Lets Talk About Citizens United

[Heywood]

The point you miss, in your arrogant lazy ignorance, is that corporations are persons ONLY with regard to property issues and legal/financial liabilities. They can't vote by law (likely to be struck down next). They don't have religion. They aren't conscious individuals who can have opinions about political matters. Owners can and they can hold picket signs like everyone else.

The point you miss, in your arrogant lazy ignorance, is the people don't lose their rights just because they get together to accomplish some goal.

Suppose the janitorial company's truck had a bumper sticker on it reading "Support our troops". If Citizen's United was upheld, the government could force the 3 guys janitorial company to remove that bumper sticker....simply because they decided to do business as a corporation.

Do you want to live in a country where the government has that much power? If you do....go to North Korea.

---

In hindsight, the best way to have kept money in politics proportionate to what it was prior to 2002 would have been not to enact McCain Feingold in the first place. It's the poster child for the law of unintended consequences. Unfortunately, getting rid of it now is unlikely to have much impact now that all these new methods of getting money into the political system have been devised as a response to it.

I have a solution to the problem and it's really simple yet will transform American democracy to make it more robust, more responsive to the people and more focused on real issues and not talking points and sound bytes.

Ban
All
Paid
Political
Media
Ads.

No TV ads. No newspaper ads. No billboards. Campaign finances would be limited to be just enough to buy bumper stickers and yard signs to hand out to supporters. That's it.

You shouldn't be able to spend money to buy more speech than your fellow citizen. The Koch brothers can make picket signs and protest on the street corner like everyone else.

Madison Ave soundbites littering our TV time would be replaced by bi-weekly debates during the campaign season where substantive issues would be discussed.

These debates should also be done under oath. Knowingly lying to the people during a political debate should be punished with the charge of perjury.

This is silly.

Suppose You are on the north corner of a street and I am on the south corner. I tell people to vote for Libertarians....You tell them to vote for communists. My voice is stronger than yours and more people are hearing me. Aren't you entitled to spend some of your money to buy a megaphone to project your voice? Sure. Money facilitates speech. Taking money out of politics like you suggest is curtailing an individuals ability to engage in speech.

[DeistPaladin]

The point you miss, in your arrogant lazy ignorance, is the people don't lose their rights just because they get together to accomplish some goal.

No one is suggesting they do. The Kochs can speak out all they like. The owners of Hobby Lobby can have their religious beliefs. They just can't use corporate money to fund it or abuse their corporate power to force employees to observe the owner's religious beliefs.

Corporate "persons" are only business entities. This is reflected in long standing laws where they don't vote. Even in business school, that was stipulated in our discussions on incorporation.

Suppose the janitorial company's truck had a bumper sticker on it reading "Support our troops". If Citizen's United was upheld, the government could force the 3 guys janitorial company to remove that bumper sticker....simply because they decided to do business as a corporation.

The bumper sticker would be ruled a personal expression by the driver of the truck, who is an individual person.

Do you want to live in a country where the government has that much power? If you do....go to North Korea.

Damn, you're shrill.

---

Taking money out of politics like you suggest is curtailing an individuals ability to engage in speech.

So you think that because the Koch brothers are rich enough that they think nothing of dropping a billion dollars on a campaign, they're entitled to more speech than some guy who can barely afford to construct a picket sign out of cardboard? Some people just have more speech then others?

That doesn't sound like democracy. That's called "oligarchy".

It's true you can't force perfect equality in terms of speech. Some people have louder voices. Some people are better speakers. Some people embarrass themselves by admitting they don't read the posts they're responding to because they're lazy and intellectually dishonest. But that doesn't mean we can't try to regulate the obvious abuse of wealth in order to drown out everyone else.

I personally like democracy and prefer it to oligarchy.

[Heywood]

Suppose the janitorial company's truck had a bumper sticker on it reading "Support our troops". If Citizen's United was upheld, the government could force the 3 guys janitorial company to remove that bumper sticker....simply because they decided to do business as a corporation.

The bumper sticker would be ruled a personal expression by the driver of the truck, who is an individual person.

Suppose the corporation paid someone to paint "support our troops" onto the corporate truck. You still want that banned?

[DeistPaladin]

Suppose the corporation paid someone to paint "support our troops" onto the corporate truck. You still want that banned?

Yes.

[Heywood]

So you think that because the Koch brothers are rich enough that they think nothing of dropping a billion dollars on a campaign, they're entitled to more speech than some guy who can barely afford to construct a picket sign out of cardboard? Some people just have more speech then others?

Some people have more speech than others simply because they have stronger vocal cords.

The world isn't fair. Should the government mandate everyone's vocal cords be modified so as not be louder than the person with the weakest vocal cords?

If you can legally cut my speech down to the level of your speech....then your speech can be cut legally down to that of someone else.

Nirvana is not for this world and government attempts to level the playing field have backfired miserably. DP if you were to run for office today...you'd probably have to consult an election lawyer first...just to be sure you didn't run afoul of any elections laws.

Government intervention has made it harder for the average citizen to engage in politics....not easier. That is why since campaign finance laws have come into beings...incumbents are more likely win. Government intervention has made it harder to change the status quo. It was weakened our speech not leveled it out.

[DeistPaladin]

To elaborate, that would be a mis-use of corporate funds.

If the corporation is pubicly traded, you used stockholder money and misapppriated it for your political agenda.

If the corporation is closely held by an individual (or family), then they can dig into their own pockets.

Using corporate funds for personal use is illegal and the IRS can punish that as tax evasion. As a corporate owner myself, I know you have to make sure not to use corporate resources for personal use.

---

Some people have more speech than others simply because they have stronger vocal cords.

So because we can't make everything 100% fair, that means we shouldn't even try?

Because some people are better speakers, that means we shouldn't be bothered that corporations with vested interests can buy politicians and flood the TV with their ads?

Your logic is twisted.

...incumbents are more likely win. Government intervention has made it harder to change the status quo. It was weakened our speech not leveled it out.

So let's have term limits.

[Grammar Nazi]
Don't ...use ...elipses ...unless ...you're ...truncating ...for ...brevity.
[/Grammar Nazi]

[Heywood]

So because we can't make everything 100% fair, that means we shouldn't even try?

Because some people are better speakers, that means we shouldn't be bothered that corporations with vested interests can buy politicians and flood the TV with their ads?

Your logic is twisted.

In order to make it fair you have to curtail the speech of some.....and this is blatantly unconstitutional. The constitution guarantees you the right to exercise speech. It does not guarantee everyone have the same amount of it.

[Mister Agenda]

In hindsight, the best way to have kept money in politics proportionate to what it was prior to 2002 would have been not to enact McCain Feingold in the first place. It's the poster child for the law of unintended consequences. Unfortunately, getting rid of it now is unlikely to have much impact now that all these new methods of getting money into the political system have been devised as a response to it.

I have a solution to the problem and it's really simple yet will transform American democracy to make it more robust, more responsive to the people and more focused on real issues and not talking points and sound bytes.

Ban
All
Paid
Political
Media
Ads.

No TV ads. No newspaper ads. No billboards. Campaign finances would be limited to be just enough to buy bumper stickers and yard signs to hand out to supporters. That's it.

Maybe. The problem with unintended consequences is that although they seem obvious in hindsight, most of us don't see them coming. Were I an unscrupulous oil tycoon who could no longer spend millions on influencing elections, what other avenues could I pursue to get the legislation I want, given that I have millions to spend and teams of lawyers and analysts to devise options for me? I'm not dismissing your suggestion though, I'm just cautious. People are wily, particularly when given an incentive to be so, but your proposal may leave them with no legal options.

You shouldn't be able to spend money to buy more speech than your fellow citizen. The Koch brothers can make picket signs and protest on the street corner like everyone else.

Or form an organization to persuade people to volunteer to do it for them. That doesn't seem to violate your proposal.

Madison Ave soundbites littering our TV time would be replaced by bi-weekly debates during the campaign season where substantive issues would be discussed.

When you're king of America? I have a less ambitious proposal. Reverse the legislation that allows network TV to run ads during the news. It used to be a requirement in return for the bandwidth that stations had to devote a particular amount of time to the news. Putting ads in made news teams into ratings hounds. That's fixable, and Constitutional.

These debates should also be done under oath. Knowingly lying to the people during a political debate should be punished with the charge of perjury.

And that will be the end of debates, as everyone will be too afraid of litigation to risk one, unless you know of an infallible way to distinguish between 'knowingly lying' and 'made a mistake'. At least you're putting thought into it, though. If this was a brainstorming session, I'd say leave that one on the board for now.

[Heywood]

[Grammar Nazi]
Don't ...use ...elipses ...unless ...you're ...truncating ...for ...brevity.
[/Grammar Nazi]

Elipses are kinda my thing....kinda like e.e. cummings not using capital letters.

[Mister Agenda]

So let's have term limits.

[Grammar Nazi]
Don't ...use ...elipses ...unless ...you're ...truncating ...for ...brevity.
[/Grammar Nazi]

I used to be against term limits. I figured if we keep electing the same people, even if they're not doing a good job, we're getting the government we deserve, even if it's not the government we want. I felt that limiting terms was overriding the will of the people. But I have, reluctantly, concluded that incumbency gives the office-holder so many unfair advantages in elections that term limits are necessary. If they really were good at their job, they can get it back next cycle.