Citizens United

[Been Jammin]

Apologize if already discussed.

What do you boys think of this?
In favor or opposed to it being overturned?
Any chance it really does get overturned?

https://www.citizen.org/news/new-hampshire-is-20th-state-to-call-for-overturning-citizens-united/

 

[Pokeabear]

It needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

It needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people.

Corporations are considered/treated as people for many/most aspects of common law.

 

[aix_xpert]

Honest question: What's the alternative to Citizen's United? What will corporations be allowed to do? Do PACs go away? I don't like the outsized influence the wealthiest have on the election process, but I frankly don't see an alternative that doesn't create other (worse?) imbalances or inequalities in the election process.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

United States Code 1: in determining the meaning of any act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise — “the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals”.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Honest question: What's the alternative to Citizen's United? What will corporations be allowed to do? Do PACs go away? I don't like the outsized influence the wealthiest have on the election process, but I frankly don't see an alternative that doesn't create other (worse?) imbalances or inequalities in the election process.

Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to participate in campaigns but labor unions should. Duh!

 

[HighStickHarry]

With modern media and video posting services money should be stripped out down to the bone. Maybe limit contribution funds to traveling expenses only? Maybe clothes and haircuts as well.

Schools and universities would host events. Auditing could be done by the other party.

Not sure what the unintended consequences of that would be.

 

[aix_xpert]

With modern media and video posting services money should be stripped out down to the bone. Maybe limit contribution funds to traveling expenses only? Maybe clothes and haircuts as well.

Schools and universities would host events. Auditing could be done by the other party.

Not sure what the unintended consequences of that would be.

The same schools that won't host conservative speakers in order to preserve the safe spaces for the snowflakes?

 

[windriverrange]

If overturned absolutely has to apply to unions. If you really want to get radical monies donated to a specific client have to come from that specific clients district and no where else. No more millions in donations from Hollywood for a Texas senate race. Yes it goes both ways I know so am against it in any instance.

Only reason liberals hate it is because corporations were put on equal footing with unions which has eroded both union and liberals political power.

 

[aix_xpert]

If overturned absolutely has to apply to unions. If you really want to get radical monies donated to a specific client have to come from that specific clients district and no where else. No more millions in donations from Hollywood for a Texas senate race. Yes it goes both ways I know so am against it in any instance.

Only reason liberals hate it is because corporations were put on equal footing with unions which has eroded both union and liberals political power.

What about non-profit orgs? Why are Planned Parenthood and the NRA exempt? Is there money less corrupting than a corporations?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Non-profits, individuals, unions, issue driven, co-op, etc. You'd have to have government funded campaigns - and that's just stupid.

What would you replace our current situation with? What we have today sucks. But what you'd replace it with would suck worse.

 

[windriverrange]

What about non-profit orgs? Why are Planned Parenthood and the NRA exempt? Is there money less corrupting than a corporations?

Good point aix_xpert....didn't even think about them. But they would certainly be included.

 

[shortbus]

This is a tough one.

If it was up to me, you’d be able to spend ZERO dollars!

 

[HighStickHarry]

The same schools that won't host conservative speakers in order to preserve the safe spaces for the snowflakes?

Zero federal loans to students going to colleges that shut their doors to candidates.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Not a fan of the current system but if we are going to tax corporationsthey should be able to participate and have a say in the election process, otherwise IMO it’s taxation without representation.

 

[aix_xpert]

Where's all the lefties in this thread? Can't believe the supporters of repealing CU aren't in this thread explaining what their alternative looks like and why it would be better than the current wide-open system.

 

[HighStickHarry]

Where's all the lefties in this thread? Can't believe the supporters of repealing CU aren't in this thread explaining what their alternative looks like and why it would be better than the current wide-open system.

It’s not time to unleash the “you can contribute based on your gender, race and sexual orientation’s historical claim to oppression” plan yet.

 

[Syskatine]

Where's all the lefties in this thread? Can't believe the supporters of repealing CU aren't in this thread explaining what their alternative looks like and why it would be better than the current wide-open system.

LOL it's almost as if the lefties aren't wasting their breath. We can tune in FOX or some incel talk show host and perfectly predict what the #bornfollowers will say.

Corporations don't die for their country. They don't age. They don't get cancer. They dont' bleed, they don't sacrifice, they don't grieve, they don't have to stop making money to take their aging parents to a Dr's appointment. They exist on paper and can acquire capital 24/7 for 100 years and have far more political stroke than any single organic person on this board.

By all means -- empower self-interested, non-organic, eternal entities that don't sacrifice physical safety for the good of the country. Becasue maybe they'll trickle down some of their profit to you guys?

 

[Ostatedchi]

LOL it's almost as if the lefties aren't wasting their breath. We can tune in FOX or some incel talk show host and perfectly predict what the #bornfollowers will say.

Corporations don't die for their country. They don't age. They don't get cancer. They dont' bleed, they don't sacrifice, they don't grieve, they don't have to stop making money to take their aging parents to a Dr's appointment. They exist on paper and can acquire capital 24/7 for 100 years and have far more political stroke than any single organic person on this board.

By all means -- empower self-interested, non-organic, eternal entities that don't sacrifice physical safety for the good of the country. Becasue maybe they'll trickle down some of their profit to you guys?

Then don't tax them either.

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[Syskatine]

Then don't tax them either.

Why not? They consume services. They use Courts, roads, infrastructure... so they should get a free ride?

 

[Syskatine]

Then don't tax them either.

Why not let em' vote then?

 

[ctdub]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-on-halloween-than-on-all-2016-elections/amp/

 

[Pokeabear]

Why not let em' vote then?

Maybe they can give some blood? Think they might like being drafted?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Why not? They consume services. They use Courts, roads, infrastructure... so they should get a free ride?

Then shouldn't they by that same logic be able to influence the political climate in which they exist?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Why not? They consume services. They use Courts, roads, infrastructure... so they should get a free ride?

You are going to get your taxes out of them anyways when they pay their employees.

 

[Medic007]

Apologize if already discussed.

What do you boys think of this?
In favor or opposed to it being overturned?
Any chance it really does get overturned?

https://www.citizen.org/news/new-hampshire-is-20th-state-to-call-for-overturning-citizens-united/

Since the Supreme Court ruling was based on First Amendment protection, it's not going away unless the First Amendment goes away.

 

[capanski]

Why not? They consume services. They use Courts, roads, infrastructure... so they should get a free ride?

Should unions get a free ride?

 

[Syskatine]

You are going to get your taxes out of them anyways when they pay their employees.

Let's try to narrow down what "taxes" we're talking about. Income taxes? I'm wondering how much income taxes GE pays. What kind of taxes are we talking about?

Since the Supreme Court ruling was based on First Amendment protection, it's not going away unless the First Amendment goes away.

That's some real Class A legal thinking right there.

Should unions get a free ride?

Is there supposed to be a partisan FOX news overlay regarding who pays taxes? What's so hard to understand about if someone consumes government services they should pay for them? What does that have to do with the first amendment? That's just fiscal prudence - the more people consume the service, the more people gotta pay.

Unions aren't necessarily a legally existing "entity" like people or corporations, either. There's a legal taxonomy for associations that aren't really legal entities in terms of jurisdiction, venue, etc. that may or may not translate real well to first amendment analysis.

Union membership, like the owners of a corporation, should be allowed to speak as much as they want. But unions and corporations aren't ever gonna get drafted.

 

[Medic007]

That's some real Class A legal thinking right there.

Are you unaware of the Supreme Court ruling? You should argue it with them.

 

[Syskatine]

Are you unaware of the Supreme Court ruling? You should argue it with them.

Try reeeeeal hard to imagine what could "go away" besides the First Amendment. Think.

 

[Medic007]

Try reeeeeal hard to imagine what could "go away" besides the First Amendment. Think.

"Today’s vote brings the national movement beyond the symbolic halfway point of the 38 states needed to ratify a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which allowed unlimited money from wealthy and corporate donors to flood elections."

Apparently quite a few people don't think the Supreme Court would reverse their decision which is why there's an interest in a constitutional amendment to address it. Do you really think 38 states will sign on for an amendment that proposes to limit free speech? Like I said, argue it with the Supreme Court. They made the ruling.

 

[Medic007]

But unions and corporations aren't ever gonna get drafted.

The Constitution makes references to "citizens," "people," and "persons." When I read the First Amendment, it doesn't say anything about "citizens," "people," or "persons" in regards to free speech.

"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."

Why would Tom's Barber Shop or the Green Country Soccer Association be any different than the McCurtain Gazette or News Channel 4 or your cousin Becky in Durant? The Supreme Court answered that question in 2010. There is no difference when it comes to free speech.