APP - The Citizens United canard

C

canceled.2021.1

#AMERICAISDEAD
After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech, there was much kvetching on many from the left about how this was the end of our republic and that the Supreme Court unleashed billionaires on the poor and middle class. We were told that the Supreme Court led by Antonin Scalia ushered in a society ruled by the billionaires who could just buy candidates.

While it is still early and who knows what the future portends, we can take a look at what is going on right now and see if the gloom and doom scenarios put forth by the left have really come to pass.

In this years GOP Primary, the candidate with the most PAC money behind him never got out of the single digits, never won a single state and despite all of that money and name recognition ended up dropping out of the race.

Was the democrat party crying wolf?
 
in reality, Citizens United was not a hallmark event. billionaires already ruled this country because of the low information voters on the left and the right. I believe that they are just more pissed off because their idiocy was publicly revealed for all to see.
 
Yup.
If it did anything it leveled the field from the union advantage.
For me the problem was referring to spending money as free speech. But I realize I'm in the minority where pol I tial spending is concerned. I'd like to see it stopped and campaign on platform. I know, crazy talk.
 
Celticguy said:
Yup.
If it did anything it leveled the field from the union advantage.
For me the problem was referring to spending money as free speech. But I realize I'm in the minority where pol I tial spending is concerned. I'd like to see it stopped and campaign on platform. I know, crazy talk.
Click to expand...

But, money is political speech in as much as it costs money to get a message out. Those who wax poetic about public financing either don't know the ramifications of what they are talking about or like the status quo. Public funding of campaigns would be a de facto boon to incumbents. Incumbents would be able to leverage the media in ways that challengers could not.

The United States spends more money on potato chips every year than we do on political campaigns. I have zero problem with money being spend on campaigns.

I would eliminate all campaign finance laws other than to assure that campaigns weren't being funded by foreign sources. I don't even think that people should have to disclose who is giving them money. The whole notion presumes that people are stupid and it is a condescending position to take. Maybe people are stupid, but it isn't a crime and doesn't mean we should advocate draconian statist laws
 
I Love America said:
But, money is political speech in as much as it costs money to get a message out. Those who wax poetic about public financing either don't know the ramifications of what they are talking about or like the status quo. Public funding of campaigns would be a de facto boon to incumbents. Incumbents would be able to leverage the media in ways that challengers could not.

The United States spends more money on potato chips every year than we do on political campaigns. I have zero problem with money being spend on campaigns.

I would eliminate all campaign finance laws other than to assure that campaigns weren't being funded by foreign sources. I don't even think that people should have to disclose who is giving them money. The whole notion presumes that people are stupid and it is a condescending position to take. Maybe people are stupid, but it isn't a crime and doesn't mean we should advocate draconian statist laws
Click to expand...

I do not support public financing.
I want NO financing.
Publish a platform, answer questions pertaining to it.
There is no need for all the rest.
I know, crazy talk....
By the way, no such thing as political speech.
 
Celticguy said:
I do not support public financing.
I want NO financing.
Publish a platform, answer questions pertaining to it.
There is no need for all the rest.
I know, crazy talk....
By the way, no such thing as political speech.
Click to expand...

The first amendment had political speech in mind when it was written
 
Celticguy said:
Yup.
If it did anything it leveled the field from the union advantage.
For me the problem was referring to spending money as free speech. But I realize I'm in the minority where pol I tial spending is concerned. I'd like to see it stopped and campaign on platform. I know, crazy talk.
Click to expand...
LOL LOL LOL LOL

OH I have to call you on this one. Show me once. Just once where Unions have ever had a monetary spending advantage in political campaigns over corporations?
 
You know what I don't understand about free market, anti-government conservatives is why they fear government but don't fear the power concentrated in the hands of corporations? Corporations who have no internal institutional checks and balances on their power nor have any sense of patriotic duty or obligation to their own country which provides them the resources they require to operate and succeed.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You know what I don't understand about free market, anti-government conservatives is why they fear government but don't fear the power concentrated in the hands of corporations? Corporations who have no internal institutional checks and balances on their power nor have any sense of patriotic duty or obligation to their own country which provides them the resources they require to operate and succeed.
Click to expand...

That is the easiest question in the world to answer.

First of all I need to correct your false premise in your first statement. Being free market doesn't make one anti government. Wanting the government to stay within its constitutionally enumerated powers is not being anti government.

Now to your point. It is simple. A corporation no matter big or wealthy cannot not force me to do anything against my will. Bill Gates with all of his wealth and immense power of his corporation cannot make me buy his products. However some linguini spines bureaucrat can make my life miserable with zoning laws, regulations etc. The government can hamper my freedom a corporation without the backing of the government cannot.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
LOL LOL LOL LOL

OH I have to call you on this one. Show me once. Just once where Unions have ever had a monetary spending advantage in political campaigns over corporations?
Click to expand...

I think it is hilarious that you believe the unions are somehow passive participants in the political process

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/huffpost-fundrace----unio_n_1663589.html

Not only do they spend a tremendous amount of money, but let's not forget the union "volunteers" that work on behalf of the democrat party on direct orders by their union. The unions are a de facto super pac for the democrat party
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top