Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Citizens United allows for bribery.
    #28169633 - 02/02/23 06:43 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Corruption exists, we see in in places like the US when senators turn their votes 180 around after recieving unscrupulous sums of money. Like Krysten Sinema receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars towards her campaign then changing her stance on drug price gouging.

Quote:

Big Pharma, medical firms donated $750K to Kyrsten Sinema — then she opposed drug billDemocrats who now oppose the plan to lower prescription drug costs accused of "carrying water for Big Pharma"

https://www.salon.com/2021/09/23/big-pharma-firms-donated-750k-to-kyrsten-sinema--then-she-opposed-bill/




The influence of money in politics is hotly debated, but I'm here to prove once and for all that the unlimited donations loophole allowed by citizens united is the most important source of bribery and corruption in the US senate and that it should be overturned.

Some people don't appear to want to believe that there is a loophole provided by citizens United that allows PACS, corporations and wealthy individuals to donate an unlimited amount of funds if they claim independent expenditure when there is solid proof it's true.

The face of bribery and the source of corruption should not be whitewashed and anyone blind to the reality on unlimited donations should heed these facts.

Citizens United allows for bribery of politicians through unlimited donations to their campaigns if a PAC claims independence expenditure.

When 1 person gives a million dollars to a political campaign, it gives that one person or company or PAC an undue influence relative to the voting public.

1 PAC giving 1 millions dollars to a political campaign is different to 10,000 people giving a total of 1 million dollars to a political campaign and the difference is democracy. The difference is that one of them is a grass roots organisation, and the other a political bribe.

Quote:

The Supreme Court case "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" (2010) created a loophole that allows Political Action Committees (PACs) to make unlimited independent expenditures on political campaigns. The decision stated that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to spend money on political speech, effectively freeing them to spend unlimited amounts of money in support or opposition to political candidates.

Many people argue that the ability of corporations and unions to make unlimited independent expenditures in political campaigns as a result of the Citizen United ruling has led to an unequal influence of money in politics and a threat to the democratic process. By allowing unlimited spending, critics argue that wealthy individuals and corporations have disproportionate power to sway elections and shape public policy. This issue has been a source of controversy and debate in the United States, with some advocating for stricter campaign finance regulations to reduce the influence of money in politics




Quote:

Source 1
Supreme Court of the United States
Syllabus of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
January 21, 2010

2.  Austin [v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce] is overruled, and thus provides no basis
    for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures.…[the]
    restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary[: The
    Movie]. Given this conclusion, the…restrictions on independent corporate
    expenditures is [sic] also overruled.…




Quote:

Current rules set a $2,500 per-person per-election limit for federal candidates. (Each state sets its own limits on donations to state or local candidates.) There is a $30,800 per-person per-year limit on donations to national party committees, and a $10,000 total limit on per-person contributions to state, district or local party committees.

But different rules apply to non-party, outside groups called political action committees, known as PACs. If a PAC contributes directly to candidates, the most a person can donate to the PAC is $5,000.  Significantly, if a PAC declares that it will spend its money totally independently from a candidate’s  campaign, then there are no limits on donations to the PAC. These groups, which can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, or unions, are commonly called “Super PACs.”

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/money-politics-101-what-you-need-know-about-campaign-finance-after




Quote:

Today, thanks Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United, big money dominates U.S. political campaigns to a degree not seen in decades. Super PACs allow billionaires to pour unlimited amounts into campaigns, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. Dark money groups mask the identities of their donors, preventing voters from knowing who’s trying to influence them. And races for a congressional seat regularly attract tens of millions in spending. It’s no wonder that most people believe the super-wealthy have much more influence than the rest of us. 

Though Citizens United opened the floodgates to unlimited independent spending, the Supreme Court continues to uphold limits on direct contributions. Brennan Center for Justice advocates for tighter limits on contributions candidates can directly receive.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics/influence-big-money





Quote:

The contribution limit isn’t $2,500.

The contribution limit is $2,500 for a private individual contributing directly to a political candidate.

The limit is higher for organizations and groups such as political action committees.

Furthermore, there is no limit whatsoever to contributions that aren’t made directly to a political candidate or party. They can donate to other Political Action Committees. And they can spend unlimited amounts of money campaigning for or against a candidate, as long as they do not give cash directly to the candidate or act materially under the direction or control of a candidate.

For example, a Political Action Committee can:

Spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign ads for a candidate

Put up billboards or other advertising for a candidate

Organize voting drives for a candidate

Give unlimited cash to a person who has not officially announced a candidacy. For example, a person can say “I am thinking about running for Senate,” collect unlimited amounts of money from a Political Action Committee, and then file the paperwork to become an official candidate. (Some lawyers have tried to argue this is technically illegal. So far they have not succeeded.)

Organize and host election events for a candidate.

There are no limits on any of these activities. In 2016, Political Action Committees spent more than a billion dollars supporting political candidates.




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Edited by sudly (02/02/23 10:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly] * 1
    #28169667 - 02/02/23 07:08 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Independent expenditures were unlimited before citizens united. What changed is the ability to form super pacs to accept monies for those expenditures.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28169694 - 02/02/23 07:24 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

A source would be appreciated.

Quote:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a Supreme Court case decided in 2010, changed the rules regarding independent expenditures. Before citizens United, corporations and labor unions were prohibited from making unlimited independent expenditures in political campaigns. The court's decision in citizens United effectively struck down these restrictions, allowing corporations and labor unions to make unlimited independent expenditures to support or oppose political candidates.

This decision has had a significant impact on the landscape of campaign finance, as it has led to the creation of Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs), which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and labor unions and use that money to make unlimited independent expenditures. The ability of these Super PACs to spend unlimited amounts on political advertising and other activities has the potential to significantly influence elections and the political process.

Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts on advertising and other political activities to support or oppose candidates, as long as they do not coordinate with the campaigns they are supporting. This means that Super PACs can run advertisements, purchase campaign materials, and engage in other political activities to support the candidates of their choice, without having to limit their spending. However, they cannot directly donate to political campaigns and must operate independently of the candidates they support.

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case changed the rules regarding independent expenditures by allowing corporations and labor unions to make unlimited independent expenditures in support of or opposition to political candidates. Before this decision, corporations and labor unions were prohibited from making unlimited independent expenditures.

The ability of Super PACs to make unlimited independent expenditures has the potential to greatly influence the outcome of elections and the political process, as they can spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates. As a result, the impact of independent expenditures has increased significantly since the citizens United ruling.




Unlimited 'independent' expenditures have extreme potential to be considered bribery and are by no means actually independant in practice and the expenditures can be used in favor of a political campaign.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28169733 - 02/02/23 07:40 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Your own quote says it...

"The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case changed the rules regarding independent expenditures by allowing corporations and labor unions to make unlimited independent expenditures in support of or opposition to political candidates. Before this decision, corporations and labor unions were prohibited from making unlimited independent expenditures."


All that changed was corporations could make unlimited expenditures. Everyone else already could.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28169944 - 02/02/23 09:05 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Enabling corporations and unions to spend without restrictions in support of political campaigns is leaning heavily in favour of bribery. Allowing single sources to pour tremendous amounts of money into campaigns that would otherwise require tens of thousands of individual donations.

Quote:

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case dealt with the issue of whether or not restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations and labor unions, are a form of political speech and are protected by the First Amendment.

The Court's decision effectively equated the spending of money on political advertisements and other political activities with free speech, arguing that restrictions on such spending would have a chilling effect on political discourse and would therefore be unconstitutional.

In doing so, the Court broadened the definition of free speech to include the spending of money on political activities, such as advertising and campaign materials. This has had a significant impact on the landscape of campaign finance and has effectively allowed corporations and labor unions to make unlimited independent expenditures to support or oppose political candidates.





Citizens United allowed corporations and unions to have unlimited independent expenditure (donations) to support whomever they please.

Quote:

Before the citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, Political Action Committees (PACs) could make donations to political campaigns, but these donations were subject to limits set by federal law. Federal law capped the amount of money that a PAC could donate to a political campaign, both in the aggregate and per election.

The citizens United decision, however, had no direct impact on the donation limits for PACs. The decision dealt specifically with independent expenditures made by corporations and labor unions, not with the donation limits for PACs. While the creation of Super PACs, which were made possible by citizens United, has the potential to indirectly influence the political process through unlimited independent expenditures, the donation limits for PACs remain in place.




The difference between independant expenditure and donations are fickle semantics at best.

Quote:

Independent expenditures and donations are two different types of political contributions that are regulated under different rules.

Independent expenditures are funds spent by organizations or individuals in support of or opposition to political candidates or causes, but not made in coordination with a candidate's campaign. This type of spending is not subject to contribution limits and can be used for activities such as running political advertisements, purchasing campaign materials, and engaging in other political activities.

Donations, on the other hand, are contributions made directly to political campaigns. They are subject to contribution limits set by federal law and can only be used by the campaigns for specific purposes, such as paying for campaign expenses or financing political ads.

In summary, the main difference between independent expenditures and donations is that independent expenditures are unlimited and can be made by organizations and individuals, while donations are subject to contribution limits and must be made directly to political campaigns.




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28169964 - 02/02/23 09:13 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

That difference, however, is huge in terms of the right to free speech.  Ultimately, if you prohibit people from spending money to spread their message, you severely limit speech.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28170017 - 02/02/23 09:58 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

In today's society money is the conduit. It has been since the advent of the pamphlet or newspaper, yet society back then did not live their years as intricately attached to the media source. Whether this is vicariously or authentically is another debate. I do believe current media does influence one more, than in years past.

There seems to be a diffintive link between total money spent and voter  participation in the political process. Could this be manipulation, though?

Sudly seems to suggest that the additional monies disbursed (specifically, the high dollar amounts from PACs) create an undue influence on democracy itself. Due to these amounts, democracy has been skewed and manipulated in favor of the biggest spender.

This is echoed by (from link)

then-Justice John Paul Stevens opined that, “in the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener’s exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens’ willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process.”




As expected, this graph shows a sharp increase in independent expenditures over time after Citizens United (and subsequent decisions relying on Citizens United) eliminated prohibitions on this type of electoral spending from corporate, union, and most nonprofit speakers.




This graph demonstrates that, despite turnout varying according to whether it is a presidential election year, turnout has been rising. The yellow trendline shows a small but steady increase over the last 20 years. In fact, 2020 had the highest turnout rate of all the years surveyed with 67% of the voting population casting a ballot, and 2020 had “the largest increase in voters between two presidential elections on record.”

Comparing the two graphs, it is clear that both independent expenditures and voter turnout have increased after Citizens United. Indeed, 2020 experienced both record independent spending and voter turnout. This is contrary to predictions that unlimited independent expenditures would harm political participation.
(End link)
____________________________________________


As I stated above, how could it be possible to determine if this increased voter turnout were due to citizens being duped and manipulated by PAC expenditures? The only certain fact, is that higher voter turnout is a hallmark of a healthy, functioning democracy, moreover, any additional limits on speech pose a higher degree of manipulation and risk that would eat at the bedrock of both the citizens and democracy itself than additional expenditures from a PAC.

Link

https://www.ifs.org/research/issue-analysis-12-citizens-united-political-participation/


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Edited by SirTripAlot (02/02/23 10:28 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28170056 - 02/02/23 10:42 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said: That difference, however, is huge in terms of the right to free speech.  Ultimately, if you prohibit people from spending money to spread their message, you severely limit speech.




The intention isn't to prohibit wealthy individuals or corporations from spending money, it is to restrict the amount they can spend on political campaigns specifically. Like how you can buy guns but not bazookas. People aren't prohibited from buying weapons, they're restricted from buying excessively dangerous ones.

Quote:

The citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case has had a significant impact on the interpretation and application of the First Amendment's protection of free speech. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

The Court's decision effectively equated the spending of money on political advertisements and other political activities with free speech, arguing that restrictions on such spending would have a chilling effect on political discourse and would therefore be unconstitutional. This has had the effect of allowing corporations and labor unions to make unlimited independent expenditures to support or oppose political candidates.

Critics of the citizens United decision argue that it has the potential to undermine the democratic process by allowing a small number of wealthy individuals and organizations to have a disproportionate influence on elections through their unlimited spending. Supporters of the decision argue that it is a victory for free speech and that corporations and labor unions have a right to express their political views just as individuals do.

Regardless of one's stance on the issue, it is clear that the citizens United decision has had a significant impact on the interpretation and application of the First Amendment's protection of free speech.




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170066 - 02/02/23 10:51 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said: As I stated above, how could it be possible to determine if this increased voter turnout were due to citizens being duped and manipulated by PAC expenditures? The only certain fact, is that higher voter turnout is a hallmark of a healthy, functioning democracy, moreover, any additional limits on speech pose a higher degree of manipulation and risk that would eat at the bedrock of both the citizens and democracy itself than additional expenditures from a PAC.

https://www.ifs.org/research/issue-analysis-12-citizens-united-political-participation/




What if people were fed up with the blatant corruption, the lay up interviews, the dodging of questions, the changing of stances, the lies, the omissions the policy decisions and harm the government has thrown at the feet of the people with the least in the country.

Being able to see income inequality is eye opening and unavoidable. As socio-economic issues elevate in severity and impacts on the general public become more evident, like no universal healthcare, crippling debt and predatory loan practices, drug price gouging, eventually people turn out to vote.

A lot still don't care, but many are riled up to vote just to get whoever is at the helm out and someone else in, in hopes of seeing a change in the system that so negatively impacts them and reduces the opportunities they have to come across.

What if voters can see the impact of the increase in 'independent' expenditure?

The drug ads are only the beginning.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170084 - 02/02/23 11:18 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Would you be against a PAC that divulged the sentiments (corruption,policy omissions, etc)you stated above to the voting populace?

the "Wakeup PAC"?


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Edited by SirTripAlot (02/02/23 11:20 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170085 - 02/02/23 11:22 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Yes, on principal all maximum donations should be the same and I believe 'independent' expendature relative to political campaigns should be restricted for PACS, corporations, unions and wealthy or well off individuals.

The Senate should be heading a comitee to overturn or amend Citizens United imo.

Otherwise grass roots organisations can do this by running off tens or hundreds of thousands of individual public donations up to the maximum donation of $2500.

It is difficult to succeed with a grassroots organization or political run, but it is required for a truly representative democracy where the majority of voters have the most influence on the policy decisions of a nation.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Edited by sudly (02/02/23 11:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170089 - 02/02/23 11:29 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Buy a thousand bughattis, not the Senate.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170105 - 02/02/23 11:45 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

So you would be against a PAC that had the exact viewpoint of yourself, due to the monetary amounts contributed to it?
It seems you are willing to have your own version of undue influence against your own political stance. You talk of socioeconomic reform, yet you would be against another individual contributor---with your same viewpoint--- merely for having money.


Grassroots organizations can form PACs, it is not reserved for billionaires

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-pac/registering-nonconnected-committee/


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170112 - 02/02/23 11:50 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

No.

I would be against a PAC with my viewpoint from using millions of dollars of independent expenditure to bolster the campaign of their preferred candidate.

I would not be against a grass roots organisations spending millions of dollars to bolster the campaign of their preferred candidate in any direction of the political spectrum.

Because grass roots organisations are themselves built from the donations of sometimes hundreds of thousands of people.

Not just 1 corporation, union or wealthy individual.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,866
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170115 - 02/02/23 11:52 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Krysten Sinema has always been a corporate shill. She didn't change her stance. She lied about her stance to get elected.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170116 - 02/02/23 11:54 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

You wouldn't just be against it..... you would not have it exist.

Since the PAC would not exist, the viewpoint you espouse would diminish.
You would have less speech on the topic, not more.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28170118 - 02/02/23 11:54 PM (1 year, 3 months ago)

And would you have voted for her if she was sponsored by a grass roots organisations over a single corporation?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170130 - 02/03/23 12:01 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
You wouldn't just be against it..... you would not have it exist.

Since the PAC would not exist, the viewpoint you espouse would diminish.
You would have less speech on the topic, not more.




Choose your side, really.

Quote:

There are several arguments against the concept that unlimited spending on political campaigns and advertisements constitutes protected free speech under the First Amendment. Some of these arguments include:

Disproportionate influence: Critics argue that unlimited spending by corporations and wealthy individuals can give them a disproportionate amount of influence in the political process, effectively drowning out the voices of average citizens.

Corruption: Critics also argue that unlimited spending can increase the risk of corruption and undermine the integrity of the democratic process.

Inequality: The ability of wealthy individuals and organizations to spend vast sums of money on political activities gives them a much greater voice in the political process than that of average citizens, which can exacerbate existing inequalities in political power.

Distortion of the democratic process: Critics argue that unlimited spending on political campaigns can distort the democratic process by making it difficult for candidates who cannot compete in terms of financial resources to gain traction and effectively participate in the political process.

Free speech versus money: Critics argue that unlimited spending on political campaigns is not a form of protected free speech, but instead constitutes the use of money to exert influence in the political process. They argue that the First Amendment was never intended to protect the right to buy political influence.

These arguments highlight some of the key concerns that many people have about the relationship between unlimited spending and free speech in the context of political campaigns and elections.




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170132 - 02/03/23 12:04 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
You wouldn't just be against it..... you would not have it exist.

Since the PAC would not exist, the viewpoint you espouse would diminish.
You would have less speech on the topic, not more.




Do you agree that there would be less speech on your viewpoint, per the above?


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Edited by SirTripAlot (02/03/23 12:04 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170133 - 02/03/23 12:06 AM (1 year, 3 months ago)

I don't believe that unlimited spending on political campaigns is a form of protected free speech, but instead constitutes the use of money to exert influence in the political process. 


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* NAFTA's Investor ''Rights'': A Corporate Dream, A Citizens.. Psilocybeingzz 901 3 06/09/03 10:17 AM
by Anonymous
* Guardian article questioning the independence of MEMRI Andy21 591 1 09/29/06 02:54 PM
by lonestar2004
* The last good President of the United States...
( 1 2 3 all )
chunder 4,250 53 02/09/04 03:13 PM
by Blastrid
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendalM 16,720 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred
* Open Letter to the Citizens of the United States of America jux 489 0 09/20/04 03:52 PM
by jux
* Buisness seeks "unlimited immigration"
( 1 2 all )
Alex213 3,293 26 09/06/06 10:52 AM
by psilomonkey
* Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision Ellis Dee 1,140 10 06/26/03 09:51 AM
by Learyfan
* United States becoming Police State
( 1 2 3 all )
psyphon 4,943 49 06/05/20 06:27 AM
by Trippypete

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,331 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.