How many of you think this should be illegal?

[PokerGuy]

What is amusing is that those who claim to support Citizens United turn around to attack Clinton for the Clinton Foundation or whatever donations she took as if they are a proof of corruption. They are merely "speeches" of corporations oops, fellow citizens who formed corporations according to your favored outcome of the case.

Giving money to a candidate (or a foundation effectively controlled by them) and gaining influence through that is not nearly the same as a third party using their money to do what they want to do with it to support whatever causes they want (ie, the candidate does not have control over it). Big difference.

 

[cbrunny]

Overwatch should definitely be illegal.

Referencing Overwatch in RL? Even more so.

 

[lopri]

Giving money to a candidate (or a foundation effectively controlled by them) and gaining influence through that is not nearly the same as a third party using their money to do what they want to do with it to support whatever causes they want (ie, the candidate does not have control over it). Big difference.

Yah, then why the fuss over Clinton Foundation? Clinton the candidate cannot receive more than $2,700 from an individual, and there has not been an allegation that she or anyone else has broken that rule. Clinton Foundation is a corporate entity separate from Clinton, and anyone who support its causes can give whatever they want to give. You know, activities such as fighting AIDS and global warming. Furthermore:

..independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

So the fact that the rich have bigger voices is not a bug, but a feature of our democracy, according to Citizens United.

Note that I am playing the devil's advocate here. I do believe the decision is wildly out of touch with reality, and the court did not have the gut to follow through with its own rationale in the future cases, as Justice Stevens eloquently pointed out. (link to the speech in the article)

 

[glenn1]

Yah, then why the fuss over Clinton Foundation? Clinton the candidate cannot receive more than $2,700 from an individual, and there has not been an allegation that she or anyone else has broken that rule. Clinton Foundation is a corporate entity separate from Clinton, and anyone who support its causes can give whatever they want to give. You know, activities such as fighting AIDS and global warming.

I think you are confusing two very different things. I would not object if the Clinton Foundation chose to spend money on political advertising should their charter and applicable laws allow it. I likewise don't care if the WalMarts of the world buy political advertising. All the above all valid exercises of free speech, whether the CEO holds a press conference saying "vote against Candidate X" or buys a TV or billboard advert saying the same makes no difference, it's still free speech. Exercising the right doesn't guarantee you an audience or influence, just the opportunity to say "I believe ABC" or "I think you should vote for XYZ."

OTOH, the concerns with Hillary Clinton versus the Clinton foundation deal directly with whether she is directly or indirectly linking favorable actions or access to donations to the Clinton foundation, what that money is being used for is besides the point. Whether it could be used to buy billboard political advertising or fighting AIDS isn't the point and I wouldn't care if the Clinton Foundation was using it to buy billboard advertising. Rather the concern is pay for play, namely "If you donate to the foundation, if she is able to do so then then Secretary Clinton will take special measures to ensure your free speech is heard by a specific audience." Now whether those concerns are valid is an entirely different conversation, but you should be able to distinguish them from the broader questions of "money = free speech" that Citizens United dealt with.

Furthermore

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

..independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

So the fact that the rich have bigger voices is not a bug, but a feature of our democracy, according to Citizens United.

Note that I am playing the devil's advocate here. I do believe the decision is wildly out of touch with reality, and the court did not have the gut to follow through with its own rationale in the future cases, as Justice Stevens eloquently pointed out. (link to the speech in the article)

The rich don't have "bigger voices," they simply can afford more paid political advertising than someone who is poor. Just like they can afford more of pretty much anything that can be purchased with money. Just like if someone who is a celebrity like Madonna decides to endorse Candidate X, that endorsement is going to get more news coverage than if someone like me or Lopri or other ATPN random makes an endorsement. That's the nature of life, the constitution doesn't guarantee you an equal voice or to be heard but only to have free speech. Madonna has the same free speech rights as glenn1, just nobody (especially the news media) gives a fvck about what I think or Lopri or most other folks.

 

[zinfamous]

Such speech of this type was until recently, deemed illegal. Thanks to the Citizen's United case, which Hillary spoke out against in the last debate. Many wrongly attribute Citizen's United case big money in politics, but it's more about suppression of free speech.

Some reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

The case was more about suppression of free speech. The majority opinion, however, overstepped that and further ruled specifically about money in politics--directly so.

The case was never controversial until the majority decision was published. It marks one of those strange incidents where SCOTUS took a benign case and went all activist with the decision.

When people reference "Citizen's United," they reference the actual decision and the content that is argued in the majority opinion--you know, the relevant stuff--not the case.

 

[glenn1]

The case was more about suppression of free speech. The majority opinion, however, overstepped that and further ruled specifically about money in politics--directly so.

The case was never controversial until the majority decision was published. It marks one of those strange incidents where SCOTUS took a benign case and went all activist with the decision.

When people reference "Citizen's United," they reference the actual decision and the content that is argued in the majority opinion--you know, the relevant stuff--not the case.

How are the case and decision content unrelated? Hell, I'll make it really simple for you - given the existence of the First Amendment what's the legal or moral justification for a law that prohibits McDonald's or (fill in entity here) from free speech like buying a billboard saying "vote against Candidate X"?

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...y-overwatch-super-pac-billboard/#2d77550f7143

Possible thanks to Citizens United v. FEC.

I don't get it, are we suggesting political speech / support / sponsorship should be illegal unless specifically budgeted / financed under limits designated by Congress? Would P&N count as an illegal endorsement or contribution?

I can see why the subject is contentious, but only after some folks accept that we "need" to control "free speech". That "political" speech is deemed "dangerous". I'm not sure I can be comfortable with the conclusions needed to be drawn.

 

[lopri]

"If you donate to the foundation, if she is able to do so then then Secretary Clinton will take special measures to ensure your free speech is heard by a specific audience."

That is called "access," and according to Citizens United majority it is a feature of our democracy. (see the quoted excerpt above) I assume you wanted to say quid pro quo but realized there is no such evidence. Again, I do not agree with the assertion made in Citizens United. And I do care deeply about money that goes to the Clinton Foundation as well as the money Hillary Clinton received from the speeches, the latter of which is a perplexing choice of hers to say the least. But I conclude that she made a conscious effort to survey everyday America and listen to them throughout the campaign, which is reflected in her words as well as her proposed policies and they kind of cancel each other out. Others might view that lapse of judgment as well as the existence of the Foundation as irreconcilable with presidency, and I think that is fair as long as the same person does not turn a blind eye to Trump Foundation and dozens of other Trump corporations, which Trump does not want to let go of regardless of the election result. Personally I suspect his decision to run had a lot to do with his failing business empire.

For the rest of your response you are trying to walk a non-existing line, with the bottom line coming down to what you perceive as "the nature of life" which I suppose is where we have to agree to disagree. In tomorrow's debate between Clinton and Trump, can Fox demand cash payment from each candidate and allocate time for their replies/rebuttals accordingly? I presume your answer is yes.

 

[glenn1]

That is called "access," and according to Citizens United majority it is a feature of our democracy. (see the quoted excerpt above) I assume you wanted to say quid pro quo but realized there is no such evidence. Again, I do not agree with the assertion made in Citizens United. And I do care deeply about money that goes to the Clinton Foundation as well as the money Hillary Clinton received from the speeches, the latter of which is a perplexing choice of hers to say the least. But I conclude that she made a conscious effort to survey everyday America and listen to them throughout the campaign, which is reflected in her words as well as her proposed policies and they kind of cancel each other out. Others might view that lapse of judgment as well as the existence of the Foundation as irreconcilable with presidency, and I think that is fair as long as the same person does not turn a blind eye to Trump Foundation and dozens of other Trump corporations, which Trump does not want to let go of regardless of the election result. Personally I suspect his decision to run had a lot to do with his failing business empire.

For the rest of your response you are trying to walk a non-existing line, with the bottom line coming down to what you perceive as "the nature of life" which I suppose is where we have to agree to disagree. In tomorrow's debate between Clinton and Trump, can Fox demand cash payment from each candidate and allocate time for their replies/rebuttals accordingly? I presume your answer is yes.

On the Fox cash payment example, if they can get away with it why not? However it's not like the candidates are without power either and would simply play along cooperatively. Not to mention the existential level reputation risk that making such an offer would create.

 

[lopri]

On the Fox cash payment example, if they can get away with it why not? However it's not like the candidates are without power either and would simply play along cooperatively. Not to mention the existential level reputation risk that making such an offer would create.

I guess that is one position you can take and try to persuade the citizens with. Though I suspect you will have few fellow travelers, especially when you selectively condemn such a "Pay-to-Play" scheme depending on the whose ox is being gored.

 

[PaulAckles]

Yes it is llegal

 

[glenn1]

I guess that is one position you can take and try to persuade the citizens with. Though I suspect you will have few fellow travelers, especially when you selectively condemn such a "Pay-to-Play" scheme depending on the whose ox is being gored.

???

Do you think I would be okay with pay to play if someone else was doing it? There's also a fairly easy defense for allegations of pay to play that Clinton or anyone else can avail themselves of - simply document any attempts for donors to gain favorable access and the official's response in turn (e.g. turned down their request to speak to XYZ) and fully capture your justification for whatever decisions you make. If your cost/benefit or whatever shows your decision was well supported on its own merits then whether it aligned with your donor wishes is irrelevant. Transparency would cure most of her problems, and unfortunately she doesn't seem to implement that very well (see private email server as a means of avoiding FOIA scrutiny).

I'm unsure how you consider your hypothetical a "pay to play" since networks could effectively do this now. If Clinton purchased 30 minutes or an hour of airtime from Fox (or whoever) she could have a 'debate' where she got 100% of the airtime for replies and rebuttals. Hell, she could make it so that Trump wasn't even allowed to appear.

 

[interchange]

I think there are 3 questions I see as it intersects with the law.

1. Free speech vs libel
2. Corporations rather than individuals supporting candidates
3. Campaign finance limitations

 

[werepossum]

Government regulating free speech for political purposes is as dangerous as government having a monopoly on armed force.

 

[michal1980]

nice to know what I wont buying.

 

[yllus]

Just for some context, in Canadian federal elections since 2007:

• There is a $1,225 annual limit (rises every year) on donations by each Canadian to each federal political party, and a combined total limit of $1,100 annually to each parties’ riding associations (and, during an election campaign, the same combined total limit applies to donations to each party’s election candidates).
• Corporations, unions and other organizations are banned from making donations.
• Secret, unlimited donations of money, property and services to election candidates are prohibited.
• Political donations are subsidized via tax credits, for many to a rate of 75%.

Collectively we decided that in this instance, equality of speech was more important than pure freedom of said speech. There are still a large number of ways to funnel major money into a campaign, but I'd argue that our system improves our democratic process.