5 ms·

What precisely was Citizens United trying to do? Can you tell me that before we continue?

snarf21 6y ago
It was to let companies pretend that they are people to bypass campaign contribution limits. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citi...
- Gollapalli 6y ago
  From Wikipedia: The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. They wanted to broadcast a film. Not an advertisement. Not a campaign ad. A film. This is what gets lost in most common discourse about the Citizens United case. Had the court ruled otherwise in the Citizens United case, it would have given the Federal Government precedent to ban films for political reasons. The other reply by Dharmab is also very useful. The effects of ruling another way on the Citizens United would have impacted not only the medium of film, but also the publication of books, and all other media. Imagine not being able to publish a book critical of a candidate before an election. Yet that would have been the result of ruling otherwise. It's probably worth actually watching the oral arguments of the case: https://www.c-span.org/video/?288797-1/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-oral-argument https://www.c-span.org/video/?288797-1/citizens-united-v-fed...
dharmab 6y ago
The view of "Corporations acting like people" is an oversimplification of CU. Radiolab's More Perfect podcast did a very detailed episode. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/citizens-united https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi... Did you know that the FEC argued in the CU case before the Supreme Court that they had the right to prevent the distribution of books containing certain kinds of political speech? The audio of that is in the episode and it is a wild ride.

It was to let companies pretend that they are people to bypass campaign contribution limits. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citi...

Gollapalli 6y ago
From Wikipedia: The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. They wanted to broadcast a film. Not an advertisement. Not a campaign ad. A film. This is what gets lost in most common discourse about the Citizens United case. Had the court ruled otherwise in the Citizens United case, it would have given the Federal Government precedent to ban films for political reasons. The other reply by Dharmab is also very useful. The effects of ruling another way on the Citizens United would have impacted not only the medium of film, but also the publication of books, and all other media. Imagine not being able to publish a book critical of a candidate before an election. Yet that would have been the result of ruling otherwise. It's probably worth actually watching the oral arguments of the case: https://www.c-span.org/video/?288797-1/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-oral-argument https://www.c-span.org/video/?288797-1/citizens-united-v-fed...

dharmab 6y ago

The view of "Corporations acting like people" is an oversimplification of CU. Radiolab's More Perfect podcast did a very detailed episode. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/citizens-united https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi... Did you know that the FEC argued in the CU case before the Supreme Court that they had the right to prevent the distribution of books containing certain kinds of political speech? The audio of that is in the episode and it is a wild ride.