|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28171146 - 02/03/23 06:13 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
A corporation isn't a human being, it's a conglomorate of services and trades represented by a building(s).
Wow...this is incredibly ignorant. Corporations are groups of people.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171160 - 02/03/23 06:19 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The case effectively changed the definition of free speech with respect to the rights of corporations and labor unions to engage in political speech through independent expenditures.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28171166 - 02/03/23 06:24 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No. It really didn't. Independent expenditures have always been considered free speech.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171177 - 02/03/23 06:32 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
sudly said:
A corporation isn't a human being, it's a conglomorate of services and trades represented by a building(s).
Wow...this is incredibly ignorant. Corporations are groups of people.
Citizens United effectively treated corporations as if they have the same rights as human beings with respect to political speech.
A human being represents 1 person. A corporation represents a group of people. A corporation is not 1 human being, it is a group of people.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171180 - 02/03/23 06:34 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: No. It really didn't. Independent expenditures have always been considered free speech.
Citizens United effectively equated the spending of money on political advertisements and other political activities with free speech and protected such spending by corporations and labor unions.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171184 - 02/03/23 06:41 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
sudly said:
If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.
There's nothing new about the interpretation at all. You're either for robust protection of speech or you aren't. I know you're not American, but we do value free speech here.
The interpretation is barely a decade old.
You don't just unilateraly change the definition of what free speech means.
Legally the supreme court can, but what do you think the favourability rating of their vote to overturn Roe V Wade turned out to be?
An unelected panel of judges that can vote down your rights is a terrifying proposition. An unfortunate reality that imo requires acknowledgement at the very least.
The case didn't change the definition of free speech. As I've already told you, the case only changed corporations' right to speech.
The rich have always been able to spend unlimited money on speech. Now, the poor can pool their money into a corporation and do the same thing.
Quote:
Enlil said: No. It really didn't. Independent expenditures have always been considered free speech.
Citizens United effectively equated the spending of money on political advertisements and other political activities with free speech and protected such spending by corporations and labor unions.
While it is true that independent expenditures were already considered a form of political speech protected by the first amendment.
The Citizens United ruling impacted the regulation of independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions. It held that restrictions on independent expendature violated first amendment's protection of free speech.
This effectively gave corporations and unions greater latitude to engage in political speech through independent expenditures, including spending unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates.
It opened a colloquial flood gate to bribery, because they deregulated independent expendature for corporations.
So yes it did, the case effectively changed the definition of free speech with respect to the rights of corporations and labor unions to engage in political speech through independent expenditures.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28171199 - 02/03/23 06:56 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So you think a group of people should have less rights that a single person?
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171213 - 02/03/23 07:07 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: So you think a group of people should have less rights that a single person?
I don't agree that restrictions on the independent expendature of a corporation as it pertains to a political campaign is an unconstitutional act.
Before the decision on this case, restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions were considered constitutional. However, the Supreme Court's decision in the case held that such restrictions violated the first amendment's protection of free speech.
The case effectively changed the definition of free speech as it pertains to the rights of corporations to engage in political speech through independent expenditures.
Quote:
Citizens United asks the court to declare the EC disclosure and disclaimer requirements unconstitutional as applied to Citizens United’s ads and all electioneering communications now permitted by WRTL II. Additionally, the plaintiff requests that the corporate and union EC funding restriction be declared unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to plaintiff’s movie. Citizens United seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the Commission from enforcing each of these provisions. The plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys fees and any other appropriate relief.
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/
And the lack of transparency involved isn't doing any favours for the narrative that this does not espouse bribery.
Quote:
The Court also rejected an anticorruption rationale as a means of banning independent corporate political speech. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Court found the anti corruption interest to be sufficiently important to allow limits on contributions, but did not extend that reasoning to overall expenditure limits because there was less of a danger that expenditures would be given as a quid pro quo for commitments from that candidate. The Court ultimately held in this case that the anti corruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech in question from Citizens United and that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28171233 - 02/03/23 07:25 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Of course you don't. You live in a place that punishes people for hate speech.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kizzle
Misanthrope


Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,866
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28171239 - 02/03/23 07:34 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wait.. why do you think Krysten Sinema is a corporate shill?
Democrats have been pushing for net neutrality and she's been sabotaging the efforts even though she said she'd support it.
--------------------
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171308 - 02/03/23 08:30 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Of course you don't. You live in a place that punishes people for hate speech.
Do you agree with the following statement?
Quote:
the Court found the anti corruption interest to be sufficiently important to allow limits on contributions, but did not extend that reasoning to overall expenditure limits because there was less of a danger that expenditures would be given as a quid pro quo for commitments from that candidate.
And why do you think restrictions extend to contributions but not independent expenditure? Or why do you think there is less of a danger from unlimited independent expenditure for corporations specifically?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171329 - 02/03/23 08:49 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Why do you think they spent the better part of a billion dollars?
Quote:
Candidates and political action committees spent nearly $17 billion on midterms
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135718986/candidates-and-political-action-committees-spent-nearly-17-billion-on-midterms
Why do you think they are spending the money? Do you think it's for the general welfare, do you think it's for charity?
Quote:
Ten years after the creation of super PACs, wealthy interests use them to funnel billions into elections and make a mockery of contribution limits.
The apex for super PACs so far has been 2016, when they poured over $1 billion into federal elections, accounting for 16 percent of all spending. But that percentage is deceptively low, because super PAC money is not evenly spread across all elections. The political operatives who control super PACs carefully focus their attention on competitive races, where the groups can even outspend the candidates themselves. During the last two election cycles, super PAC spending exceeded expenditures by all the candidates combined in 54 federal races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Of course, super PACs are not just another form of political group. Their entire reason for existing is to allow unlimited contributions, so they are really for those who can afford amounts larger than the $5,600 limit on donations to candidates. Since the 2016 election, super PACs have raised more than two-thirds of their money in donations of more than $1 million. Some are funded by a single multi-millionaire. The biggest donors have given of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to super PACs.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/citizens-united-decade-super-pacs
Quote:
The Citizens United opinion naively said that independent spending can’t corrupt. But not surprisingly, super PAC money has been involved in a long line of corruption scandals and convictions, including the charges against Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Rudy Giuliani who are implicated in the Ukraine scandal that led to President Trump’s impeachment.
Citizens United planted the seed that allowed super PACs to increase the power of corporations and rich people to influence who runs for office and who wins elections in order to shape American politics to their own advantage. Ten years after their creation, super PACs are huge and still growing. Without reforms like public campaign financing, the next decade is all but certain to yield a system even more skewed toward the wealthy few.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
#28171334 - 02/03/23 08:53 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kizzle said:
Quote:
Wait.. why do you think Krysten Sinema is a corporate shill?
Democrats have been pushing for net neutrality and she's been sabotaging the efforts even though she said she'd support it.
Oh you mean how Krysten Sinema has a history of bribery?
Quote:
Kyrsten Sinema, the Only Anti-Net Neutrality Dem, Linked to Super PAC Run by a Comcast Lobbyist The super PAC has made independent political expenditures to support Sinema's elections, and Sinema has directed donations to it through a PAC she used to chair.
https://prospect.org/politics/kyrsten-sinema-anti-net-neutrality-super-pac-comcast-lobbyist/
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28171411 - 02/03/23 10:46 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Enlil said: Of course you don't. You live in a place that punishes people for hate speech.
Do you agree with the following statement?
Quote:
the Court found the anti corruption interest to be sufficiently important to allow limits on contributions, but did not extend that reasoning to overall expenditure limits because there was less of a danger that expenditures would be given as a quid pro quo for commitments from that candidate.
And why do you think restrictions extend to contributions but not independent expenditure? Or why do you think there is less of a danger from unlimited independent expenditure for corporations specifically?
Independent expenditures are pure political speech. Campaign contributions are literally money given to a candidate to support the campaign. Candidates can't control how independent expenditures are spent or what the message is.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171432 - 02/03/23 11:16 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Enlil said: Of course you don't. You live in a place that punishes people for hate speech.
Do you agree with the following statement?
Quote:
the Court found the anti corruption interest to be sufficiently important to allow limits on contributions, but did not extend that reasoning to overall expenditure limits because there was less of a danger that expenditures would be given as a quid pro quo for commitments from that candidate.
And why do you think restrictions extend to contributions but not independent expenditure? Or why do you think there is less of a danger from unlimited independent expenditure for corporations specifically?
Independent expenditures are pure political speech. Campaign contributions are literally money given to a candidate to support the campaign. Candidates can't control how independent expenditures are spent or what the message is.
It's important to address the percieved bribery that has taken place and not to minimise it.
Quote:
Quote:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the only Senate Democrat who has not co-sponsored legislation to restore net neutrality, reportedly has financial ties to a super PAC directed by a lobbyist for Comcast, a fervent opponent of open internet protections.
Sludge's Donald Shaw reported Thursday that a possible reason behind Sinema's refusal to join her Democratic colleagues in backing the Save the Internet Act "may be her relationship with a 'dark money' nonprofit called Center Forward that receives substantial funding from cable and telecom industry trade groups and its affiliated super PAC, Center Forward Committee, which is run by a Comcast lobbyist."
"Sinema directed a six-figure donation to Center Forward Committee through a centrist PAC that she used to chair just weeks before the group made big independent expenditures to support Sinema's campaigns," according to Shaw.
Quote:
"I have zero questions about why Sinema is doing what she's doing. It's all about the money. She could score easy political points with her constituents by supporting net neutrality, but she's made a calculated decision to appease her big cable donors instead." --Evan Greer, Fight for the Future
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/07/all-about-money-kyrsten-sinema-lone-senate-democrat-opposed-net-neutrality-tied
Quote:
But it’s fair to want to see monetary influence across all of Congress. While it is clear that alignment with the ISPs is currently drawn along party lines, the industry’s attempt to gain favor with lawmakers is not partisan. Entrenched telecommunications companies liberally spread money and attention to everyone who holds office. Sometimes that influence comes in the form of lavish parties with Olympic athletes and lobbyists, but consistently it comes in the form of contributions to campaigns.
It’s impossible to quantify the overall influence of this powerful industry, but we can chart some of it. Below you will find contributions to individual members of Congress, and those members’ leadership PACs, from 1989 to the present day. This money came from the telecommunication industry’s own PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. This data was prepared for The Verge by The Center for Responsive Politics: an independent, non-partisan nonprofit research group that tracks money in US politics and its effect on elections and public policy.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/11/16746230/net-neutrality-fcc-isp-congress-campaign-contribution
Why do you think they spent the better part of a billion dollars?
Why do you think they are spending the money? Do you think it's for the general welfare, do you think it's for charity?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28171592 - 02/04/23 03:00 AM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Brian Jones said: Going slightly off topic from Citizens United, isn't a major distinction between bribery and lobbying that bribery involves a guarantee of the result?
The difference is opaque at best.
It does seem to be a very fine line.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28171691 - 02/04/23 06:41 AM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
It's important to address the percieved bribery that has taken place and not to minimise it.
The way to address bribery is to prosecute it. There are already laws that prohibit such conduct.Quote:
Why do you think they spent the better part of a billion dollars?
Why do you think they are spending the money? Do you think it's for the general welfare, do you think it's for charity?
Because they want candidates that support policies that help them. If you had a billion dollars, you'd want candidates in office that are pro-billionaire. Those are the ones you'd choose to support, so you'd spend your money trying to get those candidates elected.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171719 - 02/04/23 07:22 AM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So, what's your take on how the superrich can influence congressional (or whatever) decisions legally, and what constitutes crossing the line into criminal attempts to influence?
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 18,032
Last seen: 3 hours, 42 minutes
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28171727 - 02/04/23 07:30 AM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Because they want candidates that support policies that help them.
That's the way I see it too. Throwing value at the values we value. Wowsa, is that phrase even slightly valuable? Probably not 
The pursuit of happiness exists in so many ways. Not all who use money express their values in the same way. It's wild to say money only represents one value - greed. It's just not true. Money represents an enormous range of values. That's why money is sort of a placeholder for 'value' at large.
It's more reasonable to have a nuanced approach to the way money represents societal values IMO. But it's convenient to blame the values we don't personally agree with on corruption. And that may be the case some of the time. It's difficult to see those cases clearly in any society. But when they are clear, prosecute 
The mere presence of money is not in and of itself clarifying.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
#28171737 - 02/04/23 07:45 AM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But there are billionaires on the left and more on the right spending big bucks. I can accept generalizations about the billionaire class because they often act in their specific class interst, but they aren't as unified as often portrayed.
It would be cheaper to buy what they want if there was capitalist ruling class in agreement, but having a George Soros and Koch Industries, for example, ups the ante.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
|