4 ms·

Citizens United said that you and I have the same right to band together to engage in political speech as the New York Times.

by anamax 4y ago

maerF0x0 4y ago
Sure, and it should have said New York Times is not a person and therefore gets no say in any matter. The Pareto bit I mentioned means even if we band together they ultimately have disproportionate resources. It's employees / shareholders et al can vote how they like, but that's different than the New York Times (or Russia for that matter), swaying an election.
- anamax 4y ago
  Zuckerberg has more resources than me. Not letting me get together with other people helps Zuckerberg. As far as the NYT goes, feel free to argue against the 1st Amendment. CU just says that the NYT isn't special, that the 1st applies to using tools, not organizations who have named themselves after said tools. Govt regulation always favors the well-heeled.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    > Zuckerberg has more resources than me. Yes but there is are rules & caps for political contributions: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate... I'm not arguing against 1st, I'm arguing that a business (not a person) has speech or a 1st right (which people absolutely do), and that the net result of acting like they do is really hurting the citizens of America.
    - anamax 4y ago
      The NYT is not subject to said "rules or caps" when it advocates for candidates. Neither is Zuckerberg. Why should people who get together to do political speech be treated any differently?
      - maerF0x0 4y ago
        I think we agree in principle, but are disagreeing in the resultant law. It sounds to me like you're advocating saying NYT, and rich people can give large sums of money, therefore why cant groups of people also do it? I'm advocating for NYT and rich people should not be allowed to give large sums of money, and neither should individuals beyond their individual contribution cap. The principle I am all for is that wealthy people and corporations should not be able to bring disproportionate resources to politics than their underlying democratic unit (a single unit vote in the case of a wealthy person, no votes in the case of a corporation). And therefore the caps for wealthy people should be the same as for middle/poor people, and caps for corporations should be 0 because they are not democratic political units. I'm listening to https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-political-participation/us-gov-campaign-finance/v/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civ... to try and discern if maybe I have a completely broken idea of what citizens united is
        anamax 4y ago
        Actually, your mention of campaign contributions and "give money" suggests that you don't understand Citizens United. I write that because Citizens United had nothing to do with contributions to a politician's campaign. The question in Citizens United was whether some folks can get together and make a movie advocating against a political candidate without being subject to campaign finance laws. There's no question that the NYT (and unions) can advocate for/against a candidate in any way that it sees fit; the question in CU was "are other groups different?" The CU decision was "there's no difference between the NYT and any other group. If you have a way of speaking, you can politic with that way as you see fit." Feel free to explain why the NYT (and unions) shouldn't be limited but others should be. (Condo associations often put news in their newsletters, so ....) Alternatively, explain how you're going to limit the NYT's ability to advocate for political candidates and causes without repealing the 1st amendment.

Citizens United said that you and I have the same right to band together to engage in political speech as the New York Times.

by anamax 4y ago

Citizens United said that you and I have the same right to band together to engage in political speech as the New York Times.

maerF0x0 4y ago

Sure, and it should have said New York Times is not a person and therefore gets no say in any matter. The Pareto bit I mentioned means even if we band together they ultimately have disproportionate resources. It's employees / shareholders et al can vote how they like, but that's different than the New York Times (or Russia for that matter), swaying an election.

anamax 4y ago
Zuckerberg has more resources than me. Not letting me get together with other people helps Zuckerberg. As far as the NYT goes, feel free to argue against the 1st Amendment. CU just says that the NYT isn't special, that the 1st applies to using tools, not organizations who have named themselves after said tools. Govt regulation always favors the well-heeled.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > Zuckerberg has more resources than me. Yes but there is are rules & caps for political contributions: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate... I'm not arguing against 1st, I'm arguing that a business (not a person) has speech or a 1st right (which people absolutely do), and that the net result of acting like they do is really hurting the citizens of America.
  - anamax 4y ago
    The NYT is not subject to said "rules or caps" when it advocates for candidates. Neither is Zuckerberg. Why should people who get together to do political speech be treated any differently?
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      I think we agree in principle, but are disagreeing in the resultant law. It sounds to me like you're advocating saying NYT, and rich people can give large sums of money, therefore why cant groups of people also do it? I'm advocating for NYT and rich people should not be allowed to give large sums of money, and neither should individuals beyond their individual contribution cap. The principle I am all for is that wealthy people and corporations should not be able to bring disproportionate resources to politics than their underlying democratic unit (a single unit vote in the case of a wealthy person, no votes in the case of a corporation). And therefore the caps for wealthy people should be the same as for middle/poor people, and caps for corporations should be 0 because they are not democratic political units. I'm listening to https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-political-participation/us-gov-campaign-finance/v/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civ... to try and discern if maybe I have a completely broken idea of what citizens united is
      - anamax 4y ago
        Actually, your mention of campaign contributions and "give money" suggests that you don't understand Citizens United. I write that because Citizens United had nothing to do with contributions to a politician's campaign. The question in Citizens United was whether some folks can get together and make a movie advocating against a political candidate without being subject to campaign finance laws. There's no question that the NYT (and unions) can advocate for/against a candidate in any way that it sees fit; the question in CU was "are other groups different?" The CU decision was "there's no difference between the NYT and any other group. If you have a way of speaking, you can politic with that way as you see fit." Feel free to explain why the NYT (and unions) shouldn't be limited but others should be. (Condo associations often put news in their newsletters, so ....) Alternatively, explain how you're going to limit the NYT's ability to advocate for political candidates and causes without repealing the 1st amendment.