4 ms·

Citizens United was the correct decision. The alternative is our government deciding who gets to engage in politics. Without Citizens United politics would be

Citizens United was the correct decision. The alternative is our government deciding who gets to engage in politics. Without Citizens United politics would be even more restricted to a much smaller set of even wealthier people and established politicians who have access to the governemnt approved outlets of political speech.

drawkward 2y ago
The correct decision is to set a limit on campaigning, and fund it with tax dollars, no outside spending.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  So we should let the government choose who gets campaign funding? Sounds like an established politician's wet dream.
  - throw4847285 2y ago
    Oh no! Established politicians! They know how the government works, and could possibly be effective. We can't let them get reelected! I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.
    - snowwrestler 2y ago
      The nightmare scenario is that the money is not handed out equally to all candidates. If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        >If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? The exact same way any relief is sought against the government: the court system.
        snowwrestler 2y ago
        Ok, and who appoints the judges? And who is responsible for enforcing court decisions?
        drawkward 2y ago
        The government is not the conspiracy your post requires it to be.
        snowwrestler 2y ago
        I agree that our current government is not. But what you are proposing is a different government, one in which leaders could operate without the primary accountability that they face now: that anyone can organize a campaign against them.
        drawkward 2y ago
        The barriers you cite already exist. There are plenty of rules ablout what must do to get on the ballot, yet somehow new politicians still get into politics.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    Assuming that what you say is the outcome of a proposal like mine (which, btw, it isn't): I would rather have the government (which is beholden to the constitution) than the wealthy (who aren't beholden to the constitution) be the gatekeeper. In fact, this money would be available to anyone who met whatever threshold was legally enshrined, a far better alternative than having to kiss the ring of an oligarch, as you propose.
  - piva00 2y ago
    Many modern, developed democracies do exactly that, and are quite more democratic than 2 parties running the state. As well as not making elections a show might help democracy instead of the best showman. I will be waiting for the American exceptionalism arguments on why a thing that well functioning democracies/countries do wouldn't work in the USA.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      Oh god not gun control! /s
  - 9dev 2y ago
    The government should set sensible limits on campaign contributions that avoid a system of legalised bribery, aka. SuperPACs, such that actual people get to choose their representatives, not a handful of ultra-rich with the means to steer politics. The only candidate in American politics that lives up to your idealised, independent politician of the people, is Bernie Sanders. And guess what? He strongly opposes billionaires buying themselves a government.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Works in Europe and established politicians get voted out regularly. You can also establish campaign spending limits without it being funded by taxes. In other words anyone can raise money for their campaign but only up to X amount (and no PACs).
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Donations to political campaigns are still limited. Even after Citizens United. What's not limited is independent expenditures. You can, for example, organize rallies or put up billboards advocating more serious efforts to combat climate change without limit.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
calgarymicro 2y ago
> Without Citizens United politics would be even more restricted to a much smaller set of even wealthier people Really? Because there are many countries with far stricter regulations on campaign financing than the US had pre-Citizens United, that also have much more working class representation in their politics than the US.[0] [0]https://www.noamlupu.com/Carnes_Lupu_ARPS.pdf https://www.noamlupu.com/Carnes_Lupu_ARPS.pdf
p_j_w 2y ago
This is a reasonable sounding hypothesis that has been shown to be completely false.
ikrenji 2y ago
citizens united = sell the election to the highest bidder. no need to put lipstick on a pig
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Clinton got twice as much corporate donations as Trump in 2016, but she still lost. It's not so simple.
  - ikrenji 2y ago
    clinton would have won if it wasn't for the nothing burger that was the FBI investigation of her private servers...
smaddox 2y ago
False dichotomy. Prior to CU, individuals could contribute to any candidate of their choosing (up to an annual contribution limit). Companies are compased of individuals. CU was twisted logic to reach a preconceived, corrupt outcome.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  You are misunderstanding what the Citizens United vs. FEC determined. Candidate contributions are still limited, even after CU. What's not limited is independent expenditures.
  - smaddox 2y ago
    I can understand how the "up to an annual contribution limit" part of my comment could be confusing. I added that in an attempt to not be misleading / to circumvent spurious disagreement. I've moved it inside of parenthesis to de-emphasise it. If you read my comment as a response to the parent, I believe it will make more sense. --- CU opened the floodgates of anonymous, unlimited political contributions to "independent", but not really independent, organizations which can campaign on behalf of candidates. The goal was/is to replace our democratic republic with an oligarchy. And we're now in the end game.
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      > which can campaign on behalf of candidates. Wrong, if the candidates are directing or otherwise leading ostensibly-independent donations this is illegal. Independent donations are exactly that: independent of a candidate's campaign. If they're carried out on behalf of a candidate, they're not independent donations. You can put up billboards saying, "X candidate's record is the best on climate change, tax policy, etc.". Your spending in this manner is not subject to limits. If the candidate calls you up and says "It'd be really good if you put up billboards saying X, Y, and Z" then that's breaking election laws. Citizens United is not even remotely close to replacing our republic with an oligarchy. You can't buy elections, no matter how much people try to say so. Clintion received about twice as many donations as Trump in 2016, but still lost the election.
samatman 2y ago
Indeed. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, which in clear language protects free speech for corporations. That includes the right to engage in political advocacy, which is what Citizens United v. FEC was about. A lot of people have a, let's say filtered understanding of the decision, which has become a sort of shibboleth rather than a direct reference to the Supreme Court's ruling. I encourage reading up on the ruling itself, at least the Wikipedia summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC Or should you prefer primary sources (as ideally you should) just read the ruling https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/ The canonical source, just for completeness. Justia has the same text https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
insane_dreamer 2y ago
That might have been the “hopeful” argument for Citizens United but the the reality has been the opposite. There is so much more money going into politics by large companies and the wealthy than ever before. It’s a poison on democracy and one of the absolute worst SC decisions ever.

drawkward 2y ago

The correct decision is to set a limit on campaigning, and fund it with tax dollars, no outside spending.

fallingknife 2y ago
So we should let the government choose who gets campaign funding? Sounds like an established politician's wet dream.
- throw4847285 2y ago
  Oh no! Established politicians! They know how the government works, and could possibly be effective. We can't let them get reelected! I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.
  - snowwrestler 2y ago
    The nightmare scenario is that the money is not handed out equally to all candidates. If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      >If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? The exact same way any relief is sought against the government: the court system.
      - snowwrestler 2y ago
        Ok, and who appoints the judges? And who is responsible for enforcing court decisions?
        drawkward 2y ago
        The government is not the conspiracy your post requires it to be.
        snowwrestler 2y ago
        I agree that our current government is not. But what you are proposing is a different government, one in which leaders could operate without the primary accountability that they face now: that anyone can organize a campaign against them.
        drawkward 2y ago
        The barriers you cite already exist. There are plenty of rules ablout what must do to get on the ballot, yet somehow new politicians still get into politics.
- drawkward 2y ago
  Assuming that what you say is the outcome of a proposal like mine (which, btw, it isn't): I would rather have the government (which is beholden to the constitution) than the wealthy (who aren't beholden to the constitution) be the gatekeeper. In fact, this money would be available to anyone who met whatever threshold was legally enshrined, a far better alternative than having to kiss the ring of an oligarch, as you propose.
- piva00 2y ago
  Many modern, developed democracies do exactly that, and are quite more democratic than 2 parties running the state. As well as not making elections a show might help democracy instead of the best showman. I will be waiting for the American exceptionalism arguments on why a thing that well functioning democracies/countries do wouldn't work in the USA.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    Oh god not gun control! /s
- 9dev 2y ago
  The government should set sensible limits on campaign contributions that avoid a system of legalised bribery, aka. SuperPACs, such that actual people get to choose their representatives, not a handful of ultra-rich with the means to steer politics. The only candidate in American politics that lives up to your idealised, independent politician of the people, is Bernie Sanders. And guess what? He strongly opposes billionaires buying themselves a government.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Works in Europe and established politicians get voted out regularly. You can also establish campaign spending limits without it being funded by taxes. In other words anyone can raise money for their campaign but only up to X amount (and no PACs).
Manuel_D 2y ago
Donations to political campaigns are still limited. Even after Citizens United. What's not limited is independent expenditures. You can, for example, organize rallies or put up billboards advocating more serious efforts to combat climate change without limit.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

calgarymicro 2y ago

> Without Citizens United politics would be even more restricted to a much smaller set of even wealthier people Really? Because there are many countries with far stricter regulations on campaign financing than the US had pre-Citizens United, that also have much more working class representation in their politics than the US.[0] [0]https://www.noamlupu.com/Carnes_Lupu_ARPS.pdf https://www.noamlupu.com/Carnes_Lupu_ARPS.pdf

p_j_w 2y ago

This is a reasonable sounding hypothesis that has been shown to be completely false.

ikrenji 2y ago

citizens united = sell the election to the highest bidder. no need to put lipstick on a pig

Manuel_D 2y ago
Clinton got twice as much corporate donations as Trump in 2016, but she still lost. It's not so simple.
- ikrenji 2y ago
  clinton would have won if it wasn't for the nothing burger that was the FBI investigation of her private servers...

smaddox 2y ago

False dichotomy. Prior to CU, individuals could contribute to any candidate of their choosing (up to an annual contribution limit). Companies are compased of individuals. CU was twisted logic to reach a preconceived, corrupt outcome.

Manuel_D 2y ago
You are misunderstanding what the Citizens United vs. FEC determined. Candidate contributions are still limited, even after CU. What's not limited is independent expenditures.
- smaddox 2y ago
  I can understand how the "up to an annual contribution limit" part of my comment could be confusing. I added that in an attempt to not be misleading / to circumvent spurious disagreement. I've moved it inside of parenthesis to de-emphasise it. If you read my comment as a response to the parent, I believe it will make more sense. --- CU opened the floodgates of anonymous, unlimited political contributions to "independent", but not really independent, organizations which can campaign on behalf of candidates. The goal was/is to replace our democratic republic with an oligarchy. And we're now in the end game.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    > which can campaign on behalf of candidates. Wrong, if the candidates are directing or otherwise leading ostensibly-independent donations this is illegal. Independent donations are exactly that: independent of a candidate's campaign. If they're carried out on behalf of a candidate, they're not independent donations. You can put up billboards saying, "X candidate's record is the best on climate change, tax policy, etc.". Your spending in this manner is not subject to limits. If the candidate calls you up and says "It'd be really good if you put up billboards saying X, Y, and Z" then that's breaking election laws. Citizens United is not even remotely close to replacing our republic with an oligarchy. You can't buy elections, no matter how much people try to say so. Clintion received about twice as many donations as Trump in 2016, but still lost the election.

samatman 2y ago

Indeed. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, which in clear language protects free speech for corporations. That includes the right to engage in political advocacy, which is what Citizens United v. FEC was about. A lot of people have a, let's say filtered understanding of the decision, which has become a sort of shibboleth rather than a direct reference to the Supreme Court's ruling. I encourage reading up on the ruling itself, at least the Wikipedia summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC Or should you prefer primary sources (as ideally you should) just read the ruling https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/ The canonical source, just for completeness. Justia has the same text https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf

insane_dreamer 2y ago

That might have been the “hopeful” argument for Citizens United but the the reality has been the opposite. There is so much more money going into politics by large companies and the wealthy than ever before. It’s a poison on democracy and one of the absolute worst SC decisions ever.