General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid I hear Elliot Spitzer say on Bill Mahar he thinks Citizens United is FREE SPEECH
And agrees with the law
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I heard on the radio that Merle Haggard died.
Now, are these like, voices in your head, or what?
And who is Elliot Spencer?
unionworks
(3,574 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)One night I was driving down the road in August and there was some kind of white flaky material coming out of the sky.
Looking out the windshield I said to my wife "Is that what I think it is?"
So she says, "I don't know. What do you think it is?"
It's kind of a pointless question if you think about it... "Did I just hear X?"
Now, I might have heard something, but that doesn't mean I'd have any idea whether anyone else did.
Like one night when I was sitting home alone, the dog started talking to me. Okay. I mean the dog looked at me and started talking.
I was shocked, and a little bit scared, but it doesn't do me any good to ask you, "Hey, did I just hear my dog talking to me?" now does it?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)quick, some one find a doctor.
Remember, don't worry about us, take your time and come back when your feeling better.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The dog says she feels fine. So it's not like there's anything wrong with her.
unionworks
(3,574 posts)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Because that dog has pulled that trick before.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
gateley
(62,683 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)1st Amendment rules
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Spitzer failed to recognize that our founders were concerned about freedom of speech for the “People” of America, not the words presented by non-human corporations, PACs or labor unions. The Bill of Rights, by definition, protects the “individual” rights of American citizens (persons).
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)"what if this movie (Hillary) were a book? Would you ban it?"
No matter how much it cost - no book or movie should ever be banned.
full disclosure - I donate to the ACLU and they agree with me and Spitzer.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)It wouldn't be such a problem if a corpration were allowed one vote and was restricted to a $2500 campaign contribution like an ordinary citizen, but when they are allowed to contribute unlimited funds and influence elections through super-pacs that doesn't sound like any citizen I know of. I believe the SCOTUS got this one wrong, and I believe they did so on purpose in order to affect this very election.
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)Give that man a CEEGAR!
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)But the free speech problem is that WE THE PEOPLE can only donate $2500 each.
Not that corporations can donate more.
The system is a mess for sure.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)amazing how many people will line up behind "corporations are people."
Actually, it's disgusting!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)wtf is up with Spitzer.
sounds like a smart enough guy but he bugs my ass.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)You want to argue corporations are allowed to give money under the 1st Amendment? Fine. But why should corporations not be subject to the same limits PEOPLE are?
Either put the same limits on contributions by corporations as are on people, or
Lift the limit on contribution for people.
madokie
(51,076 posts)of the house and the senate filibuster proof that this ruling will be overturned. Maybe this is the beginning of the end for campaign election laws as they are today
One can have hope can't he?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)People are not stupid (well some are but), if both parties agree with, and use, something they hate, they will not make a party distinction regarding that behavior, unless that is they are among the stupid ones.
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)the other side will too. Until some outside entity forces them both to stop it will always be the same old crap.
I'm totally against unlimited PAC money, as you can see from some of my other posts. But until citizens united is overturned the President would be ill advised to bring a knife to a gunfight.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)a guy that has them buried all around his encampment, so it is taken away as an effective issue as well.
Who is going to believe the second biggest user of landmines when he claims he will ban the use of landmines?
The people will just see more of the same but with better rhetoric, may get a fraction of some votes, but hardly a party issue due to the hypocrisy (regardless of the rationalizations used to adopt an enemies dishonorable tactics)
I am sorry but I have to say, I hear that argument a great deal and I hope it does not offend you, but I think it is a pure bullshit rationalization.
It is in my opinion as valid as saying "we have to use biological weapons because our enemy does", or "we have to resort to terrorism because our enemy does", it is complete nonsense no matter how popular or attractive an argument it is.
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)However, the only way to change the system is to get people into the congress and the white house who are willing to make that change. The only way that is going to happen is by fighting fire with fire. You can't change the world unless you win the war.
It's a shitty situation, and a classic catch 22, but there it is
madokie
(51,076 posts)I just hope somewhere in the future we, you and I and the rest of us find it in our heart of hearts to do what we keep hoping we won't have to do. sooner or later we're all, able bodied ones, are going to have to march on dc and our state houses to stop this shit. the pols ain't going to police themselves with out a us with a big stick in our hand. I'm not talking violence I'm talking numbers. At some point we can be so strong in numbers that he local jackboots won't even attempt. There's enough of us we just have to do it.
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)His opinion assumes that money is free speech. I disagree completely. We all have the right to stand on a corner with a bullhorn (although it might get you maced or tased these days), but how many of us can afford to buy ad time on TV to get our message out? It's not free speech if you're buying it.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I don't buy that money is speech.
And I don't buy that corporations are people, anyway, which means that they can't fucking talk.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)So you could stand on a street corner and yell insulting things about your congressman to your heart's content.
But you would not be allowed to run a TV ad criticizing him. Or spend money on internet bandwidth to say nasty things about him online.
Would this law be constitutional?
If not, then money is speech.
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)Why should someone with more money have a louder voice than anyone else?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)That's it exactly!
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)EXACTLY.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)you're ignoring the other part of the equation.
If a corporation is not a person, they can be regulated in a much different manner, as they are nothing more than creations of the charters they have been granted to operate. The law already treats them like corporations for certain purposes and like people for other purposes. The idea that "corporations are people" is not something that has been applied uniformly by the legal system.
The second part is more complicated, and I'm too hungry to try to rebut that right now.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)And, if you destroy a corporation by fraud or otherwise, are you guilty of murder?
And if corporations are people, can they be drafted to serve in the armed forces? Do they breathe, bleed, poop?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)or something like that. 
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Lets say the DU wanted to start a Super PAC and tell the world the GOP is full of shit. Are you saying we should not be able to run ads against the GOP?
Or if congress was considering a bill to ban protests. Are you saying the DU should not be able to run ads against the bill?
See, it is more complicated than you think.
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)That just doesn't seem right to me
Logical
(22,457 posts)to stop it that does not interfere with the 1st amendment.
If I am rich and want to run an ad against fracking then how is that fair to stop me from doing it.
Fine line that is hard to address.
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)(edited to correct sp)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)some make this argument, I'm going to post this by Lawrence Lessig
Yet this is the most confused part of the commentary (and reaction) of most to this kind of regulation. If the government's reason for silencing corporations is that they don't like what corporations would say -- if it thinks, for example, that it would be too Republican, or too pro-business -- then that's got to be a terrible reason for the regulation, and we all ought to support a decision that strikes a law so inspired.
That, however, is not the only, or the best, justification behind the regulations at issue in Citizens United. Those rules not about suppressing a point of view. They're about avoiding a kind of dependency that undermines trust in our government. The concentrated, and tacitly, coordinated efforts by large and powerful economic entities -- made large and powerful in part because of the gift of immunity given by the state -- could certainly help lead many to believe "money is buying results" in Congress. Avoiding that belief -- just like avoiding the belief that money bought results on the Supreme Court -- has got to be an important and valid interest of the state.
If the Court really means to say that entities that fund or create other entities can't limit the power of those entities to speak -- so the government can't stop doctors from talking about abortion, or the IRS can't stop non-profits from talking about politics -- then we really have crossed a Bladerunner line. For that conclusion really does mean that these entities were "created with certain unalienable rights," even though they were created by a pretty pathetic creator -- the state.
My point is not that the state's power to condition should be unlimited. The point instead is that it's not so simple, or absolute, as Greenwald would have it. And given the true complexity of these evolving and complicated doctrines, it is certainly fair to be critical in the extreme of this decision by the Court, favoring speech that most believe it naturally likes (unlike abortion-speak), in a decision that ignores the judgment of Congress about the conditions under which the integrity of that body, or any election, proceeds.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-principled-and-pure-fir_b_439082.html
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)the rethugs have almost all the Billionaires on there side.The unions can't match the money these people put out
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)The Repubs are systematically killing them off
unionworks
(3,574 posts)Corrporations are not people. That is the entireargument thatCitizens United was based on.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Cowboy8541
(64 posts)then it should be subject to the same laws that regulate REAL individuals.
If you want proof that our elections are bought and sold just turn on any news channel. All they talk about is how much money each person is raising, implying that whomever has the most money wins. Someone, I think it was Ed Schultz, pointed out that politicians don't need the people anymore, they only need one sugar daddy to bankroll them.
How is that fair?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And could ban books being published if they are critical of candidates for election.
That would be a huge, huge limitation of the First Amendment.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Collectives are comprised of individuals who have rights. Banding together (incorporating or by any other means like marrage) should not give people additional or more free speech rights than others.
Money is not speech, because if it is it means that some people have the right to more speech then others.
Corporations are not people.
It really is quite simple despite claims that it is complicated
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)You and I and most DUers can't. What we can do, however, is to band together, pool our resources, and then we would be able to afford to buy ads. Citizens United protects our ability to do this, which is probably why the ACLU favors it.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)If I'm allowed to donate x amount I should be allowed to donate as an individual or in a collective, or some combination of the two... but only to the designated/allowed amount. Why do I get to spend/donate more because I have joined with others? Everyone should be given the same limit and should be able to apply it how they choose.
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)Wow, I totally misread it the first time,. My apologies : )
I stand by my reply, just not directed at you
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It was a good decision that protected the first amendment. The decision may have bad consequences, but the Court is not allowed to rewritethe Constitution to avoid bad consequences. The whole "corporations are not people" objection is misguided. Corporations produce newspapers like the New York Times. Does that disqualify the NYTimes from first amendment protection? Of course not.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)The New York Times endorsing a candidate? Also fine.
The New York Times Company making massive political donations with other people's money to political entities that have been created to clearly influence a particular election - donations that are far from transparent and difficult for shareholders to oppose, due to the present-day remoteness of the corporation from its "owners" - not ok.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying by imagining these questions to all be the same.
And you are always going to have first amendment protection when publishing a newspaper. The press is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment! But publishing a newspaper is not at all the same thing as pouring funds into a political vehicle designed to influence an election. Most simply, papers have from time immemorial supported one candidate or another. But at least in that instance, the connection between the paper, as publisher, and message is immediately apparent and fully transparent. This is quite different from the corporation that publishes the paper funneling money to a super pac, where they are one of many different donors, and their contribution is not nearly as readily apparent.
Super Pacs are also absurd. To maintain limits on donations to candidates, while maintaining no limits on these supposedly separate and non-campaign related (I mean, really?) entities, is to embrace an absurd rejection of reality that has been exposed badly within the very few years that have followed the Court's decision.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The Court did not rule that all limitations on campaign financing violate free speech.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
You made an analogy, I attempted to show why that analogy really doesn't inform the situation or change my opinion one whit.
You could guess that odds-on, I know what Citizens United was about.
But a general statement about the case after you've made a point and I've made a counter-point seems rather strange. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but reading your post just left me scratching my head.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The ruling addressed how much money corporations could spend on "electioneering communications," not the broader issue of how much money corporations could donate to a candidate's campaign directly or indirectly. You reject the analogy to corporate owned press on the grounds that the press is specifically mentioned in the first amendment, but speech is also specifically mentioned in the first amendment, and speech produced by corporations is speech. The problem you need to address is how to justify saying that some corporate speech can be limited without restricting corporate speech that presumably should not be restricted. It's not an easy problem to solve.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)From my post:
To maintain limits on donations to candidates, while maintaining no limits on these supposedly separate and non-campaign related (I mean, really?) entities
Then you post:
The ruling addressed how much money corporations could spend on "electioneering communications," not the broader issue of how much money corporations could donate to a candidate's campaign directly or indirectly.
Dammit, I say right out that I am not talking about direct or indirect donations to a candidate's campaign. This is just downright rude, frankly. Cut it out.
And I know exactly what Citizens United was about, as I participated in a 20 person in-class lecture on the subject last year taught by a former head of the FEC. And I don't appreciate you not reading what I post, making something up, and then being insulting. It sucks, and you shouldn't do it.
But as to what you posted in this post here - as in, what I am responding to - I don't find it nearly as complicated as you do. If a corporation isn't a person, you can regulate them in any way you see fit, as they are wholly creations of the states that grant them their charters. And if that means limits that don't allow end-arounds that permit billionaires to flood the airwaves with political messages clearly meant to influence specific campaigns, I'm fine with that.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)But you haven't yet made a compelling case for your conclusion.
You now say: "If a corporation isn't a person, you can regulate them in any way you see fit, as they are wholly creations of the states that grant them their charters."
If that were true, you could regulate corporations that publish newspapers like the NY Times "in any way you see fit," and so effectively censor newspapers, and you yourself said that such newspapers do enjoy first amendment protection from such interference. So the issue is complicated.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I've got to get some sleep and I'm in dire straits with work.
Thank you for your apology - no worries - I'm sorry for getting so upset, but there was another thread where I felt like someone was just playing games rather than having a discussion, so I got my hackles up. Please remove any sense of animosity from anything I said above.
I'm a law student, but few of the things discussed on this board are in my wheelhouse, which is in the securities law/tort law area. So I'm no first amendment scholar.
I think there's a distinction here you're missing and you're equating two things that the law has made comfortable distinctions between, but I'd need a clearer head to attempt an answer. I think it may be as simple as there being a separation between the corporate ownership of The Times and the publishing apparatus. But I will try to respond to this over the next few days. First Amendment issues are complicated - the "true threat" doctrine (which has replaced "fighting words"
nearly gave me migraines last semester. But I do know that when I read Citizens United, I was struck by the number of places in the opinion where corporation and person were used interchangeably, as though there was no choice, and thought at each of the instances that there was most certainly a choice - just one that Kennedy chose to make in a particular way.
But before I reread that case, I have about fifty cases to read for my final project, which is my last barrier to getting my JD...
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Right now, I am inclined to think that the decision in Citizens United was a good one, but I am certainly open to being convinced otherwise. I don't find some of Kennedy's reasoning to be convincing, but I have yet to see a compelling principle that can be used to distinguish certain clear first amendment violations (e.g., the NY Times example) from restricting corporate money spent on electioneering communications.
I am probably less well-versed in first amendment law than you are, but I do work on general issues pertaining to the extent to which the Bill of Rights limits the federal government's powers, and also some more specific issues pertaining to war powers and due process. I have also published a couple of papers on tort law. Cheers.
Idiolect
(5 posts)Would it be ok if it was for three days before? Is it now ok to carry signs outside a polling booth on election day? In my four decades of voting that has always been forbidden. A limited restriction that has very good justification seems ok.
Vattel, as I'm relistening to the oral argument, I would like to be sure we are both on the same page that the issues involved in the specific case revolved not around allowance of a particular message but around the sources of funding behind electioneering messages. And only with regard to certain mediums. I would assume that you are clear on this.
As to the broader issues, one initial comment is that it is amazing, listening to the oral argument (and this is where there can be a lot of confusion involved if one says "do you realize what the case was about" - because, well, yes, but what the case was about was changed dramatically by the Justices in the majority) how Scalia and Roberts lead Olsen by the nose into arguing for the broader ruling they were, apparently, eager to write. On multiple occasions, Olsen's argument is something more narrow, and one of those two says, "You're not saying (as in, "don't say this - say this instead" such and such, are you? Isn't xxxxx xxxxx really the case?" Olsen's initial oral concludes with Scalia essentially telling him what his argument is and Olsen (being no dummy) says, "yes, I agree 100% with what you just said!"
Vattel
(9,289 posts)by the majority. And it was definitely about funding for political speech of a certain kind. So I think we are on the same page concerning the ruling. I should read the opinions again, though, to refresh my memory.
Idiolect
(5 posts)Limited restricions made for very good reasons are acceptable. I don't want big signs in my face while I stand in line outside my polling place. (for example -- I actaully vote by mail)
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)are trying to protect the integrity of the society then not so much.
I also think that equating money with speech means that he with the most money has the most expression isn't functional in a representitive democracy. The concentration of wealth is in far too few hands, the top 400 have more resources than the bottom 150 million, you tell me how "the small people" can be heard? Free speech is meaningless if you are cannot be heard and are invisible.
Yes, there is responsibility for context of the society. You can't destroy actual application of freedom of speech in an effort to protect a technical definition of speech because in this case what has happened on an operational level is us "small people" have functionally lost the right, having been drowned out by big money.
You have given the few a louder voice and bigger platform than the many times many which means we are not equal, each person's voice is only as important as how many dollars can be leveraged to amplify it.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)the first amendment so that it implies that everyone should have the same opportunity to be heard. Rich people have more resources to ensure that their point of view is widely disseminated. Only a constitutional amendment can fix that.
Cowboy8541
(64 posts)It seems pretty clear that the founding fathers did not consider money to be free speech.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)the problem is unions do not have the same amount of money but they do have more people.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)instead of its original context as a right to air grievances and assemble. Many think of it in liberal terms but it is a reason why today, we are a rightwing nation drowning in falsehoods of propaganda and uninformed public opinion.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)But people here ignore Greenwald on that one, as it doesn't conform to the narrative.
Idiolect
(5 posts)in his original post on Slate.com: "At issue is Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the McCain-Feingold Act). That provision makes it a federal crime for corporations or unions to fund "electioneering communications," defined as broadcast, cable, or satellite communications aired 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election that refer to a clearly identified federal officeholder or candidate."
It seems that SCOTUS has made ANY restrictions on electioneering a matter of "free speech." So is it now ok to carry signs outside a polling booth on election day? In my four decades of voting that has always been forbidden.
I also have a problem with Spitzer saying the what O'Reilly or Maddow says is corporate speech by Fox or MSNBC. Bill and Rachel are people and I'd like to continue with my naive idea that they are "free" to speak (up to a point) and are not puppets controlled entirely by the CORPORATION.