We must end Citizens United and then some!!!

[DGUtley]

It seems to constitute the taking over of a whole group of people, meaning millions of citizens, who did not ask for their law of no approachment, that the court ruled a corporation to be above a king. The law breaks twice, that the We the People will not stand for it, as the vagrancy of keeping it as it is, will not work also. Whatever their court decision(s) mean, it is appears to have created some sort of racket, as it seems to go against trust, that so much money can be used to promote what is being called free speech, that it is not free, as they manipulate all they believe they may alter to their own personal good, and then it is relegated as being part of the political process. 'Just accept it.' What a racket.

I'm sorry, you appear to have missed something. You asked me something about this and I responded directly above your most-recent post. In fairness, I think my response to your inquiry was reasoned, well thought-out, rational, expansive and directly responsive. It is a constitutional issue, as I explained. This constitution is a messy thing -- it protects the rights you like for those you dislike.

[ripmeister]

I'm sorry, you appear to have missed something. You asked me something about this and I responded directly above your most-recent post. In fairness, I think my response to your inquiry was reasoned, well thought-out, rational, expansive and directly responsive. It is a constitutional issue, as I explained. This constitution is a messy thing -- it protects the rights you like for those you dislike.

Thanks DG. I understand this. The problem I have with it is that it seems to sanction the idea that some have "more" free speech and "influence" based on the size of their wallet. I don't doubt the argument made by SCOTUS and the precedents that lead to the decision but that doesn't mean something about it just doesn't smell right.

[donttread]

Courts recognized corporations had some of the same rights in 1819 and corporate personhood came into existence in 1886.

Actually the 1886 ruling was exaggerated to say the least. Falsely reported is more like it but the country just went with it

[donttread]

JAP, what rights or freedoms did you lose? Be specific not your usual generalizations.

LOL. It's an old big government follower trick. Seems you have to wait until your personal rights are nullified to act. Of course if we all do that it will be too late.

[donttread]

It might help for you to look up what a corporation is. It is a group of people investing in a business. The corporation acts for the stock-holders(people)

Yes, I know. But it can't have personhood because it can't be held accountable in the same way a person can. But it's officers and stockholders, that group of people you speak of are not held personally responsible fiscally and are seldom held so criminally either. It is no more and no less than a business entity. I personally believe limited liability exceptions should only cover 1/2 a million in assets. Then the people whom you point out make up the corporation could be held accountable.

[Common]

You need to do some reading before you rant about Citizens United, lets get rid of George Soros two dozen pacs and Eric Holders pac thats running around the country suing conservatives and the clinton Foundation and and and and and and

[DGUtley]

The point is that C.U. was hardly groundbreaking.

[Orion Rules]

I'm sorry, you appear to have missed something. You asked me something about this and I responded directly above your most-recent post. In fairness, I think my response to your inquiry was reasoned, well thought-out, rational, expansive and directly responsive. It is a constitutional issue, as I explained. This constitution is a messy thing -- it protects the rights you like for those you dislike.

A constitutional issue it is, as not one statement written ever said it was not one, except that the court is not the three branches of government rolled into one, as the court has no right to legislate. Why should you like it?

[Captdon]

Well, it is my opinion as supported by the SCOTUS, that political spending is protected under the First Amendment. That is the fundamental premise of Citizens United. Specifically, In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures. Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.

You folks need to understand that a lot of this started in the 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo. That case established the legal framework sanctioning billions of dollars of independent private campaign spending. In it, the Court ruled that limits on campaign donations — direct donations to candidates — are constitutional but said it was unconstitutional to limit non-donation expenditures, such as independently funded advertisements. Since Buckley protected money as speech, the only question was whether corporations were legitimate speakers. It may surprise some to hear, but the Court had already answered this question in 1978. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court recognized a corporate right to free speech, concluding that the value of speech in the course of political debate does not depend on the identity of the speaker. Citizens simply followed the precedent of these two cases.

So when liberals intone that “corporations aren’t people,” thinking they are making a knock-down argument against Citizens, they miss the point. Citizens did not make corporations persons. And corporations do not need to be persons to receive First Amendment protections. Citizens upheld the liberty, provided by Bellotti, of corporations to speak, and they speak under the rules provided by Buckley.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...hers-primaries

There were some other older decisions but this of recent vintage gets us there. I hope this helps.

I misunderstood the reasoning. You taught me something.

[Captdon]

Thanks DG. I understand this. The problem I have with it is that it seems to sanction the idea that some have "more" free speech and "influence" based on the size of their wallet. I don't doubt the argument made by SCOTUS and the precedents that lead to the decision but that doesn't mean something about it just doesn't smell right.

People have influence directly in proportion to their wealth.

Having "more" free speech is a bit too far.