General Discussion

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)

33. Not so much

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 10:34 PM

Jan 2015

You have the right to associate freely. You don't have the right to preferential tax and liability treatment in the exercise of that right.

Their 4th amendment rights are extended to the entity because they would enjoy it in their individual capacities. Remember the bit about corporations being able to sue and be sued? It's the same thing. Rather than force them into an inconvenience that would affect their ability to protect their rights, they are allowed to assert their rights as one body. Can the same be said for speech? Is the inconvenience of having to speak as an individual prejudicial to their exercise of that speech? Would it really inhibit their ability to speak? It might inhibit their ability to be heard, but them's the breaks. The first amendment guarantees a right to speech, not a right to be heard.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

99 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders Files Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Supreme Court�s Citizens United Decision [View all] Playinghardball Jan 2015 OP

It will be hard work, and will require much effort, but we need to do this. [n/t] Maedhros Jan 2015 #1

Thank you Bernie. It's a nice gesture. Avalux Jan 2015 #2

It's symbolic, but it does put the attention of people on the issue. MADem Jan 2015 #52

Bernie Sanders: ALWAYS doing the heavy lifting for us all... AzDar Jan 2015 #3

Oh, they will drag it out so long the public attention (what little there even is) will wane. silvershadow Jan 2015 #32

THIS! elleng Jan 2015 #4

K & R !!! WillyT Jan 2015 #5

I only have one thing to say. stage left Jan 2015 #6

I don't love 840high Jan 2015 #12

I love the ideal, but Bernie's proposed Amendment still leaves it up to Congress. Scuba Jan 2015 #7

You want dollar limits on election-related expenditures hard-coded into the Constitution? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #17

Actually, they don't MFrohike Jan 2015 #21

So the police can raid a Planned Parenthood clinic whenever they feel like it, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #23

You had a point, then lost it MFrohike Jan 2015 #29

In one sentence you spoke of the "right to associate freely", Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #31

Not so much MFrohike Jan 2015 #33

You're arguing that when individuals, who would be powerless on their own, join a union, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #34

Again, no MFrohike Jan 2015 #35

The Citizens United decision did not even concern "campaign contributions". Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #36

Fair point MFrohike Jan 2015 #37

I am open to enhanced disclosure rules. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #39

If you like MFrohike Jan 2015 #40

+1 dreamnightwind Jan 2015 #53

Sorry, that's ridiculous skepticscott Jan 2015 #71

And? MFrohike Jan 2015 #74

Um, no..that's not my argument skepticscott Jan 2015 #75

raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage MFrohike Jan 2015 #77

It's pretty clear that you have no legitimate argument skepticscott Jan 2015 #80

Cool MFrohike Jan 2015 #81

"You don't have the right to preferential tax and liability treatment in the exercise of that right. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #84

Not exactly MFrohike Jan 2015 #90

and by the way, rogerashton Jan 2015 #54

Not exactly MFrohike Jan 2015 #62

You are mistaken rogerashton Jan 2015 #63

Not so much MFrohike Jan 2015 #66

Nonsense skepticscott Jan 2015 #70

I really don't think you understood what I said MFrohike Jan 2015 #73

As noted above, you clearly have nothing rational or legitimate to offer skepticscott Jan 2015 #82

Oh please MFrohike Jan 2015 #91

I note that you are still unable to address ANY skepticscott Feb 2015 #97

Goosfraba MFrohike Feb 2015 #98

I think we're half-way there. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #85

Ok? MFrohike Jan 2015 #92

No, I want publicly funded elections. Lawrence Lessig proposed something along the lines ... Scuba Jan 2015 #22

You want to spend $7B+ federal dollars on elections? SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #24

The $50 is a placeholder, although as I recall it equals about as much dough as was spent in 2012. Scuba Jan 2015 #26

So if I decide to spend $200 on a billboard that says "I hate Ted Cruz" I get arrested? (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #27

Corporations are not people, period. That will go down in history as one of the stupidest claims sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #41

I thought one of the stupidest claims was the government claiming it should be able to ban books, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #42

The only reason the ACLU is supporting the decision is because they believed it could be used sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #43

No, that is false. Here is the link to where the ACLU explains its support of Citizens United: Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #44

It doesn't need to be fixed, it needs to be overturned because it is based on a lie. A fairy tale, sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #45

Ordinary voters can make their voices heard by banding together Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #46

Do you see yourself as a Citizens United defender zealot? Enthusiast Jan 2015 #49

It's probably the issue where I differ the most from the DU "conventional wisdom". Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #50

Sometimes "Conventional" goes one way and "Wisdom" goes the other. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #86

Who had made that statement? skepticscott Jan 2015 #72

Bernie Sanders. A statesman and representative of the people woo me with science Jan 2015 #8

Truth. 840high Jan 2015 #13

+1! "in a sea of corrupt corporate sellouts" Enthusiast Jan 2015 #48

Yep. +100000000000000 nt Zorra Jan 2015 #79

K&R... zeemike Jan 2015 #9

Love you, Bernie!!! MissDeeds Jan 2015 #10

This amendment would allow the publication of books to be banned, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #11

Say What?? nt Duval Jan 2015 #16

This could happen. LiberalAndProud Jan 2015 #14

It's high time we try Duval Jan 2015 #15

+1 A fighter. n/t Jefferson23 Jan 2015 #18

No, the exact opposite. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #88

The objective is to get the attention of the public to have that conversation. One that Jefferson23 Jan 2015 #89

..thus ending DU. n/t yodermon Jan 2015 #19

WHOOP! There it is. KittyWampus Jan 2015 #20

Nice gesture SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #25

A quixotic move against a 5 year old law. Yup! A stunt to thrill the true believers... wyldwolf Jan 2015 #28

Bravo Kilgore Jan 2015 #30

I can think of a lot of amendments I would want more than this one. Vattel Jan 2015 #38

K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Jan 2015 #47

I wish him luck, and I hope he succeeds. MADem Jan 2015 #51

Bernie gets it!!!! benld74 Jan 2015 #55

Now watch some Republican propose an amendment to repeal "Obamacare". Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2015 #56

Why would they need a constitutional amendment for that? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #58

I meant an amendment to the bill. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2015 #59

Neither party came back with new language that was voted on that I am aware of. NCTraveler Jan 2015 #57

The so-called "fixes" that have been proposed as constitutional amendments are so ridiculous, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #60

K&R. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #61

Thank you Senator Sanders. lovemydog Jan 2015 #64

go Bernie!!! spanone Jan 2015 #65

Good. blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 #67

Can any Citizens United decision expert explain why it set such a wide ranging precedent? JonLP24 Jan 2015 #68

This extensive article in The New Yorker magazine explains... PoliticAverse Jan 2015 #76

The government argued during the case that it also had the power to ban books. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #95

Run Bernie Run!!!! Initech Jan 2015 #69

Did Harry Reid allow a vote on this? former9thward Jan 2015 #78

One reason would be that Harry Reid is now the minority leader of the Senate mythology Jan 2015 #93

That would not be the reason. former9thward Jan 2015 #94

kick woo me with science Jan 2015 #83

Any Democrat who does not sign on to this bill needs to be bounced from office ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #87

There's Never Been a Better Time to Be a Corporation Jefferson23 Feb 2015 #96

40 charts that explain money in politics Jefferson23 Feb 2015 #99