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 184
    More: Fail, Citizens United, supreme courts, Chief Justice John Roberts, McCain-Feingold, friend of the courts, Arlen Specter, corporate campaign, foreign corporation  
•       •       •

6655 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2012 at 10:57 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-06-18 09:51:27 AM
Yes. PLEASE revisit this decision. It's been a freaking nightmare.
 
2012-06-18 10:00:12 AM
So they're just finally realizing what the rest of us figured out the moment we heard about the decision?
Morons.
 
2012-06-18 10:01:46 AM
Gee, maybe you geniuses should have given it a bit more thought before the original ruling...
 
2012-06-18 10:03:06 AM
Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.
 
2012-06-18 10:03:16 AM
You mean dumping unlimited and untraceable money into elections might mean that some folks might try to buy officials?

I, for one, am shocked. Shocked and appalled. I mean, the next thing you know, we'll start looking at how charities are run. If Hannity's Support the Troops didn't organize his Freedom Concerts, how could he donate 8% of the profits to college funds for the children of vets? Yes, a good deal of that money goes to "administrative" costs, but some of it goes into scholarships, and that's money that wouldn't go to them at all, right? Next thing you know, folks will be looking at Zig Ziglar's events or other patriots like Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich or even Sarah's PAC...

Shameful, really to doubt that patriots would use the flag to scam Americans. They put the flag right on their events, so if you doubt them, you doubt the flag, you Commies...
 
2012-06-18 10:04:56 AM
It's a "landmark" is it. So must be the Jolly Roger.
 
2012-06-18 10:05:12 AM
Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...
 
2012-06-18 10:07:16 AM

hinten: Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.


personally, I think they'll double down on the stupidity and openly legalize foreign money in US politics. just put a big old 'for sale' sign on Congress.
 
2012-06-18 10:12:54 AM

hinten: Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.


Exactly. Who are we kidding?
 
2012-06-18 10:14:11 AM
TFA was a little weak on details. Does anyone have any info on what was meant by "revisit"?
 
2012-06-18 10:14:39 AM

keylock71: Gee, maybe you geniuses should have given it a bit more thought before the original ruling...


This wasn't just a ruling. They actually structured the case in such away as to allow them to make a ruling that wasn't even asked of them.
 
2012-06-18 10:15:50 AM

mrshowrules: keylock71: Gee, maybe you geniuses should have given it a bit more thought before the original ruling...

This wasn't just a ruling. They actually structured the case in such away as to allow them to make a ruling that wasn't even asked of them.


So what you're saying is that they actively went out of their way to make a decision which overturned precedent?

I'm stunned. Staggered. Stupefied.
 
2012-06-18 10:26:04 AM

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


such as?
 
2012-06-18 10:35:20 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 10:38:15 AM
In other news, Stephen Colbert has been voted the most influential Supreme Court Justice.
 
2012-06-18 10:52:41 AM

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.


Huh. Okay. I guess I will tune back in later then.
 
2012-06-18 10:59:26 AM

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


Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?
 
2012-06-18 11:00:57 AM

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


May I trouble you for an example?
 
2012-06-18 11:01:06 AM
Casting one vote? Government picture ID required

Buying 5 million votes? No problem, anonymity protected

What the fark?
 
2012-06-18 11:01:30 AM
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.
 
2012-06-18 11:01:33 AM

sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?


The media is run by liberal elites, they make money off even conservative Super PACS because they control all the channels!

Except FOX, of course.

USA number 1, forever.
 
2012-06-18 11:02:24 AM
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.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:37 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:39 AM
Please god. If this does get reversed, i'll take back -most- of what i said about the insidiousness of our species, the inevitability of societal freefall into oligarchal tyranny, and the destruction of all hope for the future.

Most, not all.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:44 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:48 AM
FTA: "Hasen predicts Citizens United will be overturned by a less conservative Supreme Court someday."

Which, thanks to Citizens United, we'll never get.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:52 AM
More likely is that SCOTUS will decide Article I, Clause 9, Section 8 does not apply to campaign contributions and independent expenditures, thus opening the doors for Queen Elizabeth, Angela Merkel, Yoshihiko Noda, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Hu Jintao to buy America's government wholesale.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:59 AM
I have to be honest, I really wonder about Roberts. He is a smart guy and to some degree a politician. My guess is that he realizes that his legacy will be tainted by this case, as most people believe SCOTUS came down on the wrong side on this one. I think CU will be overturned, or at the very least weakened. I also think there's a chance Roberts is going to soften a little bit on his conservatism as time goes on. I don't think he is a diehard partisan like Scalia or (by proxy) Thomas. Obviously only time will tell. So far I haven't seen a softened stance on much, although some are arguing he might keep ACA.
 
2012-06-18 11:04:20 AM
This is backwards, they're looking forward to the Montana case to solidify the ruling.

We were all warned about Roberts.
 
2012-06-18 11:04:49 AM
Hasen predicts Citizens United will be overturned by a less conservative Supreme Court someday.

I'm not so sure about that. The US government as we know it will have to survive that long.
 
2012-06-18 11:05:22 AM

sprawl15: sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?

The media is run by liberal elites, they make money off even conservative Super PACS because they control all the channels!

Except FOX, of course.

USA number 1, forever.


[notsureifserious.jpg], but the corporate media has indeed generally quite liked the part of Citizens United where they get paid a lot of money to run a lot of ads.
 
2012-06-18 11:05:39 AM

make me some tea: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

May I trouble you for an example?


May I troll you for a trolly troll?
 
2012-06-18 11:06:08 AM

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


Could you give us a "fer instance" please?
 
2012-06-18 11:06:45 AM

sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?


Of course not. There are no such things as union thugs. Wait. Which side are you on?
 
2012-06-18 11:07:54 AM

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


Seems to me that because of Citizens United, a New England liberal was able to crush all of his conservative challengers to win the Republican nomination this year. That same man is now using Chinese casino profits to help him win the election.
 
2012-06-18 11:07:56 AM
A few million dollars in the right places might influence their ruling, if you get what I'm saying.
 
2012-06-18 11:08:10 AM

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.


Possibly. Honestly, despite all the biatching about him, I still surprised that there hasn't been more attention to the blatant buying off of Justice Thomas.
 
2012-06-18 11:08:17 AM
Revisit it? shiat, we'll be lucky if they don't just decide to tie number of votes to dollars donated on a 1-1 basis.
 
2012-06-18 11:08:28 AM

Serious Black: More likely is that SCOTUS will decide Article I, Clause 9, Section 8 does not apply to campaign contributions and independent expenditures, thus opening the doors for Queen Elizabeth, Angela Merkel, Yoshihiko Noda, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Hu Jintao GEORGE SOROS to buy America's government wholesale.


Fixed that for you.
 
2012-06-18 11:08:35 AM

LarryDan43: sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?

Of course not. There are no such things as union thugs. Wait. Which side are you on?

Either that, or they mask it in "527 Groups"
Not to be confused with other giant donations that are somehow evil by comparison
 
2012-06-18 11:10:07 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Possibly. Honestly, despite all the biatching about him, I still surprised that there hasn't been more attention to the blatant buying off of Justice Thomas.


It's been brought up, but what can you do about it? It's almost impossible to discipline a justice.
 
2012-06-18 11:10:51 AM

LarryDan43: sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?

Of course not. There are no such things as union thugs. Wait. Which side are you on?


Let's post that graph of union money vs. corporate money, it is enlightening when folks make these sorts of comments.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:05 AM
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 other words, it would work perfectly in a law book, but in real life, it's a supremely shiatty decision that depends on the honesty and non-whorishness of american politicians. It reminds me of the scene in a Rodney Dangerfield film where he goes back to college, sits down in a business class, and then the teacher gets offended when Rodney asks why he doesn't include bribes and paying off the mob to avoid strikes in the expenses column.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:10 AM

CPennypacker: Casting one vote? Government picture ID required

Buying 5 million votes? No problem, anonymity protected

What the fark?


It's all about limiting the influence of the working class.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:49 AM

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


It means there's another truckload of cash backing up to Roberts' Cayman Islands bank account as we speak.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:55 AM

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 for state elections. 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.


An important distinction.
 
2012-06-18 11:13:47 AM
This is probably the biggest reason to make sure Obama has a 2nd term. The court needs to move back to the center.
 
2012-06-18 11:14:04 AM
At his confirmation hearing nearly seven years ago, Roberts compared judges to umpires: They don't make the rules, he said, they apply them.

Good analogy. An umpire can throw a game any way they want to. An umpire can watch a pitcher bean the batter with the ball and call it a strike. If Roberts wants to be a neutral arbiter maybe he and the rest of the court should stop going to political activities and becoming highly involved in politics and issues that you are likely to be called-upon to rule on.
 
2012-06-18 11:14:30 AM

mrshowrules: This wasn't just a ruling. They actually structured the case in such away as to allow them to make a ruling that wasn't even asked of them.


I sort of hope that they were bribed into doing what did they, because the idea that they did it of their own free will is just embarrassing for the rest of humanity. Farking mind-boggling.
 
2012-06-18 11:14:44 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Possibly. Honestly, despite all the biatching about him, I still surprised that there hasn't been more attention to the blatant buying off of Justice Thomas.


This. So much this.

If I had the opportunity to get Barack Obama in private away from mics, the one thing I'd ask him is why in the blue blazes has he not ordered a Justice Department investigation into not only Thomas', but Scalia's and Roberts', vested interests into health care and campaign finance-related cases.

Judges, even SCOTUS justices, are obligated by federal law to recuse themselves in the event of conflicting interests. If they are not recusing themselves, then they are not exercising the good behavior required of them to maintain their seat. As far as I'm concerned, investigate them and if they can be indicted, impeach the bastards. Then rail on the House when they invariably refuse to impeach for being chock-full of Republicans.
 
2012-06-18 11:14:48 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 11:14:58 AM

Dr Dreidel: 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 for state elections.


I thought that would be understood, since a state would have no powers to regulate federal elections.
 
2012-06-18 11:15:03 AM

sprawl15: In other news, Stephen Colbert has been voted the most influential Supreme Court Justice.


Took me a minute to get what you were saying but yeah, I can't imagine they see his antics without thinking, "man, that was stupid". Or, at the very least they are mad b/c they got caught. They probably didn't count on someone openly mocking the decision like Colbert has so masterfully done.
 
2012-06-18 11:15:30 AM

LarryDan43: Which side are you on?


Hah I wonder if you know what you did there
 
2012-06-18 11:15:59 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.


I've never heard of such law, and even if one existed I don't think it'd be considered a campaign finance law.
 
2012-06-18 11:16:24 AM

keylock71: Gee, maybe you geniuses should have given it a bit more thought before the original ruling...


Thought? Roberts isn't paid to think. He's paid to follow orders.
 
2012-06-18 11:17:20 AM

that bosnian sniper: Serious Black: More likely is that SCOTUS will decide Article I, Clause 9, Section 8 does not apply to campaign contributions and independent expenditures, thus opening the doors for Queen Elizabeth, Angela Merkel, Yoshihiko Noda, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Hu Jintao GEORGE SOROS to buy America's government wholesale.

Fixed that for you.


I was unaware that George Soros is a dignitary of a foreign government. My mistake. I definitely should have included him in the list.

That said, I do love how tons of reactionary regressives love to complain about George Soros for trying to buy the 2004 election when Sheldon Adelson has already spent at least 50% more than Soros did that year and has plans to spend, in his own words, a "limitless" amount of money to ensure Mitt Romney wins.
 
2012-06-18 11:18:18 AM

sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?


i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-18 11:18:42 AM

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 other words, it would work perfectly in a law book, but in real life, it's a supremely shiatty decision that depends on the honesty and non-whorishness of american politicians. It reminds me of the scene in a Rodney Dangerfield film where he goes back to college, sits down in a business class, and then the teacher gets offended when Rodney asks why he doesn't include bribes and paying off the mob to avoid strikes in the expenses column.


No, it's cool.

They addressed this and decided that independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." Just because they say so.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:07 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.


And worm farming to a life of wealth and ease.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:08 AM

IrateShadow: It's been brought up, but what can you do about it? It's almost impossible to discipline a justice.


Then scream about it in every interview, every day. Point out that a Justice ruled on a case in which the plaintiff paid his wife over a half million dollars for a no-show job. Make the American people know that not only is the Supreme Court for sale, how cheap it is and what politicians are protecting this.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:12 AM

jcooli09: Thought? Roberts isn't paid to think. He's paid to follow orders.


Blame Kennedy for that decision. He's the swing vote, and he wrote the opinion. The conservative wing's positions were already preordained.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:19 AM
Something about Priorities USA PAC running such nice ads on DC and Virginia TV stations.

Thank you Bill Maher, Stephen Spielberg. You're helping me decide how I'm going to vote in November, and it's not as you intended.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:28 AM

Weaver95: hinten: Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.

personally, I think they'll double down on the stupidity and openly legalize foreign money in US politics. just put a big old 'for sale' sign on Congress.


It's also possible that they'll determine that unions being able to contribute to campaigns causes undue influence and ban them from contributing to campaigns (corporations are still allowed to contribute though, since they are just about giving a collective voice to people and deserve to be treated as people themselves.)

I mean, might as well offer that option if we decide this is a troll move.
 
2012-06-18 11:20:14 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: ... what did they

they did ...

/FTFM.
//Five minutes later.
 
2012-06-18 11:20:24 AM
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.
 
2012-06-18 11:20:27 AM
This article is wishful thinking.

The USSC will not decide that the govt can ban political speech just because the source is incorporated. The FEC will not be given the authority to ban books, videos, or such. Suck it, Libs.
 
2012-06-18 11:20:57 AM

Satanic_Hamster: IrateShadow: It's been brought up, but what can you do about it? It's almost impossible to discipline a justice.

Then scream about it in every interview, every day. Point out that a Justice ruled on a case in which the plaintiff paid his wife over a half million dollars for a no-show job. Make the American people know that not only is the Supreme Court for sale, how cheap it is and what politicians are protecting this.


By and large, the American people don't care, as long as it benefits their team.
 
2012-06-18 11:21:47 AM

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


Corporations are not people. They are things.
 
2012-06-18 11:21:56 AM

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


A 2nd term is not enough. Scalia/Thomas are probably not retiring within the next 4 years. You'll need a real centrist president in 2016 plus a less radical/obstructionist congress.
 
2012-06-18 11:23:10 AM

RexTalionis: Dr Dreidel: 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 for state elections.

I thought that would be understood, since a state would have no powers to regulate federal elections.


MT might think they can legislate how Montanan businesses spend political cash or disclose donations (to both state and federal candidates/campaigns) for state tax purposes. I don't know - I just thought that needed specifying.

The CU ruling didn't touch state elections, right? So this time, SCOTUS could say that anyone can donate anything to any political campaign, rather than say "We may have overstepped this one a bit"? My feeling is that Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito will have a tough time convincing Kennedy that the First Amendment's protection of speech and lobbying rights extends to in-kind donations to state-level political campaigns.

The again, Kennedy joined the majority the first time...
 
2012-06-18 11:23:19 AM

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?
 
2012-06-18 11:23:22 AM

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.


Put down the pipe.
 
2012-06-18 11:24:38 AM
Stupidest ruling in American history. Truly farking idiotic. If the expenditure of money is a free speech, the commerce clause has no meaning. None. Might as well argue taxation itself is an abridgment of the 1st Amendment. Along with the FDA, Social Security, and prohibitions on outright bribery.
 
2012-06-18 11:24:42 AM
What, something wrong with foreigners funneling money into every single race in the country? Why you hate Amendment the First???
 
2012-06-18 11:24:53 AM

Jairzinho: 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.

I've never heard of such law, and even if one existed I don't think it'd be considered a campaign finance law.


I think Citizen's United ruling allows foreign nationals (even if improperly in the country) and the estates of dead people to donate, so there is that.
 
2012-06-18 11:27:03 AM
The sad part of the decision to me is that it has pretty much solidified the BS assertion that money = speech. It's not like money is a concept invented after the 1st amendment was written. If the founders had wanted to say that congress could not abridge the freedom to spend money on speech, they would have done so.
 
2012-06-18 11:27:08 AM

qorkfiend: By and large, the American people don't care, as long as it benefits their team.


But only what, 1/3 of the population would be ok with this? But the rest of the country, including the hordes of my fellow uninformed moderates, might be slapped into realization that they actually do need to go out and vote.
 
2012-06-18 11:28:32 AM

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

such as?


South Africa & the Iraq?
 
2012-06-18 11:28:48 AM

DarnoKonrad: Stupidest ruling in American history.


What, worse than Dred Scott v. Sandford? Plessy v. Ferguson? Korematsu v. US? Buck v. Bell?
 
2012-06-18 11:28:53 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: I think Citizen's United ruling allows foreign nationals (even if improperly in the country) and the estates of dead people to donate, so there is that.


www.pinkraygun.com

Zombies are people, my friend.
 
2012-06-18 11:28:53 AM
Not counting Bush v. Gore, Citizens United is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scot case. Have to include Bush v. Gore, because the Bush appointeess for the Supreme Court were so horny to legislate this from the bench.
 
2012-06-18 11:30:03 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Jairzinho: 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.

I've never heard of such law, and even if one existed I don't think it'd be considered a campaign finance law.

I think Citizen's United ruling allows foreign nationals (even if improperly in the country) and the estates of dead people to donate, so there is that.


Even if they couldn't it's not like you couldn't funnel/launder money to those interests. Especially when you consider the anonymity of SuperPACs.
 
2012-06-18 11:30:49 AM

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.


RACIST!!!one!
 
2012-06-18 11:30:50 AM
This book is a damning indictment of money's influence in American politics and it was published prior to Citizens United. Reading it recently, and knowing it only got (much) worse, was one of the more depressing things I've done lately.

tcfrank.com
 
2012-06-18 11:31:21 AM

Satanic_Hamster: qorkfiend: By and large, the American people don't care, as long as it benefits their team.

But only what, 1/3 of the population would be ok with this? But the rest of the country, including the hordes of my fellow uninformed moderates, might be slapped into realization that they actually do need to go out and vote.


If they haven't realized that by now, I don't think there's anything that can force it.
 
2012-06-18 11:31:23 AM

RexTalionis: DarnoKonrad: Stupidest ruling in American history.

What, worse than Dred Scott v. Sandford? Plessy v. Ferguson? Korematsu v. US? Buck v. Bell?



I stand by my assessment. We're only one year into the plutocratic shiatstorm.
 
2012-06-18 11:31:30 AM
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.
 
2012-06-18 11:33:45 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 11:34:20 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 11:34:46 AM

SilentStrider: So they're just finally realizing what the rest of us figured out the moment we heard about the decision?
Morons.



I bet Harriett Miers would have made a better decision.
 
2012-06-18 11:35:04 AM

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
 
2012-06-18 11:35:21 AM
As much as I want to believe someone in the CU majority has changed his mind, most of the talk of the SCOTUS' concern on this case has come from people on the other side of the aisle. Do I believe Sheldon Whitehouse, Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, really is privy to what the conservative wing of the SCOTUS is thinking? No. Same goes with Sandra Day O'Connor, who would have clearly been in the minority on CU.

With that being said, the biggest SCOTUS nomination in the last 50 years was likely Dubya replacing O'Connor with Alito. That one move enabled all these 5-4 conservative majority decisions that have been aggressively reshaping the law in the last few years.

For all the "both sides are the same" idiots, future SCOTUS appointments should be proof enough that election results make a difference in people's lives. If Kerry wins in 2004, there's no Robers/Rehnquist and the landscape totally changes as far as the makeup of the SCOTUS.
 
2012-06-18 11:36:20 AM

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

OK now I feel bad


No. You should be proud of that one. It was funny.
 
2012-06-18 11:38:09 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 11:38:09 AM

bdub77: Even if they couldn't it's not like you couldn't funnel/launder money to those interests. Especially when you consider the anonymity of SuperPACs.


Actually, foreign national money funneled through PAC's and used for the purpose of electioneering is completely legal. FEC regulations and campaign finance law only extends prohibition of foreign money in hard and soft money -- that is to say, contributions made directly to campaigns, or contributions made to parties.

Independent campaign expenditure via PAC's is totally okay. That is, so long as the foreign national uses an American shell corporation to channel the money.
 
2012-06-18 11:39:18 AM

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.


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.
 
2012-06-18 11:39:30 AM
Didn't part of the decision entrust Congress with making transparency laws?

Oops.
 
2012-06-18 11:40:56 AM

meat0918: Didn't part of the decision entrust Congress with making transparency laws?

Oops.


Yep... and you can see how quick they were to do so.
 
2012-06-18 11:42:12 AM

Weaver95: hinten: Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.

personally, I think they'll double down on the stupidity and openly legalize foreign money in US politics. just put a big old 'for sale' sign on Congress.


This, book it, done.
 
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.
 
2012-06-18 01:05:27 PM

balloot: 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".


I couldn't disagree more. A corporation is by no means a union of people. A corporation by no means represents the people who work there. A corporation is an entity in the pursuit of profits. Approximately how many people do you think WalMart represents. How many people does WalMart pursue their best interests and goals? 10? 15?

I get what you're trying to say. Corporations have jobs and that's good for people and yadda yadda. I just think you couldn't be more wrong. Corporations provide jobs not because they give a shiat about workers but because they have made a calculated decision that hiring that worker will increase their profits. They will fire that person as soon as that becomes more profitable. Corporations do not represent people, they represent profits. It is what it is.

balloot: 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.


I definitely agree. This is also my major beef with Citizens United but then imagine a Sheldon Adelson from let's say Germany being a huge donor. We'd have elected politicians making decisions in the best interest of foreign donors. Ridiculous. Above, I was making a point in a larger argument of how you can see Republicans systematically attacking the election process itself, in order to gain long term advantages. Citizens United, Voter ID Laws, attacking Unions, the fun and excitement in Florida and so on.

And here, whether or not Rmoney wins, Adelson will clearly already have a huge corrupting influence. Any current elected Republican will take a look at how much Adelson is willing to spend and take a look at their own campaign finances and put the two together. Think of how much influence the Koch brothers already have. It's ridiculous.
 
2012-06-18 01:06:58 PM
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter was the Republican chairman of that hearing. Now a Democrat, Specter says Roberts has made a complete U-turn.

Heh.
 
2012-06-18 01:12:04 PM

lennavan: Above, I was making a point in a larger argument of how you can see Republicans systematically attacking the election process itself, in order to gain long term advantages. Citizens United, Voter ID Laws, attacking Unions, the fun and excitement in Florida and so on.


Indeed. Hence my earlier point about the two-year window Citizens United opened in which a slash-and-burn political strategy on the state and national level designed solely to subvert the democratic process just happened to occur.

Enabled by a "grassroots" movement of conservative megabucks and uneducated but well-meaning citizens whipped up into a frenzy by media fear-mongering.

...which, also, happened to perfectly coincide with the redistricting years. Funny, that.
 
2012-06-18 01:16:16 PM

DarnoKonrad: RexTalionis: DarnoKonrad: Stupidest ruling in American history.

What, worse than Dred Scott v. Sandford? Plessy v. Ferguson? Korematsu v. US? Buck v. Bell?

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


jaymckinnon.com

*strokes chin...ponders appropriate "favorites" color for DarnoKonrad*
 
2012-06-18 01:17:35 PM

snowshovel: 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.


Because that variable is negligible in comparison to hundreds of millions of dollars in Koch brother money. I don't know many people who think the Koch brothers are personally evil. I don't hate the players, I hate the game. I don't hate that they do influence politics with their money, it's legal. No beef with law abiding citizens. I hate that it's legal.
 
2012-06-18 01:20:39 PM

that bosnian sniper: 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.


Yeah, I noticed that too in his opinion. Pretty goddamn ludicrous. It flies in the face of evidence that huge supermajorities of Americans believe the system is even more corrupt today because of that ruling and that significant minorities actually plan to not vote because they feel that ruling marginalized their opinion so much as to render it irrelevant.
 
2012-06-18 01:26:54 PM

RexTalionis: Dr Dreidel: 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 for state elections.

I thought that would be understood, since a state would have no powers to regulate federal elections.


Eh, sort of...

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof

Given the way the electoral college subsequently works, it seems apparent that most of the burden, responsibility, and authority for conducting elections falls to the states, with a few specific enumerated exceptions.
 
2012-06-18 01:27:27 PM

that bosnian sniper: 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.


Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater can't be protected speech, because of the possible negative consequences, yet subverting the democratic process with untraceable cash is somehow a sacred right.
 
2012-06-18 01:30:37 PM

snowshovel: 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.


It's so pervasive that I've had to see the same f'ing picture of it for 3 years straight now, because I'm sure there are millions of others... why I practically body surfed amongst the black panthers, commies, and Iron Workers to get to my polling station.

If you're serious about not having voter intimidation at polling places, how about not having so many polling places inside of churches?
 
2012-06-18 01:34:40 PM

Serious Black: Yeah, I noticed that too in his opinion. Pretty goddamn ludicrous. It flies in the face of evidence that huge supermajorities of Americans believe the system is even more corrupt today because of that ruling and that significant minorities actually plan to not vote because they feel that ruling marginalized their opinion so much as to render it irrelevant.


Indeed, and that's what made Roberts' own concurrence all the more disgusting. Generally, when overturning their own precedents the Supreme Court tends to revisit those previous rulings and justify the change of opinion, whether it be how previous rulings or their rationales were erroneous, how circumstances have changed to provide a new legal landscape, or in any number of other ways. Kennedy made no such attempt in Citizens United, notably in the question of the anti-distortion rationale which had guided two decades' worth of precedent in that case.

And as I said, in doing so made independent campaign expenditure the highest-protected level of speech in American history, regardless of the type of speech or the speaker.

In light of that, Roberts' concurrence just rang a hollow attempt to justify a radical decision from the standpoint of people who claim to have respect for stare decisis.
 
2012-06-18 01:42:25 PM
And why not? Their guy, Romney, now has a money advantage, so why would they let the Dems benefit next time?
 
2012-06-18 01:50:44 PM

mainsail: And why not? Their guy, Romney, now has a money advantage, so why would they let the Dems benefit next time?


...wanna lay money that if the Republicans flip the Senate (which, with 33 seats up for election, 21 of which being Democrats, 2 of which being Independents who caucus with dems, and only10 of which being Republicans, is a possible consequence) the very first thing they do is rewrite filibuster and cloture rules?
 
2012-06-18 02:21:45 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.


Or the cheaper option, which is have Obama come out publicly in support of CU. Conservatives always disavow their own ideas when Obama supports them.
 
2012-06-18 02:26:53 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.


1/10
You lose one for spelling Burquas properly.
 
2012-06-18 03:04:58 PM

astroman05: The sad part of the decision to me is that it has pretty much solidified the BS assertion that money = speech. It's not like money is a concept invented after the 1st amendment was written. If the founders had wanted to say that congress could not abridge the freedom to spend money on speech, they would have done so.


Or maybe they could have just said something about not abridging the freedom of the press...that might've worked.
 
2012-06-18 03:39:01 PM

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


Agreed, if by"crickets" you mean the sound of ten million pudgy effeminate conservatives being raped by post-hole augurs. A weird sound indeed, made up of agonized screaming, the clatter of small bore internal combustion engines, and quite a lot of ecstatic moaning.

I'm trying to be fair here. Not all conservatives are closeted gays.

Some are out.
 
2012-06-18 03:46:24 PM

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

Agreed, if by"crickets" you mean the sound of ten million pudgy effeminate conservatives being raped by post-hole augurs. A weird sound indeed, made up of agonized screaming, the clatter of small bore internal combustion engines, and quite a lot of ecstatic moaning.

I'm trying to be fair here. Not all conservatives are closeted gays.

Some are out.


funny'd
 
2012-06-18 03:46:56 PM

Job Creator: 1/10
You lose one for spelling Burquas properly.



The common English spelling isn't "Burquas"
 
2012-06-18 03:50:37 PM

sprawl15: 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.


You mean the Second Commandment?
 
2012-06-18 04:28:26 PM

cubic_spleen: 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.

RACIST!!!one!


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


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

/Room enough in this handbasket for both of us?


Actually, corporations, unions, trusts, communities, etc. are all, and always have been, Aggregate Persons.

Aggregate Persons are a legal fiction. Aggregate Personhood enables a legal entity (ostensibly) composed of multiple Natural Persons to act as the equivalent of a single Natural Person in legal matters such as contract law, civil tort court cases (lawsuits), property ownership, etc.

Aggregate Persons were never meant to be considered Persons in other senses such as possessing the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Natural Personhood.
 
2012-06-18 04:55:30 PM

COMALite J: cubic_spleen: 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.

RACIST!!!one!

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

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

/Room enough in this handbasket for both of us?

Actually, corporations, unions, trusts, communities, etc. are all, and always have been, Aggregate Persons.

Aggregate Persons are a legal fiction. Aggregate Personhood enables a legal entity (ostensibly) composed of multiple Natural Persons to act as the equivalent of a single Natural Person in legal matters such as contract law, civil tort court cases (lawsuits), property ownership, etc.

Aggregate Persons were never meant to be considered Persons in other senses such as possessing the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Natural Personhood.


I would argue that a trust is not an aggregation of persons in this context because the trustee himself is a natural person..he just has a duty to act in ways which protect the beneficiaries of the trust. Nonetheless, the individuals comprising said aggregation don't lose some of the inherent and inalienable rights afforded to them by the constitution merely because they have assembled their interests in the form of a legal fiction. Disallowing Corporations et. al to enjoy certain rights such as due process or freedom of the press would be an absurd result. Why would anyone use a corporation to purchase property if the government could take it from them without just compensation?
 
2012-06-18 05:16:33 PM

Weaver95: hinten: Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.

personally, I think they'll double down on the stupidity and openly legalize foreign money in US politics. just put a big old 'for sale' sign on Congress.


that sign has always been there. what CU did was raise the price.
 
2012-06-18 05:19:45 PM
I guess when like 5 guys control the entire message of the presidential election it looks pretty shiatty, you can't pretend people have a voice when it is this blatant that they don't.
 
2012-06-18 05:39:50 PM
The original Citizens United ruling was based on the un-truth that there is no pressing government need to restrict donations in campaigns that is so important as to out-weigh the interest in unlimited free speech ($$). However Montana's state court disagreed when interpreting its own state's campaign finance laws because it has a very well documented and proven history of the extreme damage caused by corporate spending in state elections (copper kings buying elections right and left). So it refused to strike down its own laws as inconsistent with Citizens United.

You want corruption? We'll SHOW you corruption!
 
2012-06-18 08:39:17 PM
Subby +1 for you.

That isn't at all what the article said but you managed to get it green lit and got so many bites here.

Now that is how it is done!
 
2012-06-18 10:10:14 PM

hubiestubert: You mean dumping unlimited and untraceable money into elections might mean that some folks might try to buy officials?

I, for one, am shocked. Shocked and appalled. I mean, the next thing you know, we'll start looking at how charities are run. If Hannity's Support the Troops didn't organize his Freedom Concerts, how could he donate 8% of the profits to college funds for the children of vets? Yes, a good deal of that money goes to "administrative" costs, but some of it goes into scholarships, and that's money that wouldn't go to them at all, right? Next thing you know, folks will be looking at Zig Ziglar's events or other patriots like Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich or even Sarah's PAC...

Shameful, really to doubt that patriots would use the flag to scam Americans. They put the flag right on their events, so if you doubt them, you doubt the flag, you Commies...


Seriously, you need to create a newsletter that I can send to Fox News Republicans. I really mean it, they need to be educated and they won't listen to "teh libz." Now, try not to use so many words, and don't use facts, reason, logic, statistics, OR mathematics in making your argument, and perhaps you could reach them...
 
2012-06-18 10:11:00 PM
Ok, I might be coming across as absolutely insane here, but I think we should have ZERO money in politics: Every campaign should be publicly financed.

It's awfully hard to make shady back-alley deals when no one is handing you huge bags of cash with the expectation that you'll make laws to give them even more cash.
 
2012-06-18 10:22:43 PM

RexTalionis: 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.


To be fair, this is the 21st century. We should expect more from our leaders, and should remember just how f*cked up things used to be. As it is, this ruling implies free speech is equivalent to money. What amendment is next? Will the Supreme Court suggest that one could purchase their freedom for a large sum? Or one could buy votes directly? If one pays enough money, COULD they buy a slave in the future?
 
2012-06-18 10:26:41 PM

MyRandomName: 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.


Remember, tens of millions of lower and middle class people should be equivalent to ten or twenty billionaires.
 
2012-06-18 10:42:35 PM

zarberg: Ok, I might be coming across as absolutely insane here, but I think we should have ZERO money in politics: Every campaign should be publicly financed.


If by insane you mean obvious, banal, suggested a million times before, then yes. Insane. But that would hijack wealth's current method of controlling the chattel. Then they'd have to spend 4% more finding a new model for society.
 
2012-06-18 11:36:02 PM

MyRandomName: 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.


I love when you pretend Unions and big corporations are equal at a time when union membership is near an all time low and corporate profits are at an all time high. Logical inconsistency is a huge turn on, keep it up.
 
2012-06-19 12:27:25 AM

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 other words, it would work perfectly in a law book, but in real life, it's a supremely shiatty decision that depends on the honesty and non-whorishness of american politicians. It reminds me of the scene in a Rodney Dangerfield film where he goes back to college, sits down in a business class, and then the teacher gets offended when Rodney asks why he doesn't include bribes and paying off the mob to avoid strikes in the expenses column.


One thing to keep in mind is that this is the first court ever that does not have a single justice who ever ran for office on it. None of them have ever been directly involved in campaigning, and didn't realize exactly how corrupting that amount of money would be in a real world election.

That is, of course, the charitable explanation.
 
2012-06-19 01:15:32 AM
Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed
to use the same process to defend themselves?



i282.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-20 02:29:43 PM

CPennypacker: Casting one vote? Government picture ID required

Buying 5 million votes? No problem, anonymity protected

What the fark?


First you get the money, then you get the power.
i1244.photobucket.com

Meet your current owners, America.
 
Displayed 184 of 184 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report