California’s ballot initiative, require legislators to wear logos of top contributors

[Kujako]

They arrested a guy being funded by ISIS. If money is free speech, that was a clear violation and people can send/receive funding from/to criminals without punishment, just like they are free to talk to them. The issue with Citizens United is that it defines money as speech in elections, to permit the subverting of donor information. In just about every other judicial sense, spending money is not free speech. If it was, the idea of money laundering is less a crime, than just being a translation of speech.

You can be arrested for speech, it's down to the intent behind it. And the SCOTUS ruling was very narrow, only applying to political speech.

[Reeve]

But it kind of is. Because corporations are people, they get 1st amendment protection, and can spend unlimited money in politics. But the 13th amendment says that owning people is against the law, so corporations can't be people, so we can limit their political spending.

The more important part of Citizens United, to my mind, is that individuals can contribute unlimited funds to PACs. The fact that it also allows corporations to do so may compound the issue, but it's not the root issue.

[Kujako]

The more important part of Citizens United, to my mind, is that individuals can contribute unlimited funds to PACs. The fact that it also allows corporations to do so may compound the issue, but it's not the root issue.

The reason Citizens United was even started, was to give corporations an edge over unions. It's why it was coupled with all the "right to work" laws etc. There are FAR fewer super rich individuals then there are corporations.

[Reeve]

They arrested a guy being funded by ISIS. If money is free speech, that was a clear violation and people can send/receive funding from/to criminals without punishment, just like they are free to talk to them. The issue with Citizens United is that it defines money as speech in elections, to permit the subverting of donor information. In just about every other judicial sense, spending money is not free speech. If it was, the idea of money laundering is less a crime, than just being a translation of speech.

You're misunderstanding. The whole "money is speech" line is just media interpreting to make it easy to understand for people, but it's not really what's being said. It's saying that cash donations used to facilitate political speech is protected because otherwise you're severely and unduly curtailing the rights of people and organizations to exercise their rights to free speech.

"Money is speech" is just shorthand, and shouldn't be used in a logical A therefore B scenario, since A is a summary, not a truth.

[Felya]

You can be arrested for speech, it's down to the intent behind it. And the SCOTUS ruling was very narrow, only applying to political speech.

Yep, which is why it's pretty bad. It's like a broad definition of speech, applied in a very narrow occurrence. If applied as broadly as it's defined, extortion is just a formal way to ask someone to be left alone.

[Reeve]

I agree.
More transparency I support, but the logos idea just sounds petty.

Most people are never going to look up a list of donors to a campaign, but they won't fail to notice the logos on the politician's suits. If the idea of the law is to raise awareness, increasing transparency by forced publication won't do it nearly as well.

- - - Updated - - -

The reason Citizens United was even started, was to give corporations an edge over unions. It's why it was coupled with all the "right to work" laws etc. There are FAR fewer super rich individuals then there are corporations.

It doesn't matter how it was started. It's the results that make the difference, and the most critical result was the fact that political contributions could be counted as free speech. Even if you got rid of corporate donations, it would still be a problem.

[Felya]

You're misunderstanding. The whole "money is speech" line is just media interpreting to make it easy to understand for people, but it's not really what's being said. It's saying that cash donations used to facilitate political speech is protected because otherwise you're severely and unduly curtailing the rights of people and organizations to exercise their rights to free speech.

"Money is speech" is just shorthand, and shouldn't be used in a logical A therefore B scenario, since A is a summary, not a truth.

I understand, which is why I am applying it in broader sense to show how it would work as speech/expression in other areas.

[Reeve]

I understand, which is why I am applying it in broader sense to show how it would work as speech/expression in other areas.

But it doesn't work as speech/expression in other areas. The ruling is specific.

[Felya]

Most people are never going to look up a list of donors to a campaign, but they won't fail to notice the logos on the politician's suits. If the idea of the law is to raise awareness, increasing transparency by forced publication won't do it nearly as well.

Yep, it also won't have much of an impact, due to PACs. I don't think people will get the info they need from a sticker saying "received donations from 'Making America awsome'".

- - - Updated - - -

But it doesn't work as speech/expression in other areas. The ruling is specific.

I'm not saying it does, just trying to show what would happen if it did.