Hillary pledges to overturn citizens united

[Shadowferal]

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

The claim looks very different from the reality.

They always say "people," but it just means multi-millionaires, and big businesses.

[alexw]

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.

?????

This doesn't make sense. Not being able to donate money does not stop you from being able to lobby. Donating money and lobbying are not the same thing, unless you somehow think buying political power (a.k.a. bribery) is lobbying. Is that what you think?

[Pangean]

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?

Yup. If they use their own personal funds. Do you believe they have the right to use the shareholders money to do so? Shareholders who have not directed that political spending nor have the ability to oppose it? Are you going to claim that the shareholders in the corporations are all like minded on 1. spending the money and 2. spending it in the way the corporate officers decide?

[NineSpine]

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.

No. Restricting the ability of CORPORATIONS is a violation of the First Amendment according to the ruling. The rights of individual citizens were already protected.

[Tijuana]

I'm not sure why people think tons of votes are swayed over political ads. Standard advertisers are really starting to doubt any commercials at all are being watched anymore due to DVRs. Jeb Bush had more money than Davy Crockett and the got like less than 1% of the votes. I read he basically paid $5,000 per vote he got. Trump ran one of the cheapest primaries in history, and yet wildly surpassed any prior candidates TV time totals.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Restricting the ability of CORPORATIONS is a violation of the First Amendment according to the ruling. The rights of individual citizens were already protected.

Corporations are comprised of a group of people.

[araine]

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.

All of this flows from very simple free speech arguments.



You would need Congress to reintroduce and pass a law similar to the one overturned by the original court decision. The Supreme Court can only rule on cases which are brought before it.

And corporations are not people the 1st amendment does NOT apply to corporations really and have you seen Texas execute a corporation yet? no thats your answer why they arent people. Once Texas executes a corporation and its CEO with it we need to treat them like what they are Corporation that only care about the bottom line even if it means fucking the country over.

And that is why we do NOT allow foreign influence in elections and the same reason we should not allow corporate GREED in elections

[Barnabas]

Let the lies wash over me

[Daedius]

She's a corporate stooge... she'll lie through her teeth.

[Shadowferal]

Getting rid of the bullshit "corporate personhood" would be a damn good step in the right direction.

[Deletedaccount1]

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.

They receive money from groups that they already agree with.

[Sargerasraider]

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

It rules that people can associate into a group (a corporation) and jointly spend money to promote their ideas. This is pretty simple.

In the original case, a group of people associated into a nonprofit corporation, Citizens United, wanted to spend money to run a political film on TV prior to an election. The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act placed a limit on how close such a film could be run to an election. The SCOTUS ruled that these limits violated free speech rights.

have you seen Texas execute a corporation yet? no thats your answer why they arent people. Once Texas executes a corporation and its CEO with it we need to treat them like what they are Corporation that only care about the bottom line even if it means fucking the country over.

That is sig-worthy.

[NineSpine]

I'm not sure why people think tons of votes are swayed over political ads. Standard advertisers are really starting to doubt any commercials at all are being watched anymore due to DVRs. Jeb Bush had more money than Davy Crockett and the got like less than 1% of the votes. I read he basically paid $5,000 per vote he got. Trump ran one of the cheapest primaries in history, and yet wildly surpassed any prior candidates TV time totals.

You are conflating two different groups of people: Those who advertise products and those who advertise politics. There is truth to the notion that television ads for products are pointless, as most products are aimed at the key demographic, which is very young people. However, politics is advertised primarily to older people, who watch a lot of TV ads. You are also conflating primaries and general elections, and you are conflating presidential elections and all elections. Presidential elections get so much free press that money is less important, and primaries are voted on by smaller groups of politically motivated people, which again makes money less of an issue.

- - - Updated - - -

It rules that people can associate into a group (a corporation) and jointly spend money to promote their ideas. This is pretty simple.

In the original case, a group of people associated into a nonprofit corporation, Citizens United, wanted to spend money to run a political film on TV prior to an election. The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act placed a limit on how close such a film could be run to an election. The SCOTUS ruled that these limits violated free speech rights.

So it is not a ruling on people. It is a ruling on corporations. Why do you keep saying people? Are you deliberately lying to make your case stronger?

[zorkuus]

Corporations are comprised of a group of people.

The rights of individual citizens were already protected.

No need to make special rules for groups (corporations).

[Barnabas]

No need to make special rules for groups (corporations).

America is all about identity politics. You don't watch the news?

[Paula Deen]

Citizens United passed, if I am not mistaken, based on the grounds that Corporations are people.

Let that sink in.

[Tijuana]

?????

This doesn't make sense. Not being able to donate money does not stop you from being able to lobby. Donating money and lobbying are not the same thing, unless you somehow think buying political power (a.k.a. bribery) is lobbying. Is that what you think?

This ruling is not about candidate donations, it's about people running ads that benefit candidates. Direct candidate donations are limited to ~$2500. A TV commercial is speech. The government can't restrict you from talking on TV about your candidate, any more than they could prevent you from using a bull horn from your front lawn.

[Spiffums]

IF she could do it.....which she can't since its not a power delegated to the Executive Branch.....it would go over like a fart in church. It has the same chance as an admendment limiting the pay of Congress members.

[Deletedaccount1]

No. Restricting the ability of CORPORATIONS is a violation of the First Amendment according to the ruling. The rights of individual citizens were already protected.

Did I say individual citizens or did you say that? A corporation is a group of private citizens.

[NineSpine]

I'm not sure why people think tons of votes are swayed over political ads. Standard advertisers are really starting to doubt any commercials at all are being watched anymore due to DVRs. Jeb Bush had more money than Davy Crockett and the got like less than 1% of the votes. I read he basically paid $5,000 per vote he got. Trump ran one of the cheapest primaries in history, and yet wildly surpassed any prior candidates TV time totals.

- - - Updated - - -

Corporations are comprised of a group of people.

No, corporations are owned by people, not comprised of people. That's like saying my house is comprised of people just because people own it.

- - - Updated - - -

This ruling is not about candidate donations, it's about people running ads that benefit candidates. Direct candidate donations are limited to ~$2500. A TV commercial is speech. The government can't restrict you from talking on TV about your candidate, any more than they could prevent you from using a bull horn from your front lawn.

No, it's a ruling about corporations running ads.

[Shadowferal]

So it is not a ruling on people. It is a ruling on corporations. Why do you keep saying people? Are you deliberately lying to make your case stronger?

Hmf...sounds like a libertarian...they always do that shit. Talk about people libert freedom...all the buzz words that really mean that the wealthy should do whatever they want.