Here’s a challenge: limit your response to three sentences or fewer.
But formatting aside, it’s an honest question. I’m curious to hear what the LR has to say.
Bad. Corporations aren’t people, and governing should be about the people. Inserting corporations into that is changing the focus.
Very bad. I’d like to see the ruling turned on its head and used as a justification for convicting a corporation of murder. I wonder what the equivalent of the death penalty would be for a corporation?
Bad. Corporations aren’t people…
So they’re robots? Cats? What?
.
.
Bad. Corporations aren’t people, and governing should be about the people. Inserting corporations into that is changing the focus.
The Citizens United ruling didn’t say that corporations are people. That quote really comes from Mitt Romney.
The idea that corporations are associations of people, and that as such they enjoy some of the protections sometimes thought of as belonging to individuals has existed since the early 1800s. They have the right to enforce contracts, they have some protections under the 14th amendment, they enjoy some First amendment rights, etc. Citizens United was really just about a specific type of speech related to elections, not about establishing corporate personhood.
I’m not sure if it was a good thing or not. There are a lot of foreseeable evils that can come from allowing corporations, which don’t always really represent the collected will of their members, to spend ungodly amounts of money, disproportionate to how much “speech” the average person can exercise. Additionally, there were some issues with how the case was argued and run by the Chief Justice Roberts that caused some concern about whether the court was set to reach an actual ruling, or if the case was set to be argued specifically to allow the majority to reach the decision it wanted. It’s always a concern when the integrity of the highest court is in question.
I think the problem is trying to define what money counts as speech and what constitutes bribery. So in short as long as money is going to a Legitimate campaign and not the persons pocket, who cares. Seriously has this stopped a single incumbent from raising serious cash. Sure stops the little guy.
I think it leveled the playing field. Honestly I would prefer if both unions and corporations were prohibited from politics, but that is not possible so we have what we have now.
Is this really a question, or just a test of people’s reading comprehension and willingness to follow simple instructions? (this doesn’t count as one of my three sentences).
Short term it is very bad. Intermediate term, it takes away any fig leaf of modesty about the role of money in politics, but in doing so raises awareness of the problem. So longer term it can be good if we do the right thing, which is decisively change (perhaps even by constitutional amendment) the rules and remove money from politics.
I think the problem is trying to define what money counts as speech and what constitutes bribery.
So you actually have to “think” about whether giving money to politicians is “free speech” as opposed bribery?
I can call or write any of my elected representatives for free, why would I need to give them money if it was not an attempt to buy influence (i.e. bribery)
Short term it is very bad. Intermediate term, it takes away any fig leaf of modesty about the role of money in politics, but in doing so raises awareness of the problem. So longer term it can be good if we do the right thing, which is decisively change (perhaps even by constitutional amendment) the rules and remove money from politics.
This. The ruling has a negative impact because the political system we have is so reliant on money and fundraising. Until we get a fairly major overhaul of our election process, corporate (and other lobbies) money will continue to have an overly significant influence in our government.
I think it leveled the playing field. Honestly I would prefer if both unions and corporations were prohibited from politics, but that is not possible so we have what we have now.
^^This^^
IMO opinion, private money only should be allowed. Neither a corporation or union is capable of speaking for it’s collective body. Instead they speak, by way of their money, for those in charge of the corp or union. It really added an additional layer of politics that did nothing but spend more money.
I think the problem is trying to define what money counts as speech and what constitutes bribery.
So you actually have to “think” about whether giving money to politicians is “free speech” as opposed bribery?
I can call or write any of my elected representatives for free, why would I need to give them money if it was not an attempt to buy influence (i.e. bribery)
Actually I struggle with what I believe with what is. There is so much case law and history going back to the countries founding that it is impossible to separate money from speech. This doesn’t even get into intangibles like commercials, volunteering, simply talking about somebody in paper or print.
What I do believe is that money corrupts people. People don’t tend to give large amounts of money to people for ideas, but because they want something. So already the intent is no different than a bribe, just playing by the rules. So in my mind, large money is certainly bribery, but my 10 dollar donation isn’t. At what nominal value does that change. We cannot say for certain, so the only solution is an arbitrary number. That isn’t substantive enough to me to justify regulation.
Also, whether you like it or not, corporation are legal entities that in the eyes of the law are no different than individuals. They pretty much satisfy every criteria for personhood except have a pulse or have the ability to vote. This has always been the case since before our nations founding and I do fundamentally believe this. With that said, I think a strong argument could be made if corporations do not pay taxes, they could be limited in political participation. You want to tax them so you can spend their money for your own benefit, yet you do not want to allow them the means to protest, influence behavior that adversely impacts them. Just think about that for a minute, that isn’t right either.
The legacy of Citizens United will be a series of predominately incompetent and corrupt politicians willing to accept monies in exchange for political favors.
I think it leveled the playing field. Honestly I would prefer if both unions and corporations were prohibited from politics, but that is not possible so we have what we have now.
This is it. (You asked fo three words or less).
I think it leveled the playing field. Honestly I would prefer if both unions and corporations were prohibited from politics, but that is not possible so we have what we have now.
Bingo. And get rid of lobbyists. And explore tort reform. (I’m not naïve - I know this won’t happen - but it should).
Short term it is very bad. Intermediate term, it takes away any fig leaf of modesty about the role of money in politics, but in doing so raises awareness of the problem. So longer term it can be good if we do the right thing, which is decisively change (perhaps even by constitutional amendment) the rules and remove money from politics.
I don’t see it as good or bad, but no change. I hear all the time “Take money out of politics”. But since 90% of politics is about how to spend money how does anyone propose we do that? We can attempt to block one approach but another will be taken. It really is quite simple. When I’m having 40% of my labor taken from me I’m going to take steps to control it in anyway I can. Any amendment would have to specify what can’t be done. People will find new ways WAY faster then we can come up with new laws to stop them.
~Matt
money will continue to have an overly significant influence in our government.
Considering that government is little more then a system that transfers money, won’t it always be the case that money will significantly influence government?
~Matt
The legacy of Citizens United will be a series of predominately incompetent and corrupt politicians willing to accept monies in exchange for political favors.
How is this different from the status quo?