3 ms·

Citizens United was 100% correct. No, the government should not be able to throw you in prison because you used money to publish a book criticizing the governme

Citizens United was 100% correct. No, the government should not be able to throw you in prison because you used money to publish a book criticizing the government.

appplication 10d ago
Really, 100% correct? Your premise isn’t wrong, but the practical reality of the ruling (without further nuance) has been fairly catastrophic for democracy, in that it completely sidesteps campaign finance limits, which exist for a very good reason.
- orangecat 10d ago
  the practical reality of the ruling (without further nuance) has been fairly catastrophic for democracy How so? If the answer is "Trump" I certainly won't disagree on the catastrophic part, but he didn't get elected because of money; in all three elections his campaign was substantially outspent by his opponents.
  - mitxela 9d ago
    Are we including in this figure corporations like Facebook intentionally boosting pro-Trump content?
fl4regun 10d ago
So it's 100% correct for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of whatever political campaigns they like?
- outside1234 10d ago
  The parent has been Fox brained
  - orangecat 10d ago
    The parent agrees with the American Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission?document=citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-aclu-amicus-brief https://www.aclu.org/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-electio...
- kbelder 10d ago
  Yes. Anybody can, including the person in charge of spending in a corporation.
  - fl4regun 10d ago
    so someone with more money should have more influence over an election? you really agree with this?
  - mitxela 9d ago
    Strange how you substituted "a corporation" for "the person in charge of spending in a corporation", those aren't the same.
    - kbelder 9d ago
      That was deliberate, because a corporation makes no spending decisions, ever. All decisions are made by people inside the corporation with the proper responsibility. That is a major part of the reasoning for the Supreme Court rulings on the matter of corporate political funding.
      - mitxela 8d ago
        Legally, the corporation itself makes the decision and is responsible for the consequences.
altruios 10d ago
It is in fact more complicated than most people assume. The above is true, but also: companies simply are not people, and they should not be supported above the individual, which was the consequences of that decision. Money is not the same as speech. treating it as such creates an aristocracy: something America as a country rebelled against during it's formation.
InsideOutSanta 10d ago
> Citizens United was 100% correct It's interesting to me that one can look back at the effects that decision has had on the US and say it "was 100% correct." It's a bit like sitting in the burning ruins of Rome and contemplating that Nero was 100% correct to focus on his music. I mean, I'm glad he got to do what he loves, but maybe 100% is just a tiny bit of an overstatement.
- ToValueFunfetti 10d ago
  It's more like if the law says the maximum sentence for theft is 10 years, a thief appeals his 20 year sentence, wins, and gets out early. He goes and robs somebody else so you say the court was wrong to let him win. The court's job is to uphold the law. If you disagree with their interpretation, you can call them incorrect. If you have a problem with the consequences of the law, you have a problem with the legislature.
  - InsideOutSanta 10d ago
    In reality, courts interpret and make the law.
  - fc417fc802 10d ago
    True, but in this case they made a determination about where the acceptable limits on a constitutional right fall which leaves quite a bit more room to disagree with them. It's not at all clear to me that spending money was intended by the framers to be unconditionally protected by the first amendment. We've even got the interstate commerce clause and IP law codified in the same document so how is that not an obvious inconsistency? IIUC SCOTUS based the distinction on the political nature of the activity but certainly that's not something spelled out in the original document.
dam_jackalopes 10d ago
Who involved in the Citizens United case was at risk of imprisonment?

Citizens United was 100% correct. No, the government should not be able to throw you in prison because you used money to publish a book criticizing the government.

appplication 10d ago

Really, 100% correct? Your premise isn’t wrong, but the practical reality of the ruling (without further nuance) has been fairly catastrophic for democracy, in that it completely sidesteps campaign finance limits, which exist for a very good reason.

orangecat 10d ago
the practical reality of the ruling (without further nuance) has been fairly catastrophic for democracy How so? If the answer is "Trump" I certainly won't disagree on the catastrophic part, but he didn't get elected because of money; in all three elections his campaign was substantially outspent by his opponents.
- mitxela 9d ago
  Are we including in this figure corporations like Facebook intentionally boosting pro-Trump content?

fl4regun 10d ago

So it's 100% correct for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of whatever political campaigns they like?

outside1234 10d ago
The parent has been Fox brained
- orangecat 10d ago
  The parent agrees with the American Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission?document=citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-aclu-amicus-brief https://www.aclu.org/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-electio...
kbelder 10d ago
Yes. Anybody can, including the person in charge of spending in a corporation.
- fl4regun 10d ago
  so someone with more money should have more influence over an election? you really agree with this?
- mitxela 9d ago
  Strange how you substituted "a corporation" for "the person in charge of spending in a corporation", those aren't the same.
  - kbelder 9d ago
    That was deliberate, because a corporation makes no spending decisions, ever. All decisions are made by people inside the corporation with the proper responsibility. That is a major part of the reasoning for the Supreme Court rulings on the matter of corporate political funding.
    - mitxela 8d ago
      Legally, the corporation itself makes the decision and is responsible for the consequences.

altruios 10d ago

It is in fact more complicated than most people assume. The above is true, but also: companies simply are not people, and they should not be supported above the individual, which was the consequences of that decision. Money is not the same as speech. treating it as such creates an aristocracy: something America as a country rebelled against during it's formation.

InsideOutSanta 10d ago

> Citizens United was 100% correct It's interesting to me that one can look back at the effects that decision has had on the US and say it "was 100% correct." It's a bit like sitting in the burning ruins of Rome and contemplating that Nero was 100% correct to focus on his music. I mean, I'm glad he got to do what he loves, but maybe 100% is just a tiny bit of an overstatement.

ToValueFunfetti 10d ago
It's more like if the law says the maximum sentence for theft is 10 years, a thief appeals his 20 year sentence, wins, and gets out early. He goes and robs somebody else so you say the court was wrong to let him win. The court's job is to uphold the law. If you disagree with their interpretation, you can call them incorrect. If you have a problem with the consequences of the law, you have a problem with the legislature.
- InsideOutSanta 10d ago
  In reality, courts interpret and make the law.
- fc417fc802 10d ago
  True, but in this case they made a determination about where the acceptable limits on a constitutional right fall which leaves quite a bit more room to disagree with them. It's not at all clear to me that spending money was intended by the framers to be unconditionally protected by the first amendment. We've even got the interstate commerce clause and IP law codified in the same document so how is that not an obvious inconsistency? IIUC SCOTUS based the distinction on the political nature of the activity but certainly that's not something spelled out in the original document.

dam_jackalopes 10d ago

Who involved in the Citizens United case was at risk of imprisonment?