3 ms·

What do you think would be different about the situation right now if the Citizens United decision had gone the other way?

Barrin92 8y ago
The influence of superPAC's would not be present in politics. CU was often associated with the fear of corporate money, which hasn't come to pass, but the real result was the creation of a sort of private, shadow politics that has been facilitated by it. And that is in my opinion even more dangerous. As a result you have families like the Mercer's influencing the entire political spectrum through side channels that are quite unprecedented in any modern democracy.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  I was asking what would be materially different about the situation under discussion, because it's a good exercise to think in terms of that -- what would be different about outcomes -- instead of reciting generalities about political influence.
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    I wanted to stay away from concrete issues because it is just speculation, but I think one material impact would be much less money going towards political campaigns against public transport. The Koch's for example have been running a long run, private campaign against it.[1] And if there's one thing which many people agree on that palpably improves the conditions of the working class, then it is urban public transport. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub...
    - coredog64 8y ago
      Reading that article, I don’t see much (if anything) that would be different under a reversal of Citizens United.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, Citizens United did not affect the ability of individuals like the Kochs and Mercers to spend money on ads naming candidates.
      - germinalphrase 8y ago
        The difference is that they don’t need to attach their name to it. There are natural social pressures that prevent people/organizations from publically supporting unpopular or obviously self-serving causes, but then if no one knows it’s me...

Barrin92 8y ago

The influence of superPAC's would not be present in politics. CU was often associated with the fear of corporate money, which hasn't come to pass, but the real result was the creation of a sort of private, shadow politics that has been facilitated by it. And that is in my opinion even more dangerous. As a result you have families like the Mercer's influencing the entire political spectrum through side channels that are quite unprecedented in any modern democracy.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
I was asking what would be materially different about the situation under discussion, because it's a good exercise to think in terms of that -- what would be different about outcomes -- instead of reciting generalities about political influence.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  I wanted to stay away from concrete issues because it is just speculation, but I think one material impact would be much less money going towards political campaigns against public transport. The Koch's for example have been running a long run, private campaign against it.[1] And if there's one thing which many people agree on that palpably improves the conditions of the working class, then it is urban public transport. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub...
  - coredog64 8y ago
    Reading that article, I don’t see much (if anything) that would be different under a reversal of Citizens United.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, Citizens United did not affect the ability of individuals like the Kochs and Mercers to spend money on ads naming candidates.
    - germinalphrase 8y ago
      The difference is that they don’t need to attach their name to it. There are natural social pressures that prevent people/organizations from publically supporting unpopular or obviously self-serving causes, but then if no one knows it’s me...