Citizens United--5 years ago freedom of speech was upheld
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Back in 1801 a newspaper could go out and have all the political speech they want. Not any different today with the networks. I will note that both newspapers and networks have owners and they tend to push the political opinions of their owners.
Funding limits were very wisely put in place from the very early days of U.S. politics. The intent is that the super-wealthy should not be allowed to buy an election and effectively "own" the politician which is exactly what the Citizens United decision now allows. Having reasonable contribution limits allows everyone to participate in Democracy and have a voice.
So let me ask... why don't we take this to the next logical step and allow politicians funded by super-wealthy donors to directly pay voters for their ballots. What would each vote be worth in the open market - 25 bucks, 100 bucks, 1500 bucks? Can we allow a bidding process for votes?
Thanks to Citizens United...
Did you even read the decision or the article I cited, which incidentally is by a liberal group that takes your view?
The law prohibited independent groups from saying "Candidate Joe Blow is a jerk", in the crucial period leading up to the election. That was mcCain's idea because he is a thin-skinned prick who doesn't think it should be legal to criticize pols.
The Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) argued:
- barring independent political spending amounts to squelching free speech protected by the First Amendment.
- the First Amendment protects not just a person’s right to speak, but the act of speech itself, regardless of the speaker. Therefore the First Amendment protects the speech of corporations and unions, whether we consider them people or not.
- although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis.
- the public has the right to hear all available information, and spending limits prevent information from reaching the public. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/
Thanks to Citizens United...
Lol
I think it will be less than a decade before the Citizens United decision is scaled back because it drastically undermines democracy and allows the wealthy to buy elections.
As an example of this, thanks to Citizens United we just had the most expensive U.S. Senate campaign in the history of the country in North Carolina with over $100 Million spent. Nearly all of this money came from wealthy 1%ers who were attempting to buy the election so they can "own" the winning candidate in the Senate and enact policy that they dictate.
Sorry, but I am in the camp that more speech is better than less speech, particularly when we are talking about a core First Amendment value.
If you prefer to let pols like Johnny McCain pass laws that say you can't criticize them by name, and can't spend your own money to publicize your views, we'll have to agree to differ.
If you prefer to let pols like Johnny McCain pass laws that say you can't criticize them by name, and can't spend your own money to publicize your views, we'll have to agree to differ.
That explains your former bloviating.
Why would they use the money from donors? They can just dig into the US Treasury and issue payments directly to people in exchange for votes. They already do that. Its called the democrat party.