Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Scrivener7

(51,014 posts)
1. Without question! It is the source of most of the worst of the ills we face, and it is responsible
Thu Feb 10, 2022, 07:49 PM
Feb 2022

for the elections of most of the worst of our legislators. A shameful, shameful decision.

Caliman73

(11,744 posts)
2. You don't have Citizens United without Buckley v Valeo
Thu Feb 10, 2022, 07:49 PM
Feb 2022

While Citizens United definitely opened the floodgates to campaign contributions via dark money and direct contribution. Buckley v Valeo enshrined the concept of money as speech. While Buckley said that limits on contributions were constitutional it also said that limits on spending were unconstitutional which basically said that MONEY is SPEECH and limiting how much a campaign can spend is limiting speech.

If you can't limit how much a candidate can spend because money is speech, why would you be able to limit how much entities can spend to allow that candidate to "speak".

I_UndergroundPanther

(12,480 posts)
5. My memory must be off
Fri Feb 11, 2022, 04:10 PM
Feb 2022

I remember it being discussed than.. maybe Im thinking of citizens united or that ridiculous neighborhood patrol that tipps program crap.

Dr. Strange

(25,924 posts)
8. You might be thinking of Fahrenheit 9/11.
Fri Feb 11, 2022, 04:42 PM
Feb 2022

The CU decision originated with Michael Moore's documentary on Bush.

betsuni

(25,621 posts)
7. But isn't the limit for individuals to contribute to campaigns $2,800 or something?
Fri Feb 11, 2022, 04:38 PM
Feb 2022

Politicians have to do everything someone says for a few thousand dollars just because the donor is a billionaire? What happens when 13 billionaires want different things? I wonder how they decide which donation makes one beholden the most.

I remember last election a campaign returned a $470 donation to a woman because her husband is a billionaire. She said it was ridiculous and I agree. Don't understand the whole idea of campaign contributions automatically corrupting people or why billionaires money has special powers that other money doesn't.

Celerity

(43,517 posts)
9. The legacy of 'Citizens United' has been destructive. We need campaign finance reform.
Fri Feb 11, 2022, 05:31 PM
Feb 2022
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-legacy-of-citizens-united-has-been-destructive-we-need-campaign-finance-reform/2020/01/20/1fc3a570-3973-11ea-bf30-ad313e4ec754_story.html

Fred Wertheimer

January 20, 2020

Jan. 21 marks the 10th anniversary of the disastrous Citizens United decision, the most consequential — and destructive — campaign finance decision by the Supreme Court in nearly half a century. The legacy of Citizens United has been even more damaging than almost anyone understood when the ruling came down.

The decision helped return the most dangerous and corrupting money to our elections. It provided the wealthiest Americans with a predominant role in campaign financing by giving birth to super PACs permitted to collect multimillion-dollar checks. It allowed hundreds of millions of dollars in large, secret contributions to be spent to influence federal elections through the use of undisclosed “dark money” given to nonprofits.

In short, the destructive impact of Citizens United on our political system has made the Watergate campaign finance scandals, the worst of the last century, look like child’s play.

The history of money in American politics is a cyclical story of scandal and reform. Scandals occur. Reforms are enacted. They work for some period of time. When they are not enforced or updated to address changed circumstances, they eventually break down. New scandals occur. New reforms follow. And the cycle repeats.

snip

brooklynite

(94,729 posts)
10. Reich is incorrect
Fri Feb 11, 2022, 05:36 PM
Feb 2022

Billionaires contributing to Manchin and Sinema has nothing to do with Citizen's United, which allows unlimited contributions to INDEPENDENT PACS. However much contributors have in wealth, they are limited to the same $5400 direct contributions as everyone else. And since neither is up this year, they won't be able to contribute any additional amounts to their campaigns before the 2024 elections.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Citizens united is the pr...