General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

50. Actually, the court didn't say that

Sun May 5, 2013, 01:59 PM

May 2013

Citizens's United was going to make and publish a movie using money which had been donated to it. Because the movie was pointedly political, CU's production of the movie was categorized as an "in kind" donation.

The facts of the CU case have nothing to do with anyone making contributions to the campaign of any politician, and had nothing to do with whether "money=speech". It was really kind of the other way around, if anything, since it equated "making a movie" with "donating money to a candidate".

Which part of the written decision do you most disagree with?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I Just Came from the Opening Session of Move to Amend's Portland Convergence - This is Important. [View all] dballance May 2013 OP

Instead of... defacto7 May 2013 #1

Interesting Point. I'll Bring it up tomorrow. dballance May 2013 #2

"on their board"? jberryhill May 2013 #21

Again, You're Getting It Wrong. There's no Desire to Lock out Corps Completely. dballance May 2013 #32

Unfortunately, I can read jberryhill May 2013 #36

I didn't get a chance to work this in today. But I haven't forgotten about it. dballance May 2013 #46

This would mean unions would lose their rights also. former9thward May 2013 #3

Unions Don't Have the Rights That Corporations Have. dballance May 2013 #4

Unions spent $141 million last year on the election. former9thward May 2013 #5

Sounds like a very god deal to me dreamnightwind May 2013 #7

Question jberryhill May 2013 #9

You're equating dreamnightwind May 2013 #11

That's only the tip of the iceberg jberryhill May 2013 #13

What changes would you make to the proposed amendment? dreamnightwind May 2013 #14

To accomplish what goal? jberryhill May 2013 #18

To the goal of dreamnightwind May 2013 #22

What anyone thinks is irrelevant jberryhill May 2013 #23

Let me ask a simpler and more pointed question jberryhill May 2013 #16

NO, Not Necessarily. The Amendment Doesn't Do That. dballance May 2013 #34

That's already constitutional jberryhill May 2013 #37

Seems Rather Paltry Compared to the $658 Million Spent By Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Sector dballance May 2013 #52

You are leaving out a big number. former9thward May 2013 #53

I Don't See How Individual Volunteers are Relevant to the Argument. dballance May 2013 #54

K&R cprise May 2013 #6

Down goes US v. New York Times Corp. jberryhill May 2013 #8

I Think Those Two Cases Could Have Ignored "Free Speech" and Been Ruled as Freedom of the Press dballance May 2013 #10

Read the proposed language jberryhill May 2013 #12

One of the Points People Fail to Realize is the Amendment is Just the Beginning dballance May 2013 #29

Your proposal eliminates freedom of the press. jeff47 May 2013 #19

That may be partially true. Laelth May 2013 #40

Doesn't matter if the people do still have rights. They rely on the paper to get the story out. jeff47 May 2013 #42

I see your point. Laelth May 2013 #43

Whoa jberryhill May 2013 #44

I was inarticulate jeff47 May 2013 #49

Actually, the court didn't say that jberryhill May 2013 #50

who funds move to amend? HiPointDem May 2013 #15

Excellent Question. dballance May 2013 #17

while i'm in sympathy with the apparent goals, never underestimate the duplicity of the ruling HiPointDem May 2013 #26

The 14th Amendment is the one you're thinking of. dballance May 2013 #31

Wise, HiPointDem. Quite wise. n/t Laelth May 2013 #41

I hesitate to ask... jberryhill May 2013 #20

ironic, wot? HiPointDem May 2013 #24

I'm in the wrong business jberryhill May 2013 #25

signs of the times point to that as a good career move. assuming you're the charismatic type. HiPointDem May 2013 #27

I don't think it matters jberryhill May 2013 #28

yes, but some kind of charisma or connections is needed to get to that stage of visibility where HiPointDem May 2013 #30

A good website jberryhill May 2013 #35

Here is the funding answer. No Major Corporate Donors. dballance May 2013 #45

Wrong again jberryhill May 2013 #48

K&R! Fire Walk With Me May 2013 #33

Thank you DB Berlum May 2013 #38

I support the goals of MTA. Laelth May 2013 #39

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #47

A Nattering Nabob Finally Got me to Use the Ignore Member Feature dballance May 2013 #51