court, “risk of actual bias” was enough to force Benjamin to recuse himself.
I also think that this case can be used as evidence of “the appearance of corruption” when/if the court does decide to revisit the decision thanks to the Montana ruling. I imagine that whomever is making arguments should reference it. It seems directly related.