General Discussion

Caliman73

(11,767 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".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Citizens united is the problem... [View all] pbmus Feb 2022 OP

Without question! It is the source of most of the worst of the ills we face, and it is responsible Scrivener7 Feb 2022 #1

You don't have Citizens United without Buckley v Valeo Caliman73 Feb 2022 #2

Fuck you shrub I_UndergroundPanther Feb 2022 #3

It was an SC decision. From 2009. Scrivener7 Feb 2022 #4

My memory must be off I_UndergroundPanther Feb 2022 #5

I literally just posted a post complaining about my own memory. Scrivener7 Feb 2022 #6

You might be thinking of Fahrenheit 9/11. Dr. Strange Feb 2022 #8

But isn't the limit for individuals to contribute to campaigns $2,800 or something? betsuni Feb 2022 #7

The legacy of 'Citizens United' has been destructive. We need campaign finance reform. Celerity Feb 2022 #9

Reich is incorrect brooklynite Feb 2022 #10