Despicable SCALIA says cash is free speech when the KOCHes have it, not for everybody

[UTUSN]

Piggybacking with thanks off of xchrom’s thread, “The Myth of Gay Affluence” http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024708123 because SCALIA’s maleficence and nefariousness need to be trumpeted for their own selves.

One of his treasonous legacies is how he has undermined democratic elections through CASH-as-“free speech” and personhood for corporations and is due in a few weeks to favor eradicating limits on campaign donations-as-“free speech” thereby finishing off democracy in favor of oligarchy.

But wait, in the item below he says that a certain group is [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]characterized by being AFFLUENT[/FONT] and that their [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]“high disposable income”[/FONT] gives them [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]“disproportionate political power”[/FONT]. Oh. I’m so confused. So not ALL cash is “free speech.” Oh. So, it depends on WHO has the cash for it to be “free speech” or not. Oh. So I trust that he will be forthcoming with detailed specifications as to WHEN cash is “free speech” and when it’s not. That is, enlightening us as to WHOSE cash qualifies to be free speech and who has the privilege of exercising “disproportionate political power.”

Silly me, I believed in Santa Claus and democratic elections where my vote was equal to one of the KOCH brothers.

But SCALIA is nothing if not a double whammy, since here he’s also engaging in stereotyping/profiling, so we need his guidelines on when stereotypes are permissible and when not, like Yes for Gays and probably Hispanics and Blacks but No for mobsterism as an Italian trait.

Let me put my thinking cap on and see if I can think of personhood groups who have “disproportionate political power” compared to my puny self: Let’s skip the obvious fatcats and name just one:: Despicable SCALIA. And wingnut barfing-mouths on the radio.

*********QUOTE*******

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-gay-affluence/284570/

Who are America’s gays? To hear it as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would have it, gays are [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a privileged set[/FONT], living it up in cities across the country. As the justice wrote in his dissent to Romer v. Evans—a landmark 1996 case that overturned a Colorado state constitutional amendment prohibiting legal protections for gays and lesbians—“Those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]disproportionate numbers in certain communities[/FONT].” Even more ominously, to Scalia, they have [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]"high disposable income," which gives them "disproportionate political power[/FONT]… to not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality.” ....

********UNQUOTE******

[indepat]

1. Scalia surely sucks the big one as he gives America a rancid middle finger

[3catwoman3]

2. Scalia can join...

...Fred Phelps any time.

[Loudly]

3. The Amendment:

It shall not be an infringement of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for Congress to limit by law the raising and expenditure of money in public elections.

[Scuba]

5. Yeah, leave it up to congress. That'll work.

[okaawhatever]

4. The gay community does have a higher disposable income, especially so with the male couples. A large

part of that is due to not having children (that's changing now that more are adopting or having kids through surrogates). At one point though, lesbian couples with children had the lowest income for all family groups in the US.

[Swede Atlanta]

8. As a member of that community I can say that that perception is not supported by fact....

There definitely are pockets of the LGBT community, especially educated gay white males (such as myself), that have significantly higher incomes than the average American. While having and/or adopting children has become more common, the fact remains that most gay couples, both male and female, do not have dependents such as children. They may lavish a lot of money on their pets but they are not saving for college or supporting one or more children.

As a result these individuals tend to have higher disposable incomes. I am a good case in point. I spend lavishly on my two dogs but otherwise my income is spent on myself and my retirement savings.

But when you get into other areas of the LGBT community you will find that the economic situation is at best comparable and in many cases worse than the average American.

This is true among less educated and minority lesbians, gays and transgendered individuals.

What Scalia was referencing most likely was his perception of "high power" gays (and to a lesser extent lesbians) who have financial means and use that means to support political candidates and causes.

But I would back away from a wholesale understanding that the LGBT community has higher disposable income. The only reason they might is because many of them are not supporting children. But other factors have to be considered to ensure we are comparing like for like.

[okaawhatever]

10. I read that study years ago. It was actually a criticism of businesses who didn't actively solicit

business from the gay community. You know, tailoring ads or making LGBT friendly commercials, etc. It was a good piece that was talking about how businesses shouldn't worry about the political aspect of the LGBT debate because they were businesses and the LGBT community was an excellent source of business. It also cited a study that said LGBT were more likely to do repeat business with products/companies that treated them well.

I can see how LGBT discrimination could affect one's income, but I was just going off of what I read.

[Faygo Kid]

6. He is trash who doesn't follow the Constitution

For all his bluster he just decides cases based on outcome, not on law and the Constitution.

One of the worst justices ever.

[NewJeffCT]

7. I'm still trying to find the part of the Constitution

that says money=speech.

[skepticscott]

12. Citizens United never said that money=speech

Nor has any other Supreme Court decision in this area. That's a myth that many people like to promote, but it's just not true. The principle being (correctly) adhered to is that the ability to disseminate political messages is inextricably linked to the ability to raise and spend money, and that a restriction on the latter is a de facto restriction on the former. Political speech is most definitely protected by the First Amendment, and in fact should enjoy a very high level of protection. Restricting it requires more than saying "we don't like the fact that the other side is getting their message out more effectively". In such cases, nothing in the First Amendment text or principles requires Congress to step in and make sure the playing field is absolutely level.

[UTUSN]

16. O.K., legalese ends up with the outcome that "raise/spend money" = "political speech" and

"getting their message out more EFFECTIVELY" = money. There can be an *effectively* superior message/commercial that costs nothing, say, a news event. Granted that your explanation is correct, but "effectiveness" does not describe that any KOCH or contrary-donor-I-agree-with has terrifically more impact than puny-I have, therefore just plain MORE "political speech" than I have, as opposed to more "effective" political speech. I'm simplistic, so it all sounds like debating angels-on-pinheads to me. The end result is CASH.

You do agree that he is disapproving of the "effectiveness" of the "political speech" on the part of Gays, which he is attributing to their "affluence" and consequent "disproportionate political power"? So, why is one group's effective political speech more or less worthy than another one's?

That said for me, I disagree with the posts that agree with SCALIA's stereotyping of any particular group. If Gays are "affluent" and "live in certain communities" and "have disproportionate political power" -- well, so do the KOCHes, so they must be Gay. If he does it with one group, what group is immune from any other stereotyping he might choose to do? And who is to say that this stereotyping won't end up with groups ending up on Reservations or internment camps or concentration camps. I might be ignorant, but so is he and he's on the SCotUS. Holy Zeus, do I despise him!1

[skepticscott]

18. I don't disagree that Scalia's language

in the dissent cited is hypocritical. But there's a shade of hypocrisy on the other side, too. I suspect you (and just about everyone else on this board) wouldn't be so up in arms about "disproportionate political power" if the Koch brothers were supporting Democratic candidates and causes. But the Constitution makes no such ideological distinctions.

[UTUSN]

20. Wow. Well, I did specifically include "contrary-donor-I-agree-with" meaning Dem donors, so

I might be hypocritical in various items but not really in this one, and my detestation of wingnuts and their world view is certainly upfront, so *that's* not an issue in play. I even said I might be ignorant but SCALIA's petty ignorance is in power at the SCotUS, not mine.

You might be playing the shoe-on-the-other-foot principle here, but there are also things like missing-the-forest-for-the-trees or the-letter-versus-the-spirit.

[skepticscott]

23. Yes, I know what you SAID

But if Democrats were dominating the political scene, outspending Republicans by a wide margin and winning both houses of Congress and the presidency easily, you and I both know that we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Money does not give you more votes. Are the Koch brothers paying to be allowed to cast more ballots than you, or to allow other Republicans to do the same? I kinda doubt it. They each have the same number of votes as you (one). Do they have a greater opportunity to persuade others to vote the way they want, just because they have more money than you or I? Well, you argued yourself that highly effective political messages can be generated for no cost at all, so that doesn't fly either, under your logic.

So what exactly scares you about having more, rather than less, political speech?

[UTUSN]

24. It's clear that it doesn't matter what I *say*...

& you project motives that come from some omniscience you appear to think you have.

No, my one vote vis a vis one KOCH brother vote at the ballot box is not the issue. It's the (your word: ) "effectiveness" of the CASH the boys spend that DOES get them more votes. All I've got is MY ONE vote. They --- and George SOROS --- have their each one vote plus whatever thousands or millions more VOTES that I will never have. What, exactly, is all that "effectiveness" about if it doesn't translate into MORE votes?

What scares me about having more, rather than less, political speech, with "political speech" being explicitly CASH? Uh, wouldn't that be that the vast majority of it is oligarchical, the most cash is the most speech? That *my* personal political speech is less than a blip?

Yeah, a level playing field is pretty much a fantasy. So you pretty much speak for ALITO.

[Ikonoklast]

17. In the end it all boils down to More Money = More Speech.

Bet you if there was more money on the Democratic side putting out blaring media 24/7 against any and all Republicans that ruling would have been vastly different.

[skepticscott]

19. See my post above

it's also the case that if the Koch brothers were supporting Democratic candidates and causes, you wouldn't still be arguing this on "principle" and saying that it isn't good for YOUR party to be so much more effective than the Republicans at getting their message out.

[Ikonoklast]

21. You would be wrong. I want ALL money out of politics. Theirs, ours, yours.

Since More Money = More Speech, this nation will never achieve real Democracy until that changes.

[skepticscott]

22. All money?

How do you propose that candidates campaign without raising and spending any money at all? How do you suggest they provide information that will let voters decide between them?

And what is wrong with more speech? Does more speech automatically equate to more votes? Does all the speech Republicans are spewing out give them a better chance of convincing you to vote for them? If not, why are you worried that it will convince other voters? Are there a lot of other voters out there who just aren't as smart as you, less able to see through deceptive or misleading ads than you? Exactly how much speech should we allow these less enlightened voters to be exposed to before we put a cap on it?

[Ikonoklast]

25. I thought we were talking about private money.

That is what the Citizen's United decision was really all about.

Public funding for all those who qualify to run for office. That would ensure more voices heard, more speech heard, from *all* viewpoints, not just those that can afford it.




As for the rest, I accidentally dropped a lit match and the straw all burned up and the ashes blew away.

Yes, more speech is good, not just from those that can afford to purchase it.

[Nye Bevan]

29. Should a corporation be banned from publishing a book in the run-up to an election

because the book happens to say nasty things about one of the candidates who is running in that election?

How long before the election would you ban the publication of this book?

[Ikonoklast]

30. Nope, they can print all they want. They'll just have to admit to political advocacy instead of

hiding behind 501(c)(3) organizations, pretending they are something other than backdoor ways to circumvent current campaign financing laws.

Take away their tax exemptions and that money will suddenly find other uses.





Should the RCC and the LDS rightfully retain tax-free status after spending tax-free dollars trying to impose their religious and moral beliefs on the citizens of California through advocating for Prop 8?

Remember now, Free Speech. They just want to impose their religion on you.

[DiverDave]

27. Are you just arguing to argue?

"All Money?" I can just imagine the tone...
Of course money is required to campaign we all know that.
PRIVATE money MUST be taken out of the equation.
But you knew that, right?



I guess some just like to argue, whatever the point.

[Nye Bevan]

28. Say a Republican congress passed a law banning spending money on campaigning for Democrats.

So Democrats would be allowed to make speeches on street corners and in parks, and hold rallies and have meetings, but would be prohibited from spending money on TV, internet, and other forms of advertising.

Should such a law be constitutional? If you sincerely believe that "money isn't speech" then your answer should be "yes". After all, this law only addresses the expenditure of money on disseminating speech, not the speech itself.

Of course in reality, such a law would be thrown out by the first court that it went to as an egregious violation of the First Amendment. Because like it or not, in the United States today you cannot get a message out without spending money. Banning people from spending money on disseminating speech is tantamount to banning speech. In short, money is speech.

[asjr]

9. Injustice Scalia vocally struts the same as

Mussolini during WW2. In looking back at film of him shows how his jaw sticks out with a smug look on his face. I remember how the citizens hung both Mussolini and his mistress by their feet, naked. I wonder if Scalia has seen that film.

[Initech]

11. The Kochs are terrorists and traitors. Anyone who is supported by them is an accessory.

:get:

[rhett o rick]

13. How did this idiot get on the court? nm

[dotymed]

14. Scalia and Thomas.....

I cannot imagine who would give them air to breathe.
Fascists like that must have to kiss a lot of Ass until they reach a "position of power/wealth."

They are worthless as any type of sentient beings.

Knowing that they are on the highest court in the land says a lot about modern America.


DYSFUNCTIONAL AS HELL.

[GeorgeGist]

15. Free Speech ... is very expensive.

Does the 2nd amendment trump the 1st?

[RKP5637]

26. Unfit for office! n/t

[Enthusiast]

31. Antonin Scalia does not deserve the term "Justice" applied to his name.

Total Fascist POS.