Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
NYrepublican

Supreme court decisions

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, NYrepublican 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Where?

Online and IRL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

Online and IRL

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

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

263,000,000 page hits from Google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Money and donations are speech.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×