4 ms·

What? The issue the heart of Citizens United v. FEC (i.e., the Federal Elections Commission) was whether a non-profit's funding of a TV special criticizing a c

What? The issue the heart of Citizens United v. FEC (i.e., the Federal Elections Commission) was whether a non-profit's funding of a TV special criticizing a candidate violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I guess it's technically true that the decision doesn't allow more money to flow directly to the campaign, and there's not /supposed/ to be coordination with campaigns either (wink wink, nudge nudge), but it's very obvious that CU increased the flow and role of money in elections.

rayiner 7y ago
> The issue the heart of Citizens United v. FEC (i.e., the Federal Elections Commission) was whether a non-profit's funding of a TV special criticizing a candidate violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. In ordinary parlance, do we say “Apple funds iOS” or do we say “Apple makes iOS?” In Citizens United the non-profit produced and sought to air a movie called Hillary: the Movie. They didn’t “fund” any candidate’s political campaign. > I guess it's technically true that the decision doesn't allow more money to flow directly to the campaign By “technically true” you mean “true.” “Campaign finance” laws presumably have to do with financing of campaigns. The “role of money in elections” is a different, much broader area, much of it outside the scope of campaign finance laws. (For example, consider the alleged $5 billion in free advertising the press gave Trump. Do campaign finance laws allow the government to regulate that?) One can imagine lumping in scenarios where someone is attempting to bypass a campaign finance restriction by directing a third party to produce content for the campaign. But that’s not what Citizens United involved either. There was no allegation of any such “indirect” campaign financing. Instead, the government tried a naked power grab: punishing a non-profit for making a political movie, with no showing of any link to the campaign beyond that.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  I'm not sure that many people draw the distinction you're trying to make. Kennedy's opinion itself describes the outcome of Citizens United in terms of campaign finance reform: "A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opinion-1963051 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opi... Virtually every bit of media coverage describes it in similar terms too. Still, it was a 5-4 case that produced five opinions, so if that's the hair you want to split, so be it. I think my original comment stands just as well if it's amended to "Aren't we trying that already? Citizens United already dramatically relaxed ELECTION SPENDING rules."
- js2 7y ago
  Citizens United v. FEC invalidated laws beyond the specifics of the case. I think your argument is a pedantic one. I'm not a lawyer, but I follow politics more closely than probably 98% of Americans and I've commonly understood Citizens United to be related to what most Americans and the press refer to as "campaign finance", which is more broad than the strict definition you're using. CU is listed in a Wikipedia section titled "Campaign finance in the United States": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United... To use your own words, in "ordinary parlance" CU is part of campaign finance.

rayiner 7y ago

> The issue the heart of Citizens United v. FEC (i.e., the Federal Elections Commission) was whether a non-profit's funding of a TV special criticizing a candidate violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. In ordinary parlance, do we say “Apple funds iOS” or do we say “Apple makes iOS?” In Citizens United the non-profit produced and sought to air a movie called Hillary: the Movie. They didn’t “fund” any candidate’s political campaign. > I guess it's technically true that the decision doesn't allow more money to flow directly to the campaign By “technically true” you mean “true.” “Campaign finance” laws presumably have to do with financing of campaigns. The “role of money in elections” is a different, much broader area, much of it outside the scope of campaign finance laws. (For example, consider the alleged $5 billion in free advertising the press gave Trump. Do campaign finance laws allow the government to regulate that?) One can imagine lumping in scenarios where someone is attempting to bypass a campaign finance restriction by directing a third party to produce content for the campaign. But that’s not what Citizens United involved either. There was no allegation of any such “indirect” campaign financing. Instead, the government tried a naked power grab: punishing a non-profit for making a political movie, with no showing of any link to the campaign beyond that.

mattkrause 7y ago
I'm not sure that many people draw the distinction you're trying to make. Kennedy's opinion itself describes the outcome of Citizens United in terms of campaign finance reform: "A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opinion-1963051 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opi... Virtually every bit of media coverage describes it in similar terms too. Still, it was a 5-4 case that produced five opinions, so if that's the hair you want to split, so be it. I think my original comment stands just as well if it's amended to "Aren't we trying that already? Citizens United already dramatically relaxed ELECTION SPENDING rules."
js2 7y ago
Citizens United v. FEC invalidated laws beyond the specifics of the case. I think your argument is a pedantic one. I'm not a lawyer, but I follow politics more closely than probably 98% of Americans and I've commonly understood Citizens United to be related to what most Americans and the press refer to as "campaign finance", which is more broad than the strict definition you're using. CU is listed in a Wikipedia section titled "Campaign finance in the United States": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United... To use your own words, in "ordinary parlance" CU is part of campaign finance.