General Discussion

reACTIONary

(5,768 posts)

20. I'm wondering what your opinion of the rational...

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:50 PM

Jan 2013

...for some limitation of corporate speech provided in the OP might be, and I wonder if you might know whether or not the SCOTUS considered and rejected any similar rational.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Was Citizens United Correct? [View all] reACTIONary Jan 2013 OP

no, money will make a difference in close elections uponit7771 Jan 2013 #1

Citizens United gave the wealthy TWICE the voice to effect elections DJ13 Jan 2013 #2

The wealthy already have more of a voice... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #3

Perhaps Citizens United was decided on the basis of the principle of free speech DJ13 Jan 2013 #4

I don't disagree, but how does Citizen's United grant... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #6

How? DJ13 Jan 2013 #11

"buys greater influence" - that's my point... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #14

Money shouldnt equal speech DJ13 Jan 2013 #23

Money is not Speech. Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #5

How does one speak without spending money? reACTIONary Jan 2013 #7

And limiting corporate speech of organizations like the ACLU Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #10

Good point! NT reACTIONary Jan 2013 #43

The those with more money have more speech. Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #12

It is speech. tama Jan 2013 #9

The first amendment does not protect commercial speech... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #22

If you consider a ponzi scheme tama Jan 2013 #38

Maybe I missed your point. NT reACTIONary Jan 2013 #42

Seems that way tama Jan 2013 #45

I don't consider money to be a promise... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #48

Money is promise tama Jan 2013 #53

While you may not give a... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #58

Thing with Austrian school tama Jan 2013 #60

What could be the ethical justification of such inequality? reACTIONary Jan 2013 #61

That could be it tama Jan 2013 #63

See the ACLU amicus brief, which was arguing basically for the plaintiff Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #8

I'll take a look at the ACLU brief, but in the mean time... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #15

There is no constitutional rationale by which the government can differentiate Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #36

Thanks for your response... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #46

The "primary purpose" of Citizens United was to make a movie jberryhill Jan 2013 #55

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #13

Fascism is an illiberal, undemocratic, authoritarian political ideology... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #17

Those are nice theories. In reality Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #27

if you march with a group such as Occupy (I did).... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #44

" in an oppressive, authoritarian police state, you don't." No totally, not yet. Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #47

You are making a slippery-slope argument... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #50

It not so much politics as it is business. Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #52

I think that is an exageration, but... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #59

It is not an exaggeration. It is happening. Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #65

You are stuck in semantics and theories while the facts are in your face. Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #56

Nope. Not "semantics and theories". Actual experience in the real world... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #57

I know because I've attempted to move. To quote: Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #62

Of course not. It is an abomination. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #16

"Abomination" covers a lot of ground. Could you be more specific? NT reACTIONary Jan 2013 #19

Corporations, or any paper entity, are not people. Money is not speech. Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #21

Yes, that is specific. Nonetheless... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #24

One last kick to your attention seeking flame bait. "It falls short of an abomination" is only your Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #28

You are right. "An abomination" might not be all that much of a big deal... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #32

OK, it seems you really want to talk, my apologies for assuming that you were just Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #37

Thanks for the answer! NT reACTIONary Jan 2013 #40

BTW, "Egalitarian Thug" is a great nickname. NT reACTIONary Jan 2013 #33

Yes it was correctly decided. RB TexLa Jan 2013 #18

I'm wondering what your opinion of the rational... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #20

There's another thread somewhere Tab Jan 2013 #25

My OP was originally a response to that thread.... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #26

The idea of corporate personhood dates back to the 1400's Recursion Jan 2013 #29

Agreed - Personhood is a red herring. NT reACTIONary Jan 2013 #34

Yeah. Anyways, to my armchair conlaw opinion, the decesis was not stare Recursion Jan 2013 #35

"Corporations are people, my friend." ~Mitt Romney Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #30

If there is one thing I say.... Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #31

The ACLU says "yes", and, as usual, I agree with the ACLU. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #39

I think your analogy is correct... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #49

Actually, the ACLU said yes to a very narrow issue and the court ruled very broadly against Puregonzo1188 Jan 2013 #51

+10 - In fact... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #66

DU is a corporation cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #41

Question for you jberryhill Jan 2013 #54

Thanks, thoughtful questions... reACTIONary Jan 2013 #64

Yup, the problem is more charter law than anything else. TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #67