vygramul: In fact, in the Citizens United decision, they decided 8-1 that you do NOT have a right to anonymous speech.

No, they just ruled the PAC that ran the ad has to disclose itself.

There's diddly squat about donors to those PAC's, which is why 501(c)(4)'s blossomed out of nowhere for 2010 and 2012, when in prior elections it was 501(c)(3)'s and 527's using a loophole in the law to run issue ads opposed to express advocacy ads.

that bosnian sniper: vygramul: In fact, in the Citizens United decision, they decided 8-1 that you do NOT have a right to anonymous speech.

No, they just ruled the PAC that ran the ad has to disclose itself.

There's diddly squat about donors to those PAC's, which is why 501(c)(4)'s blossomed out of nowhere for 2010 and 2012, when in prior elections it was 501(c)(3)'s and 527's using a loophole in the law to run issue ads opposed to express advocacy ads.

"That statement must identify the person making the expenditure, the amount of the expenditure, the election to which the communication was directed, and the names of certain contributors. §434(f)(2)."

and

"Last, Citizens United argues that disclosure requirements can chill donations to an organization by exposing donors to retaliation. Some amici point to recent events in which donors to certain causes were blacklisted, threatened, or otherwise targeted for retaliation. See Brief for Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae 13-16; Brief for Alliance Defense Fund as Amicus Curiae 16-22. In McConnell , the Court recognized that §201 would be unconstitutional as applied to an organization if there were a reasonable probability that the group's members would face threats, harassment, or reprisals if their names were disclosed. 540 U. S., at 198. The examples cited by amici are cause for concern. Citizens United, however, has offered no evidence that its members may face similar threats or reprisals. To the contrary, Citizens United has been disclosing its donors for years and has identified no instance of harassment or retaliation.

Shareholder objections raised through the procedures of corporate democracy, see Bellotti , supra , at 794, and n. 34, can be more effective today because modern technology makes disclosures rapid and informative. A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today. It must be noted, furthermore, that many of Congress' findings in passing BCRA were premised on a system without adequate disclosure. See McConnell , 540 U. S., at 128 ("[T]he public may not have been fully informed about the sponsorship of so-called issue ads"); id. , at 196-197 (quoting McConnell I , 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 237). With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are " 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests." 540 U. S., at 259 (opinion of Scalia , J.); see MCFL , supra , at 261. The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

So they said that even donors to organizations are not protected.

In other words, they found you don't have a right to anonymity.

Esc7: Nilatir: You can have "Anonymous Speech" and "Money as Speech"...pick one.

It's too dangerous to have both, as it will completely tilt government policy towards the benefit of corporations and the extreme upper-class.

I say kill the concept that Money is Speech. Money is money. It buys you airtime and video production companies. But it also buys you hamburgers, fast cars, and medical insurance. That doesn't make money any of those things.

The problem is that, if you can regulate how money is spent, you can stifle speech. Gotta have money to print pamphlets, crayons and sticks and posterboard, or that domain for that political blog. People have to be allowed to spend money to facilitate their speech, and the simplest construct is that money=speech, just like, for a host of reasons, we really, really want corporations=people. It's just that a couple of glaring exceptions have turned useful analogies into literal facts that are threatening to overwhelm democracy.

And that's no hyperbole. If one feels money isn't a big deal in elections, one shouldn't care about allowing unlimited amounts to be spent. But if one feels it makes a serious difference, then that means that one has to admit that the wealthy have more influence over our election outcomes than the upper-middle-class. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy. And while some will complain about the ability to educate and inform to sway opinion, the truth is that the majority of ads are just negative distortions and are in no way educating or informing the voter.

vygramul: Esc7: Nilatir: You can have "Anonymous Speech" and "Money as Speech"...pick one.

It's too dangerous to have both, as it will completely tilt government policy towards the benefit of corporations and the extreme upper-class.

I say kill the concept that Money is Speech. Money is money. It buys you airtime and video production companies. But it also buys you hamburgers, fast cars, and medical insurance. That doesn't make money any of those things.

The problem is that, if you can regulate how money is spent, you can stifle speech. Gotta have money to print pamphlets, crayons and sticks and posterboard, or that domain for that political blog. People have to be allowed to spend money to facilitate their speech, and the simplest construct is that money=speech, just like, for a host of reasons, we really, really want corporations=people. It's just that a couple of glaring exceptions have turned useful analogies into literal facts that are threatening to overwhelm democracy.

And that's no hyperbole. If one feels money isn't a big deal in elections, one shouldn't care about allowing unlimited amounts to be spent. But if one feels it makes a serious difference, then that means that one has to admit that the wealthy have more influence over our election outcomes than the upper-middle-class. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy. And while some will complain about the ability to educate and inform to sway opinion, the truth is that the majority of ads are just negative distortions and are in no way educating or informing the voter.

We already regulate how money is spent. The laws criminalizing marijuana cultivation are EXPRESSLY JUSTIFIED using the Commerce Clause. I'm also not allowed to pay for sex (unless, apparently, I film it for distribution). I also must send a portion of it to various governments, either when I draw a salary or when I myself pay for things - this would be "compelled speech", by your logic.

What is protected is CONTENT. I am allowed to use every ounce of my strength to build and operate any means of communication (so long as I follow environmental law, don't use any child labor, etc), and I am allowed to use any means of communication I own to disseminate my message. The content of that message - SPEECH - is protected. The means and methods of disseminating that content - money, nuclear-powered printing presses, the volume or time of day at which your message is broadcast - are subject to regulation.

Do you see the difference?

Dr Dreidel: We already regulate how money is spent. The laws criminalizing marijuana cultivation are EXPRESSLY JUSTIFIED using the Commerce Clause. I'm also not allowed to pay for sex (unless, apparently, I film it for distribution). I also must send a portion of it to various governments, either when I draw a salary or when I myself pay for things - this would be "compelled speech", by your logic.

What is protected is CONTENT. I am allowed to use every ounce of my strength to build and operate any means of communication (so long as I follow environmental law, don't use any child labor, etc), and I am allowed to use any means of communication I own to disseminate my message. The content of that message - SPEECH - is protected. The means and methods of disseminating that content - money, nuclear-powered printing presses, the volume or time of day at which your message is broadcast - are subject to regulation.

Do you see the difference?

You're not following the problem here... if you can control the vectors available for speech, you can effectively prohibit speech. If the government makes it illegal to use a radio, or TV, or pamphlets, that you can SAY anything you want is pretty worthless. The only way that your speech is free is if you can disseminate it, and that - by the very nature of society - requires money. That's why money is protected. Franklin can't print Poor Richard's Almanac without spending some cash on ink and a press. The mechanism needs protection, too.

vygramul: Quotes from Citizens United.

You're misapplying that part of the opinion.

Citizens United's claim was the commercials for its documentary did not fall under Section 201's disclosure requirements as they were not electioneering communications, and that if it did then it would chill speech -- and for that reason it would violate the First Amendment. The Court disposed of this by deciding the commercials in question were electioneering communications, and did fall under 201's disclosure requirements, that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate disclosure has a chilling effect on political speech, and as a result its First Amendment claim was not meritorious. To wit, Kennedy left the door open for further challenge if evidence for a chilling effect by disclosure could be presented -- of course, Buckley and McConnell both left this door open as well, as the opinion demonstrates (page 52, if I'm not mistaken).

That's not equivalent to a positive statement of no-right to anonymity. Rather, Kennedy dodged the question entirely by finding Citizens United's claims not meritorious. Case in point, 501(c)(4)'s and heightened interest in them for the 2012 election which are not required to disclose donors. This is in contrast to 501(c)(3)'s and 527's, which were popular prior to Citizens United due to their tax-deductible status despite disclosure requirements. Had Citizens United found no-right to anonymity, 501(c)(4)'s would be required to disclose just as 501(c)(3)'s and 527's pursuant to the BCRA as well.

vygramul: The only way that your speech is free is if you can disseminate it, and that - by the very nature of society - requires money.

False. Except in a "it's turtles all the way down" way.

Yes, the prime mover of expression is "money" in that it takes money to buy the food that produces the chemical energy the body needs to flex muscles to produce sound, etc. Starting from the "average person" square (i.e. not requiring multimillion-dollar ad buys or huge donations to campaigns), I can think of two ways to get free (no cost) free speech:
1. You can get some paper and crayons (I've seen people get them for free), and make signs. You'll need to pull a protest permit if you're planning on having more than...3? people, but the CONTENT of your sign is protected speech. Although...it's not if you're a high school student, it's offensive, you're in the Armed Forces, you make threats against the President/Congress...
2. You can stand on a streetcorner and speak your mind.

You have a protected right to free speech and expression. You don't have the right to have that expression heard - as in, I can't sue the government to force people to attend my lectures - but the government also can't prohibit people from hearing it.

The government would have a hell of a time making TV or radio illegal, as I'm not sure where (other than the catch-all 10th Amendment) that authority would flow from.

Money and speech are related, in the same way money and food are. Once you start equating "money" with "what I spend money on", you've opened a can of potentially awkward worms. Money is VALUE you trade for GOODS and SERVICES. Money is not a good or service unto itself.

knobmaker: I don't understand the problem. Some of our founders did terrible things and deserve condemnation. How does that excuse the terrible things corporations are doing now?

If you believe that Paine anonymously publishing "common sense" is a "terrible thing" deserving of condemnation, then there is no problem, you condemn all anonymous political speech. That's fine.

If, like me, you think that publishing Common Sense anonymously was not wrong, but that large anonymous donations to produce political advertising is wrong, you need a logical framework that makes those positions consistent, where on the face of it they seem like similar actions. That's all I'm saying.

knobmaker: Why do you think this is not an important difference? If I punch you in the nose, I have assaulted you. If I throw acid in your face, I have assaulted you. Only a difference in scale, right?

And they are both unequivocally wrong, if I wanted to claim that one was totally okay, I'd have to find a reason, saying "punching you in the face does less damage" doesn't mean it's not wrong.

These differences in scale are important legal distinctions, and always have been.

For sentencing, true, but not for whether it's fundamentally acceptable or not. Also, I'm not making a legal argument, donating unlimited funds anonymously is completely legal right now, no one is arguing otherwise. The question is whether that legality is right or wrong, which is a moral philosophical argument.

that bosnian sniper: vygramul: Quotes from Citizens United.

You're misapplying that part of the opinion.

Citizens United's claim was the commercials for its documentary did not fall under Section 201's disclosure requirements as they were not electioneering communications, and that if it did then it would chill speech -- and for that reason it would violate the First Amendment. The Court disposed of this by deciding the commercials in question were electioneering communications, and did fall under 201's disclosure requirements, that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate disclosure has a chilling effect on political speech, and as a result its First Amendment claim was not meritorious. To wit, Kennedy left the door open for further challenge if evidence for a chilling effect by disclosure could be presented -- of course, Buckley and McConnell both left this door open as well, as the opinion demonstrates (page 52, if I'm not mistaken).

That's not equivalent to a positive statement of no-right to anonymity. Rather, Kennedy dodged the question entirely by finding Citizens United's claims not meritorious. Case in point, 501(c)(4)'s and heightened interest in them for the 2012 election which are not required to disclose donors. This is in contrast to 501(c)(3)'s and 527's, which were popular prior to Citizens United due to their tax-deductible status despite disclosure requirements. Had Citizens United found no-right to anonymity, 501(c)(4)'s would be required to disclose just as 501(c)(3)'s and 527's pursuant to the BCRA as well.

Yabut if you read Thomas' dissent, he complains that Kennedy's ruling means exactly what I said. In addition, you're mistaken about 501c4s would have to disclose. For them to be required, the law has to require it, which it didn't. In the wake of CU, congress tried to pass the law doing just that - the Disclose Act. It didn't fail because because people complained there was a right to anonymity and the law would be a violation of the recent Supreme Court case. In fact, it was passed precisely because Part IV of the decision said you didn't have that right.

The Name: vygramul: You're not following the problem here... if you can control the vectors available for speech, you can effectively prohibit speech. If the government makes it illegal to use a radio, or TV, or pamphlets, that you can SAY anything you want is pretty worthless. The only way that your speech is free is if you can disseminate it, and that - by the very nature of society - requires money. That's why money is protected. Franklin can't print Poor Richard's Almanac without spending some cash on ink and a press. The mechanism needs protection, too.

Well, in the words of (I believe) Justice Kagan, "that would be a stupid law," because it would make the government unable to disseminate whatever it wants to say as well.

The government does things that are illegal for people all the time. Like owning nukes. The government can say, "YOU can't spend money on paper - but WE can."

that bosnian sniper: That's not equivalent to a positive statement of no-right to anonymity. Rather, Kennedy dodged the question entirely by finding Citizens United's claims not meritorious. Case in point, 501(c)(4)'s and heightened interest in them for the 2012 election which are not required to disclose donors. This is in contrast to 501(c)(3)'s and 527's, which were popular prior to Citizens United due to their tax-deductible status despite disclosure requirements. Had Citizens United found no-right to anonymity, 501(c)(4)'s would be required to disclose just as 501(c)(3)'s and 527's pursuant to the BCRA as well.

...not to mention the fact that super PAC's can (and do) accept donations from 501(c)(4)'s anyways, which completely subverts anything under the purview of BCRA or Citizens United from the onset. Or that, as far as I know, the FEC doesn't prohibit a 527 or its donating 501(c)(4) from being owned and operated by the same individual or committee.

Dr Dreidel: vygramul: The only way that your speech is free is if you can disseminate it, and that - by the very nature of society - requires money.

False. Except in a "it's turtles all the way down" way.

Yes, the prime mover of expression is "money" in that it takes money to buy the food that produces the chemical energy the body needs to flex muscles to produce sound, etc. Starting from the "average person" square (i.e. not requiring multimillion-dollar ad buys or huge donations to campaigns), I can think of two ways to get free (no cost) free speech:
1. You can get some paper and crayons (I've seen people get them for free), and make signs. You'll need to pull a protest permit if you're planning on having more than...3? people, but the CONTENT of your sign is protected speech. Although...it's not if you're a high school student, it's offensive, you're in the Armed Forces, you make threats against the President/Congress...
2. You can stand on a streetcorner and speak your mind.

You have a protected right to free speech and expression. You don't have the right to have that expression heard - as in, I can't sue the government to force people to attend my lectures - but the government also can't prohibit people from hearing it.

The government would have a hell of a time making TV or radio illegal, as I'm not sure where (other than the catch-all 10th Amendment) that authority would flow from.

Money and speech are related, in the same way money and food are. Once you start equating "money" with "what I spend money on", you've opened a can of potentially awkward worms. Money is VALUE you trade for GOODS and SERVICES. Money is not a good or service unto itself.

Except, as the Supreme Court held in Buckley/Valeo, limiting the use of money for political purposes constitutes a restriction on communication violative of the First Amendment, since virtually all meaningful political communications in the modern setting involve the expenditure of money.

Read Buckley v Valeo for more on this.

vygramul: Yabut if you read Thomas' dissent...

Yabut nothing. That's Thomas, that's a dissent (which means it has zero legal weight), and Thomas' dissent even if it had any bearing on the opinion or its legal weight whatsoever was a raging pile of counterfactual horseshiat in the first place. Hell, he argued Citizens United had provided evidence there was a chilling effect, and that regardless of the amount of evidence Citizens United had or had not presented the fact it could produce a chilling effect alone rendered Section 201 unconstitutional.

Kennedy's ruling still punted on the question of the constitutionality of section 201's disclosure requirement by finding Citizens United's claims lacked standing. And, I misspoke earlier, I meant to say "despite the BCRA" instead of "pursuant to the BCRA" -- my fault, was trying to get my post out fast and reworded the last bit, didn't proofread myself well and inadvertently changed the meaning of that entire sentence.

The DISCLOSE Act didn't pass, by the way -- Senate Republicans killed it by threatening to filibuster, and the cloture vote failed .

vygramul: Dr Dreidel: Money and speech are related, in the same way money and food are. Once you start equating "money" with "what I spend money on", you've opened a can of potentially awkward worms. Money is VALUE you trade for GOODS and SERVICES. Money is not a good or service unto itself.

Except, as the Supreme Court held in Buckley/Valeo, limiting the use of money for political purposes constitutes a restriction on communication violative of the First Amendment, since virtually all meaningful political communications in the modern setting involve the expenditure of money.

Read Buckley v Valeo for more on this.

From Wikipedia (kep parts bolded): "In a lengthy per curiam decision issued on January 30, 1976, the Court sustained the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme. However, the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from personal funds were struck down."

So it appears that the Court agreed that money and speech are not equivalent. Amdt 1 doesn't allow the government to limit speech longer than 30 minutes/5,000 words/5MB, so why would it be legal for it to limit "speech" above $2,300?

// not a lawyer
// don't have time to read full Court opinions

that bosnian sniper: vygramul: Yabut if you read Thomas' dissent...

Yabut nothing. That's Thomas, that's a dissent (which means it has zero legal weight), and Thomas' dissent even if it had any bearing on the opinion or its legal weight whatsoever was a raging pile of counterfactual horseshiat in the first place. Hell, he argued Citizens United had provided evidence there was a chilling effect, and that regardless of the amount of evidence Citizens United had or had not presented the fact it could produce a chilling effect alone rendered Section 201 unconstitutional.

Kennedy's ruling still punted on the question of the constitutionality of section 201's disclosure requirement by finding Citizens United's claims lacked standing. And, I misspoke earlier, I meant to say "despite the BCRA" instead of "pursuant to the BCRA" -- my fault, was trying to get my post out fast and reworded the last bit, didn't proofread myself well and inadvertently changed the meaning of that entire sentence.

The DISCLOSE Act didn't pass, by the way -- Senate Republicans killed it by threatening to filibuster, and the cloture vote failed .

Thomas' dissent matters because his dissent is based on what part IV said. If you regularly read Supreme Court decisions, the opinions frequently refer to the dissent in the case they're ruling on. If Thomas' dissent was irrelevant, Kennedy would have said, "and I have no idea what Thomas is dissenting to because it doesn't make sense - this ruling doesn't say that."

Secondly, you miss the point of the Disclose. It grew directly out of part IV's ruling that anonymity isn't a right. Whether it passed is irrelevant.

Dr Dreidel: vygramul: Dr Dreidel: Money and speech are related, in the same way money and food are. Once you start equating "money" with "what I spend money on", you've opened a can of potentially awkward worms. Money is VALUE you trade for GOODS and SERVICES. Money is not a good or service unto itself.

Except, as the Supreme Court held in Buckley/Valeo, limiting the use of money for political purposes constitutes a restriction on communication violative of the First Amendment, since virtually all meaningful political communications in the modern setting involve the expenditure of money.

Read Buckley v Valeo for more on this.

From Wikipedia (kep parts bolded): "In a lengthy per curiam decision issued on January 30, 1976, the Court sustained the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme. However, the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from personal funds were struck down."

So it appears that the Court agreed that money and speech are not equivalent. Amdt 1 doesn't allow the government to limit speech longer than 30 minutes/5,000 words/5MB, so why would it be legal for it to limit "speech" above $2,300?

// not a lawyer
// don't have time to read full Court opinions

Read the full opinion. Buckley v Valeo is THE court case that said money=speech to BEGIN with.

vygramul: Dr Dreidel: vygramul: Dr Dreidel: Money and speech are related, in the same way money and food are. Once you start equating "money" with "what I spend money on", you've opened a can of potentially awkward worms. Money is VALUE you trade for GOODS and SERVICES. Money is not a good or service unto itself.

Except, as the Supreme Court held in Buckley/Valeo, limiting the use of money for political purposes constitutes a restriction on communication violative of the First Amendment, since virtually all meaningful political communications in the modern setting involve the expenditure of money.

Read Buckley v Valeo for more on this.

From Wikipedia (kep parts bolded): "In a lengthy per curiam decision issued on January 30, 1976, the Court sustained the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme. However, the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from personal funds were struck down."

So it appears that the Court agreed that money and speech are not equivalent. Amdt 1 doesn't allow the government to limit speech longer than 30 minutes/5,000 words/5MB, so why would it be legal for it to limit "speech" above $2,300?

// not a lawyer
// don't have time to read full Court opinions

Read the full opinion. Buckley v Valeo is THE court case that said money=speech to BEGIN with.

Is that quotation from wiki factually inaccurate? Did the Court not uphold the government's right to restrict donations above a certain dollar amount?

I'll ask again: "If the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to limit speech longer than 30 minutes/5,000 words/5MB, so why would it be legal for it to limit 'speech' above $2,300?"

And, unless you've got Rhenquist (or whoever wrote the majority opinion) stating "We find that money is functionally equivalent to speech" or something like it (without the caveat that "money donated to political campaigns becomes an expression unto itself" or similar), I'm done with the discussion. Answer that first.

// quittin' time is 5pm anyway

vygramul: Thomas' dissent matters because his dissent is based on what part IV said. If you regularly read Supreme Court decisions, the opinions frequently refer to the dissent in the case they're ruling on. If Thomas' dissent was irrelevant, Kennedy would have said, "and I have no idea what Thomas is dissenting to because it doesn't make sense - this ruling doesn't say that."

Secondly, you miss the point of the Disclose. It grew directly out of part IV's ruling that anonymity isn't a right. Whether it passed is irrelevant.

For god's sake.

Look, there are three key prerequisites for establishing standing: harm, causation, and redressability. If any of those three requisites cannot be demonstrated, there is no standing. If there is no standing, the court dismisses the case. Yes, that is the case even in cases up to and including the Supreme Court, and cases in which a fundamental right is at stake (i.e. strict scrutiny is being employed).

That's why Kennedy dissected Citizen United's claim disclosure requirements produce a chilling effect. Chilling effect is a harm, which in turn must be demonstrated for the claim to be justiciable. No evidence of a chilling effect, no harm, no standing and therefore no justiciability, which means the court would dismiss the claim.

Which is exactly what happened in that portion of Citizens United.

Clarence Thomas is a jurisprudential Re-Re who jumped to the conclusion that just because Kennedy dismissed Citizens United's claim as lacking standing, there must be no right to anonymity. When in fact the reality is that standing must be established before the constitutionality of a statute, or the existence of any rights whatsoever, enters the picture. Citizens United's claim was dismissed as lacking standing before any substantive consideration of the First Amendment entered the picture. Just because Clarence Thomas said it in a dissent doesn't make it true.

that bosnian sniper: vygramul: Thomas' dissent matters because his dissent is based on what part IV said. If you regularly read Supreme Court decisions, the opinions frequently refer to the dissent in the case they're ruling on. If Thomas' dissent was irrelevant, Kennedy would have said, "and I have no idea what Thomas is dissenting to because it doesn't make sense - this ruling doesn't say that."

Secondly, you miss the point of the Disclose. It grew directly out of part IV's ruling that anonymity isn't a right. Whether it passed is irrelevant.

For god's sake.

Look, there are three key prerequisites for establishing standing: harm, causation, and redressability. If any of those three requisites cannot be demonstrated, there is no standing. If there is no standing, the court dismisses the case. Yes, that is the case even in cases up to and including the Supreme Court, and cases in which a fundamental right is at stake (i.e. strict scrutiny is being employed).

That's why Kennedy dissected Citizen United's claim disclosure requirements produce a chilling effect. Chilling effect is a harm, which in turn must be demonstrated for the claim to be justiciable. No evidence of a chilling effect, no harm, no standing and therefore no justiciability, which means the court would dismiss the claim.

Which is exactly what happened in that portion of Citizens United.

Clarence Thomas is a jurisprudential Re-Re who jumped to the conclusion that just because Kennedy dismissed Citizens United's claim as lacking standing, there must be no right to anonymity. When in fact the reality is that standing must be established before the constitutionality of a statute, or the existence of any rights whatsoever, enters the picture. Citizens United's claim was dismissed as lacking standing before any substantive consideration of the First Amendment entered the picture. Just because Clarence Thomas said it in a dissent doesn't make it true.

And some amici were submitted that DID show harm.

vygramul: And some amici were submitted that DID show harm.

Yes, and Kennedy addresses this issue in Part IV. Relevant to Citizens United, no harm was demonstrated and therefore there was no standing.

It must be the plaintiff who endures the harm for said harm to in part constitute standing. I can't sue the government over a hypothetical abortion ban, because I'm not a woman, even though women would be harmed by the ban; likewise, I can't sue the government over DOMA because I'm straight, even though LGBTQ's are harmed by the act.

nmrsnr: If so you have an argument, but I think most peoples' problem comes with the anonymity of the messenger, not the venue of the message.

Actually, television is statistically the biggest reason in American history why voters vote for certain political persons and/or parties. Sure,various groups have generally voted certain ways, but television has affected elections in ways never seen in the American political process. Moreso than radio, newspapers, or ANY other medium of communication.

So, yes, in fact, I personally WOULD be happier to see SuperPAC money focused exclusively on mail-outs. Heck, it'd be better for the economy, because it would assist the USPS.

Of course, not only do I believe the anonymity should be stripped, but strict limits should be put on PACs. $500 donations per person, maximum. This would actually allow unions to operate PACs that corporations could not, because unions actually represent their members and hold true elections/votes (unlike corporations who DO NOT represent the will of stockholders, and instead are EXCLUSIVELY interested in the bottom line).

I mean, I don't really understand the comparison as it sits, because you logically CANNOT compare this era to the pre-Revolution. I mean, even if they could be remotely compared, Thomas Payne is not analogous to the American Petroleum Institute.

Now, if you want me to get into discussions about why I think the Founding Fathers weren't so great, I'd need quite a few pages and I'm just not that interested. They WEREN'T all doing things "for the right reasons;" in fact, many were interested in the revolution for PERSONAL monetary gain.