Are you for or against Citizens United?

othershoe1030 wrote:How could anyone interested in living in a functioning democracy be in favor of Citizens United?

It just pushes more power and influence into a select group of billionaires who can afford to fund candidates and issues that continue to further enhance their interests to the detriment of the general public.

bizguy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:How could anyone interested in living in a functioning democracy be in favor of Citizens United?

It just pushes more power and influence into a select group of billionaires who can afford to fund candidates and issues that continue to further enhance their interests to the detriment of the general public.

First, we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.  The difference is significant.  

Secondly,  CU did not change campaign contribution law for corporations.  They are still prohibited from direct contributions to candidates.

Floridatexan wrote:

bizguy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:How could anyone interested in living in a functioning democracy be in favor of Citizens United?

It just pushes more power and influence into a select group of billionaires who can afford to fund candidates and issues that continue to further enhance their interests to the detriment of the general public.

First, we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.  The difference is significant.  

Secondly,  CU did not change campaign contribution law for corporations.  They are still prohibited from direct contributions to candidates.

Poppycock.  It doesn't matter what laws exist for corporate contributions when they can donate to a PAC or to a 501(c)(4) with complete anonymity.  Remember the "scandal" at the IRS?  This is the REAL SCANDAL.  

What, in your opinion, are the advantages to a finding like Citizens United or McCutcheon v. FEC?  For that matter, why is the IRS policing contributions...isn't that the purview of the FEC?  

Please expound the difference with regard to this particular issue.  I think most people are aware that we have a representative and not a pure democracy.  The floor is yours.

bizguy wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bizguy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:How could anyone interested in living in a functioning democracy be in favor of Citizens United?

It just pushes more power and influence into a select group of billionaires who can afford to fund candidates and issues that continue to further enhance their interests to the detriment of the general public.

First, we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.  The difference is significant.  

Secondly,  CU did not change campaign contribution law for corporations.  They are still prohibited from direct contributions to candidates.

Poppycock.  It doesn't matter what laws exist for corporate contributions when they can donate to a PAC or to a 501(c)(4) with complete anonymity.  Remember the "scandal" at the IRS?  This is the REAL SCANDAL.  

What, in your opinion, are the advantages to a finding like Citizens United or McCutcheon v. FEC?  For that matter, why is the IRS policing contributions...isn't that the purview of the FEC?  

Please expound the difference with regard to this particular issue.  I think most people are aware that we have a representative and not a pure democracy.  The floor is yours.

It's really very simple. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the constitution.  Specifically, the 1st amendment where it says the government can't stop free speech or stop people from assembling.  

You don't have to agree with the speech and you can't limit it for a certain class of people.

I really have no idea what you are trying to say in your last paragraph.

othershoe1030 wrote:

bizguy wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bizguy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:How could anyone interested in living in a functioning democracy be in favor of Citizens United?

It just pushes more power and influence into a select group of billionaires who can afford to fund candidates and issues that continue to further enhance their interests to the detriment of the general public.

First, we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.  The difference is significant.  

Secondly,  CU did not change campaign contribution law for corporations.  They are still prohibited from direct contributions to candidates.

Poppycock.  It doesn't matter what laws exist for corporate contributions when they can donate to a PAC or to a 501(c)(4) with complete anonymity.  Remember the "scandal" at the IRS?  This is the REAL SCANDAL.  

What, in your opinion, are the advantages to a finding like Citizens United or McCutcheon v. FEC?  For that matter, why is the IRS policing contributions...isn't that the purview of the FEC?  

Please expound the difference with regard to this particular issue.  I think most people are aware that we have a representative and not a pure democracy.  The floor is yours.

It's really very simple. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the constitution.  Specifically, the 1st amendment where it says the government can't stop free speech or stop people from assembling.  

You don't have to agree with the speech and you can't limit it for a certain class of people.

I really have no idea what you are trying to say in your last paragraph.

The free speech we have today is modified by money. Those with more money have more free speech. Doesn't this seem just a bit off to anyone?

There are so many special interests spending thousands of lawyer hours  on figuring out how to get around campaign laws that it is probably foolhardy to even try to craft a law that would prohibit flooding the air waves with adds from thinly veiled special interest groups. The most I think we can hope for is to require total disclosure. Even full disclosure will of course have to be gone through with a fine tooth comb since cover groups of all kinds will no doubt be created in an attempt to hide donors.

bizguy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

bizguy wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bizguy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:How could anyone interested in living in a functioning democracy be in favor of Citizens United?

It just pushes more power and influence into a select group of billionaires who can afford to fund candidates and issues that continue to further enhance their interests to the detriment of the general public.

First, we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.  The difference is significant.  

Secondly,  CU did not change campaign contribution law for corporations.  They are still prohibited from direct contributions to candidates.

Poppycock.  It doesn't matter what laws exist for corporate contributions when they can donate to a PAC or to a 501(c)(4) with complete anonymity.  Remember the "scandal" at the IRS?  This is the REAL SCANDAL.  

What, in your opinion, are the advantages to a finding like Citizens United or McCutcheon v. FEC?  For that matter, why is the IRS policing contributions...isn't that the purview of the FEC?  

Please expound the difference with regard to this particular issue.  I think most people are aware that we have a representative and not a pure democracy.  The floor is yours.

It's really very simple. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the constitution.  Specifically, the 1st amendment where it says the government can't stop free speech or stop people from assembling.  

You don't have to agree with the speech and you can't limit it for a certain class of people.

I really have no idea what you are trying to say in your last paragraph.

The free speech we have today is modified by money. Those with more money have more free speech. Doesn't this seem just a bit off to anyone?

There are so many special interests spending thousands of lawyer hours  on figuring out how to get around campaign laws that it is probably foolhardy to even try to craft a law that would prohibit flooding the air waves with adds from thinly veiled special interest groups. The most I think we can hope for is to require total disclosure. Even full disclosure will of course have to be gone through with a fine tooth comb since cover groups of all kinds will no doubt be created in an attempt to hide donors.

So, are you in favor of restricting the free speech rights of particular people and/or groups?  What is the harm in a 'special interest group' spending their money to bring attention to an issue that impacts that group?