Why is allowing corporations and people giving millions upon millions of dollars...

[MrScorpio]

To a political candidate NOT grounds for having undue influence over that candidate by a donor?

Why is that not considered as even the appearance of having undue influence by a donor?

Does this mean that it's now OK to BUY politicians if you're rich enough and the government is powerless to stop it?

What if a donor's candidate actually gets into office, decides to run for reelection but is refused the support of their wealthy former donor friends unless that person comes through on some shady, underhanded deal?

If there were no documents or witnesses to a quid pro quo does that mean that no crime was actually committed?

How is giving that much power and influence to rich and powerful corporations and peopled supposed to be reconciled which a political system that's obstensibly based on representative democracy and the popular vote?

The questions are all rhetorical, of course.

If you ever see people defending this state of affairs or if they refuse to acknowledge the problems inherent in the meaning behind these questions, that should expose those people as either benefitting from these problems or they're to fricking stupid to understand that this sort of crap is turning America into an outright plutocracy.

[cantbeserious]

1. Or, People Just Don't Care Because The New Season Of Idol Has Begun

eom

[geckosfeet]

2. "Does this mean that it's now OK to BUY politicians if you're rich enough"

Errm, free speech means that I can buy whatever I want.














BTW, how much for you and your friends?

[Zalatix]

4. LOL!! +1,000 to you and the OP

[Laelth]

3. We value speech, especially political speech, very highly in this country.

The SCOTUS sees political contributions as speech, and thus applies the 1st Amendment to any government regulation of that speech to test whether to allow the given regulation to stand. So far, the 1st Amendment has generally won out over other competing interests (like the integrity of our elections), and the laws regulating such speech have been struck down.

Personally, I think the "corruption or appearance of corruption" standard the the Court has used lately is somewhat wrong-headed. As many others have argued, the proper standard ought to be the 14th Amendment's "one person, one vote" standard. Under the 14th Amendment, it's clear that those with more money get more speech and, in the end, get more votes as a result of that speech. Under that standard, it makes sense to curb campaign contributions in order to sustain the guiding principle of the 14th Amendment--that each person is entitled to one vote, and that unlimited campaign cash disenfranchises (effectively) persons who lack the capacity to make big money contributions.

So far, however, the SCOTUS has declined to follow that logic, and, indeed, the 1st Amendment is very precious to us. For better or for worse, we protect speech more than any other nation on the planet. Our 1st Amendment is unique in its breadth and scope and in the way our Courts strictly enforce it.

On the one hand, I am quite proud of our 1st Amendment. On the other hand, it regularly bites us in the nether regions. It's a mixed bag, but it is fundamental to who we are as a nation.

Personally, I want to see a case that strikes down the original money=speech ruling of the SCOTUS. That would be the easiest way to solve this problem.

-Laelth

[Dustlawyer]

6. "more money = more speech" you hit the nail in exactly the center of he head. I wish you could do

that to Scalia! I guess the money equals speech came to he, Alito and Thomas when the Koch suckers handed them their "honorarium!"

[meaculpa2011]

8. I don't know about the 14th...

Amendment argument. What if you're more eloquent and persuasive than I am? Does that make you more influential and therefore violate the one person one vote rule? I agree that any ruling on speech=money has to be very narrow.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. Santa Clara v Southern Pacific is at the core of this

A *note* not even in the final ruling set this country down a path that I wonder if we will ever recover from.

Until that whole "Corporations have the same rights as people" thing is tossed out, trimming around the edges will be meaningless as they will just keep finding more loopholes to exploit.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. Best saying floating around

If money = speech than speech is no longer free.

[salin]

7. and why is Gov. Siegleman still in jail?

forget that the evidence didn't stack up - but in essence the case was exactly this scenario, but of course before Citizen's United. Perhaps it is only a free pass for the appearance of no corruption if the politician is a republican?

[Moral Compass]

9. Logically Flawed

What I love about this decision is that it rests on a series of logical fallacies that any young student of logic could show to be invalid. There's actually an almost mathematical method of logical analysis called 'symbolic logic' that would quickly and efficiently dispose of the ridiculous reasoning in the Citizen's United decision. Once that was done we could then proceed on to a societal discussion of how we could get five justices off the Supreme Court who have revealed themselves to be drooling idiots.

The fallacies: 1) Money is speech; 2) Corporations are people

Therefore limiting the amount of money "people" donate to a campaign is a violation of the 1st amendment...

The reasoning is so bad as to defy belief. Money is not speech. Nor are corporations people.

All of this was a deliberate hit on campaign finance by a very well funded lobby. Corporations have wanted back in the game of political influence since they were expelled from it decades ago. The court realizes that they are completely unaccountable. And, now that they have the five votes, decided to go for it. How do you appeal a decision when you've lost in the Supreme Court? What is the sound of one hand clapping, grasshopper?

[HopeHoops]

10. The first step is making the records public. The GOP, of course, is against this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Unfortunately, the only people able to get money out of politics are on the payroll.

"Right here in this heart and home and fountain-head of law, this great factory where are forged those rules that create good order and compel virtue and honesty in the other communities of the land, rascality achieves its highest perfection."

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise."

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

Mark Twain