Abbott being Abbott

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

But that's not new.  The conclusion that spending money is protected by the First Amendment because it is critical to disseminating speech goes back to Buckley v. Valeo.  If you want to overturn that conclusion, that's fine.  But that didn't come out of Citizens United--that's nearly a half-century of precedent.

Citizens United let unseen and unregulated foreign money into our elections. We got trump as a result. The decision was a complete disaster.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,086]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Citizens United let unseen and unregulated foreign money into our elections. We got trump as a result. The decision was a complete disaster.

yuuup

[Bozo_Casanova 26,774]

13 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Citizens United let unseen and unregulated foreign money into our elections. We got trump as a result. The decision was a complete disaster.

@washparkhorn, you were very pro Citizens United as I recall, or at least you thought it was right on free speech and would not have disastrous consequences. Any thoughts now?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,774]

16 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

And by the way, I haven't seen Democrats so keen to criticize Citizens United of late.

For the record, I have always thought Citizens United was correctly decided, and I think this past few weeks has shown why it is so important.

Still hate it. What does it have to do with the last few weeks? 

[troph 25,099]

Citizens United and Hobby Lobby are two of the worst SCOTUS decisions in my lifetime. Unwavering opposition and disdain for those decisions. Money is NOT speech and corporations should NOT have first amendment rights.  Foreign money should be completely banned, full stop.

Edited April 7, 2021 by troph

[troph 25,099]

If a blood draw isn’t self incrimination in violation of the 5th then spending money isn’t protected by the 1st IMO. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,904]

16 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

And by the way, I haven't seen Democrats so keen to criticize Citizens United of late.

For the record, I have always thought Citizens United was correctly decided, and I think this past few weeks has shown why it is so important.

You’re wrong on both counts. Citizens United was a horrible decision and Democrats are still speaking out against it. The Republicans who supported it, who argued that corporations are people and money is speech, are the ones who are now arguing that corporations should stay out of politics.

Edit I should’ve read on before replying. I didn’t realize you’d already been thoroughly pantsed on this subject. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by WhatTheBuck

[Ghost of LL 15,674]

5 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Still hate it. What does it have to do with the last few weeks? 

I think we're seeing the value of corporations having free-speech rights.  When the government can tell corporations "shut your mouth about our tyrannical policies or else there will be consequences," then this is something far less than an open and free economy and country.

5 hours ago, troph said:

Citizens United and Hobby Lobby are two of the worst SCOTUS decisions in my lifetime. Unwavering opposition and disdain for those decisions. Money is NOT speech and corporations should NOT have first amendment rights.  Foreign money should be completely banned, full stop.

I'm not going to stick up for Hobby Lobby, and that's not a First Amendment case.  It's a RFRA case.  And it rests on the presumption that a corporation can have a religious exercise that can be substantially burdened, which I fundamentally disagree with.

But while I don't think a corporation can have a religious exercise, it definitely can speak.  Corporations do that constantly.  And the idea that corporations have free-speech rights isn't new.  That goes back to NYT v. Sullivan and Bigelow v. Virginia.  

And I'm fine with banning foreign money.  But that's a different issue of an American corporation's speech.

Look, if you're fine with Mitch McConnell telling Coca-Cola "shut the fuck up or there'll be consequences;" if you're fine with the Georgia Senate telling Delta Air Lines "shut the fuck up or we'll tax the hell outta your Jet-A," then . . . well, I think that's wild.  But I guess it's a take.  It's just a take with which I fundamentally disagree.

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You’re wrong on both counts. Citizens United was a horrible decision and Democrats are still speaking out against it. The Republicans who supported it, who argued that corporations are people and money is speech, are the ones who are now arguing that corporations should stay out of politics.

Edit I should’ve read on before replying. I didn’t realize you’d already been thoroughly pantsed on this subject. 

There's a difference between having a lot of people disagree with you and being "thoroughly pantsed."  I have yet to see here a cogent argument either (1) that corporations don't have free-speech rights or (2) that money isn't speech.  And there isn't much of an argument on either, because both premises have been well-established for nearly a half-century.

I mean, if your view is that money is not speech, then you're saying that your only First Amendment right is to go stand on a street corner and yell at people.  Because anything more takes money, and the government has the power to restrict you doing anything more than standing on the street corner and yelling.  And that's just a conclusion that I find repugnant.

And I'm really sorry that free speech resulted in Trump being able to spread noxious ideas among our completely ignorant, racist, and selfish populace.  But perhaps the answer to that is that our populace shouldn't be so fucking ignorant, racist, and selfish.  I mean, I know that's a heavy lift.  But if it's too heavy a lift, then the answer isn't to restrict speech; it's to let this Republic fail, because its people aren't worthy of it.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,774]

18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think we're seeing the value of corporations having free-speech rights.  When the government can tell corporations "shut your mouth about our tyrannical policies or else there will be consequences," then this is something far less than an open and free economy and country.

Ok, but that's a bit of a strawman, don't you think? Whether a corporation "has free speech" is far more general than whether the first amendment allows a corporation, as an entity distinct from the employees and shareholders of the corporation,  to engage in independent electioneering communications. I think your position is much like what the majority did - expanding the scope of the question beyond what was presented by the appellants. Of course a corporation can do or not do business as it likes and issue statements communication their business decisions to the market. What BCRA said was that they couldn't make or pay for campaign ads within a couple months of an election, not require them to either keep the all star game in Atlanta or keep quiet about why they don't.

C'mon man. Only a lawyer would even dream of conflating those things. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[Ghost of LL 15,674]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ok, but that's a bit of a strawman, don't you think? Whether a corporation "has free speech" is far more general than whether the first amendment allows a corporation, as an entity distinct from the employees and shareholders of the corporation,  to engage in independent electioneering communications. I think your position is much like what the majority did - expanding the scope of the question beyond what was presented by the appellants. Of course a corporation can do or not do business as it likes and issue statements communication their business decisions to the market. What BCRA said was that they couldn't make or pay for campaign ads within a couple months of an election, not require them to either keep the all star game in Atlanta or keep quiet about why they don't.

C'mon man. Only a lawyer would even dream of conflating those things. 

What's the distinction you draw?  From a constitutional standpoint, what's the difference between Delta Air Lines saying "this Georgia law sucks" in April 2021 and saying "this Georgia law sucks and you should vote against Brian Kemp" in October 2022?

I think we agree that the former is protected speech, right?  And so were the State of Georgia to increase taxes on Delta in retaliation for saying that the law sucks, that would be a First-Amendment violation, right?

So why would Delta saying functionally the same thing 18 months hence not be protected speech?

[GW Hayduke 1,957]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think we're seeing the value of corporations having free-speech rights.  When the government can tell corporations "shut your mouth about our tyrannical policies or else there will be consequences," then this is something far less than an open and free economy and country.

You are describing actual speech.  Citizens United was about moving money under the umbrella of speech.

 

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Look, if you're fine with Mitch McConnell telling Coca-Cola "shut the fuck up or there'll be consequences;" if you're fine with the Georgia Senate telling Delta Air Lines "shut the fuck up or we'll tax the hell outta your Jet-A," then . . . well, I think that's wild.  But I guess it's a take.  It's just a take with which I fundamentally disagree.

You are again describing actual speech by corporations.

23 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I have yet to see here a cogent argument either (1) that corporations don't have free-speech rights or (2) that money isn't speech.

Corporations can't vote or hold office. Corporations are influenced by foreign actors. 

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

"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."

[JohnnyRage 1,617]

On 4/6/2021 at 9:05 AM, Lobo said:

So Abbott bands vaccination reporting for state employees and state facilities.

But you have to show your vaccination records to enroll in public schools?  

I heard on The Texas Standard that people are having to prove they’ve received the vaccine to enter some tent at the State Capital and for the Lt. Governor’s press conference.

[troph 25,099]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think we're seeing the value of corporations having free-speech rights.  When the government can tell corporations "shut your mouth about our tyrannical policies or else there will be consequences," then this is something far less than an open and free economy and country.

I'm not going to stick up for Hobby Lobby, and that's not a First Amendment case.  It's a RFRA case.  And it rests on the presumption that a corporation can have a religious exercise that can be substantially burdened, which I fundamentally disagree with.

But while I don't think a corporation can have a religious exercise, it definitely can speak.  Corporations do that constantly.  And the idea that corporations have free-speech rights isn't new.  That goes back to NYT v. Sullivan and Bigelow v. Virginia.  

And I'm fine with banning foreign money.  But that's a different issue of an American corporation's speech.

Look, if you're fine with Mitch McConnell telling Coca-Cola "shut the fuck up or there'll be consequences;" if you're fine with the Georgia Senate telling Delta Air Lines "shut the fuck up or we'll tax the hell outta your Jet-A," then . . . well, I think that's wild.  But I guess it's a take.  It's just a take with which I fundamentally disagree.

There's a difference between having a lot of people disagree with you and being "thoroughly pantsed."  I have yet to see here a cogent argument either (1) that corporations don't have free-speech rights or (2) that money isn't speech.  And there isn't much of an argument on either, because both premises have been well-established for nearly a half-century.

I mean, if your view is that money is not speech, then you're saying that your only First Amendment right is to go stand on a street corner and yell at people.  Because anything more takes money, and the government has the power to restrict you doing anything more than standing on the street corner and yelling.  And that's just a conclusion that I find repugnant.

And I'm really sorry that free speech resulted in Trump being able to spread noxious ideas among our completely ignorant, racist, and selfish populace.  But perhaps the answer to that is that our populace shouldn't be so fucking ignorant, racist, and selfish.  I mean, I know that's a heavy lift.  But if it's too heavy a lift, then the answer isn't to restrict speech; it's to let this Republic fail, because its people aren't worthy of it.

RFRA is grounded in first amendment rights but you're correct that case isn't first amendment.  I do not believe any corporation should be able to exercise any right to discriminate against a person under any statutory or first amendment right to the free exercise of religion.  period.  when I was in law school, SCOTUS treated the religious clauses in a manner that made a lot of sense - look - you want to claim an exemption from a broadly applicable statute, prove it to us you are super serious about your religion and you were left with almost no exceptions. amish cases not withstanding.  We are way off base from that now.  now if a dickweed bumpersticker christian wants to hate on me or on poor pregnant women they can even though civil rights act says no.  that's horseshit.  RFRA should be largely unconstitutional to protect ME and that poor pregnant woman.  and corporations can speak and talk all they want, they should not have an inaienable right to political speech via unrestricted campaign dollars.  don't allow Mitch McConnell to exact a toll against Coke for their actual political speech - you know speech in the form of written words, press release - cool all for it.  give coke the protected right to dump cash at the feet of a president who will sacrifice our country so soda can be sold on the moon, yeah no.

somehow I posted in CR again, I need to bail.  I'm sure I said something not accurate, I don't care.  I earned the right to be passionately wrong. fuck CU and fuck HL cases, they can go back to the hell they came from.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,774]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

What's the distinction you draw?  From a constitutional standpoint, what's the difference between Delta Air Lines saying "this Georgia law sucks" in April 2021 and saying "this Georgia law sucks and you should vote against Brian Kemp" in October 2022?

I think we agree that the former is protected speech, right?  And so were the State of Georgia to increase taxes on Delta in retaliation for saying that the law sucks, that would be a First-Amendment violation, right?

So why would Delta saying functionally the same thing 18 months hence not be protected speech?

1) The difference between "this georgia law sucks" in April 21 and "this Georgia law sucks and you should vote against Brian Kemp"  and October 22 is 18 months and "and you should vote against Brian Kemp." 
2) We agree the former is protected speech, and as a non-lawyer I have no idea whether a retaliatory tax law change away from sweetheart deals could be a first amendment violation. It's certainly not nice, but plenty of states would welcome Delta's hub and headquarters if it's untenable to the business model. 
3) Calling it functionally the same thing seems like begging the question, see #1

[Ghost of LL 15,674]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

1) The difference between "this georgia law sucks" in April 21 and "this Georgia law sucks and you should vote against Brian Kemp"  and October 22 is 18 months and "and you should vote against Brian Kemp." 
2) We agree the former is protected speech, and as a non-lawyer I have no idea whether a retaliatory tax law change away from sweetheart deals could be a first amendment violation. It's certainly not nice, but plenty of states would welcome Delta's hub and headquarters if it's untenable to the business model. 
3) Calling it functionally the same thing seems like begging the question, see #1

Ok, well if it's not functionally the same thing, then how is it different in some way that justifies treating them as different under the Constitution?  I mean, I get that they're different in that they're separated by 18 months and that they specifically reference Brian Kemp.  But what in the Constitution or in constitutional precedent makes those differences significant in any way?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,774]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

Ok, well if it's not functionally the same thing, then how is it different in some way that justifies treating them as different under the Constitution?  I mean, I get that they're different in that they're separated by 18 months and that they specifically reference Brian Kemp.  But what in the Constitution or in constitutional precedent makes those differences significant in any way?

the fact that they are legal entities distinct from the persons that constitute their body and not persons themselves seems significant. 

[Hank Scorpio 17,924]

I’m not going to get into this, but acting like Citizens United is just obviously correct and sorry there’s nothing we can do about it because free speech is just a pure mush brained lawyer take. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,086]

58 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I’m not going to get into this, but acting like Citizens United is just obviously correct and sorry there’s nothing we can do about it because free speech is just a pure mush brained lawyer take. 

it's kinda like saying "The 'War On Drugs' did some good things."

[TexPx 2,330]

it's kinda like saying "The 'War On Drugs' did some good things."

I really like their last album.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JimmyJames 12,271]

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

What's the distinction you draw?  From a constitutional standpoint, what's the difference between Delta Air Lines saying "this Georgia law sucks" in April 2021 and saying "this Georgia law sucks and you should vote against Brian Kemp" in October 2022?

I think we agree that the former is protected speech, right?  And so were the State of Georgia to increase taxes on Delta in retaliation for saying that the law sucks, that would be a First-Amendment violation, right?

So why would Delta saying functionally the same thing 18 months hence not be protected speech?

The answer to your question (although not directly asked in this post) is money is fungible and at the end of the day pretty much always untraceable to its original source.

Speech on the other hand is almost always traceable to its original source. Witness all the republicans whining about woke corporate speech.

The Supreme Court, led by supposed moderate but in point of fact corporate hack Kennedy, failed to make this critical distinction between money and speech in its Citizen United opinion fiasco, and as a result, failed America and issued Dred Scott 2.0. Which led to trump, which led to insurrection, and here we are. 

 

[StassneyHorn 6,755]

No words

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Citizens United was a radical decision that overturned century old regulations on how much money can be spent on elections. It was the most activist and radical court decision in American history and had huge ramifications a mere six years later.

The justification was free speech. Or more specifically that spending unlimited money equals free speech. So the more money you got, the more influence you got over elections because you got more free speech.

I cannot imagine a more destructive opinion to democracy other than a judicial opinion that declares the entire constitution to be unconstitutional.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,086]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Citizens United was a radical decision that overturned century old regulations on how much money can be spent on elections. It was the most activist and radical court decision in American history and had huge ramifications a mere six years later.

The justification was free speech. Or more specifically that spending unlimited money equals free speech. So the more money you got, the more influence you got over elections because you got more free speech.

I cannot imagine a more destructive opinion to democracy other than a judicial opinion that declares the entire constitution to be unconstitutional.

Won't somebody think of the corporations!?!?

[TheStoicPaisano 9,949]

42 minutes ago, TexPx said:

I really like their last album.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Another discovery from the Bojack soundtrack.

[TheStoicPaisano 9,949]

DP

Edited April 8, 2021 by TheStoicPaisano

[Updawg 2,378]

Won't somebody think of the corporations!?!?

Poor ATT is always the red haired step child.

[Ghost of LL 15,674]

45 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Citizens United was a radical decision that overturned century old regulations on how much money can be spent on elections. It was the most activist and radical court decision in American history and had huge ramifications a mere six years later.

The justification was free speech. Or more specifically that spending unlimited money equals free speech. So the more money you got, the more influence you got over elections because you got more free speech.

I cannot imagine a more destructive opinion to democracy other than a judicial opinion that declares the entire constitution to be unconstitutional.

And what I'm telling you is that it wasn't radical.  It is the natural consequence of Buckley and Bigelow.  

If you don't like those, then fine.  But tell me--what is the rule you would put in its place?  Corporations have no free-speech rights?  So you're fine with Georgia telling Delta "shut the fuck up or we'll tax your Jet-A in retaliation"?  

Or are you fine with saying that money isn't speech?  So you're fine with Texas telling its citizens "it is illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood"?  Because you totally know the Legislature would do that, if they thought they could get away with it.

I see a lot of people decrying Citizens United in wild and hyperbolic terms, without offering any suggestion of what rule should stand in its place.  Much less offering any constitutional basis for such a rule.

And finally, I'm sorry, but Citizens United didn't give us Trump.  The ignorance, racism, and selfishness of the American people gave us Trump.  These have been cancers growing within the body politic for a long time.  Blaming the failure of 2016 on one SCOTUS decision is, at least in my opinion, silly and simplistic.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

29 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And what I'm telling you is that it wasn't radical.  It is the natural consequence of Buckley and Bigelow.  

If you don't like those, then fine.  But tell me--what is the rule you would put in its place?  Corporations have no free-speech rights?  So you're fine with Georgia telling Delta "shut the fuck up or we'll tax your Jet-A in retaliation"?  

Or are you fine with saying that money isn't speech?  So you're fine with Texas telling its citizens "it is illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood"?  Because you totally know the Legislature would do that, if they thought they could get away with it.

I see a lot of people decrying Citizens United in wild and hyperbolic terms, without offering any suggestion of what rule should stand in its place.  Much less offering any constitutional basis for such a rule.

And finally, I'm sorry, but Citizens United didn't give us Trump.  The ignorance, racism, and selfishness of the American people gave us Trump.  These have been cancers growing within the body politic for a long time.  Blaming the failure of 2016 on one SCOTUS decision is, at least in my opinion, silly and simplistic.

The rule I would put in place is that money spent on politics and elections is subject to regulations by the legislature so long as the restrictions are reasonable. Just like it had been for a 100 plus years before. 
 

Spending money on elections is not the same thing as free speech on elections. You can say whatever you want on an election. You can’t, however, spend whatever you want unless you want to pony up your own money. 
 

The corporations status thing is not the point. The fact that corporations are multi national just highlighted the problem with what they did.
 

Citizens United held no regulations on spending money allowed per the first amendment. It essentially said a regulation that disallowed yelling fire in a movie theater is unconstitutional. 
 

It totally fucked up our politics. Today was basically the inevitable result.

[GW Hayduke 1,957]

If we take away the right to unlimited election spending free speech from corporations, what will be next?  Are we going to take away their right to vote? The right to own a gun? The right to run for office?  That would be terrible.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

 In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, regarding whether or not a political documentary about Hillary Clinton could be considered a political ad that must be paid for with funds regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act.^[18] In January 2010, the Supreme Court struck sections of McCain–Feingold down which limited activity of corporations, saying, "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." Specifically, Citizens Unitedstruck down campaign financing laws related to corporations and unions; law previously banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. The ruling did not, as commonly thought, change the amount of money corporations and unions can contribute to campaigns. The minority argued that the court erred in allowing unlimited corporate spending, arguing that corporate spending posed a particular threat to democratic self-government.^[19]

President Barack Obama expressed his concern over the Supreme Court's decision during his 2010 State of the Union Address, delivered January 27, saying, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."^[20] President Obama also called the decision, "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."^[19]

[Satchel 6,982]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

If we take away the right to unlimited election spending free speech from corporations, what will be next?  Are we going to take away their right to vote? The right to own a gun? The right to run for office?  That would be terrible.

What does a corporation running for office look like?

[Biff Tannen 46,069]

45 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And what I'm telling you is that it wasn't radical.  It is the natural consequence of Buckley and Bigelow.  

If you don't like those, then fine.  But tell me--what is the rule you would put in its place?  Corporations have no free-speech rights?  So you're fine with Georgia telling Delta "shut the fuck up or we'll tax your Jet-A in retaliation"?  

Or are you fine with saying that money isn't speech?  So you're fine with Texas telling its citizens "it is illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood"?  Because you totally know the Legislature would do that, if they thought they could get away with it.

I see a lot of people decrying Citizens United in wild and hyperbolic terms, without offering any suggestion of what rule should stand in its place.  Much less offering any constitutional basis for such a rule.

And finally, I'm sorry, but Citizens United didn't give us Trump.  The ignorance, racism, and selfishness of the American people gave us Trump.  These have been cancers growing within the body politic for a long time.  Blaming the failure of 2016 on one SCOTUS decision is, at least in my opinion, silly and simplistic.

What jimmy said. What was the problem with how it was before?  Honest question as I was young and barely paying attention then. 

[Grade of D as in David 13,255]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

What does a corporation running for office look like?

Looks pretty much like this

[TwiceHorn 32,002]

46 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And what I'm telling you is that it wasn't radical.  It is the natural consequence of Buckley and Bigelow.  

If you don't like those, then fine.  But tell me--what is the rule you would put in its place?  Corporations have no free-speech rights?  So you're fine with Georgia telling Delta "shut the fuck up or we'll tax your Jet-A in retaliation"?  

Or are you fine with saying that money isn't speech?  So you're fine with Texas telling its citizens "it is illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood"?  Because you totally know the Legislature would do that, if they thought they could get away with it.

I see a lot of people decrying Citizens United in wild and hyperbolic terms, without offering any suggestion of what rule should stand in its place.  Much less offering any constitutional basis for such a rule.

And finally, I'm sorry, but Citizens United didn't give us Trump.  The ignorance, racism, and selfishness of the American people gave us Trump.  These have been cancers growing within the body politic for a long time.  Blaming the failure of 2016 on one SCOTUS decision is, at least in my opinion, silly and simplistic.

Yeah, the century-old thing isn't right.

Buckley trashed the FECA of 1974 and CU the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002.

#bothsides spend like motherfuckers and it probably nets out, but it still isn't a real good thing, and it didn't give us Trump.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What jimmy said. What was the problem with how it was before?  Honest question as I was young and barely paying attention then. 

The owners didn’t like the restrictions on their power so the owners got the Supreme Court to overturn those restrictions. Moscow Mitch supported those efforts and continues to do so.

 Since then they have made a shitload of money, have consolidated power, and are coming close to turning America into a Russian style oligarchy, which 99 PE percent of the populous will suffer for. 
 

Other than that it’s all good. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, the century-old thing isn't right.

Buckley trashed the FECA of 1974 and CU the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002.

#bothsides spend like motherfuckers and it probably nets out, but it still isn't a real good thing, and it didn't give us Trump.

So a decision from 2010 which held that restrictions on campaign election spending violate the first amendment didn’t overturn well established laws regulating spending restrictions? Just trying to understand what we’re arguing here. No prior holding went nearly as far as citizens United did. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

As for Buckley, the decision restricted congress but nothing close to what Citizens United did. It’s not even comparable. 

[Satchel 6,982]

What does a corporation owning a gun look like?

[TwiceHorn 32,002]

20 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

So a decision from 2010 which held that restrictions on campaign election spending violate the first amendment didn’t overturn well established laws regulating spending restrictions? Just trying to understand what we’re arguing here. No prior holding went nearly as far as citizens United did. 

You said century old.

There was an act from the early 20th century that had no enforcement mechanism, but the first serious attempt, FECA was overturned in a matter of years, then there was nothing, and the second serious attempt, McCain, was also overturned in a matter of years.

You can quibble about what "well-established" means, but campaign finance reform laws have a pretty short life here.

The decisions, Buckley and CU, vary in scope in accordance with the laws they struck down.  

Edited April 8, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Beau Vine 55,840]

Could y'all take this shit to a relevant thread and quit threadshitting those of us who hate Greg Abbott with the fire of a billion suns?  Thankee.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You said century old.

There was an act from the early 20th century that had no enforcement mechanism, but the first serious attempt, FECA was overturned in a matter of years, then there was nothing, and the second serious attempt, McCain, was also overturned in a matter of years.

You can quibble about what "well-established" means, but campaign finance reform laws have a pretty short life here.

The Tillman act was passed in 1907.  So far as I know the Supreme Court never overturned it.
 

But whatever none of those laws really mattered because they didn’t matter because they couldn’t be enforced because,  like I argued earlier, money is fungible. Nowadays they do matter.

Its like we’re arguing the merits of the Georgia voter suppression laws. We know why they passed them. To suppress the black vote and are based on a lie. The details are besides the point.

We should know why Kennedy wrote citizens United. Increasing corporate and the power of the rich. The details are besides the point.

[TwiceHorn 32,002]

14 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The Tillman act was passed in 1907.  So far as I know the Supreme Court never overturned it.
 

But whatever none of those laws really mattered because they didn’t matter because they couldn’t be enforced because,  like I argued earlier, money is fungible. Nowadays they do matter.

Its like we’re arguing the merits of the Georgia voter suppression laws. We know why they passed them. To suppress the black vote and are based on a lie. The details are besides the point.

We should know why Kennedy wrote citizens United. Increasing corporate and the power of the rich. The details are besides the point.

My only point was that campaign finance reform laws aren't really a longstanding tradition here.  Effective or effectual laws are a relatively recent thing, and haven't survived for long.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

My only point was that campaign finance reform laws aren't really a longstanding tradition here.  Effective or effectual laws are a relatively recent thing, and haven't survived for long.

Maybe so. But the world has changed. And we have to keep foreign money out of our elections. And the only way to do that is through effective regulations, which to date, the Supreme Court has effectively disallowed. 

[Willfully Horn 8,209]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

If we take away the right to unlimited election spending free speech from corporations, what will be next?  Are we going to take away their right to vote? The right to own a gun? The right to run for office?  That would be terrible.

All corporations are created equal!

 

[Ghost of LL 15,674]

12 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

If we take away the right to unlimited election spending free speech from corporations, what will be next?  Are we going to take away their right to vote? The right to own a gun? The right to run for office?  That would be terrible.

Fair point.  And we certainly wouldn't want corporations to be able to own property without it being taken by the government without compensation.  Nor would we want corporations to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Nor should they have a right to trial by jury when sued.  And freedom of association--no way that should be done under the corporate form.

Oh, wait--none of that is right.  So corporations do have some constitutional rights, right?  And we're ok with that, right.  

And, in fact, corporations can and do own guns.  The rights you identify--to vote and run for office--are not in the Bill of Rights.  And I'm hard pressed, as I go through the Bill of Rights, to identify a single right that wouldn't apply to corporations.

[wildcat09 29,569]

13 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

And what I'm telling you is that it wasn't radical.  It is the natural consequence of Buckley and Bigelow.  

If you don't like those, then fine.  But tell me--what is the rule you would put in its place?  Corporations have no free-speech rights?  So you're fine with Georgia telling Delta "shut the fuck up or we'll tax your Jet-A in retaliation"?  

Or are you fine with saying that money isn't speech?  So you're fine with Texas telling its citizens "it is illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood"?  Because you totally know the Legislature would do that, if they thought they could get away with it.

I see a lot of people decrying Citizens United in wild and hyperbolic terms, without offering any suggestion of what rule should stand in its place.  Much less offering any constitutional basis for such a rule.

And finally, I'm sorry, but Citizens United didn't give us Trump.  The ignorance, racism, and selfishness of the American people gave us Trump.  These have been cancers growing within the body politic for a long time.  Blaming the failure of 2016 on one SCOTUS decision is, at least in my opinion, silly and simplistic.

I don't know, but the idea that a line can't be drawn is ridiculous. I actually think Citizens United should've been allowed to air their movie and that an actually good Court ruling would've found either that the statute didn't apply to those facts or that it was unconstitutional as applied. But the idea that "sorry, money = speech so there's absolutely nothing the American people can do to impose some reasonable limitations to prevent extremely obvious corruption" is absolute bullshit.

There are limitations in every other area of First Amendment jurisprudence. Kids in school have basically no speech rights (it's been held that they do but every time the Court takes a case on it they invent a new exception). Everyone's actual speech, the actual physical act of speaking, even political protest, are subject to time, place, and manner restrictions. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, were arrested during political protests throughout America last summer under the guise of such restrictions, and you know that this Court would find nearly every one of those arrests to have been fine.

But when it comes to corporate campaign spending, suddenly there can be no line. Because money = speech and, as to this very particular form of speech, there can be no restrictions. Not even something that isn't the tiniest bit restrictive. It's not Citizens United, but Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett built on Citizens United and showed what this is really about. Arizona had passed, by ballot initiative, a matching funds law that gave public campaign funds to candidates who agreed to limit their personal spending, so that they had funds to match opponents who were privately financed. It didn't restrict the ability of a privately financed candidate to spend in any way, nor did it restrict the ability of PACs to support them. Nevertheless, the Court held that Arizona's law was a violation of the private candidate's free speech rights, despite it imposing absolutely no limitation on his ability to speak. Because this shit isn't about speech, it's about power. And Arizona's law challenged the relative power of privately financed candidates to drown out their opponents.  The conservative majority on this Court doesn't give a shit about free speech, they just don't think the American people, through the democratic process, should have the ability to take the rich down a peg.

[wildcat09 29,569]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, the century-old thing isn't right.

Buckley trashed the FECA of 1974 and CU the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002.

#bothsides spend like motherfuckers and it probably nets out, but it still isn't a real good thing, and it didn't give us Trump.

In a way, it did. It forced the Democrats to abandon labor to suck up to Wall Street and Silicon Valley for cash, which gave Trump the ability to turn the white union vote in the midwest.

[pyrohornIII 4,845]

It shouldn't be illegal for anyone or any corporation to donate to something they believe in.

What should be illegal is no accountability of those donations via dark money or PACs, SuperPACs, whatever.   Or be they promises of jobs (or other non cash rewards) for family members, staff or anyone else associated with any politician.  

Transparency is what we need.   Too much dark money.

 

[wildcat09 29,569]

46 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Fair point.  And we certainly wouldn't want corporations to be able to own property without it being taken by the government without compensation.  Nor would we want corporations to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Nor should they have a right to trial by jury when sued.  And freedom of association--no way that should be done under the corporate form.

Oh, wait--none of that is right.  So corporations do have some constitutional rights, right?  And we're ok with that, right.  

And, in fact, corporations can and do own guns.  The rights you identify--to vote and run for office--are not in the Bill of Rights.  And I'm hard pressed, as I go through the Bill of Rights, to identify a single right that wouldn't apply to corporations.

If we really must treat corporations like people for every purpose the moment we treat them like people for any purpose, we need to start locking up a lot of people for murder for dissolving corporations and LLCs.

[GW Hayduke 1,957]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Fair point.  And we certainly wouldn't want corporations to be able to own property without it being taken by the government without compensation.  Nor would we want corporations to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Nor should they have a right to trial by jury when sued.  And freedom of association--no way that should be done under the corporate form.

Oh, wait--none of that is right.  So corporations do have some constitutional rights, right?  And we're ok with that, right.  

And, in fact, corporations can and do own guns.  The rights you identify--to vote and run for office--are not in the Bill of Rights.  And I'm hard pressed, as I go through the Bill of Rights, to identify a single right that wouldn't apply to corporations.

There is inherent absurdity in equating corporations with people especially in terms of giving them unlimited election spending and greater control over our elections.  It is "We the people" and not "We the multinational corporation" or "We the LLC" or "We the shell company."  They are not citizens and are not allowed to vote or run for office.  Giving them overly weighted power in electioneering is unamerican.  It is antithetical to self governance.  It is antithetical to democracy.