Citizens United (overturned) or Term Limits - which would benefit our country more? (1 Viewer)

[JAA]

Yes.

Here's a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

I genuinely recommend reading it. I know it's kind of long -- there are some boring procedural parts that can be skimmed over quickly. But the meat of it (starting around page 20) is worth reading.

It does not say or imply that corporations are people or that money is speech.

You said you havnt read my articles, which arent long, but you are asking me to read a long article, is that correct?

Just to be clear, are you still disputing that CU has no bearing on if corporations are people and can contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns?  That the information I have posted is incorrect?

 

[JAA]

CU won’t stop lobbying. Lobbying far predates CU decision.

Agree, but why would they have power?  Why would anyone care what they have to say?  I think that getting work done would be the motivator.  I truly believe there would be a different class of politicians.  My guess is that you would see a lot of young, or older folks.  The young wanting to use it as a spring board into bigger things either private or more politics and the older because they are looking to fill their lives with some meaning for a short period of time.  I see this all the time in small town politics. 

 

[FBG26]

You said you havnt read my articles, which arent long, but you are asking me to read a long article, is that correct?

Just to be clear, are you still disputing that CU has no bearing on if corporations are people and can contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns?  That the information I have posted is incorrect?

He's not asking you to read a long article, he's asking you to read the actual Supreme Court decision. If you want to know what the decision says, it's best to read the actual decision, not what somebody else says the decision says. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You said you havnt read my articles, which arent long, but you are asking me to read a long article, is that correct?

Just to be clear, are you still disputing that CU has no bearing on if corporations are people and can contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns?  That the information I have posted is incorrect?

I'm not asking you to read an article. Citizens United is a Supreme Court opinion. I was suggesting that you read the opinion.

And yes, Citizens United has no bearing whatsoever on whether corporations are people, or on whether they are allowed to contribute funds to political campaigns. (There is a meaningful difference between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.)

 

[JAA]

I'm not asking you to read an article. Citizens United is a Supreme Court opinion. I was suggesting that you read the opinion.

And yes, Citizens United has no bearing whatsoever on whether corporations are people, or on whether they are allowed to contribute funds to political campaigns. (There is an important difference between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.)

I understand your position.  Do you understand that there are 39843294598 opinion pieces on the internet that disagree with you?  Or are you saying I'm choosing my words incorrectly but the spirit of my position is accurate?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I understand your position.  Do you understand that there are 39843294598 opinion pieces on the internet that disagree with you?  Or are you saying I'm choosing my words incorrectly but the spirit of my position is accurate?

I haven't counted, but 39843294598 sounds about right. I acknowledge that there is about as much misinformation on the left about Citizens United as there is on the right about global warming.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Suppose I really like Pete Buttigieg. He's my guy.

I want to contribute $10,000 to his campaign. Oops, that's illegal because it's above the maximum limit; the First Amendment only guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom of money, and money isn't speech. Citizens United agrees with all of that (both the majority and the dissent). Limits on campaign contributions are constitutional, including a maximum limit of $0 for corporations.

So instead of contributing $10,000 to his campaign, I'll just constantly tell everybody I know that Pete Buttigieg is awesome. This is perfectly legal. Even if Congress passed a law against it, the law would be struck down because it would violate the Constitution. I have a First Amendment right to tell people how awesome Pete is. Citizens United agrees with this as well (both the majority and the dissent).

Now suppose I want to spend $10,000 printing up some flyers about how awesome Pete Buttigieg is so I can distribute them door-to-door. Seems like a good idea except, uh oh, there's a law saying that nobody is allowed to spend more than $5,000 on flyers about politicians. I can spend as much as I want on flyers about fantasy football, but not about politicians. Is that law permissible under the Constitution, or does it violate my First Amendment right to free speech? This is the crux of Citizens United.* Citizens United says that setting a limit on how much people can spend engaging in speech is a restriction on speech. And since the restriction is based on the content of the speech (fantasy football speech is okay, but political speech is not), the restriction is not permissible. Even if I wanted to spend the $10,000 on flyers from my corporate account rather than my personal account, Congress still shouldn't be able to stop me. Not because corporations are people, but because "Congress shall make no law" doesn't distinguish between corporations and people. The majority in Citizens United sides with me on this point; the dissent does not.

___
*The law in my example above is fictional. The law in Citizens United wasn't about flyers; it was about broadcasts, and contained many pages of other details. But the basic constitutional issues are the same regardless of those details.

 

[joffer]

I'm not asking you to read an article. Citizens United is a Supreme Court opinion. I was suggesting that you read the opinion.

And yes, Citizens United has no bearing whatsoever on whether corporations are people, or on whether they are allowed to contribute funds to political campaigns. (There is a meaningful difference between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.)

i know you're a lawyer and meticulous, and i technically agree with what you're saying (it doesn't say corporations are people or money is speech), but i think saying the bolded is a little disingenuous.  maybe it wasn't a direct result, but i don't see how you can argue it wasn't part of the waterfall that led to Super PACs, which is how corporations give to campaigns.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

i know you're a lawyer and meticulous, and i get what you're saying, but i think saying the bolded is a little disingenuous.  maybe it wasn't a direct result, but i don't see how you can argue it wasn't part of the waterfall that led to Super PACs, which is how corporations give to campaigns.

SuperPACs don't make campaign contributions. They make independent expenditures.

It's the difference in my preceding post between donating $10,000 to the campaign (not protected by the First Amendment) versus independently spending $10,000 to print up flyers (protected by the First Amendment).

I get that allowing the latter activity can be unpleasant. Protecting the speech of people we wish would quiet down is always unpleasant. But we have to get them to quiet down without violating the First Amendment. I don't think the McCain-Feingold Act succeeded in that. It told a small, independent, non-profit filmmaker that it couldn't advertise its anti-Hillary movie the way it wanted to because it was about a politician. We need to try again -- without being so unconstitutional this time.

 

[Gr00vus]

Wikipedia has a good summary of corporate personhood in the U.S. While there were earlier rulings that began building toward corporate personhood, many people point to the 1886 Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific official notes (not the actual opinion you'll observe) as the most concrete origin of the notion: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

Corporate personhood has been a thing in the U.S. long before Citizens United. And that's mostly bad in my view.

 

[Gr00vus]

In regard to Citizens United and money/free speech, I think it's tough to see it all one way or another. Certainly MT's point about the constitutionality of free speech, here represented by corporations funding independent broadcasts, is inescapable. Leaving it at that, and not questioning the notion that such funding of independent broadcasts somehow completely lands outside the scope of equating money with free speech seems to make light of the fact that very few can afford to produce and buy air time for such broadcasts. In that way, I don't think it's accurate to say Citizens United has nothing to do with corporate spending on political campaigns. It does enable those with more money (corporations or otherwise) to (attempt to) influence politics to a greater degree than those with less money. They can afford a bigger megaphone, they "have more speech" because they have more money.

Then the question becomes, is that right? Is that what we want? I don't think so.

 

[joffer]

In regard to Citizens United and money/free speech, I think it's tough to see it all one way or another. Certainly MT's point about the constitutionality of free speech, here represented by corporations funding independent broadcasts, is inescapable. Leaving it at that, and not questioning the notion that such funding of independent broadcasts somehow completely lands outside the scope of equating money with free speech seems to make light of the fact that very few can afford to produce and buy air time for such broadcasts. In that way, I don't think it's accurate to say Citizens United has nothing to do with corporate spending on political campaigns. It does enable those with more money (corporations or otherwise) to (attempt to) influence politics to a greater degree than those with less money. They can afford a bigger megaphone, they "have more speech" because they have more money.

Then the question becomes, is that right? Is that what we want? I don't think so.

yeah, this

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In that way, I don't think it's accurate to say Citizens United has nothing to do with corporate spending on political campaigns. It does enable those with more money (corporations or otherwise) to (attempt to) influence politics to a greater degree than those with less money. They can afford a bigger megaphone, they "have more speech" because they have more money.

Right, rich people can afford bigger megaphones. That's different from making bigger campaign contributions.

We might be able to regulate megaphone size generally under the guise that it's a time-place-manner restriction.

But when we regulate megaphone size only for political speech (and only for some speakers) it's no longer really just a time-place-manner restriction, and becomes a lot harder to defend as constitutional.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

SuperPACs don't make campaign contributions. They make independent expenditures.

It's the difference in my preceding post between donating $10,000 to the campaign (not protected by the First Amendment) versus independently spending $10,000 to print up flyers (protected by the First Amendment).

I get that allowing the latter activity can be unpleasant. Protecting the speech of people we wish would quiet down is always unpleasant. But we have to get them to quiet down without violating the First Amendment. I don't think the McCain-Feingold Act succeeded in that. It told a small, independent, non-profit filmmaker that it couldn't advertise its anti-Hillary movie the way it wanted to because it was about a politician. We need to try again -- without being so unconstitutional this time.

Are they actually independent?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Are they actually independent?

In theory.

Probably not as independent, in many cases, as they should be in fact.

 

[Gr00vus]

Right, rich people can afford bigger megaphones. That's different from making bigger campaign contributions.

We might be able to regulate megaphone size generally under the guise that it's a time-place-manner restriction.

But when re regulate megaphone size only for political speech (and only for some speakers) it's no longer really just a time-place-manner restriction.

But that's not much different than buying more air time for political broadcasts. If the intent of a straight monetary campaign contribution is to influence political outcomes in the direction of the candidate you support, and the intent of the political broadcast is to influence political outcomes in the direction of the candidate you support, and the ability to do either thing is directly related to the wealth of the person attempting the political influence, the second hand mechanism for applying wealth to influence politics is not my primary consideration. The net effect is that the wealthy have more (undue?) influence on political outcomes.

Some restriction seems needed if you want to avoid the purchasing of elections. Considering the reliance on protection of free speech to prevent restriction on how much speech someone can buy - If my wealth can drown out your speech, do you really have free speech?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If my wealth can drown out your speech - do you really have free speech?

Hillary: The Movie was not going to drown out anyone else's speech. Any law that allows the New York Times to publish editorials but forbids a small non-profit on a shoe-string budget from advertising its documentary is not narrowly tailored to prevent some speakers from drowning others out.

If a better law might accomplish that goal, let's try it. McCain-Feingold wasn't it.

 

[Gr00vus]

Hillary: The Movie was not going to drown out anyone else's speech. Any law that allows the New York Times to publish editorials but forbids a small non-profit on a shoe-string budget from advertising its documentary is not narrowly tailored to prevent anyone from drowning others out.

Can you clarify the remaining portion of your post - I'm not quite understanding your point as it relates to Citizens United.

 

[JAA]

Suppose I really like Pete Buttigieg. He's my guy.

I want to contribute $10,000 to his campaign. Oops, that's illegal because it's above the maximum limit; the First Amendment only guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom of money, and money isn't speech. Citizens United agrees with all of that (both the majority and the dissent). Limits on campaign contributions are constitutional, including a maximum limit of $0 for corporations.

So instead of contributing $10,000 to his campaign, I'll just constantly tell everybody I know that Pete Buttigieg is awesome. This is perfectly legal. Even if Congress passed a law against it, the law would be struck down because it would violate the Constitution. I have a First Amendment right to tell people how awesome Pete is. Citizens United agrees with this as well (both the majority and the dissent).

Now suppose I want to spend $10,000 printing up some flyers about how awesome Pete Buttigieg is so I can distribute them door-to-door. Seems like a good idea except, uh oh, there's a law saying that nobody is allowed to spend more than $5,000 on flyers about politicians. I can spend as much as I want on flyers about fantasy football, but not about politicians. Is that law permissible under the Constitution, or does it violate my First Amendment right to free speech? This is the crux of Citizens United.* Citizens United says that setting a limit on how much people can spend engaging in speech is a restriction on speech. And since the restriction is based on the content of the speech (fantasy football speech is okay, but political speech is not), the restriction is not permissible. Even if I wanted to spend the $10,000 on flyers from my corporate account rather than my personal account, Congress still shouldn't be able to stop me. Not because corporations are people, but because "Congress shall make no law" doesn't distinguish between corporations and people. The majority in Citizens United sides with me on this point; the dissent does not.

___
*The law in my example above is fictional. The law in Citizens United wasn't about flyers; it was about broadcasts, and contained many pages of other details. But the basic constitutional issues are the same regardless of those details.

Thank you for taking the time and the detail

 

[JAA]

Right, rich people can afford bigger megaphones. That's different from making bigger campaign contributions.

We might be able to regulate megaphone size generally under the guise that it's a time-place-manner restriction.

But when re regulate megaphone size only for political speech (and only for some speakers) it's no longer really just a time-place-manner restriction, and becomes a lot harder to defend as constitutional.

But don’t we already do this?

You can’t scream fire in a crowded theatre. You can’t tell people you have a bomb on an airplane. Free speech is regulated already at some levels in the best interest of the people. Couldn’t it be argued that large money driven megaphones in politics is not in the best interest of the people?

 

[joffer]

good discussion. I learned something today

 

[caustic]

But don’t we already do this?

You can’t scream fire in a crowded theatre. You can’t tell people you have a bomb on an airplane. Free speech is regulated already at some levels in the best interest of the people. Couldn’t it be argued that large money driven megaphones in politics is not in the best interest of the people?

You actually can do this! This analogy was used by a SCOTUS justice to explain the (very bad) “clear and present danger” doctrine, which was overturned in ‘69 and replaced with the “imminent lawless action” test: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Any law that allows the New York Times to publish editorials but forbids a small non-profit on a shoe-string budget from advertising its documentary is not narrowly tailored to prevent anyone from drowning others out.

Can you clarify the remaining portion of your post - I'm not quite understanding your point as it relates to Citizens United.

The First Amendment says that Congress can't make any laws abridging the freedom of speech.

But no right is absolute. Congress can abridge rights if it has a compelling reason to do so, and it enacts legislation that is narrow tailored to achieve its goal.

I figured you were arguing that preventing some people's political speech from drowning out others' political speech was a compelling reason that would justify a bit of censorship.

Narrowly tailored means the least restrictive means available -- so to have a chance at being constitutional, a law would have to restrict no more speech than necessary in order to prevent the drowning-out effect.

McCain-Feingold wouldn't make the cut because the New York Times has much greater ability to drown others out than a small documentary filmmaker like Citizens United, Inc. does. If we're going to allow Congress to abridge the freedom of speech in order do prevent a drowning-out effect, it shouldn't be aimed at Citizens United, Inc. If anything, it should be aimed at the New York Times (which was perversely exempt from McCain-Feingold). So McCain-Feingold was not narrowly tailored to prevent the drowning-out effect. We need to go back to the drawing board to draft a law that isn't so backwards when it comes to achieving its compelling goal.

 

[mr roboto]

Citizens United. Easily. 
 

We need to get Corp money out of politics entirely. Completely. Until this happens our system is a joke. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But don’t we already do this?

You can’t scream fire in a crowded theatre. You can’t tell people you have a bomb on an airplane. Free speech is regulated already at some levels in the best interest of the people. Couldn’t it be argued that large money driven megaphones in politics is not in the best interest of the people?

You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. (But see caustic's link for why the case that line came from was terrible.) You can't falsely tell people you have a bomb on an airplane. If you really do have a bomb, it's not telling people about it that is the crime.

In any case, there are restrictions on speech here and there. Most commonly, there are restrictions on the time, place, and manner of certain speech. After 10 pm, you can't play your radio so loud that it disturbs all of your neighbors. That's a fine law because the restriction is based on time and volume rather than content. It'd be a lot more problematic to say that you can't play rap music, but you're allowed to play country. That'd be a content-based restriction, which will generally not survive constitutional scrutiny.

Even content-based restrictions can sometimes be allowed if there's a good enough reason. But any such restrictions have to meet strict criteria that McCain-Feingold (the law struck down by Citizens United) didn't meet. (See my post previous to this one.)

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The argument against term limits is fearcraft.  Someone concocted a scared idea of how it might possibly be a bad thing if you really stretch your brain out and create a path that likely wouldn't be the case.  The reality is that these 30 year guys are probably a lot deeper in bed with lobbyists than a poor new helpless senator would ever be.

Every argument against term limits for congress applies to the president ten-fold.  We're supposed to believe for an even MORE important job a guy can come in and just start getting things done right away but a senator/representative needs 8 years on the job before they know how to do a job that's only a fraction as difficult?  How does that make sense? 

We're supposed to believe that a constantly new president is strong enough to stand up to 30 year senators but a new senator is obvious prey for a seasoned lobbyist?  Is there anything out there showing how all the new congressmen from the last election are getting pushed around by lobbyists or is it just an unsubstantiated guess?

Career "public service" is a joke.  It's supposed to be hard and unrewarding and only attract the best and most selfless of us.  Instead it's a great job with good pay and great benefits that  attracts the most greedy of us, and people are willing to do whatever it takes to hold onto that cushy job for as long as possible instead of doing what they truly think is right.

 

[jon_mx]

Citizen United was a great free speech ruling and to overturn it is an assault on the foundation of this country.  I am completely baffled why anyone wants it overturned.  This was an advocacy group wanting to show a movie.  CFR went way too far.  

Term Limits is not an assault on freedoms, so I vote for that although I doubt it actually helps much. 

 

[JAA]

You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. (But see caustic's link for why the case that line came from was terrible.) You can't falsely tell people you have a bomb on an airplane. If you really do have a bomb, it's not telling people about it that is the crime.

In any case, there are restrictions on speech here and there. Most commonly, there are restrictions on the time, place, and manner of certain speech. After 10 pm, you can't play your radio so loud that it disturbs all of your neighbors. That's a fine law because the restriction is based on time and volume rather than content. It'd be a lot more problematic to say that you can't play rap music, but you're allowed to play country. That'd be a content-based restriction, which will generally not survive constitutional scrutiny.

Even content-based restrictions can sometimes be allowed if there's a good enough reason. But any such restrictions have to meet strict criteria that McCain-Feingold (the law struck down by Citizens United) didn't meet. (See my post previous to this one.)

I hear you and agree.  However I don't think you answered my question.

We do today restrict some speech based on content.  Why cant we amend the existing content to include some level of political speech?

 

[JAA]

The argument against term limits is fearcraft.  Someone concocted a scared idea of how it might possibly be a bad thing if you really stretch your brain out and create a path that likely wouldn't be the case.  The reality is that these 30 year guys are probably a lot deeper in bed with lobbyists than a poor new helpless senator would ever be.

Every argument against term limits for congress applies to the president ten-fold.  We're supposed to believe for an even MORE important job a guy can come in and just start getting things done right away but a senator/representative needs 8 years on the job before they know how to do a job that's only a fraction as difficult?  How does that make sense? 

We're supposed to believe that a constantly new president is strong enough to stand up to 30 year senators but a new senator is obvious prey for a seasoned lobbyist?  Is there anything out there showing how all the new congressmen from the last election are getting pushed around by lobbyists or is it just an unsubstantiated guess?

Career "public service" is a joke.  It's supposed to be hard and unrewarding and only attract the best and most selfless of us.  Instead it's a great job with good pay and great benefits that  attracts the most greedy of us, and people are willing to do whatever it takes to hold onto that cushy job for as long as possible instead of doing what they truly think is right.

Amen!!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I hear you and agree.  However I don't think you answered my question.

We do today restrict some speech based on content.  Why cant we amend the existing content to include some level of political speech?

I don’t know what you mean by “amend the existing content.”

The First Amendment says Congress can’t censor speech.

The Supreme Court has come up with a bunch of rules about exceptions to that general principle — rules about what kinds of speech Congress may censor under what conditions.

If you’re asking why the particular law struck down in Citizens United didn’t satisfy those rules, I recommend reading the opinion.

If you’re asking why we can’t pass a different law that solves some of the money-in-politics issues that does satisfy the rules, maybe we can. I don’t see why we shouldn’t try.

If you’re asking why we can’t amend the Constitution to alter First Amendment jurisprudence in a way that makes censorship easier, it might be possible. Some people want to try. But it’s extremely risky, IMO, because free speech is an extremely important defense against aspiring dictators, and censorship — especially censorship of political speech — is therefore generally bad.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If you’re asking why we can’t pass a different law that solves some of the money-in-politics issues that does satisfy the rules, maybe we can. I don’t see why we shouldn’t try.

Because anything we try would be deemed unconstitutional by the current Supreme Court?  I think your analysis in this thread has been very helpful but also seems to press your thumb very hard on the scale in favor of one government interest over a different government interest.  Censoring free speech can threaten our democracy.  But other things can too.

 

[JAA]

Because anything we try would be deemed unconstitutional by the current Supreme Court?  I think your analysis in this thread has been very helpful but also seems to press your thumb very hard on the scale in favor of one government interest over a different government interest.  Censoring free speech can threaten our democracy.  But other things can too.

I think that's what is getting lost in here.  I get MT's black/white position on this.  However, Im not finding it (no offense) very helpful.  We have a problem which was introduced as part of CU.  Its clear that CU is not as simple as political contributions.  However, how do we come together to fix something that is obviously so broken?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think that's what is getting lost in here.  I get MT's black/white position on this.  However, Im not finding it (no offense) very helpful.  We have a problem which was introduced as part of CU.  Its clear that CU is not as simple as political contributions.  However, how do we come together to fix something that is obviously so broken?

We have a problem that may have been exacerbated by Citizens United but it goes back at least to the decision in Buckley in the 1970s.  There were a lot of problems with campaign finance well before Citizens United.  

 

[JAA]

We have a problem that may have been exacerbated by Citizens United but it goes back at least to the decision in Buckley in the 1970s.  There were a lot of problems with campaign finance well before Citizens United.  

Thank for for the extra detail.  How would you go about solving this problem?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Thank for for the extra detail.  How would you go about solving this problem?

It's not getting fixed any time soon.  We need a new Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment.  Neither seems likely in the immediate future.

 

[JAA]

It's not getting fixed any time soon.  We need a new Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment.  Neither seems likely in the immediate future.

OK - how would you approach it?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

OK - how would you approach it?

By voting for Democrats?  I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I kind of feel like these two issues are improperly linked. CU’s effect on what’s been going on is definitely worth discussing by itself IMO.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm starting to come around on term limits. Two terms for the Senate = 12 years (make it 6 terms for the House to make it even). We only give presidents and governors eight years and that doesn't appear to be a giant problem. Reach your limit, run for another office, like maybe in your state house where you can continue to serve your constituents.

Eighteen years for Supreme Court justices, too. Stagger them so one position comes open every two years. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Corporations may make political contributions.  Get that out.

Why?

We do have a right to freely associate.

How about Unions, guilds, partnerships, clubs, associations?  lets say I incorporate, say a painting company of three employees. We decide to get together and make a donation of say $1000.  That is bad.  That has undue influence. Now say AFSCME decides to make a $100,000,000 donation, that is all right, or the Sierra club a $100,000 donation?    

It is not the nature of the association or grouping.  It is about amount and ability to track, in my mind.

 

[Gr00vus]

The First Amendment says that Congress can't make any laws abridging the freedom of speech.

But no right is absolute. Congress can abridge rights if it has a compelling reason to do so, and it enacts legislation that is narrow tailored to achieve its goal.

I figured you were arguing that preventing some people's political speech from drowning out others' political speech was a compelling reason that would justify a bit of censorship.

Narrowly tailored means the least restrict means available -- so to have a chance at being constitutional, a law would have to restrict no more speech than necessary in order to prevent the drowning-out effect.

McCain-Feingold wouldn't make the cut because the New York Times has much greater ability to drown others out than a small documentary filmmaker like Citizens United, Inc. does. If we're going to allow Congress to abridge the freedom of speech in order do prevent a drowning-out effect, it shouldn't be aimed at Citizens United, Inc. If anything, it should be aimed at the New York Times (which was perversely exempt from McCain-Feingold). So McCain-Feingold was not narrowly tailored to prevent the drowning-out effect. We need to go back to the drawing board to draft a law that isn't so backwards when it comes to achieving its compelling goal.

Thanks for clarifying, I get your point now.

I think we're mostly agreeing. There is a tension, or conflict, between preserving freedom of speech and preventing undue influence of wealth on our political process. Finding the right balance is a hard thing.

 

[JAA]

By voting for Democrats?  I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

Maybe this is why nothing gets fixed

 

[Jackstraw]

This is really weird.  Im not saying it didnt happen, or the report is #fakenews, however I find that in jobs, for me and for those I hire, folks must have the skill of quickly assimilating into the team dynamic.  If someone told me 6 years was not enough time to groom a teammate and get a tremendous amount of work done I would laugh at the notion.

There are a slew of complex public issues many of which are intermingled. Most of which people spend their whole lives analyzing. A private business generally focuses on a small portion of one industry. 

 

[JAA]

I kind of feel like these two issues are improperly linked. CU’s effect on what’s been going on is definitely worth discussing by itself IMO.

I started this as I felt both are the most important.  I was trying to get help discussing which one is most important.

 

[JAA]

Why?

We do have a right to freely associate.

How about Unions, guilds, partnerships, clubs, associations?  lets say I incorporate, say a painting company of three employees. We decide to get together and make a donation of say $1000.  That is bad.  That has undue influence. Now say AFSCME decides to make a $100,000,000 donation, that is all right, or the Sierra club a $100,000 donation?    

It is not the nature of the association or grouping.  It is about amount and ability to track, in my mind.

IMHO - get it all out.  Politics is about the people, not businesses (including unions).

My issue is that capitalism used to serve the public good (just 10 or so years ago), but really doesn't anymore.  This is another conversation in itself, but today's capitalism serves the minute-by-minute needs of stock market shareholders.  Those shareholders are no longer a set of reasonable US citizens with aspirations of 10+ year long term investments.  The vast majority of those shareholders today are huge conglomerates with hyper fast algorithms who dont care about people or impact.  They care about an 1/8th of a point within 10 seconds.  This landscape means that capitalism has festered into politics to gain every possible advantage it can.  Gaining those advantages is in capitalism's nature, by our design of it ... profit by any means.  However, we the people need to consider if those rules of the game are still the correct ones.  I think they are not, hence all businesses out of politics, hence CU (et al).

.02

 

[JAA]

There are a slew of complex public issues many of which are intermingled. Most of which people spend their whole lives analyzing. A private business generally focuses on a small portion of one industry. 

I wont disagree with your comments, but I strongly disagree that work cant get done in less than 3 years.  Ive never been involved in a situation where it didnt work.  Heck, look at some of our presidents of past.  They did amazing things in less than 8 years.

Whats the difference between then and now?  Well .. IMHO its the money and business in politics.  It certainly existed then, but not to this extent and certainly not at the global scale today.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

IMHO - get it all out.  Politics is about the people, not businesses (including unions).

My issue is that capitalism used to serve the public good (just 10 or so years ago), but really doesn't anymore.  This is another conversation in itself, but today's capitalism serves the minute-by-minute needs of stock market shareholders.  Those shareholders are no longer a set of reasonable US citizens with aspirations of 10+ year long term investments.  The vast majority of those shareholders today are huge conglomerates with hyper fast algorithms who dont care about people or impact.  They care about an 1/8th of a point within 10 seconds.  This landscape means that capitalism has festered into politics to gain every possible advantage it can.  Gaining those advantages is in capitalism's nature, by our design of it ... profit by any means.  However, we the people need to consider if those rules of the game are still the correct ones.  I think they are not, hence all businesses out of politics, hence CU (et al).

.02

Appreciate the discussion.  Will ruminate on what you have said.  Will continue reading others in this thread, hopefully with a mind not closed, if not fully open.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IMHO - get it all out.  Politics is about the people, not businesses (including unions).

Businesses employ, sell to, and are owned by people.

 

[JAA]

Businesses employ, sell to, and are owned by people.

This is simply not true.  I could name 50 companies easily where this is not the case.  In any event, ill start with one:

1. Northrop Grumman
   

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is simply not true.  I could name 50 companies easily where this is not the case.  In any event, ill start with one:

1. Northrop Grumman
   

Northrup Grumman employs 85,000 people according to Google.  If you think politics should be about people, it seems like those people might want the opportunity to participate.