Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   For some reason, the Supreme Court might be having second thoughts about its Citizens United decision. Can't imagine why. Truly baffling. Yup   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Fail, Citizens United, supreme courts, Chief Justice John Roberts, McCain-Feingold, friend of the courts, Arlen Specter, corporate campaign, foreign corporation  
•       •       •

6659 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2012 at 10:57 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-18 11:42:22 AM  

EvilEgg: FlashHarry: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

such as?

The laws that let dead people and illegal aliens vote, you only hear crying about the minorities and college kids.


You probably would have looked less stupid if you just went with "I got nothing."
 
2012-06-18 11:45:43 AM  

RexTalionis: DarnoKonrad: I stand by my assessment. We're only one year into the plutocratic shiatstorm.

So, a decision (a bad one, to be sure) on the role of Corporate money in campaigns is WORSE than decisions that said that people can be the property of another? Or that separate and equal is a good policy? Or that American citizens should be allowed to be rounded up and sent to detention camps? Or that the mentally feeble should undergo forced sterilization?

Christ. I don't even know where your perspective is coming from.



Separate but equal was supposed to protect Black people remember? That's the "equal" part. But if you don't see a real danger in making the electorate and candidates indentured servants to monied interests, I guess you don't have any perspective.
 
2012-06-18 11:45:56 AM  
Last time this came around on the gitar, we had some farkers saying that we should ban soft money entirely. Here are some questions for those who advocate that:

i158.photobucket.com

Is this soft money? What if Google linked to a list of politicians that supported SOPA? I ask because they did.

Should the NRA or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence be required to give up their member list before they can air ads suggesting people do or do not own handguns?
 
2012-06-18 11:46:32 AM  
i.i.com.com
 
2012-06-18 11:46:59 AM  

RexTalionis: DarnoKonrad: I stand by my assessment. We're only one year into the plutocratic shiatstorm.

So, a decision (a bad one, to be sure) on the role of Corporate money in campaigns is WORSE than decisions that said that people can be the property of another? Or that separate and equal is a good policy? Or that American citizens should be allowed to be rounded up and sent to detention camps? Or that the mentally feeble should undergo forced sterilization?

Christ. I don't even know where your perspective is coming from.


Well, you have a disintegrating middle class and a GOP that has openly stated its desires to tear down the social safety net. One could argue that the plutocrats are trying to bring back slavery to one degree or another. If CU is the catalyst for the plutocracy...I think you could make an argument that it is a worse decision.

Having said that, I don't agree with his assessment, I think Dred Scott was the worst decision ever. Plessy vs Ferguson next. CU is a close third - we are just now seeing its impacts and it has the potential to completely undermine our government.
 
2012-06-18 11:48:14 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Cletus C.: A few million dollars in the right places might influence their ruling, if you get what I'm saying.

I think I hear you saying you want to have sex with them. Did I hear that correctly?


Bingo. Ever since Clinton stacked the Supreme Court with sexy.
 
2012-06-18 11:49:06 AM  

FlashHarry: Karac: The Citizen's United ruling, that people should be able to freely spend their money to produce political speech however they want would be an excellent ruling in a closed, theoretical environment where you assume that people are good and decent, and that politician's official actions will not be affected by the money spent by third parties to secure their election.

in that same environment, communism leads to utopia.


THIS. x10000.

CU uses an ideologically pure way of thinking that completely ignores the messiness of the real world. At least almost everyone on the left admits that the leftist "ideal" of perfect Communism isn't tenable in the real world. The right still thinks its ideal of perfect Libertarianism is something worth striving for, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.
 
2012-06-18 11:50:16 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves?

Corporations are not people. They are things.

Things can't use the process. Corporations are using the process. Therefore, corporations aren't things.

You'd have to ban the anti-corporatists from using the process to attack the corporatists before you could ban the corporatists from using the process to defend themselves.

What does need to happen is that the government must be banned from using the process to promote government. You start with abolishing all public parasite unions. Things are going in the right direction in that instance
DDDDEEEERRRPPPPPPPPP.


Why are Republicans so jealous of people who make more money than them by being in unions? I mean, just because you can't keep a job that pays well, why do you want to stop those who are making a living from being successful? Pure class warfare.
 
2012-06-18 11:52:58 AM  
This is a Republican SCOTUS. Their decision won't be any different.
 
2012-06-18 11:53:10 AM  
Republicans won the future by getting Roberts on the court.
 
2012-06-18 11:54:04 AM  

andrewagill: Last time this came around on the gitar, we had some farkers saying that we should ban soft money entirely. Here are some questions for those who advocate that:

[i158.photobucket.com image 560x341]

Is this soft money? What if Google linked to a list of politicians that supported SOPA? I ask because they did.

Should the NRA or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence be required to give up their member list before they can air ads suggesting people do or do not own handguns?


Burt Neuborne filed an amicus brief on behalf of several former litigation staffers at ACLU. He argued that there has been a long train of SCOTUS precedent upholding various kinds of organizational rights and showed that the common thread behind all of those rights is that they magnify the rights of the individuals in the organization. Thus, if Google's board of directors spends $10 million in shareholder money without their consent protesting SOPA, that would not be magnifying the rights of individuals and not an organizational right. OTOH, if Google links to a petition individuals can sign protesting SOPA, that would be magnifying the rights of individuals and an organizational right.
 
2012-06-18 11:56:10 AM  

andrewagill: Last time this came around on the gitar, we had some farkers saying that we should ban soft money entirely. Here are some questions for those who advocate that:

[i158.photobucket.com image 560x341]

Is this soft money? What if Google linked to a list of politicians that supported SOPA? I ask because they did.

Should the NRA or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence be required to give up their member list before they can air ads suggesting people do or do not own handguns?


I think a big part of the difference is that you KNOW the entity responsible for the message. Google. In the case of most Super PACs, yes, they have a name, but it's usually a meaningless name attached to a PO box in a rural post office, where you can only find the box if you go down into the basement where the power is off and it's in a broom closet marked "beware of the leopard". I don't mind if people spend money to get their opinions out there, but I wanna know who is doing it.
 
2012-06-18 12:04:42 PM  

Ninepoundhammer: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Strawman argument is Straw

No one said it exclusively benefitted conservatives (but it does favor them more than liberals).

You're an unpatriotic shmuck if you don't see an issue with either party buying elections.


How does it favor them. The same ruling legitimized unions running ads. Are you claiming unions don't spend millions? Should I point you to who the largest lobbyist/politicist in California is? You should go look at who some of the largest spenders are from open secrets, unions.
 
2012-06-18 12:05:05 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Should an individual be allowed to use the political process to go after corporations but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves? Wouldn't that pretty much lead to the abolishment of all corporations?

I think we all agree that we'd first need to purge the communists before changing that ruling.


Can Republicans please speak more on this issue.

They should be letting the American people know how they view corporations.

Romney's words should be played over and over.

/Vote Republican
 
2012-06-18 12:05:22 PM  

SuburbanCowboy: The only money that should be allowed in politics should be a small portion of taxpayer dollars to publicly fund elections. And while we are at it, lobbying should be banned as well.

Democracy and money shouldn't mix.


Neither should Red Bull and alcohol, but I've had people look at me funny when I turn down an offer for one.
 
2012-06-18 12:07:45 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Republicans won the future by getting Roberts on the court.


Not Roberts - Alito. Roberts replaced Rehnquist, who had a similar ideology. Alito replaced O'Connor, who was a centrist but was found siding more often with the liberal wing than the conservative wing.

The O'Connor for Alito replacement was easily the most influential thing GW Bush did in his presidential term, and it's amazing how little anyone realized this at the time, or even now.
 
2012-06-18 12:08:05 PM  
B-b-b-b-but Citizens United makes us all freer because it encourages speech rather than repressing it!
 
2012-06-18 12:09:25 PM  
I fail to see the logic in how money = speech only inasmuch is as it's spent on buying or influencing political candidates. If the 1st Amendment protects that then it should just as well protect the purchasing of sex, recreational drugs and every other thing under the sun that conservatives are oh-so-happy to ban when they get the chance.

Outside of taking that approach to the use of Freedom Dollars the CU decision is clearly political.
 
2012-06-18 12:10:01 PM  

ghare: Noam Chimpsky: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves?

Corporations are not people. They are things.

Things can't use the process. Corporations are using the process. Therefore, corporations aren't things.

You'd have to ban the anti-corporatists from using the process to attack the corporatists before you could ban the corporatists from using the process to defend themselves.

What does need to happen is that the government must be banned from using the process to promote government. You start with abolishing all public parasite unions. Things are going in the right direction in that instance DDDDEEEERRRPPPPPPPPP.

Why are Republicans so jealous of people who make more money than them by being in unions? I mean, just because you can't keep a job that pays well, why do you want to stop those who are making a living from being successful? Pure class warfare.


Can't afford it? But are you sure you have the right talking point in claiming that the public union parasites make more money than Republicans? If they do make more money than Republicans, and if they are being forced to pay that wage, then that is the argument for abolishing the unions.
 
2012-06-18 12:10:11 PM  

Serious Black: It was also ordered to go through a second round of questioning to stop Justice Souter's dissent, about how Chief Justice Roberts engineered the shift from the case being decided on statutory grounds to constitutional grounds, from ever being aired. Roberts is a smart man, but he's also insane.


Are you referring to the Toobin article? Because, I actually agree that there were greater underlying First Amendment issues that needed be addressed by the Court in the field of political speech, which were very rightly exposed during the first round of orals by the conservative wing. I vehemently disagree with the disposition -- McCain-Feingold was too narrow and failed to encompass the full extent of express advocacy in the 21st Century, whereas campaign expenditure for its distorting influence (that was the rationale for Austin, McConnell, and in part Wisconsin Right to Life) and the nominal primacy of the vote as the expression of political speech, should not be considered speech protected by the full force of the First Amendment -- but I agree the underlying conflict needed be addressed.
 
2012-06-18 12:10:23 PM  
You know, Conservatives would probably favor Citizens United until some billionaire decides to troll the GOP by setting up a $5 billion SuperPAC to favor a Democrat and then buy out all advertising time for the 2 months leading up to the election.
 
2012-06-18 12:12:53 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Also, interesting timing, this.

Citizens United was handed down just in time to flip the House, break Democratic supermajority in the Senate, and attempt to flip the Senate and Presidency via cash avalanche in 2012. Just now in the eleventh hour is the Supreme Court apparently looking at maybe revisiting the case, after the damage is already done, and in such a timely manner that any resulting decision will come down after the 2012 election.

After a two-year stretch of record union busting and electoral disenfranchisement. And at a point after which liberal Justice appointments, should Obama win, be blocked by the Senate, and conservative Justice appointments, should Romney win, get the rubber stamp. During a Presidential term that could see two and perhaps three Supreme Court justice appointments, particularly to replace Justices of the liberal wing.


I shudder to think of what this country will look like after Romney gets to put three judges on the SCOTUS. You might as well kiss all 20th-century civil rights law goodbye.
 
2012-06-18 12:14:11 PM  

RexTalionis: You know, Conservatives would probably favor Citizens United until some billionaire decides to troll the GOP by setting up a $5 billion SuperPAC to favor a Democrat and then buy out all advertising time for the 2 months leading up to the election.


I'm surprised I'm not seeing more troll ads. A group putting out an ad with a bunch of 'atheists' saying that you should for Obama because he's going to wage war on religion would be farking hilarious.

ROBOTS FOR ROMNEY 2012
END THE DISCRIMINATION
 
2012-06-18 12:16:07 PM  

sprawl15: RexTalionis: You know, Conservatives would probably favor Citizens United until some billionaire decides to troll the GOP by setting up a $5 billion SuperPAC to favor a Democrat and then buy out all advertising time for the 2 months leading up to the election.

I'm surprised I'm not seeing more troll ads. A group putting out an ad with a bunch of 'atheists' saying that you should for Obama because he's going to wage war on religion would be farking hilarious.

ROBOTS FOR ROMNEY 2012
END THE DISCRIMINATION



I'm sure there's a learning curve. It's not going to turn elections into the political equivalent of a Fark thread overnight.
 
2012-06-18 12:16:34 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: ghare: Noam Chimpsky: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves?

Corporations are not people. They are things.

Things can't use the process. Corporations are using the process. Therefore, corporations aren't things.

You'd have to ban the anti-corporatists from using the process to attack the corporatists before you could ban the corporatists from using the process to defend themselves.

What does need to happen is that the government must be banned from using the process to promote government. You start with abolishing all public parasite unions. Things are going in the right direction in that instance DDDDEEEERRRPPPPPPPPP.

Why are Republicans so jealous of people who make more money than them by being in unions? I mean, just because you can't keep a job that pays well, why do you want to stop those who are making a living from being successful? Pure class warfare.

Can't afford it? But are you sure you have the right talking point in claiming that the public union parasites make more money than Republicans? If they do make more money than Republicans, and if they are being forced to pay that wage, then that is the argument for abolishing the unions.


Yeah...fark free assembly! But we should only ban them if they're working. Or something.

What's it like being the kind of guy who was accidentally lobotomized during a rectal exam?
 
2012-06-18 12:17:50 PM  

The Name: I shudder to think of what this country will look like after Romney gets to put three judges on the SCOTUS. You might as well kiss all 20th-century civil rights law goodbye.


Zombie Lochner laughs at your pitiful mewling. Get back to work, peon, earn your company scrip!
 
2012-06-18 12:19:39 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: gibberish redacted.


Look man, just go back to injecting bath salts. It's better for you than whatever you're doing.

Now, I'd love to taunt you some more, but I, unlike you, have work to do. I can't stay home being jealous of union members all day and fighting to make sure they make less than me.
 
2012-06-18 12:20:29 PM  

MyRandomName: How does it favor them. The same ruling legitimized unions running ads.


Here's the deal. For the sake of argument, we'll pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. They aren't. They make up 3 of the top 10. But for the sake of argument, right now, we will pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. Deal?

lh4.googleusercontent.com

Okay. So both sides are equal. Both sides can spend equal amounts on elections because one side has unions and the other has corporations. Don't you find that kinda sad though? Corporations versus unions of people? I mean, it's corporations versus people, how funny is that?

Now let's return back to that agreed equal spending amount for the sake of argument. Corporations versus unions, equal in spending. R's versus D's, equal in political spending power. Seems fair, right? Now lets add two more pieces of information, the SCOTUS protected corporate political power in Citizens United, while the Republicans have attacked and destroyed Unions across the country a-la Wisconsin and will continue to do so. Things are not going to be so equal anymore, are they?

Great discussion we had. We started from a place where we assumed both sides were equal. Then we threw in some recent legislation and realized they were not both equal. I now return you to, things did not start equal in the first place.

But carry on thinking both sides are equal and everything's fair.
 
2012-06-18 12:23:40 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Serious Black: It was also ordered to go through a second round of questioning to stop Justice Souter's dissent, about how Chief Justice Roberts engineered the shift from the case being decided on statutory grounds to constitutional grounds, from ever being aired. Roberts is a smart man, but he's also insane.

Are you referring to the Toobin article? Because, I actually agree that there were greater underlying First Amendment issues that needed be addressed by the Court in the field of political speech, which were very rightly exposed during the first round of orals by the conservative wing. I vehemently disagree with the disposition -- McCain-Feingold was too narrow and failed to encompass the full extent of express advocacy in the 21st Century, whereas campaign expenditure for its distorting influence (that was the rationale for Austin, McConnell, and in part Wisconsin Right to Life) and the nominal primacy of the vote as the expression of political speech, should not be considered speech protected by the full force of the First Amendment -- but I agree the underlying conflict needed be addressed.


Such a ruling would still have been far narrower than simply saying that there's no way any amount of independent expenditures on political advocacy can ever result in corruption or the appearance of corruption, and it might have been able to swing into a unanimous opinion.
 
2012-06-18 12:24:49 PM  

andersoncouncil42: This is probably the biggest reason to make sure Obama has a 2nd term. The court needs to move back to the center.


To the center? His track record so far says otherwise. A lesbian, a Hispanic? Every pick has been a pandering to specific liberal groups. If Obamao gets his next term, who knows, we might actually get a Muslim on the bench and before you know it, Sharia Law will be forced on us all. Citizens United will be a footnote in history after Burquas United gets codified.
 
2012-06-18 12:25:06 PM  

timswar: Roberts must have finally woken up and realized his legacy will be the destruction of America's faith in the political process, and possibly the destruction of the process.

Hell of a thing to have hanging over your head.


I think he woke up and realized that his security team will be useless against a mob with flaming torches and pitchforks.

/Less optimistic
//But hey, it might end well
 
2012-06-18 12:29:59 PM  
*shaking* Citizens United... *lip smack* Citizens United made me sick.
 
2012-06-18 12:30:15 PM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: A lesbian


Troll-tasatic. Also, Elena Kagan never said that she is a lesbian.
 
2012-06-18 12:31:52 PM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: andersoncouncil42: This is probably the biggest reason to make sure Obama has a 2nd term. The court needs to move back to the center.

To the center? His track record so far says otherwise. A lesbian, a Hispanic? Every pick has been a pandering to specific liberal groups. If Obamao gets his next term, who knows, we might actually get a Muslim on the bench and before you know it, Sharia Law will be forced on us all. Citizens United will be a footnote in history after Burquas United gets codified.


Poe's Law Alert!
 
2012-06-18 12:33:39 PM  
Citizen's United was a straight-up reaction to Obama's grass roots fundraising. It scared the crap out of the fascists. Of course, they will dismantle it after they get to abuse it.
 
2012-06-18 12:37:12 PM  

andrewagill: Last time this came around on the gitar, we had some farkers saying that we should ban soft money entirely. Here are some questions for those who advocate that:

[i158.photobucket.com image 560x341]

Is this soft money? What if Google linked to a list of politicians that supported SOPA? I ask because they did.

Should the NRA or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence be required to give up their member list before they can air ads suggesting people do or do not own handguns?


I believe the offered solution was for organizations such as unions/NRA/NAACP to set up a second bank account for use with political ads. That way, you could donate to the organization itself and stay anonymous, or you could donate to the political ads run by the group un-anonymously. That way you could continue to support things like promoting firearm safety without disclosing your identity, but putting your money up for political use would mean you have to let your identity become public.
 
2012-06-18 12:38:12 PM  
Still crying about the loss of a fund raising advantage? Must be a day that ends in Y.
 
2012-06-18 12:41:47 PM  

RexTalionis: ginandbacon: TFA was a little weak on details. Does anyone have any info on what was meant by "revisit"?

Montana's Supreme Court, in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana, held that the Citizens United decision does not apply to Montana's state laws on campaign finance. So now that decision goes to the Supreme Court to determine whether to strike down the Montana Supreme Court's holdings, or to modify its earlier Citizen's United case.


This should be good.

Cue up all the Fark GED lawyers to tell us how this is or is not a violation of some constitutional principle they know nothing about.
 
2012-06-18 12:42:41 PM  

randomjsa: Still crying about the loss of a fund raising advantage? Must be a day that ends in Y.


www.lolcase.com
 
2012-06-18 12:43:39 PM  

randomjsa: Political elections should be decided by money.


I disagree. But I respect your honesty.
 
2012-06-18 12:45:46 PM  

randomjsa: Still crying about the loss of a fund raising advantage? Must be a day that ends in Y.


Yes, because when the little people actually get a say in government, your masters need to balance that out by being able to pump billions into the political process.

Do you get your KY in bulk to take their repeated reamings. How do you deal with the taste of dick in your mouth 24/7?
 
2012-06-18 12:46:24 PM  
I think it'll be reversed someday, but it might not be soon. The Supreme Court tends to be very slow on these types of things.
 
2012-06-18 12:46:59 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Cue up all the Fark GED lawyers to tell us how this is or is not a violation of some constitutional principle they know nothing about.


It's a pretty clear violation of the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-06-18 12:47:16 PM  

timswar: Roberts must have finally woken up and realized his legacy will be the destruction of America's faith in the political process, and possibly the destruction of the process.

Hell of a thing to have hanging over your head.


The well-documented phenomenon of Justices apparently "moving left" the longer they serve, has a lot to do , I think, with the fact that they are, over time, confronted with the real-world impact of their decisions, and They then tend to be drawn to the "left" in that they start placing greater weight to the impact thier decisions will have on the actual running of the country, rather than rigidly enforcing an ideology
 
2012-06-18 12:47:48 PM  

lennavan: MyRandomName: How does it favor them. The same ruling legitimized unions running ads.

Here's the deal. For the sake of argument, we'll pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. They aren't. They make up 3 of the top 10. But for the sake of argument, right now, we will pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. Deal?

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 509x359]

Okay. So both sides are equal. Both sides can spend equal amounts on elections because one side has unions and the other has corporations. Don't you find that kinda sad though? Corporations versus unions of people? I mean, it's corporations versus people, how funny is that?

Now let's return back to that agreed equal spending amount for the sake of argument. Corporations versus unions, equal in spending. R's versus D's, equal in political spending power. Seems fair, right? Now lets add two more pieces of information, the SCOTUS protected corporate political power in Citizens United, while the Republicans have attacked and destroyed Unions across the country a-la Wisconsin and will continue to do so. Things are not going to be so equal anymore, are they?

Great discussion we had. We started from a place where we assumed both sides were equal. Then we threw in some recent legislation and realized they were not both equal. I now return you to, things did not start equal in the first place.

But carry on thinking both sides are equal and everything's fair.


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

I think that is the wrong argument. It seems pretty reasonable to say a corporation, in the sense that we normally think of them, is a "union of people".

The problem here is that much of the Citizens United spending has nothing to do with "corporations" in the sense that we think of them. Most of the real harm comes from the Super PACs that exist solely to funnel anonymous money from the very rich to candidates. I feel like all the arguments concerning the "rights" of corporations are semi-tangential to the point. My real problem is letting Sheldon Adelson spend tens of millions trying to buy the presidency for his side. If Rmoney wins, the amount of corrupting influence Adelson can have will be staggering.
 
2012-06-18 12:52:04 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: andrewagill: Last time this came around on the gitar, we had some farkers saying that we should ban soft money entirely. Here are some questions for those who advocate that:

[i158.photobucket.com image 560x341]

Is this soft money? What if Google linked to a list of politicians that supported SOPA? I ask because they did.

Should the NRA or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence be required to give up their member list before they can air ads suggesting people do or do not own handguns?

I think a big part of the difference is that you KNOW the entity responsible for the message. Google. In the case of most Super PACs, yes, they have a name, but it's usually a meaningless name attached to a PO box in a rural post office, where you can only find the box if you go down into the basement where the power is off and it's in a broom closet marked "beware of the leopard". I don't mind if people spend money to get their opinions out there, but I wanna know who is doing it.


Heh. Yeah, I know. But really, do you want to ban the Sierra Club or the Boy Scouts from running ads that might touch on political subjects unless they post complete rosters of their members and donors?

I have some rules that I think seem sensible, but let me know what you think.

- Corporations may not give hard money contributions or soft money contributions to groups allowed to give money to candidates' campaigns
- Ads that focus on a politician or group of politicians must have full disclosure of donors. If you want an ad to mention only the sponsors or cosponsors of a particular bill, or only the supporters/opposers/uncommited of a bill, we do not need full disclosure. Corporations must identify the source of the message.
- Ads that use ``magic words'' like vote, elect, endorse, support, defeat, &c. must have full disclosure of donors.

Also, my pet peeve:

- No person or corporation may donate to a candidate running for an office outside of the district or state that they reside or are incorporated in. I doubt this will ever see any backers, though.
 
2012-06-18 12:54:44 PM  

balloot: The problem here is that much of the Citizens United spending has nothing to do with "corporations" in the sense that we think of them. Most of the real harm comes from the Super PACs that exist solely to funnel anonymous money from the very rich to candidates. I feel like all the arguments concerning the "rights" of corporations are semi-tangential to the point. My real problem is letting Sheldon Adelson spend tens of millions trying to buy the presidency for his side. If Rmoney wins, the amount of corrupting influence Adelson can have will be staggering.


Especially given how Adelson has basically said he wants Israel to nuke Iran and for there to be absolutely no space between America's and Israel's foreign policies.
 
2012-06-18 12:56:49 PM  

Serious Black: Such a ruling would still have been far narrower than simply saying that there's no way any amount of independent expenditures on political advocacy can ever result in corruption or the appearance of corruption, and it might have been able to swing into a unanimous opinion.


Well, the entirely insidious aspect when it comes to the anti-distortion rationale in Citizens United is that Kennedy argued in no way the anti-distortion rationale was poorly-founded or that the consequences of independent campaign expenditure aren't as dire as ruled in previous cases. Kennedy completely dodged applying strict scrutiny in this case, failing to address whether there is compelling government interest in regulating distortion or that finance restrictions are the least-restrictive methods, instead jumping to the conclusion that any finance restriction in this regard is an untenable restriction to the First Amendment.

What Kennedy didn't say is just as telling as what he did say. It's as if he concedes the argument, but concludes anyway by saying no consequences matter by mere merit of it being speech.

...and in doing so, actually juxtaposed independent campaign expenditure against practically every other speech trajectory, which universally focus on the consequences of speech as the basis for whether or not a form of speech is protected.
 
2012-06-18 01:01:39 PM  

CPennypacker: Kevin72: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves?

Corporations are not people. They are things.

Corporations are not people. They are legal entities. FTFY.

Corporations are property. Maybe they should have 3/5 speech.

OK now I feel bad


Given the relationship between people and corporations, maybe it should be 5/3rds.

/Room enough in this handbasket for both of us?
 
2012-06-18 01:04:40 PM  

lennavan: MyRandomName: How does it favor them. The same ruling legitimized unions running ads.

Here's the deal. For the sake of argument, we'll pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. They aren't. They make up 3 of the top 10. But for the sake of argument, right now, we will pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. Deal?

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 509x359]

Okay. So both sides are equal. Both sides can spend equal amounts on elections because one side has unions and the other has corporations. Don't you find that kinda sad though? Corporations versus unions of people? I mean, it's corporations versus people, how funny is that?

Now let's return back to that agreed equal spending amount for the sake of argument. Corporations versus unions, equal in spending. R's versus D's, equal in political spending power. Seems fair, right? Now lets add two more pieces of information, the SCOTUS protected corporate political power in Citizens United, while the Republicans have attacked and destroyed Unions across the country a-la Wisconsin and will continue to do so. Things are not going to be so equal anymore, are they?

Great discussion we had. We started from a place where we assumed both sides were equal. Then we threw in some recent legislation and realized they were not both equal. I now return you to, things did not start equal in the first place.

But carry on thinking both sides are equal and everything's fair.


I don't see you adding in the variable of union thuggery outside of polling places. I've never seen a supposedly-evil Koch brother doing that.
 
Displayed 50 of 184 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report