Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Topicals   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Citizens United allows for bribery.
    #28169633 - 02/02/23 06:43 PM (11 months, 18 days 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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly] * 1
    #28169667 - 02/02/23 07:08 PM (11 months, 18 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28169694 - 02/02/23 07:24 PM (11 months, 18 days 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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28169733 - 02/02/23 07:40 PM (11 months, 18 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28169944 - 02/02/23 09:05 PM (11 months, 18 days 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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28169964 - 02/02/23 09:13 PM (11 months, 18 days 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: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28170017 - 02/02/23 09:58 PM (11 months, 17 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28170056 - 02/02/23 10:42 PM (11 months, 17 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170066 - 02/02/23 10:51 PM (11 months, 17 days 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: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170084 - 02/02/23 11:18 PM (11 months, 17 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170085 - 02/02/23 11:22 PM (11 months, 17 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170089 - 02/02/23 11:29 PM (11 months, 17 days 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: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170105 - 02/02/23 11:45 PM (11 months, 17 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170112 - 02/02/23 11:50 PM (11 months, 17 days 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: 9,854
Last seen: 8 hours, 44 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170115 - 02/02/23 11:52 PM (11 months, 17 days 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: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170116 - 02/02/23 11:54 PM (11 months, 17 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28170118 - 02/02/23 11:54 PM (11 months, 17 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170130 - 02/03/23 12:01 AM (11 months, 17 days 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: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170132 - 02/03/23 12:04 AM (11 months, 17 days 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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170133 - 02/03/23 12:06 AM (11 months, 17 days 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
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170139 - 02/03/23 12:19 AM (11 months, 17 days ago)

I think any rational person will see that you are for limited speech. Now your saying it's not protected free speech. Notice not a "yes" or a "no" just a redefinition of my hypothetical to avoid a most easy answer.


Good luck with that.
Since you take that stance, your viewpoint has little chances of gaining a foothold....you just fucked your viewpoint. I know, I know it's the principle.

You will have just as much as a chance passing a Constitutionial amendment.


--------------------
“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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28170141 - 02/03/23 12:24 AM (11 months, 17 days ago)

I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblemushboyMDiscord
modboy
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/24/05
Posts: 32,256
Loc: where?
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170397 - 02/03/23 07:09 AM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 





why force a choice about something thats really not that complicated? especially involving free speech.

that doesnt sound like how you do free speech at all:awedisgust:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: mushboy]
    #28170446 - 02/03/23 07:58 AM (11 months, 17 days ago)

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 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,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 51 minutes, 58 seconds
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #28170567 - 02/03/23 10:06 AM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Attempted bribery is still a crime even if the other party does not participate in the scheme, but I think expected quid pro quo is a necessary element.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 51 minutes, 58 seconds
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170578 - 02/03/23 10:16 AM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.




It doesn’t matter if I want to believe the interpretation, their interpretation is the only opinion that matters. The courts have always been reluctant to carve out exceptions to the first amendment, and clearly on a purely free speech basis, telling someone their ability to voice their opinion or support for a candidate can be infringed is a violation of the first amendment. The court would have to carve out a very difficult to define exception.

The only solution to this problem is a constitutional amendment.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,854
Last seen: 8 hours, 44 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170586 - 02/03/23 10:20 AM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.



Does your interpretation of the first amendment also limit the amount of money people can spend on practicing their religion or reporting the news? If people want to throw their money away on an excessive amount of politcal ads let them. There comes a point where more ads aren't going to change anything because ultimately it's the message that counts not how many times you've heard it.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 51 minutes, 58 seconds
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170597 - 02/03/23 10:30 AM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

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




The vast majority of people vote for the candidate of their preferred party.

Lemme ask you this. What would you say about a group that paid to have a flyer supporting a candidate mailed to every household? That seems like a pretty straight forward first
Amendment right. Do you think just because that would cost tens of millions of dollars, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it?

What about a flyer that doesn’t support a candidate, but is critical of a candidate?

What about a media figure who is paid two million dollars a year, and spends their entire time advocating for one candidate?

Where do you draw the line? Right now the line is drawn at direct financial contributions to candidates. If you don’t agree with that, you need to figure out where the line will be because there will have to be a line.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Edited by koods (02/03/23 10:36 AM)


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28170644 - 02/03/23 11:14 AM (11 months, 17 days ago)

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.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28170910 - 02/03/23 03:20 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

Kizzle said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.



Does your interpretation of the first amendment also limit the amount of money people can spend on practicing their religion or reporting the news? If people want to throw their money away on an excessive amount of politcal ads let them. There comes a point where more ads aren't going to change anything because ultimately it's the message that counts not how many times you've heard it.




Well that's just not true. No matter how much you believe something, if enough people repeat the opposite to you, you will change your mind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28170961 - 02/03/23 03:56 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

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.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: mushboy]
    #28170963 - 02/03/23 03:59 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushboy said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 





why force a choice about something thats really not that complicated? especially involving free speech.

that doesnt sound like how you do free speech at all:awedisgust:




Because whichever stance you stick to shapes how you interpret the giving of millions of dollars to political campaigns from a single corporation, PAC or wealthy individual.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #28170967 - 02/03/23 04:00 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

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.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: koods]
    #28170969 - 02/03/23 04:02 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.




It doesn’t matter if I want to believe the interpretation, their interpretation is the only opinion that matters. The courts have always been reluctant to carve out exceptions to the first amendment, and clearly on a purely free speech basis, telling someone their ability to voice their opinion or support for a candidate can be infringed is a violation of the first amendment. The court would have to carve out a very difficult to define exception.

The only solution to this problem is a constitutional amendment.




What does arguing against the merits of the decision have to do with me believing that the law is the law as it is now and that's not likely to change any time soon.

That the decision just over a decade ago by the supreme court to change the definition of free speech to include unlimited independent expendature isn't a good idea, because of the long term potential for bribery to occur between trading partners.

And yes, I am for a 28th ammendment such as the one being spearheaded by grass roots organisation Wolf-Pac.

Quote:

Add a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will ensure the integrity of our elections and establish a government accountable to the people.

https://wolf-pac.com/the_solution/




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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28170973 - 02/03/23 04:09 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

Kizzle said:
Quote:

sudly said:
I think it boils down to you having to make the choice about how you interpret the first amendment. 

Spending a million dollars on independent expenditures to support a political campaign is not considered free speech under the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and engage in political discourse, but it does not protect the right to use unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

If you choose to believe the supreme courts reinterpretation of the first amendment then shout it out and stand tall next to your quote.



Does your interpretation of the first amendment also limit the amount of money people can spend on practicing their religion or reporting the news? If people want to throw their money away on an excessive amount of politcal ads let them. There comes a point where more ads aren't going to change anything because ultimately it's the message that counts not how many times you've heard it.




A restriction would be for unions, corporations, billionaires or PACs to not be able to have unlimited independent expendature on political campaigns.

A corporation could have its members band together in a grass roots way and try to make their own political waves without the corporation itself being able to make the independent expendatures. Buying power held by the majority of the people. A democratic sort of system. Not something where a building can fund a political campaign and outweigh or match the influence of tens of thousands of people.

A corporation isn't a human being, it's a conglomorate of services and trades represented by a building(s).


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: koods]
    #28170981 - 02/03/23 04:14 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

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




The vast majority of people vote for the candidate of their preferred party.

Lemme ask you this. What would you say about a group that paid to have a flyer supporting a candidate mailed to every household? That seems like a pretty straight forward first
Amendment right. Do you think just because that would cost tens of millions of dollars, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it?

What about a flyer that doesn’t support a candidate, but is critical of a candidate?

What about a media figure who is paid two million dollars a year, and spends their entire time advocating for one candidate?

Where do you draw the line? Right now the line is drawn at direct financial contributions to candidates. If you don’t agree with that, you need to figure out where the line will be because there will have to be a line.




If the group was financed through individual public donations I'd be fine with that. If the group was funded through a billionaire called Josh, I would hope for restrictions on the current campaign finance laws, or for campaign finance reform.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,854
Last seen: 8 hours, 44 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28171017 - 02/03/23 04:53 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

Well that's just not true. No matter how much you believe something, if enough people repeat the opposite to you, you will change your mind.



Believing something you see in a political ad isn't the same as being convinced to change your vote. Granted that's not the only goal of the ads. They're also used to motivate people to actually go out and vote.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28171060 - 02/03/23 05:17 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

Kizzle said:
Quote:

Well that's just not true. No matter how much you believe something, if enough people repeat the opposite to you, you will change your mind.



Believing something you see in a political ad isn't the same as being convinced to change your vote. Granted that's not the only goal of the ads. They're also used to motivate people to actually go out and vote.




You can buy name recognition with independant expenditure and name recognition can effect candidate support, so a single entity can essentially purchase candidate support equivalent to what would require tens of thousands of grass roots supporters to accomplish otherwise.

Quote:

The mass media devote a great deal of attention to high-profile elections, but in American political life such elections are the exception, not the rule. The majority of electoral contests feature candidates who are relative unknowns. In such situations, does name recognition breed contempt, indifference, or affection?

Existing work presents modest theory and mixed evidence. Using three laboratory experiments, we provide conclusive evidence that name recognition can affect candidate support, and we offer strong evidence that a key mechanism underlying this relationship is inferences about candidate viability.

We further show that the name-recognition effect dissipates in the face of a more germane cue, incumbency. We conclude with a field study that demonstrates the robustness of the name-recognition effect to a real-world political context, that of yard signs and a county election.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23496668




Free speech was well defined before 2010.

Quote:

"We don’t have jurisdiction over activities that are fully protected by the First Amendment," she said.

That includes, for example, the contents of a book. And — yes — political ads.

"The core of the First Amendment really is protecting political speech," said Claudia Haupt, an associate professor of law and political science at Northeastern University.

So, does that mean a candidate for office can literally say anything they want, no matter how untrue or outrageous? Yes, Haupt said. Pretty much.

"Lies are protected in public discourse," explained Haupt.

Case in point. In 2006, Congress passed a law that criminalized making false claims about one’s military service. A local candidate in California who was falsely claiming he’d won the Congressional Medal of Honor, was brought up on charges. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

"And the Supreme Court said, 'No, First Amendment. You can lie about your military service. ... You can’t ban lies in public discourse,'" said Haupt.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2019/11/06/why-dont-truth-in-advertising-laws-apply-to-political-ads




You can say what you want to, but unlimited political expenditure for corporations was not a part of it, and under a reasonable interpretation, is still not.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28171100 - 02/03/23 05:39 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

Quote:

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




Wait.. why do you think Krysten Sinema is a corporate shill?


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171141 - 02/03/23 06:11 PM (11 months, 17 days ago)

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.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171146 - 02/03/23 06:13 PM (11 months, 17 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171160 - 02/03/23 06:19 PM (11 months, 17 days 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.



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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171166 - 02/03/23 06:24 PM (11 months, 17 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171177 - 02/03/23 06:32 PM (11 months, 17 days 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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171180 - 02/03/23 06:34 PM (11 months, 17 days 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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171184 - 02/03/23 06:41 PM (11 months, 17 days 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.



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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171199 - 02/03/23 06:56 PM (11 months, 17 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171213 - 02/03/23 07:07 PM (11 months, 17 days 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.



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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171233 - 02/03/23 07:25 PM (11 months, 17 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,854
Last seen: 8 hours, 44 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171239 - 02/03/23 07:34 PM (11 months, 17 days 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.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171308 - 02/03/23 08:30 PM (11 months, 17 days 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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171329 - 02/03/23 08:49 PM (11 months, 17 days 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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28171334 - 02/03/23 08:53 PM (11 months, 17 days 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.



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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171411 - 02/03/23 10:46 PM (11 months, 16 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171432 - 02/03/23 11:16 PM (11 months, 16 days 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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171592 - 02/04/23 03:00 AM (11 months, 16 days 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,


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28171691 - 02/04/23 06:41 AM (11 months, 16 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171719 - 02/04/23 07:22 AM (11 months, 16 days 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,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28171727 - 02/04/23 07:30 AM (11 months, 16 days 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 :lol:

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 :yesnod:

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28171737 - 02/04/23 07:45 AM (11 months, 16 days 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,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #28171740 - 02/04/23 07:48 AM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Yes, I think in a capitalist society, those with inordinate amounts of capital will have an inordinate amount of influence. Because capital has inordinate value in capitalism.

This is balanced by America being a highly individualistic society, where individuality and individual values are also super near and dear to our hearts. So individuals with tons of capital tend to think their individual values are the best.

But this is all representative of the larger societal values. And if this didn't work as a society, such values would not exist. Especially not as values in so many countries.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,854
Last seen: 8 hours, 44 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28171755 - 02/04/23 08:05 AM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Oh you mean how Krysten Sinema has a history of bribery?



Possibly but we have no evidence of that. If we're going to pretend that commercials and campaign contributions are bribes then we better lock up Bernie Sanders, he took money from hundreds of thousands of individual bribists.


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


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Brian Jones] * 2
    #28171880 - 02/04/23 10:25 AM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
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?



Obviously any sort of quid pro quo is past the line.  Beyond that, it's a tough problem to solve.

Let's be realistic, though.  This isn't unique to America.  Everywhere you go, those in political power cater to those with economic power.  Whether it's linked to a direct payment of some sort or just some vague notion that you want to keep powerful people happy so they don't fuck with you.  Also, setting aside both of those "less than noble" reasons, there is a very real and practical reason for politicians to want big businesses to thrive.  They employ many voters.  Also, high unemployment leads to social instability.  There are simply tons of societal reasons to favor business.

Yeah, there are times when people give and take bribes.  I have no doubt about that.  The notion that it's some widespread phenomenon is a bit far fetched, however, given the financial disclosures politicians must make. 

Finally, we cannot divorce this problem from the competing freedom interest in speech.  After all, you're not really talking about the billionaire having a direct influence on a candidate as much as the billionaire having an influence on voters and election outcome.  That's where the politician's real interest lies anyway...retaining power.  The only way to cut down on that interest is by seriously curtailing speech.  If spending were limited, who would have the biggest "free" pulpit?  News, TV personalities, etc.  Either way, you still create a special class of influencers who wield excessive power...


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28172298 - 02/04/23 04:43 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
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.




There are loopholes that mean it can't be prosecuted.

You're happy to support policies that help the corporations at the behest of the billionaire to increase income inequality through deregulations and tax drops on the wealthiest corporations in existance.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28172302 - 02/04/23 04:48 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
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 :lol:

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 :yesnod:

The mere presence of money is not in and of itself clarifying.




Money isn't being villified as a whole, it's a request to have restrictions on political campaign finances where money specifically has a wagering effect.

In every other regard, spend what you can, I'm not envious of billionaires. I don't have aspirations to be one.

I feel good enough as is.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kizzle]
    #28172306 - 02/04/23 04:53 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Kizzle said:
Quote:

Oh you mean how Krysten Sinema has a history of bribery?



Possibly but we have no evidence of that. If we're going to pretend that commercials and campaign contributions are bribes then we better lock up Bernie Sanders, he took money from hundreds of thousands of individual bribists.




How would you respond to this evidence?

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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28172309 - 02/04/23 04:58 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
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?



Obviously any sort of quid pro quo is past the line.  Beyond that, it's a tough problem to solve.

Let's be realistic, though.  This isn't unique to America.  Everywhere you go, those in political power cater to those with economic power.  Whether it's linked to a direct payment of some sort or just some vague notion that you want to keep powerful people happy so they don't fuck with you.  Also, setting aside both of those "less than noble" reasons, there is a very real and practical reason for politicians to want big businesses to thrive.  They employ many voters.  Also, high unemployment leads to social instability.  There are simply tons of societal reasons to favor business.

Yeah, there are times when people give and take bribes.  I have no doubt about that.  The notion that it's some widespread phenomenon is a bit far fetched, however, given the financial disclosures politicians must make. 

Finally, we cannot divorce this problem from the competing freedom interest in speech.  After all, you're not really talking about the billionaire having a direct influence on a candidate as much as the billionaire having an influence on voters and election outcome.  That's where the politician's real interest lies anyway...retaining power.  The only way to cut down on that interest is by seriously curtailing speech.  If spending were limited, who would have the biggest "free" pulpit?  News, TV personalities, etc.  Either way, you still create a special class of influencers who wield excessive power...




Businesses can thrive without millions of dollars of independent expenditure being spent on cushioning the careers of their favourite candidates that ironically show trends of appealing to the causes of the direct donor rather than representing the democratic majority they are supposed to represent.

Businesses can thrive without buying politicians.


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28172343 - 02/04/23 05:27 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

And they generally do.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28172370 - 02/04/23 05:50 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Money isn't being villified as a whole, it's a request to have restrictions on political campaign finances where money specifically has a wagering effect.

In every other regard, spend what you can, I'm not envious of billionaires. I don't have aspirations to be one.

I feel good enough as is.




Right. It's clear you want to carve exceptions which limit others' values when they don't agree with your own values.

I also understand that this is because you want to protect the individual with little capital from the one with tons of capital. I think that's valid and why I haven't argued against it.

My counter is that the value on capital is the driver here. Not donations. The wealthy have tons of leverage regardless and that leverage is visible in every facet of society. The little guy will literally defend the guy with tons of capital in many instances. And this doesn't happen because the capital owner bribed a politician. It happens because people in a capitalistic society value capital.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28172400 - 02/04/23 06:08 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Politicians have advertisers. How are you okay with that?

You're allowed to invest in a business or project with the expectation of generating income or profits, but that should not extend to a politician who generates those returns and profits by engineering tax reductions and deregulations towards the investing business.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28172408 - 02/04/23 06:14 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Ok with what? I'm really not ok with capitalism. But I recognize that the only real power the little guy has in such a system is in labor.

Even if the masses don't have capital, the masses are still the engine of capital.

I'm not ok with people blindly giving their labor to capital owners and even defending the capital owners when shit gets tough. It makes next to no sense to me that people blame minority groups and other such nonsense.

In the end we love to elect the wealthy. Always have. Nothing represents our collective value on capital more clearly imo. Advertising is just a way the wealthy battle each other.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28172430 - 02/04/23 06:28 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

It's not vilifying money, it's recognising the necessity of restrictions.

Do we vilify bazookas or recognise their danger and that they're not always appropriate?

Unions have plenty of power within their own labor system and even though I support unions, I on principle don't want to see unlimited spending on political campaigns for anyone single individual person or company.

When a minority group like billionaires have more or the same sway as the absolute majority of people, something is wrong. 

While it is important to acknowledge the role that capital plays in creating economic growth and opportunities for people, I also think it's important to find ways to harness that value for the greater good, not solely for the benefit of the billionaire minority.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28172443 - 02/04/23 06:35 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

When capital has a central and defining role in the hierarchy of social class, how can you somehow create fairness by limiting political advertising? It doesn't make sense to me, sorry.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28172481 - 02/04/23 06:46 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

The idea behind limiting political advertising is not to eliminate the influence of capital in social class, as that is a complex and deeply ingrained aspect of society. The goal is to limit the undue influence that money can have in the political process.

Limiting political advertising is one way to reduce the influence of money in politics and to create a more level playing field where all voices can be heard and represented. By restricting the amount of money that can be spent on political campaigns, it becomes more difficult for a small group of individuals or organizations to dominate the political discourse and to shape policies in their favor.

In this way, limiting political advertising can help to promote fairness and balance in the political process, even if it does not address the broader issues of social class and the role of capital in society.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28172488 - 02/04/23 06:49 PM (11 months, 16 days ago)

Can you help me to see at which point in the past the political process has been unbiased towards wealth? Where capital owner's voices didn't play a significant role in policy making?

That might help me see this new causal link you're proposing.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28172954 - 02/05/23 02:43 AM (11 months, 15 days ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
Can you help me to see at which point in the past the political process has been unbiased towards wealth? Where capital owner's voices didn't play a significant role in policy making?

That might help me see this new causal link you're proposing.




It was more unbiased towards wealth before citizens United when corporations and labor unions were subject to limitations on their independent expenditures in federal elections.

These limitations helped to level the playing field and limit the influence of wealthy special interests.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28173044 - 02/05/23 07:21 AM (11 months, 15 days ago)

Possibly. It's a social valuation. And it is possible that society is increasingly valuing capital over time. IMO that's hard to know. I'd say slavery for example was a much more extreme show of the influence of capital in relation to human life. And all the myriads of policies that followed.

But it's hard to know because the reach is more global now. So it picks on humans in different ways.

I think the value on capital is strong. Whether it was 200 years ago or now. And advertising really doesn't impact that. It's been core for a long time.

How long has India had a caste system?


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28173050 - 02/05/23 07:32 AM (11 months, 15 days ago)

You don't think advertising can have an impact on the value placed on capital?


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28173054 - 02/05/23 07:34 AM (11 months, 15 days ago)

No more than all the other ways capital appears valued by society. If anything, maybe it can replace the need to peacock wealth in more harmful ways.

Maybe it arises because we are becoming less tolerant of the harmful ways.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28173105 - 02/05/23 08:41 AM (11 months, 15 days ago)

The value society places on capital is an inherent product of the immense value capital actually creates within society.  No one has to advertise for it because it sells itself.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28173165 - 02/05/23 09:40 AM (11 months, 15 days ago)

I think that's a good point with recognition that the value of capital is not separate from the use of capital.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28173234 - 02/05/23 10:23 AM (11 months, 15 days ago)

There are different ways in which advertising, regulations, and market forces can impact the value of capital.

Regulations and market forces impact the value of capital by acting as constraints or enablers, while advertising actively shapes public opinion and influences consumer behavior to impact the value of capital.

The effectiveness of advertising in shaping public opinion and consumer behavior can be seen through the billions of dollars invested in it by corporations and wealthy individuals, suggesting that they see it as having a significant impact on the value of capital.


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



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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28173248 - 02/05/23 10:38 AM (11 months, 15 days ago)

If there is a market for wants, advertising while oblige, hell, it will even create a want. Same goes for a need (not in the same scale though)

Would you limit advertising dollars the same as PAC dollars?


--------------------
“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 (02/05/23 10:42 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28175686 - 02/07/23 02:34 AM (11 months, 13 days ago)

It's a limit for PACS to spend on advertising for a political campaign specifically, not a limit on general, commercial advertising.

A limit on corporate advertising through a PAC for 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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly] * 1
    #28176045 - 02/07/23 10:15 AM (11 months, 13 days ago)

So, you're fine with spending unlimited money on marketing for a product, but you have a problem with spending unlimited money on marketing for an idea.


--------------------
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: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28176323 - 02/07/23 02:05 PM (11 months, 13 days ago)

A product started as an idea.

PAC money making Shitty Trump hats = undue influence; Shitty Trump hats made by a hatter = ok influence. How is the message any more or less meaningful? Because the quanity of funds behind it?


--------------------
“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
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28176617 - 02/07/23 06:48 PM (11 months, 13 days ago)

Much as I am enjoying watching sudly flail about for an argument that is not self-defeating, I think there is a point to be made that a democracy, which depends on the idea of one person one vote, cannot remain unmolested by capital, which uses money to advance ideas.

Another factor that I haven't seen mentioned, at least during my skim, was the concept of spectacle politics. In the US, and only the US, politics is a giant spectacle. There's two years worth of rallies, speeches, and campaigning. At least, there was before Trump, who filed re-election paperwork the day he was sworn in, instead of waiting the customary two years. Now, politics is a 24/7 entertainment channel for people that are white and straight enough to not be terrorized into being the entertainment.

I mean, hell, just look at the "politics" section of an international website...it's ALL US politics. Occasionally, there will be a non-US thread. Maybe.

There is something to be recognized in the value of having politics not be defined by spectacle. A politics defined entirely by, one person, one vote. But this requires some effort on the part of the individual, at least being informed enough to vote...and actually voting. Now, you can't really control the former, that's an illegal as fuck literacy test right there, (so we'll probably be seeing it in Florida next year), but you can definitely control the latter. And that there is a whole big ball of wax. Voting rights, mail in voting, hell, just being able to log into a website with your SSN or DL# and vote from there is an obvious solution...unless you want to limit voting to the Very Motivated. The kind of people that get Really Really Riled and have a lot of spare time.

Politics as a spectacle means politics is money. Politics as a spectacle also distracts from policy. Making politics a spectacle and voting more difficult means that only a certain group of people will participate in politics. It becomes a thing, instead of one of the many background things that we are all vaguely aware of.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28177064 - 02/08/23 03:54 AM (11 months, 12 days ago)

Companies shouldn't be able to buy ads for political campaigns with unlimited expenditure. They can still buy the ads, but not with an unlimited slushfund.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 51 minutes, 58 seconds
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28177076 - 02/08/23 04:37 AM (11 months, 12 days ago)

But since they can, I hope they’re doing it for my side too


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: koods]
    #28177123 - 02/08/23 05:52 AM (11 months, 12 days ago)

Thank you George Soros.

On the other side, Charles Koch without mentioning Trump by name, said he will be throwing money at making sure somebody else gets the GOP nomination.


--------------------
"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,


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28177327 - 02/08/23 09:04 AM (11 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Companies shouldn't be able to buy ads for political campaigns with unlimited expenditure. They can still buy the ads, but not with an unlimited slushfund.



Does that include ads promoting an issue, such as anti-abortion ads?  Does that include ads attacking the character of a candidate?


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 51 minutes, 58 seconds
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28177348 - 02/08/23 09:16 AM (11 months, 12 days ago)

I’ve asked him before where the line should be drawn, because that’s all that were are debating. The Supreme Court has decided that the risk of corruption outweighs unfettered free speech when it comes to direct financial support of a candidate. That is also a very easy line to define.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: koods]
    #28177353 - 02/08/23 09:19 AM (11 months, 12 days ago)

This is what happens when one doesn't bother to get a nuanced understanding of an issue before forming an opinion.  Clearly, dude has dug his heels in, and he can't see beyond black and white slogans.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28177684 - 02/08/23 01:19 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

sudly said:
Companies shouldn't be able to buy ads for political campaigns with unlimited expenditure. They can still buy the ads, but not with an unlimited slushfund.



Does that include ads promoting an issue, such as anti-abortion ads?  Does that include ads attacking the character of a candidate?




It doesnt matter what the political campaign ad is about, it's about the source of the money used to fund it.

If the source is a corporate slushfund, no.
If the source is from grass roots activism, yes.


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28177696 - 02/08/23 01:27 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

I see, so you just want to silence certain people but not others.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: koods]
    #28177807 - 02/08/23 02:55 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

koods said:
I’ve asked him before where the line should be drawn, because that’s all that were are debating. The Supreme Court has decided that the risk of corruption outweighs unfettered free speech when it comes to direct financial support of a candidate. That is also a very easy line to define.




I've told you before, the line is corporate slushfunds vs grassroots activism.

The issue with corporate political spending is not about free speech, but about the unequal power dynamic that it creates between corporations and individuals in our democracy. The unlimited spending by corporations on political campaigns through the Citizen's United decision has resulted in a large influx of money into our political system, which can give certain corporations a disproportionate amount of influence in the political process.

This undermines the principle of one person, one vote and creates an unequal playing field, which is why many people support overturning Citizen's United. Furthermore, corporate political spending is not equivalent to individual free speech, as corporations are not entitled to the same rights and protections as individuals.

They are artificial entities that exist to make profits, and their political spending can be motivated by their financial interests, which may not align with the interests of the wider public. Therefore, it is appropriate for regulations to be put in place to prevent undue influence on the political process by corporations


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



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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28177842 - 02/08/23 03:22 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

I still believe you are denying the right of the voter to hear speech(in this case PAC ads from high expenditures)they might or might not agree with.....they could agree with the multibillion dollar PAC or disagree with it.

It equates to less viewpoints which furthers less informed choices. Unless you feel the roughly 60% of people that do vote are unable to make up thier own minds.

Per my link, voter participation has increased per Ciizens United....do you feel that is a good thing?


--------------------
“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 (02/08/23 03:24 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28177866 - 02/08/23 03:33 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

when it comes to political spending by corporations, it's important to recognize that this is not equivalent to individual free speech.

Corporations are not individual citizens with the same rights and protections, and their political spending can result in a disproportionate amount of influence in the political process. This creates an unequal playing field, where the voices of corporations are amplified above those of individuals.

Moreover, allowing unlimited spending by corporations in political campaigns through the Citizen's United decision is not necessarily a guarantee of more viewpoints or a better-informed public.

Instead, it can result in a situation where the voices of those with the most money are the only ones that are heard, while the voices of the rest of the public are drowned out.

This is why many people believe that regulations on political spending by corporations are necessary in order to protect the principle of one person, one vote and ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Ultimately, one person, one vote is the most important expression of free speech in a democracy, and it is essential that we work to protect this fundamental principle


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



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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28177907 - 02/08/23 03:58 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

So you believe the increased voter turnout since the ruling, is negative because they are duped?


--------------------
“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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28177934 - 02/08/23 04:13 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

No, I do not believe that increased voter turnout is negative. It's important to have a high level of voter engagement and participation in our democracy. However, it's also important to recognize that the influence of unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns can have a negative impact on the political process by distorting the democratic process and amplifying the voices of those with the most money at the expense of the rest of the public.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28177945 - 02/08/23 04:22 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

I don't think your graph shows increased voter turnout since 2010 the way you think it does. Matter of fact, I think that without the last two data point, voter turnout would be flat. 2018 and 2020, for better or for worse, led to higher turnout due to the nature of the candidates.

This kinda ties in with the politics as spectacle idea, though. Perhaps making politics into this big, expensive, team game with all the bells and whistles and brouhaha does raise voter turnout, and while I am loathe to call increased turnout a bad thing, I wonder how the means of the turnout affect the reality of the politics in question? It's almost like old school propaganda vs modern firehose of disinformation...but the analogy falls apart because it is still one person one vote. And straight up mentally disabled people still get to vote (I hope). No matter how dumb or misinformed you are, you should still get to vote.

Maybe we should ban politicians from owning things?


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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28178097 - 02/08/23 06:14 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

Who knows, after all....if you can't prove it with statistics, you are not trying hard enough. How would one get the methodology to quantify why someone voted?

Were you duped? Do you have a low IQ? Did you pick the candidate because you liked his last name? Did PAC expenditures on political ads fuck with your head?

Still, a little over half voted. The needle is hovering where it has been with no high discernable difference. If we had less spectacle, no more Fox news? No more commentary masquerading as objective news?. Very tempting but one has the right to be duped, I guess.


--------------------
“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 (02/08/23 06:15 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28178155 - 02/08/23 06:54 PM (11 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Were you duped? Do you have a low IQ? Did you pick the candidate because you liked his last name? Did PAC expenditures on political ads fuck with your head?




I assume that one of those things is true, at minimum. Possibly multiple.

Though I also think it's kinda hard to pull money out of politics, too. There was an episode of Mad Men, around the Nixon election, where Bert Cooper congratulates...one of the people for buying up ad space for zit cream right around the election, blocking off the time slots that Kennedy needed to buy.

Like, that's clearly going to have political side effects, but could also be done completely innocently with no political motive whatsoever.

How do you prevent such, uh, wild coincidences?

Either way, I don't think that more money in politics raised voter participation. I think Trump's odious tomfoolery was a much bigger factor. After all, spectacle requires a cast. You can't put on a show without actors.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28181589 - 02/11/23 12:00 AM (11 months, 9 days ago)

Just know, it is important to be aware of the potential impact that advertising can have on the political landscape, and to consider the implications of unregulated spending on advertisements.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28182031 - 02/11/23 09:26 AM (11 months, 9 days ago)

Gonna do an analysis for potential political side effects before you let your kid put up a lemonade stand?

Of course, we also need a third party confirmation of the political effects on your lemonade stand.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28182426 - 02/11/23 01:57 PM (11 months, 9 days ago)

A lemonade stand is a small-scale operation for children and does not have the potential to influence elections and policies in the same way that large amounts of money spent on political advertising could.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28182521 - 02/11/23 02:58 PM (11 months, 9 days ago)

You'd think so, but there are at least 14 states that have laws specifically naming lemonade stands.

Similarly, a well-placed lemonade stand can easily disrupt a polling location.

Unless your point is to find some arbitrary line that makes sense only to you, I don't see why you discount my argument that a lemonade stand needs a third party analysis for political side effects.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28182544 - 02/11/23 03:06 PM (11 months, 9 days ago)

It sounds like you are trying to find some arbitrary line that makes sense only to you, because what is your point about a lemonade stand have to do with unregulated spending on advertisements for political campaigns?

The two are not equivalent. Is the lemonade stand donating millions?

The lemonade stand can have an analysis for political side effect, but as a single lemonade stand I don't see how you could argue that it's going to be anywhere near or equivalent to several million dollars of corporate spending on political advertisements from a single company.

As long as the lemonade stand isn't in the pathway that's not a conflict of interest, in Australia they hold sausage sizzles and numerous polling stations, for people waiting in line or mingling.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28182555 - 02/11/23 03:16 PM (11 months, 9 days ago)

My stance is this, that taking significant funds from lobbyists representing an industry before voting on legislation affecting that industry can raise questions about the independence and impartiality of the elected representatives to the decision-making process. This can lead to the perception of a conflict of interest, as the decision-maker may be influenced by the financial relationship with the lobbyists.

All I've heard from arguments here are that they don't ultimately care or think that financial relationships with lobbyist do influence the elected representatives and legislative decision makers, but I would refer you all to the examples we have of individuals like Krysten Sinema who clearly have been influenced by financial relationships with their lobbyists.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28182758 - 02/11/23 05:31 PM (11 months, 9 days ago)

Then you've clearly not been listening to the arguments.

When I was a kid, ten dollars was very significant. Today, ten dollars is a rounding error on my credit card bill.

So, what exactly do you mean by "significant" funds, and why is a million dollars significant and ten dollars not?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 3,940
Last seen: 14 hours, 17 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28183584 - 02/12/23 08:28 AM (11 months, 8 days ago)

A million dollars creates a larger platform than ten. 100,000 times more. Money being speech means the person with more has a louder voice. Regardless of whether or not that voice is right/wrong/illegal/immoral etc...we're supposed to have a system that makes sure a minority can't subvert a majority, and vice versa. A level playing field should be a standard for elections IMO. How do we do that? I don't pretend to know the answer.


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


Everything is better when it is done ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Sulfurshelfsean]
    #28184194 - 02/12/23 02:56 PM (11 months, 8 days ago)

If the majority doesn't immediately value what the minority has, but values instead what the majority has, then the majority immediately holds the majority of the value.

It seems simple to me. But it's not a very intuitive thing I guess.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28184507 - 02/12/23 06:52 PM (11 months, 8 days ago)

It's intuitive, but the minority is willing and able to use force to ensure the supremacy of the value of the thing they have.

What happens when you replace money with something else? Depending on your relation to US borders, either the CIA or the FBI takes an immediate interest. As does the FED and the IRS. And potentially the SS, depending on exactly how you decided not to value money.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28184540 - 02/12/23 07:17 PM (11 months, 8 days ago)

Well it starts with valuing the majority of people IMO. If we don't value each other then we definitely don't stand a chance of being united.

And if the majority isn't united then there is no way to "be" the majority


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28184613 - 02/12/23 08:15 PM (11 months, 8 days ago)

And how do we do that?

Keep in mind that a videogame congratulating you for punching Nazis was a very controversial political opinion like, three years ago.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28184616 - 02/12/23 08:19 PM (11 months, 8 days ago)

That's why I don't think it's very intuitive to see the big picture like this. It's much more intuitive to find little things we disagree on.

IMO it just starts 1 person/family at a time taking the large view and maybe some day can grow to be a majority.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28184620 - 02/12/23 08:23 PM (11 months, 8 days ago)

Only if  the mode to do so exists....there needs to be more speech,  not less, even if that means unlimited expenditures.....just my opinion


--------------------
“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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28184792 - 02/13/23 12:37 AM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Then you've clearly not been listening to the arguments.

When I was a kid, ten dollars was very significant. Today, ten dollars is a rounding error on my credit card bill.

So, what exactly do you mean by "significant" funds, and why is a million dollars significant and ten dollars not?




Here's a list of 19 people who have put significant funding into political campaigns through unregulated expendature. Combined they are able to drown out a majority by flooding the advertising market.

Combined those 19 voices can have a louder voice than hundreds of thousands.



The limit on most individuals is $2500.

Choose your hill to die on.


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



Edited by sudly (02/13/23 12:44 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28184795 - 02/13/23 12:47 AM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
Well it starts with valuing the majority of people IMO. If we don't value each other then we definitely don't stand a chance of being united.

And if the majority isn't united then there is no way to "be" the majority




If one valued the majority of people they would aquiesse that one person gets 1 vote.

Although I do see the caveat that I'm in Australia and here voting is mandatory, so in the US, the majority of a vote may not necessarily reflect the overall majority of voters because the decision to attend is optional and sometimes lengthsome to undertake.

A lot of people don't turn up to elections or participate within it in the US.

Bipartisanship doesn't work when oppositions want to reflect different time periods in history from bringing us back to the 60s with gay weed hysteria, and now the 30s with introductions by republicans to bring back child labor in mines.

National surveys and polls provide relevant insight into the mindsets and voting intentions of the public. They can paint a decent general picture of the overall voting mindset, and some polls indicate that on issues like Marijuana federal legalisation, the majority wants it.

Now in my mind if someone values the majority then such a survey is a reliable indication that the voice of this majority is not being heard, and not being listened to. 



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



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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28184996 - 02/13/23 05:17 AM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Spending looks about even, and the top spending Republican spent about $75,000 more than the top Democrat in 2020.

Quote:

sudly said:

Combined those 19 voices can have a louder voice than hundreds of thousands.







Result: DEMOCRAT president in 2020 elected.


--------------------
“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
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28185034 - 02/13/23 06:20 AM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Only if  the mode to do so exists....there needs to be more speech,  not less, even if that means unlimited expenditures.....just my opinion




I agree with this. Best to be equally able to express our values, and unite around basic human values.

If the majority of people value their fellow human, that majority will include those in minority positions. Such a value is not tied to or limited by social circumstances. It's tied to being a human. And anyone who values other humans becomes one of the majority de facto.

It changes the landscape of what it means to be in the minority. Being in the minority then means not valuing your fellow human. And wealth is an asset not a hindrance for such a majority.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185038 - 02/13/23 06:30 AM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Kickle said:
Well it starts with valuing the majority of people IMO. If we don't value each other then we definitely don't stand a chance of being united.

And if the majority isn't united then there is no way to "be" the majority




If one valued the majority of people they would aquiesse that one person gets 1 vote.

....

Now in my mind if someone values the majority then such a survey is a reliable indication that the voice of this majority is not being heard, and not being listened to. 






I do think there is a subtle difference between valuing people and valuing the specific values of people. Strip back the specifics and just value the person first IMO. The way we arrive at our specific values is so varied and tied to so much. It quickly gets confusing to start our evaluation at this point. Strip a bit farther back and it's easier IME. Starting from a place of valuing the other person, as a person, it becomes easier to discuss differences in view peacefully.

I think the majority "votes" with all their actions. Not just at the poll box. Standing up for what you believe in is good. I just think there is a distinct wisdom in creating a majority which values our commonality as humans first, and then argues about specific movements second. Inverse priorities seems much less wise to me. After all, the biggest majority exists in just being human.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185286 - 02/13/23 10:41 AM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
That's why I don't think it's very intuitive to see the big picture like this. It's much more intuitive to find little things we disagree on.

IMO it just starts 1 person/family at a time taking the large view and maybe some day can grow to be a majority.




I think we might disagree on the nature vs. nurture argument of intuition.

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Kryptos said:
Then you've clearly not been listening to the arguments.

When I was a kid, ten dollars was very significant. Today, ten dollars is a rounding error on my credit card bill.

So, what exactly do you mean by "significant" funds, and why is a million dollars significant and ten dollars not?




Here's a list of 19 people who have put significant funding into political campaigns through unregulated expendature. Combined they are able to drown out a majority by flooding the advertising market.

Combined those 19 voices can have a louder voice than hundreds of thousands.



The limit on most individuals is $2500.

Choose your hill to die on.




Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of reductio ad absurdum, but it is my favorite rhetorical style. You will find that I am, in fact, on YOUR hill. I just climbed a little bit farther up, in an effort to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of your argument when taken to the (il-)logical conclusion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28185501 - 02/13/23 01:15 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Spending looks about even, and the top spending Republican spent about $75,000 more than the top Democrat in 2020.

Quote:

sudly said:

Combined those 19 voices can have a louder voice than hundreds of thousands.







Result: DEMOCRAT president in 2020 elected.




You forgot three 000s.

And with regulated expenditure the results probably would have been far more interesting. The unregulated spending doesn't guarantee victory, but it sure has a large influence on voter behaviour through the advertising it buys.

Unregulated expenditure has an undue influence, especially when it's in the tens or hundreds of millions from a single person.

Why do you think Adelson spent over $200 million? Out of the goodness of his heart, for charity?


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185506 - 02/13/23 01:18 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Bloomberg spent his money on his own campaign, though.  Look where that got him.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28185508 - 02/13/23 01:20 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Only if  the mode to do so exists....there needs to be more speech,  not less, even if that means unlimited expenditures.....just my opinion




I agree with this. Best to be equally able to express our values, and unite around basic human values.

If the majority of people value their fellow human, that majority will include those in minority positions. Such a value is not tied to or limited by social circumstances. It's tied to being a human. And anyone who values other humans becomes one of the majority de facto.

It changes the landscape of what it means to be in the minority. Being in the minority then means not valuing your fellow human. And wealth is an asset not a hindrance for such a majority.




What are you referring to as the minority, the poorest of us of the richest of us?


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28185510 - 02/13/23 01:21 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Bloomberg spent his money on his own campaign, though.  Look where that got him.



That's not included in this graph.

Quote:

Ahead of the 2020 election, Mike Bloomberg spent a record-breaking $1.1 billion of his own money running for president, and another $150 million supporting Democratic candidates and causes. This year, with the 2022 midterms 12 months away, the former New York City mayor has spent about $1.6 million so far, according to Federal Election Commission data. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2021/11/05/heres-where-mike-bloomberg-the-biggest-spender-in-the-2020-election-has-donated-this-year/?sh=4ae1b0c95a10




--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185513 - 02/13/23 01:22 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:

If the majority of people value their fellow human, that majority will include those in minority positions. Such a value is not tied to or limited by social circumstances. It's tied to being a human. And anyone who values other humans becomes one of the majority de facto.




What a sweet world you must live in.  Unfortunately, that's not planet Earth.  The majority has always oppressed the minority for as long as civilization has existed.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185514 - 02/13/23 01:23 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Bloomberg spent his money on his own campaign, though.  Look where that got him.



Did Adelson?



I don't know who Adelson is.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28185517 - 02/13/23 01:26 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Bloomberg spent a billion on his own campaign and spent $150 million on others.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28185524 - 02/13/23 01:29 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

sudly said:

If the majority of people value their fellow human, that majority will include those in minority positions. Such a value is not tied to or limited by social circumstances. It's tied to being a human. And anyone who values other humans becomes one of the majority de facto.




What a sweet world you must live in.  Unfortunately, that's not planet Earth.  The majority has always oppressed the minority for as long as civilization has existed.




The minority in regard to the voting population is the multibillionaires who can afford to spend tens of millions on funding their select political campaign advertisements.

The minority is the billionaire who can buy a louder voice than ten thousand people combined.

The rich minority don't value the majority as they pay for legislation changes that benefit them, not the majority of the public, as evidenced by Krysten Sinemas actions around drug price regulations.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28185531 - 02/13/23 01:32 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Kickle said:
Well it starts with valuing the majority of people IMO. If we don't value each other then we definitely don't stand a chance of being united.

And if the majority isn't united then there is no way to "be" the majority




If one valued the majority of people they would aquiesse that one person gets 1 vote.

....

Now in my mind if someone values the majority then such a survey is a reliable indication that the voice of this majority is not being heard, and not being listened to. 






I do think there is a subtle difference between valuing people and valuing the specific values of people. Strip back the specifics and just value the person first IMO. The way we arrive at our specific values is so varied and tied to so much. It quickly gets confusing to start our evaluation at this point. Strip a bit farther back and it's easier IME. Starting from a place of valuing the other person, as a person, it becomes easier to discuss differences in view peacefully.

I think the majority "votes" with all their actions. Not just at the poll box. Standing up for what you believe in is good. I just think there is a distinct wisdom in creating a majority which values our commonality as humans first, and then argues about specific movements second. Inverse priorities seems much less wise to me. After all, the biggest majority exists in just being human.




Then say one person one vote and be done with it!

There usually is a voting majority that you appear to be ignoring the existence of.

Inverse priorities? What democracy shouldn't be at the top? 1 person one vote is the top priority here.


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185537 - 02/13/23 01:34 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

One vote per person is already the law, bro.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28185538 - 02/13/23 01:35 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Kryptos said:
Then you've clearly not been listening to the arguments.

When I was a kid, ten dollars was very significant. Today, ten dollars is a rounding error on my credit card bill.

So, what exactly do you mean by "significant" funds, and why is a million dollars significant and ten dollars not?




Here's a list of 19 people who have put significant funding into political campaigns through unregulated expendature. Combined they are able to drown out a majority by flooding the advertising market.

Combined those 19 voices can have a louder voice than hundreds of thousands.



The limit on most individuals is $2500.

Choose your hill to die on.




Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of reductio ad absurdum, but it is my favorite rhetorical style. You will find that I am, in fact, on YOUR hill. I just climbed a little bit farther up, in an effort to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of your argument when taken to the (il-)logical conclusion.




Mate, if you're on this hill then cool beans, but by golly, people here do appear to be asking what the difference is between a million dollars and ten and they seem earnest.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28185559 - 02/13/23 01:51 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
One vote per person is already the law, bro.



The principle of one person one vote has been undermined by unregulated and unlimited independent expenditure.

Because unregulated and unlimited expenditure on political campaigns can undermine the principle of one person, one vote, by giving disproportionate influence and power to individuals, groups, or organizations that are able to spend large sums of money on political advertisements.

This can lead to a situation where the opinions and interests of a wealthy minority are given greater weight and consideration in the political process, as opposed to the views and needs of the broader electorate. In essence, unlimited spending on political advertisements can serve to skew the democratic process in favor of those with the financial means to dominate the airwaves and influence public opinion.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185574 - 02/13/23 02:06 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

What are you referring to as the minority, the poorest of us of the richest of us?

I would say the minority is first reflected in our personal values. It is when others share our personal values that we tend to value them. Ergo we personally value a minority of humans the most, based on this type of evaluation. 

I think evaluation in this way looks different at scale: capital is a diverse enough value holder that a majority of people include capital in their personal values. And as a result the minority of humans with the most capital hold the majority of the collective value.

Minority is just a product of inclusion/exclusion. I think any prioritized value on a specific trait or attribute is going to lay the foundation for creating a minority group somewhere along the line. And one counter to this imo is to value others first and foremost as a human.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28185586 - 02/13/23 02:14 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

said:
If the majority of people value their fellow human, that majority will include those in minority positions. Such a value is not tied to or limited by social circumstances. It's tied to being a human. And anyone who values other humans becomes one of the majority de facto.





What a sweet world you must live in.  Unfortunately, that's not planet Earth.  The majority has always oppressed the minority for as long as civilization has existed.




Yeah, I think this is true from a certain perspective. There's always a minority at the bottom with a majority above that. And that line moves as you "zoom out". And the inverse looks true from a certain perspective as well. There's always a minority at the top with a majority below it.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kickle]
    #28185589 - 02/13/23 02:16 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

The majority and minority are voting populations.

Unregulated and unlimited expenditure on political campaigns can undermine the principle of one person one vote by giving some individuals or organizations greater influence over the outcome of elections through their financial resources, effectively giving them a greater voice than others.

This can create a situation where the interests and values of a small minority of wealthy individuals or organizations are prioritized over the majority of citizens, leading to a distorted representation of public opinion in the political process.


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



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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185596 - 02/13/23 02:20 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Spending looks about even, and the top spending Republican spent about $75,000 more than the top Democrat in 2020.

Quote:

sudly said:

Combined those 19 voices can have a louder voice than hundreds of thousands.







Result: DEMOCRAT president in 2020 elected.




You forgot three 000s.

And with regulated expenditure the results probably would have been far more interesting. The unregulated spending doesn't guarantee victory, but it sure has a large influence on voter behaviour through the advertising it buys.

Unregulated expenditure has an undue influence, especially when it's in the tens or hundreds of millions from a single person.

Why do you think Adelson spent over $200 million? Out of the goodness of his heart, for charity?





Your right, Me typo, I stand corrected. The proportion remains the same, though. If indeed top dollar guarantees undue influence, your link doesn't show that.


--------------------
“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
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185597 - 02/13/23 02:20 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Unregulated and unlimited expenditure on political campaigns can undermine the principle of one person one vote by giving some individuals or organizations greater influence over the outcome of elections through their financial resources, effectively giving them a greater voice than others.




Could be. What's your solution to the problem if not to examine our collective values and determine how minority influence arises in oversized ways, repeatedly and regularly?

IMO finding the source of a leak is more important than just shoveling out the water around us..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185664 - 02/13/23 02:57 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Kryptos said:
Then you've clearly not been listening to the arguments.

When I was a kid, ten dollars was very significant. Today, ten dollars is a rounding error on my credit card bill.

So, what exactly do you mean by "significant" funds, and why is a million dollars significant and ten dollars not?




Here's a list of 19 people who have put significant funding into political campaigns through unregulated expendature. Combined they are able to drown out a majority by flooding the advertising market.

Combined those 19 voices can have a louder voice than hundreds of thousands.



The limit on most individuals is $2500.

Choose your hill to die on.




Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of reductio ad absurdum, but it is my favorite rhetorical style. You will find that I am, in fact, on YOUR hill. I just climbed a little bit farther up, in an effort to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of your argument when taken to the (il-)logical conclusion.




Mate, if you're on this hill then cool beans, but by golly, people here do appear to be asking what the difference is between a million dollars and ten and they seem earnest.




I'm one of those people. Please explain to me how a lemonade stand set up 2.7 miles from a polling location didn't affect an election, when a potential voter could have stopped for lemonade and changed their mind as a result.

Ten dollars in the right hands can go a long way, a lot farther than a million in the right hands.

I simply don't understand how you could be concerned with money influencing elections, but at the same time wave off an entire ten dollars, or an entire fuckin local small business selling refreshments. There are significant political aspects to both of those things.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28185689 - 02/13/23 03:23 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

So you've chosen the other hill.

I mean, you can ignore the difference between an individual's small scale operation such as a lemonade stand and the large-scale operations of corporations and PACs who can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertisements.

While a lemonade stand may have a small influence on a local level, the influence of unlimited spending by corporations and PACs on political campaigns can have a much larger impact and undermine the principles of one person, one vote by giving a disproportionate amount of influence to those with more financial resources.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185697 - 02/13/23 03:31 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

So you admit that a lemonade stand may affect politics, and in the same sentence, just...completely ignore how that can change entire elections?

Do you even realize how inconsistent you are?


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28185732 - 02/13/23 04:02 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Information affects voting.  The only way to stop people from unduly influencing the vote is to stop people from talking about politics altogether.

Sudly just wants to be able to choose who gets to talk about politics and how much they get to say.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28185775 - 02/13/23 04:34 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

While small local spending, such as a lemonade stand, may have some local impact, it is not comparable in scale to the influence of unlimited expenditure in political campaigns which has the potential to affect the outcome of elections on a much larger scale. The issue with unlimited expenditure is not the spending itself but the potential for that spending to result in unequal influence over the political process.

Hence, retaining current limitations like $2500 on individuals and up to $30,000 or so for corporations, but withholding unlimited expenditure through regulations.

@Enlil
The argument for regulating spending on political advertisements is not about stopping people from talking about politics, but rather ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard and that the influence of money does not unduly shape political outcomes. The concern is not about who gets to talk about politics, but rather the potential for money to distort the political process.

That tens of millions of dollars from one person can unfairly distort the political process.


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185780 - 02/13/23 04:38 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

People will never have an equal opportunity to be heard, dude.  You're dreaming.  If Taylor Swift tweets that Trump is a racist, I promise you millions of people will read it.  If you tweet the same thing, maybe dozens.

There has never been a time when everyone has the same voice.  That is simply a fictional utopia in your head.  The truth is that Citizens United allows groups of people to pool their money into an organization to spend money to get a message out.  With or without Citizens United, the rich have always been able to spend as much as they want on political advertizing.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28185793 - 02/13/23 04:46 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

You're not distinguishing a political campaigns from a celebrity. 

The difference between a celebrity's tweet and unrestricted spending on political advertisements by corporations and PACS is the source of the funding and influence.

Unregulated political spending by corporations and PACs through Citizens united has a much larger impact on the political process compared to an individual tweet, no matter how influential the tweeter may be. While celebrities may have a significant platform, political spending by corporations and PACs can significantly influence elections through unlimited resources.

Individual tweets and political speech still allow for a diversity of perspectives to be heard without the need for unlimited expenditure on political advertising.




--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185800 - 02/13/23 04:48 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Taylor Swift is ONE PERSON.  She has more influence than you.  It isn't because she spends more money, either.  There will always be people who wield an unfair amount of influence.  Get used to that idea.

Rich people could always spend as much money as they want on political advertising.  Citizen's united didn't change that.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28185812 - 02/13/23 04:55 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Relatively poor(er) people can organize and be relatively loud too.  Louder than a million bux.  Grass roots and all that.

ie.  Ron Paul ~'08


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28185813 - 02/13/23 04:55 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

The influence of a celebrity like Taylor Swift comes from their personal popularity and platform, not just their wealth. Unlimited spending by corporations on political advertisements, as allowed by Citizen's United, gives them a significantly greater level of influence compared to individuals, even wealthy ones. This can lead to imbalanced political power, undemocratic outcomes and a departure from one person one vote.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #28185832 - 02/13/23 05:03 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

The Blind Ass said:
Relatively poor(er) people can organize and be relatively loud too.  Louder than a million bux.  Grass roots and all that.

ie.  Ron Paul ~'08




And it takes 10,000 or so people with small dollar donations to gather a million bucks, whereas otherwise one wealthy corporation could spend to buy the equivalent influence on its own.


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185839 - 02/13/23 05:07 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

The Blind Ass said:
Relatively poor(er) people can organize and be relatively loud too.  Louder than a million bux.  Grass roots and all that.

ie.  Ron Paul ~'08




And it takes 10,000 or so people with small dollar donations to gather a million bucks, whereas otherwise one wealthy corporation could spend to buy the equivalent influence on its own.



Exactly.  How are they supposed to do that without forming an entity?  Just trust one dude to hold the money?  Citizens United makes it so that 10,000 people can pool their money in a legally responsible corporation to spend that money in furtherance of the common goal.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28185888 - 02/13/23 05:25 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
While small local spending, such as a lemonade stand, may have some local impact, it is not comparable in scale to the influence of unlimited expenditure in political campaigns which has the potential to affect the outcome of elections on a much larger scale. The issue with unlimited expenditure is not the spending itself but the potential for that spending to result in unequal influence over the political process.

Hence, retaining current limitations like $2500 on individuals and up to $30,000 or so for corporations, but withholding unlimited expenditure through regulations.




I see, you're okay with discrimination, but only when you discriminate against people that can't afford 2500$.

Quote:

sudly said:
The influence of a celebrity like Taylor Swift comes from their personal popularity and platform, not just their wealth. Unlimited spending by corporations on political advertisements, as allowed by Citizen's United, gives them a significantly greater level of influence compared to individuals, even wealthy ones. This can lead to imbalanced political power, undemocratic outcomes and a departure from one person one vote.




So...if, for example, a corporation was to pay Tswift a bunch of money to popularize something completely unrelated, something completely non-political. Say, Have her yell "Now we're cooking with GAS!" right before playing the first chords on stage...And then everyone suddenly starts saying "now we're cooking with gas", which is of course entirely non-political and has absolutely no relation to the gas industry trying to get people to ignore the health risks of having a gas stove...

Where along that line did we go from personal influence to corporate influence? And where did we become political, and not a cool catchphrase?


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


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28185903 - 02/13/23 05:30 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Not to mention the underlying fact that Taylor Swift, as talented as she is, is as popular and successful as she is because of corporate expenditures in the first place.  Whether it's Swift or Tucker Carlson, or a news anchor, there are people with very long-reaching influence who are spokespersons for corporations.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28186077 - 02/13/23 07:26 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

sudly said:
While small local spending, such as a lemonade stand, may have some local impact, it is not comparable in scale to the influence of unlimited expenditure in political campaigns which has the potential to affect the outcome of elections on a much larger scale. The issue with unlimited expenditure is not the spending itself but the potential for that spending to result in unequal influence over the political process.

Hence, retaining current limitations like $2500 on individuals and up to $30,000 or so for corporations, but withholding unlimited expenditure through regulations.




I see, you're okay with discrimination, but only when you discriminate against people that can't afford 2500$.




How in God's name did you get discrimination from advocating a donation limit for individuals and corporations..

2500 is the maximum allowable donation for an individual.

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

sudly said:
The influence of a celebrity like Taylor Swift comes from their personal popularity and platform, not just their wealth. Unlimited spending by corporations on political advertisements, as allowed by Citizen's United, gives them a significantly greater level of influence compared to individuals, even wealthy ones. This can lead to imbalanced political power, undemocratic outcomes and a departure from one person one vote.




So...if, for example, a corporation was to pay Tswift a bunch of money to popularize something completely unrelated, something completely non-political. Say, Have her yell "Now we're cooking with GAS!" right before playing the first chords on stage...And then everyone suddenly starts saying "now we're cooking with gas", which is of course entirely non-political and has absolutely no relation to the gas industry trying to get people to ignore the health risks of having a gas stove...

Where along that line did we go from personal influence to corporate influence? And where did we become political, and not a cool catchphrase?




If it's not for a political campaign that'd be okay.

Things become political when they start spending money on political campaigns.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28186081 - 02/13/23 07:30 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Not to mention the underlying fact that Taylor Swift, as talented as she is, is as popular and successful as she is because of corporate expenditures in the first place.  Whether it's Swift or Tucker Carlson, or a news anchor, there are people with very long-reaching influence who are spokespersons for corporations.




The success and popularity of celebrities like Taylor Swift, news anchors, and commentators can be attributed to corporate investments, but the impact of unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns is far more significant and has the potential to distort the outcome of elections. Unlike the former's influence, which is based on personal popularity and platform, the latter's influence is driven by wealth, leading to imbalanced political power. The problem with Citizen's United and unlimited expenditure is the unequal influence it grants over the political process, undermining the democratic principle of one person, one vote.


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



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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28186144 - 02/13/23 08:07 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Popularity and platform are intrinsic to politics. The charisma factor, for sure. Many actors have reached the top of political hierarchy. Many powerful and skillfull politicians can't get the votes strictly due to being perceived unlikable....ala Hillary

Why do candidates co op "patriotic" songs? Same thing.


--------------------
“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 (02/13/23 08:07 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28186164 - 02/13/23 08:21 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Things become political when they start spending money on political campaigns.




Oh, so if a corporation spends ten million on a political CANDIDATE, that's cool, as long as they don't spend it on that candidate's CAMPAIGN.

Vote Biden = Good

Vote Biden for President = Bad


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
    #28186224 - 02/13/23 08:53 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

sudly said:
Things become political when they start spending money on political campaigns.




Oh, so if a corporation spends ten million on a political CANDIDATE, that's cool, as long as they don't spend it on that candidate's CAMPAIGN.

Vote Biden = Good

Vote Biden for President = Bad




A corporation can't spend tens of millions on a political candidate.

There are limits on the amount of money that individuals and corporations can contribute directly to a political candidate.

The FEC set limits on individual contributions to candidates which in 2023 currently stand at $3,300 per election for individuals and $5,000 for PACs.

Such limits were put in place to prevent corruption and ensure the democratic process is not influenced by a small number of wealthy individuals or corporations. The Citizen's United ruling in 2010 did allow for unlimited independent expenditures on political campaigns by corporations and unions, which can have a significant impact on the outcome of elections.

There are limits on how much you can give a candidate, while there are no limits for 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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28186229 - 02/13/23 08:56 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Thank God for free speech.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot] * 1
    #28186238 - 02/13/23 09:02 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Popularity and platform are intrinsic to politics. The charisma factor, for sure. Many actors have reached the top of political hierarchy. Many powerful and skillfull politicians can't get the votes strictly due to being perceived unlikable....ala Hillary

Why do candidates co op "patriotic" songs? Same thing.




It's true that charisma and personal popularity do play a role in politics, and it's not uncommon for actors and other celebrities to pursue political careers or endorse political candidates.

However, the issue with unlimited corporate expenditure in political campaigns, as allowed by Citizen's United, is that it gives corporations an outsized level of influence over the political process and the outcome of elections, potentially leading to undemocratic outcomes and departing from the principle of one person, one vote.

Patriotic songs and other tactics to appeal to voters can be a part of a larger campaign strategy, but ultimately the difference lies in the potential for unlimited expenditure to sway elections on a larger scale.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28186248 - 02/13/23 09:07 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Thank God for free speech.




Free speech as guaranteed by the constitution, is not the same as unlimited financial contributions to political campaigns. The concept of 'one person, one vote' is a more accurate representation of free speech, as it ensures equal influence for all individuals in the political process, rather than allowing unequal influence based on corporate interference.


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28186249 - 02/13/23 09:08 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

A vote is not speech.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28186262 - 02/13/23 09:12 PM (11 months, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
A vote is not speech.




Do you see a vote as a form of expression, or a form of action? Because the first amendment protects expression, not action.


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28186272 - 02/13/23 09:16 PM (11 months, 6 days ago)

Are those mutually exclusive in your twisted worldview?

All expression is action.  Some action is expression.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28186307 - 02/13/23 09:38 PM (11 months, 6 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Are those mutually exclusive in your twisted worldview?

All expression is action.  Some action is expression.




There are differences between individuals and corporations regarding free speech.

Political spending by individuals can be seen as a form of expression protected by the first amendment, while corporations political spending raises questions about fairness and influence in the political process, as corporations are not considered to have beliefs or opinions like individuals do.

While some actions such as assembling to petition the government are considered protected forms of expression, corporations are not considered human beings and do not have the same constitutional rights as individuals.


--------------------
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: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28186775 - 02/14/23 07:15 AM (11 months, 6 days ago)

You are operating on a lot of assumptions.  Lots of corporations have beliefs and opinions.  Many corporations are specifically formed to serve a set of values and/or beliefs.  Still more are formed for profit but have a set of core values and/or beliefs defined at the outset.

What makes you think corporations are not considered human beings?  What makes you think they do not have the same constitutional rights as individuals?  Corporations have been treated like people under the law for a long time.

For much of this thread, you have been arguing that the rich shouldn't be able to spend unlimited money on an issue or candidate, but you also have this strange aversion to corporations doing so.  Corporations are not generally owned by the rich.  They are owned by large groups of people, each of whom have a small investment in them.  There is no reason that group of people shouldn't have the same right to expression as a single billionaire has.  Citizens United gives them the same right.

Earlier in this thread, you posted a graphic showing some names of people who spent large amounts on independent advertising.  Citizens United did nothing vis a vis that issue.  Before and after CU, individual rich people could spend unlimited money. 

Throughout this whole thread, you've been arguing inconsistent and unrelated points and placing the blame on a court case that had very little to do with it.


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

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineIce9
3X Ban Lotto Champion
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/20/14
Posts: 11,225
Loc: daterapeville,USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 44 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28187371 - 02/14/23 04:36 PM (11 months, 6 days ago)

What is the difference between these groups spending a billion dollars on TV spots, versus say, if they spent the money to put a huge, visible from Earth, LED sign on the moon that said, Vote So and So 'XX, Is that acceptable?


--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Brenard Shaw


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,795
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Ice9]
    #28187456 - 02/14/23 05:45 PM (11 months, 6 days ago)

Lol, no, that's some supervillain shit.  I think that was actually an episode of The Tick.


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


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineIce9
3X Ban Lotto Champion
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/20/14
Posts: 11,225
Loc: daterapeville,USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 44 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #28187469 - 02/14/23 05:56 PM (11 months, 6 days ago)

That's where I stole it from :lol:


--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Brenard Shaw


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,258
Last seen: 9 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Ice9]
    #28187511 - 02/14/23 06:29 PM (11 months, 6 days ago)

That's also a thing that Coca Cola considered...

But now that we have drones, I think we're more likely to have drone advertisements. Bit cheaper than engraving the moon.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
    #28187990 - 02/15/23 12:19 AM (11 months, 5 days ago)

Corporations are not considered human beings as they are separate legal entities, with their own set of rights and obligations that are distinct from the rights and obligations of their owners or employees.

They are created to achieve specific business goals, and while they can have values and beliefs, they do not have personal opinions or emotions in the same way that individuals do.

Corporations have unlimited lifespans and can accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, which can give them disproportionate power and influence in society, raising questions about fairness and equality.

There already are limitations on what can be given to a candidate, and I want to extend those limitations back to corporations.

I want to regulate corporate spending on political campaigns, as it is regulated with political candidates. With limitations to expendature on political campaigns for corporations.

It is what it is, the solutions are difficult and time consuming to achieve, but they are not off the table, their probability of being successful is low but changing and they can't be ruled out.

I don't mind you saying you don't think change will happen, but that it can happen is non-negotiable at this point.

To me your only argument is the altered definition of free speech that the Citizens United case ruled into law.

You've accepted that change already.

You didn't vote for it.

Would you have voted for the Citizens United ruling to allow unlimited independent expenditure for corporations on political campaigns?


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



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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28188021 - 02/15/23 01:44 AM (11 months, 5 days ago)

Corporations are not a single entity of the blood and bone of a human, moreover, the US is not composed of a single person. That doesn't mean they don't have corporate personhood with rights...for instance to enter into a contract.

Are you saying that corporations should not have similar rights enjoyed by a person, even though the makeup of corporations are people? It seems you are extending your stance to now include the peoples' right to freedom of association.

There is no way to directly vote on a ruling or a federal law ; the Constitution doesn't even explicitly provide a right to vote.


--------------------
“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 (02/15/23 06:57 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28188042 - 02/15/23 02:33 AM (11 months, 5 days ago)

The corporate veil separates the legal identity of the company from its owners, limiting their personal liability for business debts and legal issues.

I understand the protection of a corporate veil is not absolute and that it can can be lifted in cases of illegal activities or director misconduct. The issue of political spending is related to campaign finance regulations and the amount of money corporations can contribute to political campaigns.

In some cases, business owners can rely on the legal concept of the corporate veil to remove liability from themselves and their actions by assigning responsibility to the company.


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



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


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
    #28188184 - 02/15/23 07:09 AM (11 months, 5 days ago)

What limit $$$ limit would you place on corporations? Does it matter if its a type S or type C?


--------------------
“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
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,789
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #28188668 - 02/15/23 01:10 PM (11 months, 5 days ago)

The limitations that currently exist without the loophole that allows for unlimited expenditure by corporations.

Both S corporations and C corporations offer limited liability protection to their owners, and although there are differences in the rules for shareholders and profit distribution between the two types of corporations, when it comes to regulations and laws related to campaign finance, they generally apply to all corporations, regardless of their tax status.


--------------------
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  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Topicals   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* NAFTA's Investor ''Rights'': A Corporate Dream, A Citizens.. Psilocybeingzz 900 3 06/09/03 10:17 AM
by Anonymous
* Guardian article questioning the independence of MEMRI Andy21 590 1 09/29/06 02:54 PM
by lonestar2004
* The last good President of the United States...
( 1 2 3 all )
chunder 4,233 53 02/09/04 03:13 PM
by Blastrid
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendalM 16,626 133 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 1,138 10 06/26/03 09:51 AM
by Learyfan
* United States becoming Police State
( 1 2 3 all )
psyphon 4,939 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
2,327 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 7 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 0.091 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 12 queries.