- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would you be in favor of a challenge to the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United?
Posted on 7/27/22 at 11:41 am
Posted on 7/27/22 at 11:41 am
That single decision opened the floodgates of bribery, and has led to the creation of enormous wealth and corruption of the political process.
Anyone of wealth, any country or corporation seeking to influence US, state and local government policy can now act with impunity while politicians and policy makers can get fat off of their corruption with almost zero expectations to be criminally charged.
This is an interesting video from Unrig 2018 with Jennifer Lawrence that sort of lays out how corrupt the current system is and how politicians, like Patch McCain and Nancy can become exceedingly wealthy. The entire 12:48 video is worth a watch. It's plain language and examples of how corrupt the current system of funding PACs is and how even blatant bribes are dismissed by the court.
YouTube
And, yes, I know the rules:
Anyone of wealth, any country or corporation seeking to influence US, state and local government policy can now act with impunity while politicians and policy makers can get fat off of their corruption with almost zero expectations to be criminally charged.
This is an interesting video from Unrig 2018 with Jennifer Lawrence that sort of lays out how corrupt the current system is and how politicians, like Patch McCain and Nancy can become exceedingly wealthy. The entire 12:48 video is worth a watch. It's plain language and examples of how corrupt the current system of funding PACs is and how even blatant bribes are dismissed by the court.
YouTube
And, yes, I know the rules:
9
Posted on 7/27/22 at 11:53 am to HubbaBubba
Yes absolutely I agree with whatever she said
Posted on 7/27/22 at 11:56 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
That single decision opened the floodgates of bribery, and has led to the creation of enormous wealth and corruption of the political process.
A ruling in the opposite direction would have been a huge blow to the actual freedom of speech.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 11:59 am to the808bass
quote:Understandable, but the outcome has not met the expectations of that decision.
A ruling in the opposite direction would have been a huge blow to the actual freedom of speech.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:01 pm to the808bass
quote:
A ruling in the opposite direction would have been a huge blow to the actual freedom of speech.
I just can't see how everyone doesn't come to that conclusion. Political speech is the most important thing to keep free, and people pooling money to broadcast a message they want heard accomplishes just that.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:10 pm to BlackAdam
individuals have the right to free speech/free press, so why wouldn't a collection of individuals also have the right to free speech/press.
Scalia's torches the dissents interpretation of the first amendment in his concurring opinion.
Scalia's torches the dissents interpretation of the first amendment in his concurring opinion.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:12 pm to the808bass
quote:
A ruling in the opposite direction would have been a huge blow to the actual freedom of speech.
How do you figure? Citizens United determined that corporations were suddenly citizens with first amendment protections. A corporation is clearly not a citizen.
The people we elect should serve our interests, not the interests of shareholders who may or may not even be Americans.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:17 pm to tigerpoboy
quote:
that corporations were suddenly citizens with first amendment protections.
how can citizens that share the same rights suddenly lose protection when they associate with one another?
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:18 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
people pooling money to broadcast a message they want heard accomplishes just that.
However those pools have become tainted fast and the crux of the problem lies in corporations picking sides without 100% of their employees believing if the causes that are getting the money.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:22 pm to tigerpoboy
quote:
How do you figure? Citizens United determined that corporations were suddenly citizens with first amendment protections. A corporation is clearly not a citizen.
Here’s a fella who doesn’t know what Citizens United was about.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:22 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
However those pools have become tainted fast and the crux of the problem lies in corporations picking sides without 100% of their employees believing if the causes that are getting the money.
sounds like a corporate and employee relationship problem...if the employees don't like the way their company is picking sides (and it really goes against what they believe in), surely the employee would be compelled to go to a company that fits his belief system more (if it is indeed that big of an issue)
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:23 pm to HubbaBubba
Can a corporation register to vote? No, then it’s not a person.
And money is not speech. If that were the case, prostitution must necessarily be legal.
Scalia was basically a conservative RBG, it’s why they got along so well. Clarence Thomas, not Scalia, is who all justices should emulate.
And money is not speech. If that were the case, prostitution must necessarily be legal.
Scalia was basically a conservative RBG, it’s why they got along so well. Clarence Thomas, not Scalia, is who all justices should emulate.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:24 pm to tigerpoboy
It seems the ruling only served to further diminish the voice of individual Americans. Sure, people are part of big corporations but lots of people aren’t.
If you agree with the Corporate voice, fine. If you don’t, you might as well be whistling in the dark.
To whatever extent this country was already on it’s way to a Corporatocracy, Citizens United put it into overdrive.
If you agree with the Corporate voice, fine. If you don’t, you might as well be whistling in the dark.
To whatever extent this country was already on it’s way to a Corporatocracy, Citizens United put it into overdrive.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:24 pm to HubbaBubba
Overturning it wouldn't help, because corporations own most news outlets.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:28 pm to Masterag
quote:
Scalia was basically a conservative RBG, it’s why they got along so well. Clarence Thomas, not Scalia, is who all justices should emulate.
Clarence concurred with the decision and concurred with Scalia's concurrence
so I don't see how this proves the point you are trying to make.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:28 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Overturning it wouldn't help, because corporations own most news outlets.
Overturning it wouldn't help because lobbyists are a symptom, not the disease. The disease is a federal government with too much power. Nobody's ever bribed you or me because we don't have any influence over the leviathan. If the leviathan were a poodle they wouldn't bother to bribe legislators either.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:30 pm to the808bass
quote:
A ruling in the opposite direction would have been a huge blow to the actual freedom of speech.
I see this all the time but can you explain it? I say this sincerely, as it’s entirely possible that there’s some way we’ve legally painted ourselves in a corner.
From a common sense perspective, freedom of speech is distinct from political donations/contributions. All of the people that work for those corporations still retain freedom of speech and the ability to donate as they please on an individual level. If they do choose they can all donate to a pac or campaign. How exactly is freedom of speech curtailed if a corporation can still make it’s official position known but is not able to donate to a politician? Is there some legal reason that a monetary transaction counts as speech? If so, it needs to change.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:35 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
Political speech is the most important thing to keep free, and people pooling money to broadcast a message they want heard accomplishes just that.
The problem arises when people is "person(s)" with enough money and or power to broadcast ad nauseam, via a complicit MSM, a message that a majority of the population does not have the appropriate level of critical thinking to digest. See Germany 1930's.
"We are now entering a pandemic of the unvaccinated" has never set well with me
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:37 pm to Masterag
quote:So minors aren't people and have no right to free speech?
Can a corporation register to vote? No, then it’s not a person.
quote:Prostitution shouldn't be illegal, but that's an inane analogy.
And money is not speech. If that were the case, prostitution must necessarily be legal.
Posted on 7/27/22 at 12:46 pm to the808bass
Agree with this totally.
Citizens United being overruled would result in the violent doxxing of any conservative in the US.
Citizens United being overruled would result in the violent doxxing of any conservative in the US.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News