Opponents of Citizens United: A question about specifics

Which option do you choose, and why?

For my own part, I don’t think any of these restrictions is consistent with the First Amendment much less an especially effective way to limit the power of the rich to control government. I also don’t see why you would ban the corporation but not the unincorporated association from doing the same activity.

But the majority of my co-partisans seem to think otherwise, so I’m curious to examine these beliefs more closely.

I am against limits on free speech, so I picked the last option.

People have the right to free speech, therefore the right to advocate in favor of, or in opposition to, any candidate or issue. Corporations are groups of people. People do not lose their rights when acting as a group.


That makes you not an “Opponent of Citizens United,” though I thank you for your participation anyway since this thread seems doomed for the dustbin. Perhaps people will feel more compelled to argue with you than me. :slight_smile:

Only select groups of people within the corporation. I doubt a Board of Directors who favor a particular candidate will listen to the (more numerous) factory workers who favor another.

But it isn’t a “Group of People” that are spending the money-it is the heads of the corporations…unless they take a corporation-wide poll first, of course(insert freightcar load of dubious smileys here). When you say a corporation is a “group of people”, it should be point out that the “group” making the decision is very small indeed.

But those concerns–valid or not–are inapplicable to a corporation like Citizens United, right? It doesn’t have workers who disagree with the production of the video.

So what answer would you put on the above poll? Maybe you’d say limits should only be placed on issue advocacy of corporations formed for other purposes, like General Motors?

I would hope not - the money being spent does not belong to the workers. It belongs to the corporation, and the board answers to the stock holders only.

Your argument would better apply to something like a union, where the union bosses are accountable (or should be) to the members for the portion of dues not spent on negotiations and member benefits. I support the Beck decision, IOW.


Hmm. Four votes, three of which were for positions to be explained in a post (only one of which was).

Do I need to hand out candy for participation?

Donations and other such acts regarding an election should only be allowed by individual registered voters. You should be able to bundle, but I would not allow group spending.

I know that elections can be bought - I just want to know who specifically is doing the buying.

Ok. Is financing and airing an ad a “donation” subject to the limit discussed in your post?