General Discussion

Spazito

(55,351 posts)

11. The thing is....

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:07 AM

Dec 2011

if the USSC had ruled in the status quo, that the "campaign finance regulations which restrict the ability of corporations and unions to use funds from their general treasury for “electioneering” purposes" were constitutional, neither unions nor corporations would have suffered from it, it would remain status-quo. Now with corporations having NO real limitations on them, mega-corporations with many billions in their coffers, they can outspend the unions, the "little guy" even more than they did before.

The decision, in effect, made "free speech" even less free than before, the USSC just ensured that it could be bought more easily by corporations than by the little guy.

Edited to add Justice Steven's Dissenting Opinion which I found to be a key document to read in understanding how bad the majority court decision was:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

78 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Glenn Greenwald: What the Supreme Court got right (Flashback) [View all] ProSense Dec 2011 OP

wtf??? FrenchieCat Dec 2011 #1

I'm running low on free speech BootinUp Dec 2011 #6

Well, if you are going to restrict the rights of corps. Then you are saying that Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #18

You don't have to agree with everything someone says to agree with them in general slay Dec 2011 #2

Say that to those of us who are bashed for supporting the President. n/t vaberella Dec 2011 #54

I read that recently and went "Yikes!" Spazito Dec 2011 #3

+ AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #10

Yeah, I think that that's a "holy shit" statement, right there. TheWraith Dec 2011 #67

No. a) Spending isn't speech. I can't buy pot on free speech grounds. lumberjack_jeff Dec 2011 #4

So unions, Planned Parenthood, NOW and the ACLU (all incorporated) Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #21

Not banned, regulated. lumberjack_jeff Dec 2011 #63

GG for the Supreme Court! BootinUp Dec 2011 #5

We are entitled to the best speech money will buy! killbotfactory Dec 2011 #7

Well, union money buys ads. And unions are incorprated. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #22

I would rather they spend their resources unionizing killbotfactory Dec 2011 #24

What about the ACLU, NOW, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club and a host of other Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #26

Are you really arguing that it's either Citizens United or no advocacy at all? killbotfactory Dec 2011 #29

Actually, that was precisely the issue at hand and that is why the ACLU Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #30

Did you read the brief submitted by the ACLU? Spazito Dec 2011 #40

Yes. I have read it and their subsequent response. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #45

Could you provide me with a link to their response on the decision.... Spazito Dec 2011 #49

I was forced to seriously think about it a2liberal Dec 2011 #8

How can anything that gives more power to those with the most money BootinUp Dec 2011 #9

Together unions represent the largest coffers of any organizations. joshcryer Dec 2011 #13

See my reply to spazito (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #16

The thing is.... Spazito Dec 2011 #11

I'd like to see them try to outspend the unions, to be honest. joshcryer Dec 2011 #14

Oh, there is no doubt they can and will outspend the unions... Spazito Dec 2011 #19

I don't see how, they make better progress in lobbying. joshcryer Dec 2011 #23

It is not the lobbying rules that were changed, it was much greater than that... Spazito Dec 2011 #25

I know. I'm saying that political sway is not made by electing candidates. joshcryer Dec 2011 #27

The REAL money is spent on the Congressional candidates... Spazito Dec 2011 #31

I don't think I have a chance at convincing you otherwise. joshcryer Dec 2011 #34

I did go to the links you provided, I hope you also went to the one I provided... Spazito Dec 2011 #37

Except unions and nearly every other advocacy group is incorprated. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #28

Leaving the status quo, shut down neither.... Spazito Dec 2011 #33

And when you shut down Citizens United you also shut down Planned Parenthood. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #36

Again, the status quo shut down no one... Spazito Dec 2011 #39

The status quo was restricted speech for advocacy. The decision handed unions, Planned Parenthood Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #42

The status quo didn't bar them, it just limited them from unduly.... Spazito Dec 2011 #46

Yeah you're right a2liberal Dec 2011 #15

I thought your response was very thoughtful... Spazito Dec 2011 #17

Thanks! (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #53

Very well said, Spazito. And thanks for the link! nt tpsbmam Jan 2012 #77

Why don't you use your own mind and think for yourself? vaberella Dec 2011 #55

I never said I was forced to support it a2liberal Dec 2011 #57

Oh I respect people's opinion and value some more than others. vaberella Jan 2012 #68

I still think you misunderstood my post (n/t) a2liberal Jan 2012 #76

I actually do agree with the ruling and with Greenwald's assessment here. joshcryer Dec 2011 #12

Maybe he was wrong on this one quinnox Dec 2011 #20

He got the first paragraph right. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #32

I really do not see where he claims money = speech. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #35

This ... LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #41

My next door neighbor who is on SSI has access to a lot less money Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #43

I think equating money with speech was long-established precedent cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #38

I know it is long-established. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #44

I LOVE Mic Check! Spazito Dec 2011 #47

You ProSense Dec 2011 #48

You do criticize on point, very often. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #52

Fascinating! ProSense Dec 2011 #61

The support by Greenwald, the ACLU, Eliot Spitzer, and others was not unconditional. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #50

Is Greenwald up for the 'two minutes of hate' today? girl gone mad Dec 2011 #51

A few days now. Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #78

Hilarious. Union Scribe Dec 2011 #56

DU needs a Glen Greenwald Group (GGG) JoePhilly Dec 2011 #58

It is readily apparent that Greenwald has no legal training. His arguments are based Romulox Dec 2011 #59

Excellent point. ProSense Dec 2011 #64

To OP: Have you ever said, "I agree with Greenwald on X or Y article"? Weisbergkevin Dec 2011 #60

I suspect ProSense Dec 2011 #62

K&R Bobbie Jo Dec 2011 #65

Kick! n/t ProSense Dec 2011 #66

I think many would disagree. Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #69

Isn't ProSense Jan 2012 #70

... Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #74

Happy New Year! n/t ProSense Jan 2012 #75

Kick. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #71

So ProSense Jan 2012 #72

Nope! Not conflicted anymore! I'm bright and shiny! Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #73