• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Russ Feingold speech on the Citizens United 5-4 ruling

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BoomerD said:
🙄

campaign contributions are not a form of speech, although I'm actually surprised that it took so long for a corporatist to try to make the connection.
Click to expand...

you're aware the case was not about campaign contributions, right? those are still regulated.


i wonder how much of the angst and handwringing over the case is because people believe it's going to allow unrestricted campaign contributions?
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
How ignorant and naive, 'they thought in good faith the precedent is wrong'. You don't get the legal issues, do you? Try reading Stevens' dissent.

You don't understand that these 4 judges - Kennedy aside - are Federalist Society radicals who have an agenda to overthrow our legal precedents, and lied about their intentions.

To make an analogy with Roberts, imagine there's a Muslim nominee to the Supreme Court, who is asked if he's been a member of a group who is pushing for Sharia Law to be the law of the US, and he says to the best of his memory, no, and then it's found he was an official in that organization (that's what happened with Roberts and the Federalist Society), and then he promises to respect the legal history of precedents in the US rather than impose any Sharia ideology, and then votes 'Sharia is the law of the land'.

And then here comes your counterpart when the Senator he lied to complains, saying 'if he really thinks the constitution calls for Sharia Law, he should vote that way'.
Click to expand...

i'd really appreciate a link to that, if you don't mind.

those hearing are a show. you apparently bought into them, and yet you're calling me ignorant and naive?

i also like how you take a general statement and turn it completely to its most absurd. but then that's your arguing style, isn't it?

further, what you claim wouldn't really be good faith anyway (not that i ever expressed an opinion on whether the citizen's united case was decided in good faith).
 
Last edited:
ElFenix said:
you're aware the case was not about campaign contributions, right?

the case basically boiled down to the fact that media companies are allowed to make political comments in the media with nearly no restriction, but if someone bought airtime or ad space they had to comply with a ton of rules.
Click to expand...

As a practical matter, it allows corporations to use their wealth to dominate our elections and therefore our government.

They just can't directly coordinate with a campaign, but they can advocate for an issue or a candidate.
 
Craig234 said:
As a practical matter, it allows corporations to use their wealth to dominate our elections and therefore our government.

They just can't directly coordinate with a campaign, but they can advocate for an issue or a candidate.
Click to expand...

i agree with the commentator that wrote they already saturate the media with campaign advertising during election cycles and so there's very little more that they can do that they couldn't before, as a practical matter.
 
Craig234 said:
As a practical matter, it allows corporations to use their wealth to dominate our elections and therefore our government.

They just can't directly coordinate with a campaign, but they can advocate for an issue or a candidate.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what a political action committee is? Corporations use a PAC of their own or combined to influence elections.

Just like you and I can. I give to a few PACs as well as individual candidates.

Or are you just pissed because the Unions are the biggest PACs there are and now people can compete with them? Typical leftists, freedom of speech, as long as you agree with me.
 
manimal said:
My real fear of the citizens united case is the precedent. This has only emboldened the "activist" judges.
Click to expand...

What precedent? How would you think if the federal government prohibited you from printing or airing your documentary or promoting it as Citizens United did? You OK with the FEC telling you what you can an cannot speak, print or air? Remember the latest SC appointee is on record in this case as saying "yes, we can ban books" when arguing the case. Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with me.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Last edited:
spidey07 said:
What precedent? How would you think if the federal government prohibited you from printing or airing your documentary or promoting it as Citizens United did? You OK with the FEC telling you what you can an cannot speak, print or air? Remember the latest SC appointee is on record in this case as saying "yes, we can ban books" when arguing the case. Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with me.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

Am I a corporation?
 
Call it what you want...campaign contributions, soft money, PAC, etc...it's still about the money...and the corporations want to be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.
Click to expand...

Corporations may be comprised of people, but despit the USSC's rulings, they are not people. They are a business entity, and thus, have no inherent rights of personhood.
 
spidey07 said:
This is where PACs come in. I, as an individual, have a 2400 dollar limit on how much I can contribute. Are you in favor of removing this limit so that a single individual can basically fund an entire candidate's campaign? A single person given the power to give as much as they want to influence elections by funding?

How about my right to free speech, which is what the case was about, are you OK with government saying what I can and cannot print or air before an election?

Think your line of reasoning through people. The people can organize and air or print whatever they want by pooling resources, or at least they should. But leftists think this is a bad idea, they of course want to silence any freedom of speech unless it agrees with them (ie. unions).
Click to expand...

Chump change. Besides you won't even pony up a measly $500 for a bet you made...$2400 har hardy fuckin har. And even if you did you're minority. Corporations OTOH have billions at disposal and may not always be American. You want a Saudi fundi like the prince who ones Citi group deciding our elections? It's happening and accounts for much of PC MC cluster fucks when fighting wars or representing not Americans but instead House of Al Saud, All it takes is a US subsidiary. I can do that in NV for $75.
 
Last edited:
GroundedSailor said:
They were never given rights as you & I have been. The fact that they are treated with the same rights is wrong in my book and I will completely back any politician who would curtail their activities.
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not grant rights, it prevents the government from taking them away.
 
Craig234 said:
On Roberts not remembering his role with the Federalist Society during his confirmation:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2005/07/25/roberts/index.html
Click to expand...

MONDAY, JUL 25, 2005 08:32 ET
John Roberts: The forgetful Federalist
Click to expand...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300693.html
Transcript: Day One of the Roberts Hearings
Courtesy Morningside Partners/FDCH
Tuesday, September 13, 2005; 12:00 AM
Click to expand...
:hmm:



reviewing the transcripts, the only time 'federalist' is mentioned is in connection with the federalist papers.




the original wapo story listed in the blog is better than the blog, with more detail:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html?nav=hcmodule
 
Last edited:
But I like the Democrat toothpaste and Republican toothpaste idea. Someone should make an app, you go to a store, you scan a bar code and it will tell you what candidates and causes your purchase is going to support based on the company making the product. That will make companies think twice about getting involved in politics.
 
BoomerD said:
Call it what you want...campaign contributions, soft money, PAC, etc...it's still about the money...and the corporations want to be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission



Corporations may be comprised of people, but despit the USSC's rulings, they are not people. They are a business entity, and thus, have no inherent rights of personhood.
Click to expand...

While that is a noble sentiment, unfortunately current precedent in courts treat them as 'persons'.

See my post (#17) in this thread for details.


..
 
Craig234 said:
As a practical matter, it allows corporations to use their wealth to dominate our elections and therefore our government.

They just can't directly coordinate with a campaign, but they can advocate for an issue or a candidate.
Click to expand...

The NRA is organized as a corporation. Hundreds of thousands of people send them money to lobby our government in favor of gun rights. Do you believe their attempts to petition their government should be restricted by the law?
 
GroundedSailor said:
While that is a noble sentiment, unfortunately current precedent in courts treat them as 'persons'.

See my post (#17) in this thread for details.


..
Click to expand...


Yet you have made my point for me. The USSC is just as "bought and paid for" as the rest of our political system...


Gonad the Barbarian said:
If corporations are people, when are we going to start putting them in jail with the rest of the sociopaths?
Click to expand...

Can't happen soon enough for me. YES, some corporations are benign entities, basically conducting business while "doing no evil," but it seems like more and more, they're the minority...
 
So, couldn't this all be stopped by making the "Truth in Advertising" laws apply to political ads as well. Anybody find it odd that political ads are exempt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top