A highly inappropriate question for this thread, judging from the rest of the posts here. The key element seems to be to criticize the decision without knowing what it says.
But, hey, I’m game to buck the trend if you are. Part IV relates to the disclosure requirements – material must identify who produced it, clearly and conspicuously. Only Thomas felt that this was unconstituional. Presumably he read “Congress shall make no law respecting…” and thought it meant that Congress couldn’t make any laws restricting speech, period.
The idea is that forcing a speaker to identify him or herself can chill speech. Kind of the anonymous pamphleteer concept. I don’t think it applies here, and am not surprised that part was upheld.
I’m also not surprised Thomas voted to strike that part too. He has always been a hard core supporter of the idea that commercial speech is a strange concept, and that it should be treated as all other speech.
I don’t know if it will improve things. Honestly, that isn’t the issue. It is, as far as I can see, constitutionally required, so if we don’t like the outcome, we need to change the constitution.
There is a lot of misinformation out there. I don’t think it goes against my basic point though. If we don’t trust ourselves to cut through the misinformation, to show people our message is better, then it is time to abandon democracy. Nothing wrong with that as a concept, though I don’t agree with it. But I wish people would stop hiding behind the idea that they are being pro-democratic. Sometimes people vote for stupid things, and often in democracies people get the government they deserve. If they chose to believe the idiocy that is out there (some of which you mentioned) and those of us on the left are unable to convince them of the benefits of our message, what then?
Can one of you smarter more savvy types boil this down for me. Does this remove the restriction on spending, or just what you can spend money on? Didn’t this case come out of the Hillary movie? Aren’t PACs restricted to $5000 donations or is that what was reversed?
ETA: From what I can tell they-Citizens United-lost the “movie” part of the case so how did reducing spending restrictions come out of this? I guess I need the “For Dummies” version of this issue.
Somehow, other countries restrict the ability of corporations to simply buy votes and still have democracy. And you can’t “show people our message is better” when the other side can simply use money to shout you down, to make sure your message is seldom heard by anyone.
Then America is screwed. Which it is. America is corrupt beyond repair IMHO; this is just one more step towards the death of democracy.
The US is an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, the vast majority of the population worships the person who said that to enter the kingdom of heaven, one must sell all their possessions. They are members of a church that lived communistically, to the point of God striking dead brethren who cheated the community out of its share of their wealth.
On the other hand, most of the most fervent of those same people practically worship capitalism, free markets and wealth…didn’t their own god call those things “Mammon” and insist that one could not serve both?
We are an incredibly fucked-up population, mentally/spiritually.
Where have I said otherwise? I don’t think it is undemocratic necessarily to limit campaign financing. I just don’t think it is a requirement for democracy to limit it. And I also think, under the current US constitution, methods to limit it such as McCain-Feingold were probably unconstitutional.
Only if you have bought into the system (ably supported by the media companies of course) that the only way to get your message to the people is buy big glossy tv ads and 30 minute prime time specials. And only if you hold the population in so much contempt that you think the only way to persuade them is to flash pictures up in the middle of American Idol.
We have a lot of advantages. There are more people who will benefit from our policies than those of the right. Even ignoring the fact that history is on our side and our victory in inevitable ( ), we have other methods of getign the message out. Which do you think is better in the long term - spending millions on TV ads or having a door to door network in the communities, listening to the concerns of people, showing them how the left can help them, and building grass roots organizations? That’s how the left is going to win. It’s not enough to turn up at election time and ask for someone’s vote. It’s a matter of being there for them day in, day out. Of course, it means stopping spurning the unions, but I don’t have a problem with that.
You might be right, but I don’t believe it. I think the time has come to start rebuilding communities and community action.
The problem is not that one side gets too much air time, it’s that the other side does not get equal air time. I think we need to require TV and radio stations to provide equal advt time for free to the opponents of a political ad. I think this would pass constitutional muster as it increases free speech rather than limiting it.
I’m missing something. We agree that Person A has free speech. Person B also has free speech. But if persons A and B join together in a group (and call it a corporation) then some think that they lose the right to free speech?
I rise to defend us against…well, us. We seem to have a real genius for this shit.
I am relentlessly and staunchly a democrat, “Power to the People” was my slogan then, and now. Not that democracy is the most efficient form of government, it certainly is not, nor the most effective. It is simply, and unquestionably, the most just. To escape fear, we must have law, before we can aspire to mercy, we must have justice.
The answer to Cain’s Question is “Yes, yes you are your brother’s keeper”. However steady my faith in my brothers nimble feet and gymnast’s balance, I will not strew greased ball bearings in his path, simply to assure myself that he will cope with them.
We appeal to the better angels of our nature, but woefully aware that such is a still, small voice, the voice of conscience and humanity. It is vulnerable to the megaphones of men who have neither. We have these qualities because we possess what we may as well call a “soul”, that precious spark. I refuse even to consider that corporations have any such thing.
History teaches that men can be swayed against their better natures, and against their common interests. Actually, history doesn’t so much teach that as beat us over the head with it. It is the weakness of democracy, and if we permit, the unscrupulous amongst us will use it to their advantage and our downfall.
We are under no obligation to make it easier for them.
Both persons A and B still possess their individual rights, the abstract entity they create does not. If persons A and B wish to create such an entity that possesses such rights, they can use the old-fashioned method.
Without getting into my problems with this decision, this isn’t a valid analogy.
This case isn’t about A or B’s right to speech—the case determined whether C, the separate legal entity A and B created has a right to free speech. This is fundamental to the very concept of a corporation–that it is a ‘person’ in its own right–distinct from its owners.
In this case, that is clear from the first page of the opinion—the case wasn’t brought by any of the owners of Citizens United (a corporation)–but by the corporation itself.
To use your analogy–A and B aren’t a part of this case. A and B aren’t claiming their rights have been violated. C brought this lawsuit, claiming that its right to free speech was violated.
), we have other methods of getign the message out. Which do you think is better in the long term - spending millions on TV ads or having a door to door network in the communities, listening to the concerns of people, showing them how the left can help them, and building grass roots organizations? That’s how the left is going to win. It’s not enough to turn up at election time and ask for someone’s vote. It’s a matter of being there for them day in, day out. Of course, it means stopping spurning the unions, but I don’t have a problem with that.