Hillary pledges to overturn citizens united

[GennGreymane]

For what it's worth - this is very true-

1) People have the right to give opinions on a political process
2) If a person can buy a megaphone to give their opinion, this is legal
3) People have the right to associate with other like minded people to give their opinions
4) People in such a group can pool their money to buy more megaphones, or other means, of expressing their political views.

then you make an amendment to the constitution.

[Sargerasraider]

And none of that seems undemocratic to you when the ones who are befitting are only the ones with deep pockets?

Sorry, I don't think the government should have the right to curtail political speech, regardless of whether it is by an individual or by a like-minded group of people.

then you make an amendment to the constitution.

That is what you would have to do (unless you can get a similar law passed and find enough judges who can't read).

[Independent voter]

All that money is impressive but it doesn't matter unless the election is close, that said a lot of elections are close.

Another thought is there are many "citizen" PACs, political action committees, too. You or I can join them, donate to them and have considerable influence since there are a million people in our PAC.

So I guess I'm not all that worried about the issue.

[Deletedaccount1]

Yea, the most blatantly undemocratic thing to happen in the nations history shouldn't be overturned.

The undemocratic thing to do would be to censor freedom of speech.

[Shadowferal]

Money isn't speech.
It never was it never will be.

The establishment, Wall Street, Big Banks/Businesses merely brainwashed a segment of the population that it is.

Get rid of the money in politics it then becomes ideology vs ideology, something none of the above groups ever want to see.

[Santti]

The undemocratic thing to do would be to censor freedom of speech.

Is money considered speech in the US? The more money you throw in the pile, the louder you speak? Wouldn't it be better to let the ideologies speak for themselves?

[Pangean]

Sorry, I don't think the government should have the right to curtail political speech, regardless of whether it is by an individual or by a like-minded group of people.

So this like-minded group of people get together and vote on who to contribute to? That's nonsnse to suggest a corporation is such. I understand that the majority ruled that but it's silly in the extreme to claim this when shareholder power in most corporations is next to nil.

Here's Lawrence Tribe's view on this with which I agree:

"People who invest in business corporations, as opposed to contributors to ideological non-profits of the sort that Citizens United itself represented, don't typically intend thereby to authorize the managers and directors of those corporations to use the money invested in their businesses to help some candidates win election to federal office or to hinder the efforts of others vying for positions of federal authority. Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other people's money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose.

To be sure, the statutory and decisional laws of every state already create theoretical rights in individual shareholders to sue corporate boards under state law for making "wasteful" expenditures, expenditures that do not advance the corporation's interests, but talk of shareholder democracy is largely illusory in a world where there are countless obstacles to vigilant oversight of corporate management by the widely dispersed "owners" of the underlying enterprise, especially when most of those owners have only the most attenuated link to their stock holdings, a link made all the more tenuous by the fact, noted in the Stevens dissent in Citizens United, that "[m]ost American households that own stock do so through intermediaries such as mutual funds and pension plans, . . . , which makes it more difficult both to monitor and to alter particular holdings."

[SoulForge]

Is money considered speech in the US? The more money you throw in the pile, the louder you speak? Wouldn't it be better to let the ideologies speak for themselves?

Pretty much. The bigger your pile of money the louder you seem to be no matter if you are wrong or not. Bigger pile means everyone else gets ignored.

Some seriously bullshit laws have passed over the years that do nothing but hurt people.

After that we have fear mongering that makes passing stupid laws seem effortless.

[Deletedaccount1]

Is money considered speech in the US? The more money you throw in the pile, the louder you speak? Wouldn't it be better to let the ideologies speak for themselves?

Restricting the ability of citizens to lobby for their private interest is a violation of the first amendment which is what the majority decision reflected and determined to be true. It wasn't shot down for no reason. It was shot down because it was unconstitutional.

[Sargerasraider]

Money isn't speech.
It never was it never will be.

The establishment, Wall Street, Big Banks/Businesses merely brainwashed a segment of the population that it is.

Get rid of the money in politics it then becomes ideology vs ideology, something none of the above groups ever want to see.

Simple question: Do you think people of a particular ideology have the right to associate with others of that ideology and run a TV ad?

So this like-minded group of people get together and vote on who to contribute to? That's nonsnse to suggest a corporation is such. I understand that the majority ruled that but it's silly in the extreme to claim this when shareholder power in most corporations is next to nil.

You do know what the organization Citizens United actually is, right? You understand that the term "corporation" refers to a group of individuals uniting for a particular purpose, right? Read some background about the case and you can see why the original law that was overturned blatantly violated free speech rights.

[Tijuana]

"Hillary Clinton announced on Saturday that she would introduce a constitutional amendment within the first 30 days of her presidency to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for unlimited corporate, union and individual spending on elections."

As much as I'd like that to happen, I honestly believe she has little to no chance of getting it overturned, or whether she actually prioritizes it as much as she's claiming she will. I guess I'll have to wait and see.

Thoughts?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b08608d334c7bd

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tizens-united/

https://m.reddit.com/r/politics/comm...nal_amendment/

You would think someone like her, with a law degree, would know that you can't just pass laws to run an end around on the SCOTUS. The first amendment isn't going anywhere.

[SoulForge]

Restricting the ability of citizens to lobby for their private interest is a violation of the first amendment which is what the majority decision reflected and determined to be true. It wasn't shot down for no reason. It was shot down because it was unconstitutional.

Bullshit. We can have discussions back and forth about why something should or should not be without greasing the palms of those in power to sway their decision.

Lobbying is essentially buying votes.

[Santti]

Restricting the ability of citizens to lobby for their private interest is a violation of the first amendment which is what the majority decision reflected and determined to be true. It wasn't shot down for no reason. It was shot down because it was unconstitutional.

It looks like corruption to me.

[Deletedaccount1]

I get the idea that corporations could put money to push harmful agendas but the fact of the matter is that donors always give to candidates who already agree with them, they don't use money to change their opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

It looks like corruption to me.

Constitutionally, the only way to have a less corrupt government is to make it smaller.

[HillaryJtrump]

She wont but she will say anything to get in to OFFICE once she is in it will be Business as usual

[NineSpine]

Simple question: Do you think people of a particular ideology have the right to associate with others of that ideology and run a TV ad?

Is Citizens United a ruling about people or a ruling about corporations?

[SoulForge]

I get the idea that corporations could put money to push harmful agendas but the fact of the matter is that donors always give to candidates who already agree with them, they don't use money to change their opinion.

- - - Updated - - -



Constitutionally, the only way to have a less corrupt government is to make it smaller.

If you follow the money trail on the way politicians vote on issues you'd know that isn't true. Compare the way they voted to the money they received.

[Shadowferal]

When a law becomes part of the Constitution, it can't be struck down.
People want to play games that support special interests big money influence, but none have the interest of the country as a whole.

[Ivanstone]

Constitutionally, the only way to have a less corrupt government is to make it smaller.

A smaller government just means that you only have to bribe a smaller amount of people.

[NineSpine]

I get the idea that corporations could put money to push harmful agendas but the fact of the matter is that donors always give to candidates who already agree with them, they don't use money to change their opinion.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. That distinction is meaningless.

Constitutionally, the only way to have a less corrupt government is to make it smaller.

"Smaller" is a meaningless word when it comes to government. The governments of third world countries have razor thin budgets but still manage to be brutal and repressive. "Small government" is a code word for "Government that does things I like, instead of things I don't like". It's an attempt to mask an ideological preference behind an objective measure.