What's so bad about Citizen's United again?

[micrometers]

Because restrictions on political speech ahead of elections does strike me as infringement on first amendment rights.

I actually think that Super-PACs have worked out well. And so far in this election, could it be argued that citizens united made it worse? what alternative scenarios are plausible?

 

[woolfe9999]

Because restrictions on political speech ahead of elections does strike me as infringement on first amendment rights.

I actually think that Super-PACs have worked out well. And so far in this election, could it be argued that citizens united made it worse? what alternative scenarios are plausible?

The super-PACS have worked out well? Why, because they have actually been effective in using largely dishonest propaganda to sway voters in the GOP primary, as with Romney's PAC attacking Gingrich in Iowa and Gingrich returning the favor in South Carolina?

 

[micrometers]

The super-PACS have worked out well? Why, because they have actually been effective in using largely dishonest propaganda to sway voters in the GOP primary, as with Romney's PAC attacking Gingrich in Iowa and Gingrich returning the favor in South Carolina?

I actually view propaganda as the positive puff pieces.

Negative ads actually are factual.

Really, negative ad onslaughts saved us from the prospect of a Gingrich presidency. that is a good thing.

 

[woolfe9999]

I actually view propaganda as the positive puff pieces.

Negative ads actually are factual.

Really, negative ad onslaughts saved us from the prospect of a Gingrich presidency. that is a good thing.

Many of the negative ads from both PACs were extremely dishonest. You can check, for example, politifact on that. And if what you're saying is that you don't care if it's dishonest so long as it achieves a result you desire, then I don't know what to say to that.

 

[micrometers]

Many of the negative ads from both PACs were extremely dishonest. You can check, for example, politifact on that. And if what you're saying is that you don't care if it's dishonest so long as it achieves a result you desire, then I don't know what to say to that.

examples of them being dishonest?

For instance, one Romney ad is about Gingrich being voted out as speaker.

This is true.

Gingrich had an ad about Romney's Bain days. That was also largely true IMO.

 

[Darwin333]

The super-PACS have worked out well? Why, because they have actually been effective in using largely dishonest propaganda to sway voters in the GOP primary, as with Romney's PAC attacking Gingrich in Iowa and Gingrich returning the favor in South Carolina?

It always works out well when it is used against the people you don't like. When it is used against the people you do like its a fucking outrage though.

 

[Fern]

I think concern has been overstated.

Romney's PAC blew tons of $'s in SC but Gingrich had 2 good debates and overcame a huge deficit to win the primary.

Gingrich had the casino guy's money in FL but flubbed the debates and Romney overcame a huge deficit to win FL.

My off-the-cuff analysis is that debates outweighs $'s, thus super PAC stuff only goes so far.

Fern

 

[spidey07]

Nothing bad about it. What is scary is it wasn't 9-0. Free speech is free speech and 4 justices agreed with the government position that they can stop documentaries, publications, books and all other forms of speech near an election.

 

[Griffinhart]

Citizens United is only part of the story. SuperPACs are a result of two cases. Citizens United and Speachnow.org vs the FEC.

In a nutshell, Prior to Speachnow.org, individuals could spend unlimitied campaign funds as independant expenditures, but two or more people banding together could were limited to $5000 each. That means a "millionaire" could spend as much money as they wanted to influence a political campaign, while poorer indivuals were limited by how much they were limited to spend as a group.

This, really, is what allowed super pacs to be created.

BCRA tried to stop corporations and unions from spending unlimited money on "electioneering communications". This was found to be unconstitutional in Citizens United vs the FEC. The court did find, however, that BCRA provisions requiring disclosure of funders were valid.

The ruling even pointed out:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs"

An interesting comparison is Hillary: The Movie (The topic of Citizens United) and
Fahrenheit 9/11. Both were produced by corporations. One a for profit media company, one by a non-profit PAC. Both were created to influence an elections. Fahrenheit 9/11 to defeat bush, Hillary to defeat Clinton in a primary.

One was against the law, one wasn't. Moore's movie was technically legal because it was deemed a "commercial activity."

In the end, I think concern over super PACs is indeed overstated. For every "corporation" wanting to spend money on "electioneering communications" there is a Union or other entity willing to spend money to deliver the oposing viewpoint.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nothing bad about it. What is scary is it wasn't 9-0. Free speech is free speech and 4 justices agreed with the government position that they can stop documentaries, publications, books and all other forms of speech near an election.

The majority of the Court actually broadened the original issue to include corporate money. Per Justice Stevens-

Stevens concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the majority opinion. The dissent argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." The dissent also argued that the Court's holding that BCRA §203 was facially unconstitutional was ruling on a question not brought before it by the litigants, and so claimed that the majority "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law." Stevens concluded his dissent:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

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

This election cycle promises to have a lot of ads funded by corporate entities that are completely ephemeral, who pop up like stinkhorns & fade just as quickly, the source of their funding being completely untraceable. It also offers the likelihood of candidates losing control of their own campaign & message because of "outside groups" with whom they are forbidden to coordinate. Anybody with a lick of sense recognizes that to be a sham, anyway. Witness Colbert's Superpac antics for a taste of reality.

 

[spidey07]

Citizens United is only part of the story. SuperPACs are a result of two cases. Citizens United and Speachnow.org vs the FEC.

In a nutshell, Prior to Speachnow.org, individuals could spend unlimitied campaign funds as independant expenditures, but two or more people banding together could were limited to $5000 each. That means a "millionaire" could spend as much money as they wanted to influence a political campaign, while poorer indivuals were limited by how much they were limited to spend as a group.

This, really, is what allowed super pacs to be created.

BCRA tried to stop corporations and unions from spending unlimited money on "electioneering communications". This was found to be unconstitutional in Citizens United vs the FEC. The court did find, however, that BCRA provisions requiring disclosure of funders were valid.

The ruling even pointed out:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs"

An interesting comparison is Hillary: The Movie (The topic of Citizens United) and
Fahrenheit 9/11. Both were produced by corporations. One a for profit media company, one by a non-profit PAC. Both were created to influence an elections. Fahrenheit 9/11 to defeat bush, Hillary to defeat Clinton in a primary.

One was against the law, one wasn't. Moore's movie was technically legal because it was deemed a "commercial activity."

In the end, I think concern over super PACs is indeed overstated. For every "corporation" wanting to spend money on "electioneering communications" there is a Union or other entity willing to spend money to deliver the oposing viewpoint.

Well done. You summed the whole thing up in just a few paragraphs. Bravo.

 

[spidey07]

The majority of the Court actually broadened the original issue to include corporate money. Per Justice Stevens-



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

This election cycle promises to have a lot of ads funded by corporate entities that are completely ephemeral, who pop up like stinkhorns & fade just as quickly, the source of their funding being completely untraceable. It also offers the likelihood of candidates losing control of their own campaign & message because of "outside groups" with whom they are forbidden to coordinate. Anybody with a lick of sense recognizes that to be a sham, anyway. Witness Colbert's Superpac antics for a taste of reality.

Your talking point and liberal spin is summarily dismissed by the 1st amendment and free speech. Proof positive over and over again that the left is for free speech, do long as they agree with the message.

 

[theeedude]

Are you claiming unions have as much money as corporations? That's just silly talk.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your talking point and liberal spin is summarily dismissed by the 1st amendment and free speech. Proof positive over and over again that the left is for free speech, do long as they agree with the message.

Nobody's arguing against free speech for individuals, at all. Quit pretending that they are.

 

[Griffinhart]

Are you claiming unions have as much money as corporations? That's just silly talk.

So far this election cycle, Union PACs have contributed over $17 million. That's more than PACs from the Energy and Defense sectors combined.

I also hear electioneering communications on the radio on a regular basis from unions. Something that would have been forbidden before Citizens United.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you claiming unions have as much money as corporations? That's just silly talk.

No Shit, Sherlock. It remains a favorite Right Wing talking point, however.

 

[Jhhnn]

So far this election cycle, Union PACs have contributed over $17 million. That's more than PACs from the Energy and Defense sectors combined.

Pac's have been Unions' favored vehicle for some while. How much money has been spent by supposed "outside groups" so far? What % of total political spending are Unions responsible for, anyway? How will that stack up at the final accounting?

 

[Griffinhart]

Nobody's arguing against free speech for individuals, at all. Quit pretending that they are.

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.

Note: This doesn't grant anyone the right to free speach. It prevents congress from abridging the freedom of speach. or the press.

I have to ask people that think this somehow means only individuals have free speech:

The Constitution also states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does this mean that the government has the right to enter the offices of Unions, Corporations, Churches and Clubs and seize papers and effects without a warrant?

 

[spidey07]

Pac's have been Unions' favored vehicle for some while. How much money has been spent by supposed "outside groups" so far? What % of total political spending are Unions responsible for, anyway? How will that stack up at the final accounting?

A union is a outside group.

Proof positive yet again liberals love free speech as long as they agree with it

Keep talking, you true liberal beliefs are shining through.

 

[theeedude]

So far this election cycle, Union PACs have contributed over $17 million. That's more than PACs from the Energy and Defense sectors combined.

I also hear electioneering communications on the radio on a regular basis from unions. Something that would have been forbidden before Citizens United.

A single PAC supporting Romney has already spent $17M on primaries so far. So all of union PAC spending is same as what just one corporatist PAC spent on one candidate in primaries in just 4 states.

 

[Griffinhart]

Pac's have been Unions' favored vehicle for some while. How much money has been spent by supposed "outside groups" so far? What % of total political spending are Unions responsible for, anyway? How will that stack up at the final accounting?

It's way to early to tell on super PACs. Rightnow, it almost exclusively contained in the Republican Primaries. You can bet that there will be plenty of Super PAC activity on both sides. There isn't much point in big spending against the GOP until a clear winner is determined.

As far as PAC spending in general, Unions rate higher than almost all individual industries. So far, the finance industry is on the top at more than $24 million. It's interesting to see that even then, Labor Unions almost exclusively donate to Democrats. 15 of the 17 million they donated went to Dems. On the other hand, 15 mil of the 24 mil in the finance industry went to the GOP.

There simply is no shortage of money for PACs and Super PACs on either side to get their messages out, which is why I don't think this will make much of a difference when all is said and done.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Note: This doesn't grant anyone the right to free speach. It prevents congress from abridging the freedom of speach. or the press.

I have to ask people that think this somehow means only individuals have free speech:

The Constitution also states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does this mean that the government has the right to enter the offices of Unions, Corporations, Churches and Clubs and seize papers and effects without a warrant?

Corporate entities exist at the whim of the People and their govt. As such, their so called "Rights" can also be restricted, because they are not human beings, but rather legal constructs. They do not enjoy the same right to privacy or right against self incrimination as human beings, nor can they be convicted of any crime. They cannot forfeit their freedom or their lives as a consequence of criminal behavior, either. They enjoy an entirely different tax status, as well.

Nobody here has argued that they should have exactly the same rights & responsibilities as real people, so until that argument is brought forth, Righties are just talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

 

[cybrsage]

Why are unions allowed to be both political and tax free but churches are not?

 

[Jhhnn]

Why are unions allowed to be both political and tax free but churches are not?

For the same reasons that other professional organizations like the AMA & so forth enjoy the same status, & because of the separation of church & state.

Wrt politics, claiming to have God on your side is a political advantage that nobody should rightfully enjoy.

 

[cybrsage]

For the same reasons that other professional organizations like the AMA & so forth enjoy the same status, & because of the separation of church & state.

Wrt politics, claiming to have God on your side is a political advantage that nobody should rightfully enjoy.

So you are saying that if a group supports a god they cannot both be in politics and be tax free? Just trying to make sure I understand your answer.