Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forum
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
The disastrous Citizens United decision lets corporate America spend unlimited sums of money buying
Link to tweet
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
12 replies, 503 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The disastrous Citizens United decision lets corporate America spend unlimited sums of money buying (Original Post)
Uncle Joe
Jan 2020
OP
lapucelle
(18,361 posts)1. Democrats warned third party voters in both 2000 and 2016 that elections
have Supreme Court consequences.
Odd that this message is coming from a campaign whose senior advisors are exactly the third party voters and cheerleaders who are responsible for the Roberts Court in both its iterations.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
The Valley Below
(1,701 posts)8. No kidding.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)2. This is not a Democracy. We're a capitalistic oligarch.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
msongs
(67,462 posts)3. multi-millionaire bad mouths money then rakes in $47 mil lol nt
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
redqueen
(115,103 posts)4. *corporate money
But you knew that
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
lapucelle
(18,361 posts)5. Corporations can't contribute to federal candidates.
Who can't contribute
Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:
Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
Federal government contractors
Foreign nationals
Contributions in the name of another
Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:
Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
Federal government contractors
Foreign nationals
Contributions in the name of another
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,459 posts)6. Then what was President Obama so worried about?
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
lapucelle
(18,361 posts)7. It wasn't about corporations making donations at the federal level. N/T
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,459 posts)9. Did you not listen to the video? n/t
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
betsuni
(25,687 posts)10. He's talking about dark money.
"A better politics is one where we spend less time drowning in dark money for ads that pull us into the gutter ... ."
Super PACs. Like the time Karl Rove's Super PAC paid for ads supporting Berne. Candidates have no control over that.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,459 posts)12. "Citizen's United"
(snip)
Stevens argued that the majority failed to recognize the possibility for corruption outside strict quid pro quo exchanges. He referenced facts from a previous BCRA challenge to argue that, even if the exchange of votes for expenditures could not be shown, contributors gain favorable political access from such expenditures.[24] The majority, however, had considered access to be insufficient justification for limiting speech rights.
Stevens responded that in the past, even when striking down a ban on corporate independent expenditures, the Court "never suggested that such quid pro quo debts must take the form of outright vote buying or bribes" (Bellotti). Buckley, he said, also acknowledged that large independent expenditures present the same dangers as quid pro quo arrangements, although Buckley struck down limits on such independent expenditures. Using the record from a previous BCRA §203 challenge, he argued that independent expenditures were sometimes a factor in gaining political access and concluded that large independent expenditures generate more influence than direct campaign contributions.[24] Furthermore, Stevens argued that corporations could threaten Representatives and Senators with negative advertising to gain unprecedented leverage. Stevens supported his argument by citing Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,[35] where the Court held that $3 million in independent expenditures in a judicial race raised sufficient questions about a judge's impartiality to require the judge to recuse himself in a future case involving the spender. Stevens argued that it was contradictory for the majority to ignore the same risks in legislative and executive elections, and argued that the majority opinion would exacerbate the problem presented in Caperton because of the number of states with judicial elections and increased spending in judicial races.
(snip)
Third, Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize the dangers of the corporate form. Austin held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. In defending Austin, Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.
Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not "We the People" for whom our Constitution was established.[24] Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the "furthest from the core of political expression" protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont,[36] and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending "more transactional than ideological". Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money.
(snip)
President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates".[61] Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".[62] On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law[63] to open the floodgates for special interests including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." On television, the camera shifted to a shot of the SCOTUS judges in the front row directly in front of the President while he was making this statement, and Justice Samuel Alito was frowning, shaking his head side to side while mouthing the words "Not true".[64][65][66][67][68][69]
(snip)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
lapucelle
(18,361 posts)11. Yes. It is quite clear that President Obama was not talking about donations from corporations.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden