Citizen's United is backfiring

[Fern]

I mean, the logical end point of Citizens United is that laws banning bribery (from anyone or anything from anywhere) is unconstitutional. How would you distinguish a bribe from a "sincere" contribution? That will be fun to watch if the SCOTUS tries to perform legal acrobatic to create such a distinction.

When a bribe is structured like a campaign contribution, while I don't really see any difference in many cases, proving it a bribe can be very difficult.

However, Since Citizens United does not allow a corp to give money to a candidate's campaign it's not clear to me how it's particularly relevant. I don't see how it makes a bribe any more or less difficult to prove, or how it would legalize them.

Fern

 

[Ausm]

The principle decreed in Citizens United has already been eroded.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27557
http://volokh.com/2012/01/10/suprem...s-by-non-permanent-resident-foreign-citizens/

The next case (and many more) will cause the SCOTUS even more headache.

GOP: Corporate donation ban unconstitutional

The way I see it, Citizens United will be silently overruled or ignored as aberration due to its own weight. In my non-legal view, the decision was a conservative counter measure against the massively growing modern communication, previewed by Obama campaign in 2008. Plus the conservatives angst that their voice is being marginalized by "elite" media. (e.g. The New York Times)

Yeah I know some states are refusing to recognize Citizen's United ruling in their state Elections.

 

[Ausm]

If you're going to respond to him though, then you take on the onus to be precise and explain yourself, no? Or do you find you get more flies with dickishness?

That's why he is an excellent candidate for the Right Wing pundit filter.

 

[Bowfinger]

I mean, the logical end point of Citizens United is that laws banning bribery (from anyone or anything from anywhere) is unconstitutional. How would you distinguish a bribe from a "sincere" contribution? That will be fun to watch if the SCOTUS tries to perform legal acrobatic to create such a distinction.

This, exactly. It is the ultimate effect of declaring that money equals protected free speech. Bribery must therefore be a legal means of expression. One of the many symptoms of the pervasive corruption eroding American democracy.

 

[Screech]

And why should we? It isnt the law of the land.

Correct--which is why there should arguably be a constitutional amendment to make it such. Nothing too long, something simple, such as

"I. Corporations are not persons, and therefore do not necessarily have all the rights and liberties as enumerated under the bill of rights and extended by the 14th amendment.

II. Unions are not persons, and therefore do not necessarily have all the rights and liberties as enumerated under the bill of rights and extended by the 14th amendment."

Simple and too the point. Of course if you wanted to go further you could enumerate which rights in particular a corporation does not have -- for example you would want to keep right to a fair trial, etc, etc.. -- but something simple as above would get the basic idea that corporations (and unions) are not people into the constitution.

 

[spidey07]

This, exactly. It is the ultimate effect of declaring that money equals protected free speech. Bribery must therefore be a legal means of expression. One of the many symptoms of the pervasive corruption eroding American democracy.

The case was the government preventing free speech, a documentary. Money had nothing to do with it.

The case was a big victory for free speech. Why do liberals hate free speech so much? I'll never understand that.

Simple question for the liberals and left - do you think the government should and does have the power to prevent/ban/censor me from printing/selling a political book, movie, documentary, blog post, radio program, etc of political nature at certain times near an election (the government actually argued they could and should, scary isn't it)? If you think that is wrong, then you agree with the CU ruling as that is what it was about.

Free political speech is constitutionally protected and congress shall make no law against it. That your love child ACLU likes the ruling should clue you that you're way on the wrong side of this issue.

 

[Bowfinger]

The case was the government preventing free speech, a documentary. Money had nothing to do with it.

Though if you were following along, you might notice I didn't refer to the Citizen's United ruling. I referred to the much earlier and more general decision that money is protected free speech. Indeed, I even said that specifically. I made a more general observation on the mindset that leads to atrocious decisions like Citizens United.

It also leads to the root problem, that we have effectively declared bribery to be legal. Naturally you chose to ignore that point in favor of your duhversion.

The case was a big victory for free speech. Why do liberals hate free speech so much? I'll never understand that. ...

Anandtech doesn't have enough bandwidth to discuss all the things you don't understand. That's unlikely to change as long as your hobbled brain sees only the 3% it already believes and ignores the other 97% of reality. To address your issue, however, it's not (real) speech that's the issue, it's the near-infinite corrupting power of money.

 

[Genx87]

I mean, the logical end point of Citizens United is that laws banning bribery (from anyone or anything from anywhere) is unconstitutional. How would you distinguish a bribe from a "sincere" contribution? That will be fun to watch if the SCOTUS tries to perform legal acrobatic to create such a distinction.

Really? You cant tell the difference? What is a sincere contribution anyways?

 

[bfdd]

If spending money is speech, then taxation is the abridgment of speech and unconstitutional. There's a logical loop in the constitution that needs to be worked out or the Justices need to admit they were fucking wrong.

 

[Genx87]

If you're going to respond to him though, then you take on the onus to be precise and explain yourself, no? Or do you find you get more flies with dickishness?

I have been precise and he put me on his ignore list. That doesnt mean I cant exchange in debate within his threads however.

 

[jackstar7]

I have been precise and he put me on his ignore list. That doesnt mean I cant exchange in debate within his threads however.

As you will. Just saying where the onus resides, particularly when you know who you are dealing with...

 

[cybrsage]

You completely ignored my plainly stated problem is that I cannot accept that corporations are people. Non persons have never been granted free speech.

I can imagine your response if I said "as people, corporations cannot participate in elections until they are 18; at 35, corporations can run for President, if, in time of war, the draft is re-instated, corporations will be drafted into the Army; a form of "corporate incarceration" will be developed for corporations breaking the law, corporations will fall under the same tax laws as ordinary citizens, etc.".

Corporations are not citizens, they cannot vote or hold office.

 

[pcgeek11]

I am happy that the Republicans are eating their own...that is correct.

The Democrats do the same thing ( Hillary, Biden and Obama during the last Dem Primaries ) then after the election They end up working for him.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Like it's been said, I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

This made me laugh.

 

[cybrsage]

Corps are not people...they are US Persons.

 

[jackschmittusa]

cybrsage

source: dictionary.com

per·son
   /ˈpɜrsən/ Show Spelled[pur-suhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2.
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3.
Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4.
Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5.
the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

So, do you have a point?

 

[cybrsage]

You showed what a person is, not what a US Person is. A US Person is a legal term.

According to 19 USCS § 3813 [Title 19. Customs Duties; Chapter 24. Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority], the term "United States person" means--
“(A) a United States citizen;
(B) a partnership, corporation, or other legal entity organized under the laws of the United States; and
(C) a partnership, corporation, or other legal entity that is organized under the laws of a foreign country and is controlled by entities described in subparagraph (B) or United States citizens, or both.”

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-person/

You can also find it here, if you want a more authoritative source:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/19C24.txt

 

[Ausm]

The Democrats do the same thing ( Hillary, Biden and Obama during the last Dem Primaries ) then after the election They end up working for him.

I know but I don't enjoy that as much. I know you would find this hard to believe.

 

[jackschmittusa]

cybrsage

Your last post illustrates the problem. The government has created a non-standard definition and the SC has busied itself assigning rights from the standard list to the new creation. I disagree and have yet to see a compelling reason to change my mind.

 

[cybrsage]

US Persons are given some rights. It has to be this way, else the government can tell a company it must hire people of a specific religion, that it must house federal troops, that it must allow its phones to be tapped without warrant, that it must allow the fed gov to take things from the corp without a warrant, etc.

Simply the nature of the beast. To protect companies from the government, we have to give these companies the rights which protect them from the government. Unions are also considered US Persons, which is why they are also protected from the government.

 

[blankslate]

I've heard a hypothesis from a fairly smart commentator that this might be a "Please don't throw me in that there briar patch" strategy by GOP strategists to air out all of Willard Romney's dirty laundry...

That way when democrats attack him, his supporters can say. "Y U B bringing up old news?"

 

[the DRIZZLE]

If spending money is speech, then taxation is the abridgment of speech and unconstitutional. There's a logical loop in the constitution that needs to be worked out or the Justices need to admit they were fucking wrong.

First of all, the Constitution explicitly authorizes taxation. Second, they didn't say spending money always equals speech, they said it is a form of free speech in the context of buying air time for political adds and such. Buying money and buying air time for an issue you are about are clearly different.

 

[Fern]

I've heard a hypothesis from a fairly smart commentator that this might be a "Please don't throw me in that there briar patch" strategy by GOP strategists to air out all of Willard Romney's dirty laundry...

That way when democrats attack him, his supporters can say. "Y U B bringing up old news?"

Yeah, I've heard that too.

Fern

 

[pcgeek11]

I know but I don't enjoy that as much. I know you would find this hard to believe.

So at least we agree that your OP was just trolling.

 

[Craig234]

I've heard a hypothesis from a fairly smart commentator that this might be a "Please don't throw me in that there briar patch" strategy by GOP strategists to air out all of Willard Romney's dirty laundry...

That way when democrats attack him, his supporters can say. "Y U B bringing up old news?"

That is both noting a potential benefit they stumbled on and giving them too much credit.