General Discussion

Puregonzo1188

(1,948 posts)

51. Actually, the ACLU said yes to a very narrow issue and the court ruled very broadly against

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:31 AM

Jan 2013

campaign financing laws.

The court could have ruled in favor of Citizens United and in favor of the ACLU without overturning campaign finance laws. The court could have ruled that Citizens United's movie on Hilary Clinton was not covered as an elections communication act. One of the complaints that Justice Stevens made in his dissent was that the court dealt with issues not litigated by any of the parties and essentially asked a different question than was presented.

It was a narrow question, that the court ruled broadly on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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