Supreme court decisions

[NYrepublican 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-for-crisis-pregnancy-centers-in-free-speech-dispute.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html

[pilight 2]

Both decisions along party lines

[Patine 35]

2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-for-crisis-pregnancy-centers-in-free-speech-dispute.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html

What about Citizen's United, one of the biggest betrayals by the U.S. Supreme Court to the common American people and one of the biggest blows to the power of the common people to choose their elected representatives and hold them accountable over, and as opposed, the tiny plutocratic oligarchic minority, by effectively legalizing bribery of elected officials and candidates for such office? Why is this precedent next to never discussed?

[NYrepublican 0]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

What about Citizen's United, one of the biggest betrayals by the U.S. Supreme Court to the common American people and one of the biggest blows to the power of the common people to choose their elected representatives and hold them accountable over, and as opposed, the tiny plutocratic oligarchic minority, by effectively legalizing bribery of elected officials and candidates for such office? Why is this precedent next to never discussed?

It's been discussed to DEATH

[Patine 35]

2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

It's been discussed to DEATH

Where?

[NYrepublican 0]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Where?

Online and IRL

[Patine 35]

Just now, NYrepublican said:

Online and IRL

Well, what are the results? What's the consensus?

[NYrepublican 0]

Just now, Patine said:

Well, what are the results? What's the consensus?

263,000,000 page hits from Google.

[Patine 35]

Just now, NYrepublican said:

263,000,000 page hits from Google.

Stop filibustering me. This isn't the U.S. Senate floor. You know what I'm asking for, in a broad sense.

[NYrepublican 0]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Stop filibustering me. This isn't the U.S. Senate floor. You know what I'm asking for, in a broad sense.

There is no concensus

[pilight 2]

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, what are the results? What's the consensus?

Opinion is largely along ideological lines.  There is no consensus.  It's very different from something like Kelo v New London, a left leaning decision that has been widely denounced by the vast majority of the public.

[Patine 35]

1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

There is no concensus

Any American who supports Citizen's United knowing what it is or means must either be a wealthy plutocrat themselves or fully and culpably willing to sell out their nation and it's form of government to corporate control. It is not a matter of "free speech," as the lobby promoted - that was a deception.

[NYrepublican 0]

57 minutes ago, Patine said:

Any American who supports Citizen's United knowing what it is or means must either be a wealthy plutocrat themselves or fully and culpably willing to sell out their nation and it's form of government to corporate control. It is not a matter of "free speech," as the lobby promoted - that was a deception.

Money and donations are speech.

[pilight 2]

27 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Money and donations are speech.

Therefore, bribery should no more illegal than talking to an authority figure.

[NYrepublican 0]

1 minute ago, pilight said:

Therefore, bribery should no more illegal than talking to an authority figure.

If there's a quid pro quo for the donation it's bribery if not it isn't.

[pilight 2]

14 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

If there's a quid pro quo for the donation it's bribery if not it isn't.

All donations to politicians are quid pro quo.  Politician promises to pursue Policy X.  If Policy X is favorable to you then you donate.  The more you stand to benefit then the more you're likely to donate.

[NYrepublican 0]

2 minutes ago, pilight said:

All donations to politicians are quid pro quo.  Politician promises to pursue Policy X.  If Policy X is favorable to you then you donate.  The more you stand to benefit then the more you're likely to donate.

So you advocate banning all donations and having publicly funded campaigns?

[jvikings1 0]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

What about Citizen's United, one of the biggest betrayals by the U.S. Supreme Court to the common American people and one of the biggest blows to the power of the common people to choose their elected representatives and hold them accountable over, and as opposed, the tiny plutocratic oligarchic minority, by effectively legalizing bribery of elected officials and candidates for such office? Why is this precedent next to never discussed?

Citizens United was a win for 1st Amendment advocates.  It also exposed the lack of effectiveness of campaign finance restrictions.

[pilight 2]

22 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

So you advocate banning all donations and having publicly funded campaigns?

No.  I'm saying restrictions on donations are not a violation of free speech.

[NYrepublican 0]

2 minutes ago, pilight said:

No.  I'm saying restrictions on donations are not a violation of free speech.

Well if all donations are quid pro quo however indirectly and are as such bribery why shouldn't donations be banned period.

[ThePotatoWalrus 0]

Any cap or restriction on an individual, corporation, PAC, or union giving financial aid to a campaign or politician is a violation of the first amendment in my eyes.

[NYrepublican 0]

23 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Any cap or restriction on an individual, corporation, PAC, or union giving financial aid to a campaign or politician is a violation of the first amendment in my eyes.

Agreed

[Patine 35]

2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

If there's a quid pro quo for the donation it's bribery if not it isn't.

 

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

Citizens United was a win for 1st Amendment advocates.  It also exposed the lack of effectiveness of campaign finance restrictions.

 

19 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Any cap or restriction on an individual, corporation, PAC, or union giving financial aid to a campaign or politician is a violation of the first amendment in my eyes.

You three, like so many others, have been hoodwinked. Money is not speech. No sane or rational person who actually thinks about it would come to that conclusion. The Citizen's United lobby used the lie (and yes, I'm using the word lie here) that money does equate speech to gain support from a large proportion of the population for surrendering their ability to truly choose and hold accountable their elected officials and to sell out their own nation and government willingly to ultra-wealthy plutocrats. The Republic has died, and you three are joyously singing a happy dirge for it!

[NYrepublican 0]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

You three, like so many others, have been hoodwinked. Money is not speech. No sane or rational person who actually thinks about it would come to that conclusion. The Citizen's United lobby used the lie (and yes, I'm using the word lie here) that money does equate speech to gain support from a large proportion of the population for surrendering their ability to truly choose and hold accountable their elected officials and to sell out their own nation and government willingly to ultra-wealthy plutocrats. The Republic has died, and you three are joyously singing a happy dirge for it!

If you donate a million dollars to planned parenthood even if under the hood it's still indirect speech expressed by donation.

[jvikings1 0]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

 

You three, like so many others, have been hoodwinked. Money is not speech. No sane or rational person who actually thinks about it would come to that conclusion. The Citizen's United lobby used the lie (and yes, I'm using the word lie here) that money does equate speech to gain support from a large proportion of the population for surrendering their ability to truly choose and hold accountable their elected officials and to sell out their own nation and government willingly to ultra-wealthy plutocrats. The Republic has died, and you three are joyously singing a happy dirge for it!

I have not been hoodwinked.  If someone wishes to use money to support a cause they support, then they are free to do so.  That is protected by the 1st Amendment.  Further, regulations restricting to candidates directly leads to back channels being used (like super PACs) which reduces a candidate's ability to control their message and hurts grassroots candidates (benefiting Establishment candidates and incumbents).