Citizens United--5 years ago freedom of speech was upheld
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Freedom of speech? I think not. More like unlimited political donations with no cap.
You think incorrectly.
Our speech is still free, it's simply more free for the very wealthy. : )
Except the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. Its settled law, and freedom of speech won.
Citizens United was not a "free speech" case. "Free Speech" is the ability to speak your mind without being locked up by the government which is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Citizens United was a case about political donation limits and advertising -- this should never be confused with "free speech".
Political speech is a core First Amendment value. Citizens United had nothing to do with contributions to campaigns. It invalidated an odious provision of McCain-Feingold that prohibited criticsm of candidates prior to elections.
"
In the 2008 election season, Citizens United the PAC sought to broadcast TV ads for a video-on-demand film criticizing presidential candidate Hilary Rodham Clinton, but doing so would violate the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known also as the McCain–Feingold Act), which barred corporations and unions from paying for media that mentioned any candidate in periods immediately preceding elections.
Citizens United challenged the law, suing the Federal Election Commission (which sets campaign finance laws and election rules), and the case made its way through lower courts until an appeal was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Justices declared unconstitutional the government restriction on “independent” political spending by corporations and unions, and determined the anti-Clinton broadcast should have been allowed. The decision overturned century-old precedent allowing the government to regulate such spending. As a result, Citizens United has greatly affected the way corporations and unions can spend on elections (more on that below)." http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/
"
In the 2008 election season, Citizens United the PAC sought to broadcast TV ads for a video-on-demand film criticizing presidential candidate Hilary Rodham Clinton, but doing so would violate the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known also as the McCain–Feingold Act), which barred corporations and unions from paying for media that mentioned any candidate in periods immediately preceding elections.
Citizens United challenged the law, suing the Federal Election Commission (which sets campaign finance laws and election rules), and the case made its way through lower courts until an appeal was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Justices declared unconstitutional the government restriction on “independent” political spending by corporations and unions, and determined the anti-Clinton broadcast should have been allowed. The decision overturned century-old precedent allowing the government to regulate such spending. As a result, Citizens United has greatly affected the way corporations and unions can spend on elections (more on that below)." http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/
So as you outlined - Citizens United is all about SPENDING MONEY on political advertising.
It is not about if I have the right to say "Joe Blow, the politician, is a jerk and is ruining our nation" which is what "free speech" is all about.
Explain this to me. How come some network can go out and have all the political speech they want 24/7, but if a private citizen or a group of private citizens wants to pull money and run a political ad, they should not be allowed? Why do you have that point of view?