5 ms·

Was Citizens United a huge mistake?

by klipt 2y ago

daveguy 2y ago
Yes. Yes it was. Poorly decided to the detriment of the United States. It allows unlimited money laundering into US elections from any source foreign or domestic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- accrual 2y ago
  > The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations including for-profits, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other kinds of associations. Wow. Just one vote away from a drastically different political landscape and future for the country.
pkaye 2y ago
Companies could not lobby before Citizens United?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  You're correct. This is unrelated to Citizens.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  Yes they could, but there were strict limits to it and people went to jail for violating them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Scandal_and_criminal_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Scandal_and_crim... McConnell (yes that one) v FEC and Citizens United redefined the first amendment to include financial contributions as a form of speech and extended to for-profit corporations the same rights as individuals and civic associations.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Isn't McConnell v FEC the SCOTUS ruling that upheld McCain-Feingold? The Act that Citizens overturned? To my understanding, this had zero effect on lobbying rules. Just campaign finance, namely, donations to candidates and donations to messaging operations.
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      It didn't overturn the BRCA, but the minority in McConnell laid the groundwork for the Citizens United decision. O'Connor wasn't willing to hand the country over to oligarchs like Alito was.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Sure, but that still doesn't address whether Citizens spoke to lobbying rules. It was more about contributions and PACs.
        arrosenberg 2y ago
        If you want to pretend you don't understand the relationship between lobbying and the ability of groups to spend unlimited money influencing politicians, that's your prerogative. I think more highly of you, so I'm not going to spend my time arguing the point.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > the relationship between lobbying and the ability of groups to spend unlimited money influencing politicians The point is this lobbying wouldn’t have been restricted by anything Citizens touched. OpenAI isn’t giving money to a PAC, it’s buying bog-standard lobbying hours. This is an adjacent but nevertheless separate issue.
nradov 2y ago
[flagged]
- svieira 2y ago
  > because they aren't legally bound by precedent Good thing too, because some of their decisions over the years have been really doozy (who wants to be bound by Dred Scott v. Sandford?)
- pluto_modadic 2y ago
  This feels like a straw-man. Money should not equal speech. Yes it should be fixed with legislation. Why on earth wouldn't it? Citizens United was an obvious, incredible, disastrous mistake.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Regardless of how you might feel, it's the furthest thing from a straw-man. We are still a nation of laws. The Constitution defines our fundamental processes and the separation of powers. Labeling the Citizens United v. FEC decision as a mistake might feel good but that accomplishes nothing. Instead of complaining online, the only possible solution is for voters to elect legislators who actually do their jobs and write clear laws instead of leaving it up to judges and bureaucrats to interpret vague statements. I do appreciate that Citizens United makes this more difficult but the Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse it so complaining about it is about as effective as complaining about gravity.
    - righthand 2y ago
      But we can’t get those people elected because they either A get over spent in campaign by corporations donation to their opponent or B they defect and take the donations themselves.
    - guelo 2y ago
      How will voters be able to make decisions that we agree with if we do not talk about it online? Who are you suggesting gets to talk about it?
lenerdenator 2y ago
How could it be? It made the number go up for the right people. And since that number is literally all that the right people can comprehend, it's the most important measure of a society's condition.
bcrosby95 2y ago
The biggest continual mistake in the USA is conflating groups of people with amoral profit seeking entities that have the benefit of legal fictions that protect individuals involved from the consequences of their behavior. If you chain together enough analogies you eventually reach a conclusion that is complete nonsense. That's about where our court system has brought us.
- 93po 2y ago
  I've been saying for years, companies can have freedom of speech when we can put them in jail for wrongdoing. I'd even take metaphorical jail - not allowed to employ anyone, operate, transact, or anything else for the duration of their sentence. I bet we'd see a complete stop of illegal activity we see every day if this was the risk.
  - bmelton 2y ago
    This feels causally backwards, as the only point to corporate personhood is so that we _can_ hold companies accountable for their misdeeds. Without personhood, we'd have to know which persons within an opaque company structure were responsible for wrongs against us in order to sue them directly instead of just being able to sue or fine "Walmart" or whomever.
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      Corporations and regulation of corporations existed before the doctrine of corporate personhood. And do you think government agencies can't be sued? Or do you think they can fund political campaigns?
      - bmelton 2y ago
        You're asking "Do you think X? Or do you think Y?" here, but I know !X, _and_ I know Y. You've strung those clauses together as if they might mean something, so I confess I have no idea what tangent "fund political campaigns" runs off to, because I am not opining on the correctness of personhood but rather its history. Before personhood, if a corporation had wronged you, you were limited to suing its trustees, its charter, or petitioning the government. With personhood, I don't need to know who at McBigCorp decided to dump that sewage into my stream, I just need to know that it was done. I don't need to go after the trustees directly. Accountability is centralized, and the corporate entity likely has deeper pockets than the individual I might've sued for recompense. So yes, corporations existed before corporate personhood, but they were more hazardous to public welfare and had limited remedy to abuse. The East India Companies and the railroad barons of the world were allowed to run roughshod until centralized accountability was imposed.
laidoffamazon 2y ago
Yes. But even more than that having a president that is for sale by domestic and foreign interests.
- cdme 2y ago
  Nothing like launching a crypto pump and dump right before you enter office.
reverendsteveii 2y ago
Depends: are you extraordinarily wealthy?

Was Citizens United a huge mistake?

by klipt 2y ago

Was Citizens United a huge mistake?

Yes. Yes it was. Poorly decided to the detriment of the United States. It allows unlimited money laundering into US elections from any source foreign or domestic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

accrual 2y ago
> The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations including for-profits, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other kinds of associations. Wow. Just one vote away from a drastically different political landscape and future for the country.

pkaye 2y ago

Companies could not lobby before Citizens United?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
You're correct. This is unrelated to Citizens.
arrosenberg 2y ago
Yes they could, but there were strict limits to it and people went to jail for violating them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Scandal_and_criminal_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Scandal_and_crim... McConnell (yes that one) v FEC and Citizens United redefined the first amendment to include financial contributions as a form of speech and extended to for-profit corporations the same rights as individuals and civic associations.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Isn't McConnell v FEC the SCOTUS ruling that upheld McCain-Feingold? The Act that Citizens overturned? To my understanding, this had zero effect on lobbying rules. Just campaign finance, namely, donations to candidates and donations to messaging operations.
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    It didn't overturn the BRCA, but the minority in McConnell laid the groundwork for the Citizens United decision. O'Connor wasn't willing to hand the country over to oligarchs like Alito was.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Sure, but that still doesn't address whether Citizens spoke to lobbying rules. It was more about contributions and PACs.
      - arrosenberg 2y ago
        If you want to pretend you don't understand the relationship between lobbying and the ability of groups to spend unlimited money influencing politicians, that's your prerogative. I think more highly of you, so I'm not going to spend my time arguing the point.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > the relationship between lobbying and the ability of groups to spend unlimited money influencing politicians The point is this lobbying wouldn’t have been restricted by anything Citizens touched. OpenAI isn’t giving money to a PAC, it’s buying bog-standard lobbying hours. This is an adjacent but nevertheless separate issue.

nradov 2y ago

[flagged]

svieira 2y ago
> because they aren't legally bound by precedent Good thing too, because some of their decisions over the years have been really doozy (who wants to be bound by Dred Scott v. Sandford?)
pluto_modadic 2y ago
This feels like a straw-man. Money should not equal speech. Yes it should be fixed with legislation. Why on earth wouldn't it? Citizens United was an obvious, incredible, disastrous mistake.
- nradov 2y ago
  Regardless of how you might feel, it's the furthest thing from a straw-man. We are still a nation of laws. The Constitution defines our fundamental processes and the separation of powers. Labeling the Citizens United v. FEC decision as a mistake might feel good but that accomplishes nothing. Instead of complaining online, the only possible solution is for voters to elect legislators who actually do their jobs and write clear laws instead of leaving it up to judges and bureaucrats to interpret vague statements. I do appreciate that Citizens United makes this more difficult but the Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse it so complaining about it is about as effective as complaining about gravity.
  - righthand 2y ago
    But we can’t get those people elected because they either A get over spent in campaign by corporations donation to their opponent or B they defect and take the donations themselves.
  - guelo 2y ago
    How will voters be able to make decisions that we agree with if we do not talk about it online? Who are you suggesting gets to talk about it?

lenerdenator 2y ago

How could it be? It made the number go up for the right people. And since that number is literally all that the right people can comprehend, it's the most important measure of a society's condition.

bcrosby95 2y ago

The biggest continual mistake in the USA is conflating groups of people with amoral profit seeking entities that have the benefit of legal fictions that protect individuals involved from the consequences of their behavior. If you chain together enough analogies you eventually reach a conclusion that is complete nonsense. That's about where our court system has brought us.

93po 2y ago
I've been saying for years, companies can have freedom of speech when we can put them in jail for wrongdoing. I'd even take metaphorical jail - not allowed to employ anyone, operate, transact, or anything else for the duration of their sentence. I bet we'd see a complete stop of illegal activity we see every day if this was the risk.
- bmelton 2y ago
  This feels causally backwards, as the only point to corporate personhood is so that we _can_ hold companies accountable for their misdeeds. Without personhood, we'd have to know which persons within an opaque company structure were responsible for wrongs against us in order to sue them directly instead of just being able to sue or fine "Walmart" or whomever.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    Corporations and regulation of corporations existed before the doctrine of corporate personhood. And do you think government agencies can't be sued? Or do you think they can fund political campaigns?
    - bmelton 2y ago
      You're asking "Do you think X? Or do you think Y?" here, but I know !X, _and_ I know Y. You've strung those clauses together as if they might mean something, so I confess I have no idea what tangent "fund political campaigns" runs off to, because I am not opining on the correctness of personhood but rather its history. Before personhood, if a corporation had wronged you, you were limited to suing its trustees, its charter, or petitioning the government. With personhood, I don't need to know who at McBigCorp decided to dump that sewage into my stream, I just need to know that it was done. I don't need to go after the trustees directly. Accountability is centralized, and the corporate entity likely has deeper pockets than the individual I might've sued for recompense. So yes, corporations existed before corporate personhood, but they were more hazardous to public welfare and had limited remedy to abuse. The East India Companies and the railroad barons of the world were allowed to run roughshod until centralized accountability was imposed.

laidoffamazon 2y ago

Yes. But even more than that having a president that is for sale by domestic and foreign interests.

cdme 2y ago
Nothing like launching a crypto pump and dump right before you enter office.

reverendsteveii 2y ago

Depends: are you extraordinarily wealthy?