They are.
Citizens United doesn’t apply to donations to political candidates.
That’s what makes so many of the posts in this thread quite hysterical because it’s obvious many of it’s critics don’t know what the decision was actually about.
Do you realize that no one is talking about that but you? The act was mentioned only briefly, the movie was not mentioned at all, the actual discussion is about neither of them. It is about something else. Only you have mentioned anything about the freaking movie.
You keep asking ‘why do you think it’s OK to ban a movie?’ No one has said they think it OK to ban any movies or books.
You may have a point worth discussing somewhere, but it would belong in a different thread. Stop trying to derail this one.
So you’re saying then that EC et all don’t oppose Citizens United?
That said, I’ll assume based on your response that you supported Citizens United.
I believe you’re misstating the “equal time” rule.
Broadcast stations must treat candidates equally when it comes to buying or making use of free air time. If a candidate raises huge amounts of cash, he/she is free to buy up air time far in excess of what a less well-heeled candidate can afford. The station(s) merely have to offer equivalent ad rates to both candidates; they don’t have to make sure that the poorer candidate gets the same amount of ad time.
The FCC has the power to sanction any radio or TV station that actually raised their rates to allow just one candidate to air his ads and prohibit all others from doing so.
When I was with MPIRG in the 90s that was a key issue and thanks to that law countless environmental groups weren’t prevented from airing ads encouraging people to vote for various ballot initiatives(though IIRC Minnesota used different verbiage) and political candidates.
Please defend that assertion.
True. But a candidate who raises 10 times the amount of cash as his opponent is still free to purchase 10 times the advertising time, as long as comparable ad rates are offered to all comers.
So while, practically speaking it is not feasible for anyone to “buy up all the airtime”, candidates with tons of dough can buy lots more than their opponents.
Since it’s apparently not possible to sway the Supreme Court in its belief that money=speech, I’d support a constitutional amendment permitting lawmakers to set limits on campaign spending that’d substantially level the playing field. The problem, of course, is that neither party wants any part of such an amendment and if it were passed, lawmakers would not be willing to limit themselves on campaign spending. Both Republicans and Democrats are willing to continue with the present rules, however much the Democrats may occasionally squawk for partisan purposes.
Is this a serious question?
You’re demanding to know if Citizens United was about the ability of the FEC to ban a documentary, Hillary The Movie.
Sorry dude, it was.
Five Justices voted ghat the government could do this, four voted that it couldn’t.
One of the really disgusting aspects of it was that all the Justices who voted in favor of allowing the government to ban movies(except for Sotomayor) had a few years earlier voted that the state of Virginia couldn’t ban the KKK from burning crosses, even when done with the clear intention of intimidating black people.
It was certainly mighty white of them.
I was under the impression that it was about the FEC being able to prevent electioneering communications by certain proscribed groups, in accordance with what, at the time of its action, was the law on the books.
ETA: And yes, it was a serious question.
So then you do think the FEC has the right to ban books and movies?
Actually, I was pointing out that the slogan “money is speech” is absurd. I was being sarcastic. But in fairness, Bricker was correct, I was affirming the consequent when I said “speech is money” and blabbermouths are billionaires. But I thought the mocking sarcasm was apparent to everyone. Nobody really missed that, did they?
It makes the ruling that you can’t limit a corporation’s ability to agitate against for in favor of political candidates AND it effectively permits corporations to do so anonymously.
So!?!?! They’re still not people.
Yes, you’re correct . Inhibiting the rights of the KKK(a corporation), the NAACP(a corporation) and the Sierra Club(a corporation) to disemenate information is a violation of the First Amendment.
Are you saying that the government should be able to punish the NAACP for airing radio or TV ads critical of specific candidates around election time.
Similarly if you’re saying corporations “aren’t people” and therefore don’t have freedom of speech are you saying that the government can forbid them to say what it doesn’t like because “the First Amendment only applies to people not corporations”?
It was originally about a movie but the majority decided to make it about much, much more. At least that’s what Dahlia Lithwick says.
And if Dahlia Lithwick says it, it’s so.
Hello, America, Cave Johnson here, speaking on behalf of Aperture Laboratories. Like you, I am a real American, and I want to talk to all you real Americans out there!
You hear a lot of talk lately about “rights”, mostly from people who don’t deserve any. You know who I mean. But what are these rights? And what is that most important American right? Well, what one do you hear about most, what do the police say when arresting a scumbag?
“You have the right to remain silent!”
Well, there you have it! Regardless of what the crazy radicals tell you, there is nothing wrong with remaining silent! Calvin Coolidge, Helen Keller, that wimpy little magic guy…all of these good Americans recognized the value of remaining silent. I know what that guy said about how all it takes for evil to conquer is for enough good men to be silent, but who says this? A guy who is not being silent! Think about that for a second. All right, that’s enough, don’t overdo it.
We here at Aperture Labs, we do what we must because we can, and we do it quietly. Libraries have signs saying “Silence, please”. Cloistered monks take vows of silence. Wouldn’t the world be a better place with more libraries and monasteries, and fewer loudmouths like Rachel Maddow?
Remember, America! Talk is cheap, but silence is golden! This has been Cave Johnson for Aperture Labs, “Doing science for those who are still alive”.
What I understand about Citizens United is that it released the cap on how much money can be spent to influence elections in this country. Note, I said INFLUENCE. I don’t give a flip about the fucking movie, nor does anyone else. Really, you’re just about threadshitting here. If you have a direct and logical way to link your railing about the movie to the unfettered freedom of the rich to spend money on politics, lay it out. Try to be concise and to the point.
They’re not people so what’s the problem? Nothing prevents the actual humans running the corporation from speaking
So then since the Sierra Club, the NRA, and the NAACP are all corporations, you feel that the government can sanction them for the passing out of leaflets or the issuing of press releases that the government doesn’t like?
Similarly, I assume you believe the government can forbid the KKK(another corporation) from using money to organize and publicize a march through a Jewish neighborhood?
They are??