The ACLU and Citizens United (note: they oppose the constitutional amendment to overturn CU)

[kelly1mm]

"In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions that applied to non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association, as well as for-profit corporations like General Motors and Microsoft.

That decision has sparked a great deal of controversy. Some see corporations as artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. Others see corporations and unions as legitimate participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues.

We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech."

SNIP

"Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment."

Entire statement link:

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

Well, at least they are consistent!

[still_one]

1. The question is are corporations people?

[Recursion]

17. And the answer is 100% yes. They always have been. That was not the new part of CU

The whole point of the corporation since its invention was to be a legal person so that they can enter into contracts, be held accountable legally, and sue and be sued.

[still_one]

22. but can a corporation serve time in jail?

[Recursion]

24. No more than a real human can be dissolved

However, if corporations weren't legal fictitious people they couldn't be sued, for instance.

[Orrex]

37. Are corporations often dissolved in this way?

Can you provide examples?

However, if corporations weren't legal fictitious people they couldn't be sued, for instance.

However, being legal fictions, there is no reason why corporations have to be afforded 1st Amendment protections.

In fact, it would be perfectly acceptable to draft an amendment stating something like "excepting the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, Congress shall pass no law granting corporations the rights granted to natural human beings as described in the first amendment."

In short, there is no real reason at all not to restrict corportations' "rights" however we see fit.

[Nye Bevan]

40. Arthur Andersen (nt)

[Orrex]

42. So... Just one. Not much of a deterrent, I should think.

[Romulox]

33. This is obviously incorrect, as Citizens United was decided in 2010. nt

[Recursion]

38. Citizens United was not the first time corporations were called people

They've been legally people since the corporation was invented. That was the whole point.

[Romulox]

48. For limited matters, Recursion. Not in all things. Read the case law more carefully, please. nt

[immoderate]

103. If you count the tail as a leg, how many legs does a donkey have?

Answer: four.

To treat a corporation as a person may be pragmatic under circumstances. To say they are the same thing is an equivocation and a violation of the most basic laws of thought and communication. In the same way, speech and money are different things.

--imm

[Jackpine Radical]

51. Not really. A lot of that descends from a note attached to Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886) was a matter brought before the United States Supreme Court which dealt with taxation of railroad properties. A headnote issued by the Court Reporter claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that issue. This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, had recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution.

[tblue37]

62. Not "always." The notion that corporations have all the same rights as

flesh and blood persons arose out of a *court reporter's notes* in the 19th century case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. (The justices in that case never actually expressed a legal opinion on that point.)

[tblue37]

64. But until that court reporter included that point in his headnote to his summary,

logical distinctions were still made between corpoations ("metaphysical persons&quot and flesh and blood persons.

[eallen]

21. No, the question is whether corporations are part of "the press."

The 1st amendment doesn't just protect individual free speech and the right to association. It expressly protects "the press." At the time the amendment was written, "the press" referred to journals and newspapers published by businesses. The framers suffered no delusion that a business is a person. They just thought that the business of publishing should be free.

It would be a very strange interpretation of the 1st amendment's protection of the press to say that it does not cover newspapers, content providers, and book publishers such as the New York Times, MSNBC, MacMillan, because they are corporations.

[Romulox]

34. The Founders knew what corporations were, and didn't mention them in the Bill of Rights. nt

[eallen]

35. They mentioned "the press" explicitly. Which was businesses, then.

Now, no, they never imagined the kind of media corporations that exist today. But what do you suggest? That the New York Times doesn't count as part of "the press," because it is a corporation?

[Romulox]

47. Then it is reasonable that they considered the matter, and limited the 1st Amendment's protections

to "the press", rather than to corporations in general.

This is a standard form of Constitutional analysis. It is not logical to put forward that the Founders "intended" to do something that was in their power to do, and yet which they chose not to do. In fact, the opposite is the logical inference.

[eallen]

55. Your definition of "the press" is circular

You seem to say it includes some corporations, those that are "the press," but not others.

That doesn't help in drawing a line between the two. Does it include The New York Times? MacMillan? Elsevier? CNN? Fox? Micrsoft?

And on what grounds?

[bluestateguy]

2. And that is why their fund rasing mailers go straight into my garbage can

Yes, the garbage can. Sorry environmentalists.

I don't want their garbage recycled.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. that makes no sense.

"Yes, the garbage can. Sorry environmentalists.

I don't want their garbage recycled."

are you just being funny? i am super tired, so maybe i am just missing the joke.

[NuclearDem]

7. Talking about throwing physical mail into the trash and not recycling bin.

I had to think about it a bit too.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. i got that. still makes no sense though.

[Mercy_Queen]

4. Their entire premise is flawed. Like PETA, they are quickly sabotaging their own organization.

[marym625]

29. The ACLU

Is fighting internally on this. Posted a link in reply to the OP

[Uncle Joe]

5. 90+% of the time I agree with the ACLU but not on this, money is not speech and

corporations aren't people.

Corporations; are artificial legal constructs and by their very nature authoritarian, having no resemblance to a democratic ideal.

Thanks for the thread, kelly1mm.

[marym625]

30. The ACLU is fighting internally on this

Posted a link in reply to the OP

[jeff47]

6. An amendment would also curtail their spending........(nt)

[Cha]

8. Whttevrrr, aclu. "unfortunately" for you.. not for those of us who give a damn about Democracy.

Kocheads must love them.

[spanone]

9. unbelievable. aclu thinks that corporations are people? i will withhold my donations

[BrotherIvan]

10. Money is not speech

[Nye Bevan]

12. So if the Republicans passed a law that banned unions from spending money on political campaigning,

you believe that such a law should be constitutional, as it only addresses money and not speech?

[BrotherIvan]

13. All campaigns should be publicly financed

Each candidate will have a limited amount and can't spend anything above that other than volunteers. If we deem it so important to have TV advertising, then the networks that are using PUBLIC airways can be told do donate a certain number of minutes. And there should be a seriously short length of time for actual campaigning. Money in politics only makes media richer and the rich more influential. The only reason why unions have to give so much is to try to offset money from the right.

Money is not speech.

[X_Digger]

15. You didn't really answer the question, now did you? Hrmm. n/t

[BrotherIvan]

20. If it was too subtle, the answer is yes

if ALL entities equally were not allowed to give money. If you read what I wrote, you would find that I said that a candidate should not be able to get any money from anyone other than the allotted amount of public financing. This would include lobbying. And yes, I know this is an extreme view and would effect liberal as well as conservative causes and groups.

[Nye Bevan]

26. So you are proposing essentially abolishing the First Amendment.

Someone from the government would have to examine pretty much all speech, including books, movies, and so on, and report it to the police if it was suspected of being illegal campaigning or tacit support or opposition to a political candidate. You are correct in your statement that this is, indeed, an extremist position.

[kcr]

91. Do you think the 1st Amendment was essentially abolished before CU?

[Nye Bevan]

93. BrotherIvan was proposing a system that went way, way beyond the pre-CU era.

There were some worrying incursions on the First Amendment pre-CU, like movies being banned, but nothing like what BrotherIvan is proposing.

[Recursion]

18. Should Congress be able to cap my donations to DU? (nt)

[BrotherIvan]

19. DU is not a candidate and you are paying for a service

As far as I know, DU does not give money to candidates.

[Nye Bevan]

25. So you are OK with unlimited independent expenditures?

That is what Citizens United is all about. The ruling left intact the limits on campaign contributions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Paper is not speech, and nor is electricity.

So why not ban people from writing down political material, or publishing it electronically or on TV?

Those make exactly as much sense as "money is not speech".

I'm not convinced that this amendment wouldn't be a lesser evil. But pretending that it isn't a massive restriction on freedom of speech is just silly; the argument is that the influence of money on politics is even more harmful than that.

[NYC Liberal]

49. Exactly. By that logic

the first amendment protects writing a book, but Congress could ban a publishing company from spending any money to print and distribute your book.

[Nye Bevan]

11. The proposed amendment would allow Congress to ban books.

The police could descend on a bookstore and confiscate its copies of a book because it praised or criticized an election candidate.

Also, the "freedom of the press" exemption is a huge loophole. Rupert Murdoch would be allowed to spend unlimited sums to influence elections, but organizations such as the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood could be strictly limited in their spending. And what's to stop the Kochs or anyone else from starting up a "newspaper"?

I agree with the ACLU's position here.

[BrotherIvan]

14. How did it work before Citizens United?

How does it work in countries where huge gobs of money isn't allowed? I'm sure there's a way without the avalanche of corporate money.

[Recursion]

31. The case was about a smear "documentary" about HRC

Is hard for me to argue that the government should be limiting what filmmakers, even conservative hack filmmakers, can spend making their films.

[BrotherIvan]

46. There is no government crackdown on actual speech

This is about money to candidates. If a documentary, film, book, etc. is untrue or libelous, the courts could handle it that way. If that can't be proved, then the candidate will just have to deal with it. This is not about the content of speech, it is about the money.

And before Citizens United, a lot of shenanigans happened; but the flood of money, according to the OP article and much of the studies was far less. Most elected officials spend 25-50% of their time raising funds. That would stop with public financing. It is also and effort to stop black money, dark money, and just the overall farce our elected government has become.

So how do countries like Germany do it? Acting like there will this iron fisted government crackdown is fear mongering

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-germany-s-politics-are-much-saner-cheaper-and-nicer-than-ours/280081/

The idea that for some reason we can't live without all these fairly NEW rules is not true.

[LanternWaste]

54. Many posters are extrapolating via fiction, your opinion to frame it in their terms.

Many posters are extrapolating via fiction, your opinion to frame it in their terms. To better understand the issue, and the consequences of what may or may not happen, I greatly recommend two books...

Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices, by Judith Trent

Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution, by Robert Post

Between the two, the full fiction that elections are not free unless we can spend unlimited amounts of money via the mechanism of both the individual and the collective are laid out in no unclear terms as absurd and dogmatic.


"The idea that for some reason we can't live without all these fairly NEW rules is not true..."
Quite right. And for the half-wit who wants to convince you the new legislation is fair, balanced, and for the good of freedom, listen to a bowl of pudding before you allow their premise any credibility. Of the two books mentioned above, the second is a real eye-opener...

[Uncle Joe]

102. That's a good post, LanternWaste, I agree.

[Nye Bevan]

94. This is not about "money to candidates".

"Hillary the Movie" was not part of any candidate's campaign and Citizens United was not associated with any campaign or candidate.

[Recursion]

95. No, it didn't say anything about money to candidates

Again, it was about a crank who formed an LLC to make a smear video. He didn't help anybody's campaign at all.

[X_Digger]

16. Well-meaning but naive amendments would do more harm than good.

Imagine the use of such power in the hands of the republicans.

If your response is predicated on the assumption of a democratic majority in one house of congress or another- try again, control always swings.

[marym625]

27. Not exactly true. There is a deep rift at the ACLU

Regarding this. Some State divisions are even calling out the people at the National HQ that sent the letter.

http://m.nationallawjournal.com/module/alm/app/nlj.do#!/article/1709623258

[kelly1mm]

44. No, it is exactly true. While certainly there is disagreement with the ACLU's official position

from within the organization, the official position of the national ACLU is exactly as I described and linked to.

[marym625]

45. I just got off the phone with both the National office

And the wwl. It is not the official position of either office.

[kelly1mm]

50. The link is still on their website, is it not? Is that not the ACLU's national website?

Does that link not say:

"Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment."?

Perhaps they are rethinking their position but until I have evidence otherwise, I will believe what they post on their official website is, you know, their official position.

You of course are free to believe that the position they publically post on their official website is not their official position.

[marym625]

56. It's not

Even within the wll they are not in full agreement. They will not claim an "official position"

They are actually meeting on it now. I don't expect that anyone will change their minds. I don't know what they will end up doing publicly.

Since I spoke to them myself there is no question in my mind what their "official position" is. They strongly disagree with each other so "it's a personal decision."

[kelly1mm]

58. If you say so. However, I hope you told them that if they have an official website

and if on that official website they state that they oppose the amendment to overturn CU, that reasonable people can conclude that they, in fact, oppose the constitutional amendment being proposed.

Again, I chose to believe what they post on their official website. You are free to keep believing/arguing that what is on their official website is not actually their position.

[marym625]

60. I specifically mentioned DU and the disagreements happening because of it

As i said, I was told they were going into a meeting regarding this. Seems as though this divide within is deep and wide.

[kelly1mm]

59. On more thing - IF they chage their position as described on their website I will post the updated

position as soon as I read it. I am not saying that they cannot change their position and have no reason to dispute your account that they are meeting on this.

[marym625]

61. It's all good

Frankly, I don't ever recall something like this happening at the ACLU. Not saying it hasn't, I just don't recall seeing this before

[MohRokTah]

28. Well, time to stop donating to the ACLU.

Oh well. They made their decision, now I'll make mine.

[BlueCaliDem]

79. I stopped donating when the ACLU rushed to defend Rush Limbaugh. I know what the official

statement was for doing it, and I can understand that their client is the Bill of Rights, but I just can't believe that Rush, who is backed by billionaires in this country and who spat on civil liberties for the vulnerable in this country, would need the ACLU to rush to his defense when his civil liberties were threatened. So I asserted my first amendment right, and stopped donating to them.

[Nye Bevan]

84. Yep, they defended the Klan's right to march, too.

When an organisation supports civil rights even for those you dislike, it's very easy to come up with a reason not to support them.

[BlueCaliDem]

96. I remember that. They even made a telelvision movie out of it, "Skokie".

That said, Rush Limbaugh's net worth is around $400 million dollars. The ACLU should use their resources for those who can't afford top-counsel in this country because justice is hard to get when you don't have the money. There wasn't any reason for them to spend a penny or a minute on a man who vomits on civil liberties for the poor and impoverished in this country. They, unlike Rush, can't afford adequate representation let alone the most expensive dream-team of attorneys money can buy.

Asserting my first amendment right, and the ACLU would support me in this, I've elected not to support them monetarily or in any other way anymore.

[Blue_Tires]

32. There's a distinct line between "consistent"

and "stubbornly refusing to admit they were wrong"...

[The Magistrate]

36. True, Sir

[Nye Bevan]

41. Some people hate the ACLU because they defended the right of the KKK to march.

Many Republicans hate the ACLU because they oppose legislation banning flag-burning.

And many DUers hate the ACLU because they are standing up for the First Amendment and do not want to give Congress the ability to ban books and movies and to control political websites.

[Bjorn Against]

57. Can you please tell me which books and movies were banned before Citizen's United?

I sure don't remember books and movies being banned before Citizen's United so I fail to see how overturning such a decision would result in book bans. Most of us were around long before the Citizen's United ruling and we don't remember the draconian restrictions on free speech you seem to be insisting would come if the decision were to be overturned.

[Nye Bevan]

63. "Hillary: the Movie" was banned. That's what the Citizens United case was all about.

Hillary: The Movie is a 2008 political documentary about United States Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. It was produced by Citizens United. The film was scheduled to be offered as video-on-demand on cable TV right before the Democratic primaries in January 2008, but the federal government blocked it.[1] The blocking of the film's airing was the subject of the court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The documentary interviewed various conservative figures such as Dick Morris and Ann Coulter and reviewed various scandals which Hillary Clinton allegedly participated in, such as the White House travel office controversy, White House FBI files controversy, Whitewater controversy, and cattle future controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie

Moreover, in the Citizens United case the Government asserted in its argument that it had the power to ban books:

It may one day be fair to say that the campaign finance “reform” movement was dealt a fatal blow that day in March 2009 when Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart responded to a question from Justice Alito.

Alito’s question was simple: Could the government ban political books that contained express advocacy if an incorporated entity was involved?

After much ducking, weaving, bobbing, and a few desperate clicks of his heels while shouting “there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home,” Stewart gave the answer that 100 years of campaign finance “reform” had forced him into: Yes. The government did have the power to ban books.

To say that this caused a stir would be an understatement. Banning books? Seriously?

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/09/10/citizens-united-its-all-about-the-book-banning/

[Bjorn Against]

65. No Hillary the movie was not banned

I don't think you understand the difference between a ban and financing restrictions. Hillary: The Movie would have faced no legal trouble if it had been distributed similar to how other documentary films are distributed, it was the effort to use it as an in kind contribution that caused it trouble. The film itself was not banned, they merely had to follow the same finance laws everyone else had to follow.

Your second link looks like absolute right-wing trash that is built on lies. The author fails to quote anyone saying books would be banned, but they did somehow manage to quote him as saying "There's no place like home".

Freedom of the press does not mean that corporations do not have to follow financial laws.

[Nye Bevan]

67. Yes-folks-the-Obama-administration-is-arguing-it-has-the-power-to-ban-books

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/01/715382/-Yes-folks-the-Obama-administration-is-arguing-it-has-the-power-to-ban-books


And as for Hillary the Movie:

But the Federal Election Commission stepped in and banned its distribution ruling that the movie was the equivalent of a campaign ad attacking a candidate. Because the film was made partly with corporate contributions, the commission ruled it was "electioneering communications" -- subject to restrictions under campaign finance law.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hears-anti-hillary-clinton-film-case/story?id=8517766

[Bjorn Against]

70. No, they could distribute it all they had to do was follow campaign finance laws

Michael Moore was able to distribute Farenheit 9/11 in a way that did not violate campaign finance laws, they could have done the same thing for Hillary: The Movie. They never banned the distribution of Hillary: The Movie, they only banned the particular method of distribution which amounted to a free campaign gift. There were ways to get the movie shown which would not have violated campaign finance laws.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

66. Nye, it's been an amazing run....

....but you are seriously showing your slip now.

[Nye Bevan]

68. By agreeing with the ACLU's position on this issue?

Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

[Bjorn Against]

71. I looked up the source for that second link, it was written by Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor

The second article you write was written by Sean Parnell, here is a bit of info on him:

Former CCP President Sean Parnell served on the Public Safety and Elections Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). At the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting, he introduced the "Resolution in Support of Appropriate Disclosure Requirements" model policy for adoption by the Public Safety and Elections Task Force.[7] On July 20, 2011, Parnell published an article in The Daily Caller (conservative/Republican news organization founded by conservative reporter Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney aide Neil Patel) criticizing Common Cause for requesting that the Internal Revenue Service look into claims that ALEC, in violation of the laws governing 501(c)(3) organizations, has engaged in lobbying.[8] According to an August 2013 ALEC board document obtained by The Guardian, CCP terminated its ALEC membership on March 19, 2013 because the Justice Policy Project (JPP), which replaced the Public Safety and Elections Task Force at ALEC, "no longer works on issue."[9]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Competitive_Politics

I guess I can't say I'm too surprised that you would cite someone who worked for ALEC and is a columnist for the right-wing Daily Caller, but don't think right wing-shit like this is going to convince anyone.

On edit: I knew I had heard Parnell's name somewhere else as well. He is the current Governor of Alaska who was hand picked by Sarah Palin as her Lieutenant Governor.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Parnell

Do you feel embarrassed for citing him?

[Nye Bevan]

72. Here's a Daily Kos link:

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/01/715382/-Yes-folks-the-Obama-administration-is-arguing-it-has-the-power-to-ban-books

[Bjorn Against]

73. So you have Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor and an anonymous blogger on your side

Because citing Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor did not work out so well for you, you decided to point me to a diary by an anonymous Kos blogger who appears to be a troll. While the blogger falsely claims that Obama wants to ban books, they did not actually cite any facts to back up that claim. If you read the actual excerpt from the SCOTUS blog they posted it does not say that anyone argued the government could ban books, it says that it was argued that they could ban certain types of financing to pay for the publishing costs of a book. Any book can still be published, it just has to be published in a way that does not violate campaign finance laws. Hundreds of authors publish political books every year without violating campaign laws, it is not difficult to do.

In other words your Kos source does not have any more credibility than your initial citation of Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor.

[Nye Bevan]

75. How about the "New Yorker"?

Alito wanted to push Stewart down a slippery slope. Since McCain-Feingold forbade the broadcast of “electronic communications” shortly before elections, this was a case about movies and television commercials. What else might the law regulate? “Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth?” Alito said. Could the law limit a corporation from “providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all those as well?” Yes, Stewart said: “Those could have been applied to additional media as well.”

The Justices leaned forward. It was one thing for the government to regulate television commercials. That had been done for years. But a book? Could the government regulate the content of a book?

“That’s pretty incredible,” Alito responded. “You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?”

“I’m not saying it could be banned,” Stewart replied, trying to recover. “I’m saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its—” But clearly Stewart was saying that Citizens United, or any company or nonprofit like it, could not publish a partisan book during a Presidential campaign.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited

I'm not sure how many links you need before you accept what this guy actually said.

[Bjorn Against]

78. Well now that you finally show what he said, it turns out he said the opposite of what you claimed

The Sarah Palin underling and the anonymous blogger you cited earlier both claimed that the government's lawyer said books could be banned but they never actually provided a quote, well the New Yorker did provide a quote and it turned out what he really said was very different than what you told us we should trust Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor on.

Here is the quote from the New Yorker article:

“I’m not saying it could be banned,” Stewart replied, trying to recover. “I’m saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its—” But clearly Stewart was saying that Citizens United, or any company or nonprofit like it, could not publish a partisan book during a Presidential campaign.

So there it is, unlike your false claims he never said books could be banned in fact he explicitly told us that he was not saying that. Clearly Scalia tripped him up in questioning, but it is a lie to claim that he said books could be banned.

[Nye Bevan]

80. Well... he said "I'm not saying it could be banned"

but then he went on to say that it could, indeed, be banned. Hence Toobin's conclusion.

[Bjorn Against]

86. Once again he explicitly said he was NOT saying books could be banned

He was clearly tripped up during questioning and he worded his response poorly, but when he was misunderstood he made it clear that he was not saying books could be banned he was talking about financing. I agree that there should be some limits on financing of campaign books, if there were not a billionaire could buy ten million copies of a hardcover biography of a candidate and hand them out to people for free and this would be a massive gift to the candidate.

This has nothing to do with banning books, hundreds of political books are published every year with no problem under our campaign finance laws and the lawyer was not proposing any new policies to change that.

[Nye Bevan]

87. "Some limits on financing of campaign books".

So if someone hires people to hand out more electioneering pamphlets than you would like on the street, the police should start making arrests and confiscate the pamphlets?

You have identified the point of our disagreement. I think that if Mark Zuckerberg wants to spend all of his money printing and distributing election pamphlets or books, he has an absolute First Amendment right to do just that, with no limitations of any kind.

[Bjorn Against]

88. I believe there should be limits on campaign spending

No one is going to violate the limits that I believe should be in place by passing out pamphlets on a street corner so you can forget that strawman.

You have to remember that many campaign biographies are written by the candidates themselves and they get royalties for every sale. If a billionaire were to purchase ten million copies and distribute them for free they would be handing over large amounts of money to not the campaign itself, but rather the candidate's personal bank account. If there were not some limits on the financing of campaign books this would be a very easy way to bribe a politician, so yes there needs to be some basic limits on how campaign books are financed and I am not going to let Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor tell me otherwise.

[Nye Bevan]

89. We have to agree to disagree then. I don't think there should be any limitations, ever, on pamphlets

or books being distributed. You, on the other hand, believe that if someone spends too much money on distributing pamphlets or books, the police should swoop in, confiscate the material in question, and arrest the people responsible.

You and I just have a significantly different view of the First Amendment.

[Bjorn Against]

90. Of course I never said any of that and you created a huge strawman to misrepresent me

I guess Sarah Palin's hand picked man could not win the argument for you so you had to create some fantasy scenario in which I have police swooping in and arresting people for handing out pamphlets.



You are right about one thing, we do have very different views on the First Amendment. My view is more in line with Bernie Sanders while you got yours from Sarah Palin's hand picked hack.

[Nye Bevan]

92. "Some limits on financing of campaign books"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5516273

[BrotherIvan]

97. Thank you for your arguments

Laid it out very well and refuted these strange arguments.

[Comrade Grumpy]

43. The ACLU does lots of good work despite their position on this one issue.

They're wrong on this, but I'm not throwing them under the bus.

[tazkcmo]

53. I agree

While I'd love to see CU reversed I'm going to trust the folks at the ACLU to know law a whole lot better than me. I haven't read the amendment (I'm sure the ACLU has) so I can only address the spirit of it which is to say I agree.

Now I see the ACLU express reservations and there is not a consensus within that group. Things that make you go "Hmmmmm". What is it they see is wrong with this amendment? Why are they against it? They have a very good track record. They piss everyone off at some point so that tells me they're doing something right. I think I'll take a wait and see attitude before I stop supporting them with my rare money.

[randys1]

76. God Bless the ACLU, I wouldnt have them be any other way, even if they are wrong this time

We need a pure form of protection and the ACLU is that.

Corporations are not people, never were, a footnote by a clerk has no legal meaning overall.

Not sure what reason ACLU holds this position, but so be it. Dont want them to win this one, but I do admire their purity.

[Dont call me Shirley]

52. ACLU, MONEY IS NOT SPEECH! Money is an economic tool, not speech!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. I'm afraid I don't agree; see #23.

[Dont call me Shirley]

74. The words written on the paper are the speech and the words written and spoken

through that electricity are speech.

The words written on paper money and coins are speech, but the spending of that money is an economic action, not speech.

Money is not speech. It is an economic tool.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. Protecting "speech" without protecting the means of speech means absolutely nothing.

It's saying "we're not going to prevent you making your views known, we're just going to prevent you from doing so".

You can't buy paper or electricity without money.

[Dont call me Shirley]

99. Which is precisely what the monopoly media is doing to the general public, preventing the

majority views of the American public. Protecting large corporations and billionaires in their constant rancorous campaign to deny the public our right of speech is wrong! The rich have created purchasable access to funneled homogenized "free speech zones" fully owned and operated by themselves. Denying the public access to free speech (words) through high prices of postage, paper, printing supplies, access to television and radio channels, shutting down the open internet is what the monopoly communication corporations do repeatedly.

Money is NOT speech; Corporations are NOT people, my friend.

Revive the Sherman Anti-trust Act!

[Nye Bevan]

100. And you just made a statement that 2.8 billion people can see,

and it cost you nothing.

Talking about the "high cost of printing supplies" is a little backward-looking in 2014.

[Dont call me Shirley]

104. Yes, I had to pay to post this. I paid for the computer, the DSL, the wifi, the electricity.

Lots of people still read print, books, textbooks, old fashioned newspapers, those very expensive slick political advertisements in the mail and on the medians, etc etc etc

[Nye Bevan]

82. So if a Republican congress passed a law banning unions from spending money on political campaigning

you think that law should be constitutional?

[onecaliberal]

77. SO I guess the ACLU thinks people should be able to shout out "fire" in a crowded building too.

[Nye Bevan]

81. If the building is indeed on fire, then yes, I'm sure they do (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

83. I guess I'm one of the very few DUers who strongly supports the ACLU in every position it holds (nt)

[ManiacJoe]

85. Wrong version of the amendment?

The original position statement by the ACLU was against the June version of the amendment.

The proposal was rewritten in July. There is a good chance that the ACLU position has not been updated to reflect the new amendment.

[bluebomber]

101. ACLU is definitely in the wrong on this