Still think Citizens United was a good idea? 60-Minutes "Dialing for Dollars"

If you ever wondered if money was at the root of our problems with the government, here's your answer....

There is no hope of improvement in our elected officials responding to the needs of America until we get money out of politics. 

Pretty damn sad. The house is re elected every two years. What amount of time to they really spend on the peoples business. They start running for re election the minute they are elected.

What a F...ed up stitution we have.

Campaign finance reform is long overdue

Donations to candidates, PAC's etc should be limited to registered voters and capped at $500 per election cycle.

I'd go along with that concept Robert. 

Unfortunately, we have to overturn Citizens United first.

Citizens United was probably the most damaging ruling that SCOTUS ever made to our democracy. It literally took away a real life citizens influence over government. I think that Jefferson might have been right, that a government should be overthrown when it becomes unethical and not of the people. I used to think he was tad touched to have said that... but I am beginning to see the merit in that statement. 

Ammo is getting hard to find. 

Dean,

If I was a betting person, I'd say you'll find some and be willing to share!

Citizens United was probably the most damaging ruling that SCOTUS ever made to our democracy.

This decision legalized the plutocracy here in America.  (I.E..... The golden rule.)

Fly luv,

Yes it did legalized the plutocracy here in America, but how is that the golden rule?

(Do unto others as you would have done unto you).

The Golden Rule..... Those that have the gold, make the rules!

Citizens United lets newspapers (which are almost all corporate owned) and organizations like the Sierra Club criticize political candidates as elections approach, which I think is good for democracy.  I'm surprised more people don't.   

Sean,

Newspapers have always done that without CU. It's called the editorial page. Corporations are not people. They have too much power and with CU can use their dollars to influence elections more than your vote. That should disturb you. 

You know newspapers are almost all corporations, right? And yes, prior to the attack on the First Amendment that was McCain Feingold, it was understood that corporate newspapers  had the Constitutional right to publish editorials attacking or supporting candidates. But if Citizens United had gone the other way, newspapers like the New York Times could be prevented from publishing editorials 60 days in advance of an election. 

As the dissent in Citizens United admitted, the Court has long recognized that Corporations, Unions and advocacy groups like the Sierra Club have first amendment rights. The dissent wanted to strip those protections away, which would have been the real revolution and disastrous to democracy. 

Sean,

There was no precedent in this country that slightly indicated that Newspapers were in danger of censorship. Besides, that is covered under the 1st, you know... freedom of the press.  

The Decnet was to not allow the undue influence with their money. No matter how you slice it, corporations are not individuals. Just ask the IRS. The only disastrous to our democracy is CU. It made your vote worthless. 

  here was no precedent in this country that slightly indicated that Newspapers were in danger of censorship.  

I have no idea what that means or what you are trying to say. the Court is trying to protect against future infringements, not what happened in the past. If Citizens United had gone the other way, Congress would then have the right to censor corporate owned newspapers because corporations would not have first amendment protections going forward.

If you don't think politicians would exercise  their power to regulate corporate owned media, you haven't been paying attention to politicans.  

Besides, that is covered under the 1st, you know... freedom of the press.  

So you think that part of the First Amendment is sacrosanct, but the part about Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech doesn't matter to you? Justice Scalia put it plainly:   "The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals—and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the  First Amendment  . No one says otherwise"

You don't get to pick and choose which part of First Amendment means something, which you seem to be trying to do. 

Also, the Court has long held that the press isn't entitled to "special" protections not available to others. But don't take my word for it, here's the actual court explaining it:

There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not. “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers .”  Id.  , at 691 (  Scalia, J.  , dissenting) (citing  Bellotti,  435 U. S.  ,  at 782); see  Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.  v.  Greenmoss Builders, Inc.  ,  472 U. S. 749 ,  784  (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and  Stevens  , JJ., dissenting);  id.  , at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment). With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.

Since the First Amendment doesn't give special protections to media corporations compared to Joe Sixpack, your vague claim about "freedom of the press" is meaningless. If I can't write something, the media doesn't have some special power to do so. As Robert's said:   "If taken seriously,  Austin  ’s logic would apply most directly to newspapers and other media corporations. They have a more profound impact on public discourse than most other speakers. These corporate entities are, for the time being, not subject to §441b’s otherwise generally applicable prohibitions on corporate political speech. But this is simply a matter of legislative grace. The fact that the law currently grants a favored position to media corporations is no reason to overlook the danger inherent in accepting a theory that would allow government restrictions on their political speech. See generally  McConnell  ,  supra,  at 283–286 (  Thomas  , J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part)." And Scalia:  Their activities were not stripped of  First Amendment  protection simply because they were carried out under the banner of an artificial legal entity. And the notion which follows from the dissent’s view, that modern newspapers, since they are incorporated, have free-speech rights only at the sufferance of Congress, boggles the mind .

N o matter how you slice it, corporations are not individuals

Corporations enjoyed first amendment protections well before Citizens United.  Read the actual decision if you don't believe me. 

You are demonstrating that you really do not understand the motivations of the case, the complete decision, and it's impact do you Sean?

I'm all for free speech. I'm a libertarian I HAVE to be.

But this wasn't a decision about the limits of free speech. And citing part of the decision limited to the free speech argument to describe the entire decision is disingenuous at best.

The decision also stated that campaign donations are a form of speech and therefore cannot be regulated by congress. Well if donations cannot be regulated what is the point of the campaign finance laws? The Government seems to think it can regulate them. And the decision actually upholds congress's power to do such. In fact part of your quote above is Roberts saying as much.

The decision struck down limits on corporate donations to political campaigns. Calling the money donated a form of speech, which can not be regulated. This is why they made the Freedom of Speech argument you cite above with your intention of sidestepping the point of the case and intent of the ruling.......

Supreme Court decisions must be taken in whole when reviewing the case itself.

Personally I would go with Jefferson myself, and ban all wealthy from access to government. His opinion was that the wealthy were leeches stuck to the back of a society.  And they do nothing but prey upon the needs of such society for for their own self-serving greedy purposes. At the absolute minimum I would rescind the 17th Amendment and relegate them to their respective resident states for their political influence manipulations.

Exactly the way the Founders intended them to be limited. Without any direct voice in the government at the federal level. And that does not violate their free speech rights in any way.

ou are demonstrating that you really do not understand the motivations of the case, the complete decision, and it's impact do you Sean?

The irony here is thick. 

but this wasn't a decision about the limits of free speech.

Oh, since you say so. I didn't realize it was so easy, I went ahead and buttressed my argument with actual support from the decision itself. Silly me. Instead, like you, I could have just made a simple declarative statement and washed my hands. But let me quote Justice Roberts' summary of the case for you.

" The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the  First Amendment  that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are.  First Amendment  rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy."

 Do you think it just might have hinged on  free speech? Feel free to rebut with an actual argument if you can. 

  And citing part of the decision limited to the free speech argument to describe the entire decision is disingenuous at best.

Silly me. I was making a free speech argument so I cited the relevant free speech passages. I guess I should have cut and pasted the whole decision to not appear "disingenuous."

he decision struck down limits on corporate donations to political campaigns. 

No it didn't. You don't seem to understand the most simple, basic facts of the case. The Court struck down the ban on independent expenditures. Independent expenditures and direct donations are two completely different subjects.  That you don't understand that simple, basic distinction undermines your misguided attempt to assume some sort of mantle of expertise on the subject. 

Supreme Court decisions must be taken in whole when reviewing the case itself.

No kidding. I recommend you read and figure out the difference between independent expenditures and direct donations as a starting point to understanding the arugments involved. 

Personally I would go with Jefferson myself, and ban all wealthy from access to government .

Some libertarian you are. 

Apply all the gymnastics you want Sean, and you are correct in every point that you make, and you back it up well.

The simplest point to be made though is that this decision lessens the power of the many (call them citizens) and strengthens the power of the few (the wealthy) to determine policy and law.  This is exactly what the writers of our constitution worked so hard to avoid. 

I'm not a lawyer, I'm a simple engineer that pays taxes and believes that America is at it's best when it works on the behalf of the many.  Citizens United provides access to those that would place the needs of America second to their profit margin. 

He doesn't back up crap well Fly. he completely ignores the entire case so he can sidestep where Roberts took the opportunity to fulfill a statist's dream, the ability to buy elections.

I'm essentially an absolutist on political speech. Whatever problems  are created by the exercise of speech by corporations, I believe are heavily outweighed by the government acting as umpire, allowing some political speech to be made some corporations at certain times.  chance. 

Nothing could favor the status quo more then restrictions on free speech because its the incumbents who will make the rules and they will always benefit themselves. Better too much speech than too little.

Plus, if the money can't spent on persuading the public, it will be spent on lobbying and regulatory capture. Citizens United won't take any money out of politics, it will simply redirect it.

If you want to shrink the money involved, shrink the powers of government , because corporations won't care about influencing government  if it doesn't affect them. Notice how the money involved in politics increased as the reach of government increased? They will always be intertwined, for obvious reasons.  

First of all, let me ask you a question...

You are aware that the case was decided twice, aren't you?

And that the two decisions made were completely different, because the issues were different the second time around?

And the issues were different because chief justice Roberts had changed the point of arguments on the case based upon issues raised by justice Kennedy during the first hearing of the case?

That the first case was remanded for re-argument based upon justice Souter's arguments in dissent that the first decision would raise serious issues over the courts credibility? Which Roberts agreed with?

The main issue of the first argument was over the political movie "Hillary: the Movie" which the complainant wanted to play directly before the democrat primaries. (a claim that was dropped by both sides upon re-hearing, completely changing the basis of the case and expanding it far past the issues at bar. (which is what Kennedy wanted claiming the limited decision in the first hearing didn't go far enough)

Here, Wiki covers this more extensively.....

Court expected after oral argument to rule on the narrow question that had originally been presented: could Citizens United show the film? At the subsequent conference among the justices after oral argument, the vote was 5–4 in favor of Citizens United being allowed to show the film. The justices voted the same as they had in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., a similar 2007 case, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito in the majority.

Chief Justice John Roberts, per the privilege of that office when in the majority, was in charge of assigning the majority opinion, and chose to do it himself. He drafted a narrow opinion, holding that the BCRA allowed the showing of the film. A draft concurrence by Kennedy argued that the court have and should have gone much further. The other justices in the majority began agreeing with Kennedy, and convinced Roberts to reassign the writing and allow Kennedy's concurrence to become the majority opinion.

On the other side, John Paul Stevens, the most senior justice in the minority, assigned the dissent to David Souter, who announced his retirement from the Court while he was working on it. The final draft went beyond critiquing the majority. Which was described as "airing some of the Court's dirty laundry," Souter's dissent accused Roberts of having manipulated Court procedures to reach his desired result, an expansive decision that, Souter claimed, changed decades of election law and ruled on issues neither party to the litigation had presented.

Roberts was concerned that Souter's dissent, likely to be his last opinion for the Court, could "damage the Court's credibility." He agreed with the minority to withdraw the opinion and schedule the case for reargument. However, when he did, the "Questions Presented" to the parties were more expansive, touching on the issues Kennedy had identified. The result was therefore a foregone conclusion from that point on.

On June 29, 2009, the last day of the term, the Court issued an order directing the parties to re-argue the case on September 9 after briefing whether it might be necessary to overrule Austin and/or McConnell v. Federal Election Commission to decide the case. Justice Stevens noted in his dissent that in its prior motion for summary judgment Citizens United had abandoned its facial challenge of BCRA §203, with the parties agreeing to the dismissal of the claim.

The real irony here, one of the most liberal justices made the argument that allowed for the expansion of the case far beyond what the case really engendered. And allowed them to to justify removing all limits on the amount of money that can be given to a political campaign. Effectively nullifying campaign finance reform.

Oh, this.....

Personally I would go with Jefferson myself, and ban all wealthy from access to government .

Some libertarian you are.

You disagree with Thomas Jefferson and call your self a libertarian? I suppose you disagree with Jefferson's 10th Amendment arguments also. But then again, you espouse a randian John Birch type of libertarianism, which is corporate statist to it's core. Exactly that which Thomas Jefferson fought and wrote greatly against.

Some Libertarian you are.

The case was decided twice

Not that this anything to do with what I've argued, but no, it was not. As even wikipedia tells you, DRAFT opinions were circulated and Roberts allowed a second oral argument to further explore the issues raised by Souter's DRAFT  dissent and Kennedy's DRAFT concurrence.  Once the case was fully fleshed out and the parties had a chance to argue, the Court issued its decision on the matter.  One decision. If there were two decisions on the case, there'd be another published decision prior to Kennedy's opinion. There is not. 

Supporting what I wrote earlier, the Court said, "  As the foregoing analysis confirms, the Court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the  First Amendment  . See  Morse  v.  Frederick  ,  551 U. S. 393 ,  403  (2007) . It is not judicial restraint to accept an unsound, narrow argument just so the Court can avoid another argument with broader implications. Indeed, a court would be remiss in performing its duties were it to accept an unsound principle merely to avoid the necessity of making a broader ruling. Here, the lack of a valid basis for an alternative ruling requires full consideration of the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin  . 

That the first case was remanded for re-argument 

It was not remanded prior to the Kennedy opinion and no opinions were issued.  A second oral argument in the same case was held. Look up what a remand is if you have any doubts.

T he real irony here, one of the most liberal justices made the argument that allowed for the expansion of the case far beyond what the case really engendered

Yeah, the anti-speech forces would have been better off if the Court had only ruled on the statute as it applied in this case rather than finding it facially unconstitutional. But I'm skeptical that would be possible. If it didn't apply to Hillary , it's hard to imagine where it would have applied. 

d allowed them to to justify removing all limits on the amount of money that can be given to a political campaign. 

No, it didn't. Again, this case has nothing to do with the amount of money that can be given to a political campaign. It's about the right of corporations, unions, advocacy groups to engage in speech independently. 

You disagree with Thomas Jefferson and call your self a libertarian?

No. I don't consider myself a libertarian. Even if I did, I would certainly not hold Jefferson up as an infallible prophet. Jefferson rarely agreed with himself. Different excerpts of his writing combined with his actions as President can be used to justify almost any position.  Jefferson was hardly a consistent font of principles given his amazing knack to align his principles with his own self interest at given times in his life. 

ok. {chuckle}

ok. {chuckle}

Best reasoned argument you've made yet. Stick to monosyllables and bodily sounds, you won't trip yourself as much.  

And, All you have proven is your just like your liberal brethren, the few that can't think things through.

You acknowledge how Souter's written dissent caused a withdrawal of the decided opinion that Roberts had already written for a re-hearing on and entirely new line of thinking. (to be written by Kennedy)

Yet you claim there was only one decision made. (there was only one decision published)

And when your lack of thinking and one track political mind realized your logic has been destroyed, you resort to insults, cause you have nothing left.

How intelligent of you. (and predictable)

I bow to your intelligentsia.

You destroyed your own argument.

Too easy, way too easy.

Again, this case has nothing to do with the amount of money that can be given to a political campaign. It's about the right of corporations, unions, advocacy groups to engage in speech independently.

And exactly what was the end result per the statements made by both republican and democratic members of congress in the 60-Minute piece Sean?

What specific statements are you talking about?  I didn't hear much anything about Congressmen soliciting corporations. 

Moreover, money in and of itself is not the be all and end all. Did you see how well Jeb Bush did and how well Trump has done despite spending next to nothing? 

Fine Sean..... cling to what you want to cling to with the CU decision.  

You want to ignore what the 60-Minutes piece plainly puts out, that's your decision too.

You have a whole bunch of people, (78% of a 2015 Bloomberg Poll) that think the decision should be overturned.  Four dissenting Supreme Court Justices that stated that it was a disaster in the making.  And even members of congress from both sides of the aisle publicly stating it was a bad decision. 

Guess you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay smarter than all of us here on NT and the aforementioned groups.  Sorry to have bothered you with conventional wisdom.

I think that Jefferson might have been right, that a government should be overthrown when it becomes unethical

Jefferson's concept of ethics was not especially ethical . His talent as a rabble rouser was paramount in his politics .