Corporations are People?

[NoHolyCows]

Why is only Citizens United Inc. "not people"?


WILL NO ONE EVER ANSWER this question?

Why do you insist that the film about Hilary had to be banned? What was it about Citizens United Inc. that its film needed to be banned for the public good? Many well-financed corporations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which are controversial, are far more powerful than Citizens United Inc. ever was, and no federal agency ever prevented them from producing controversial propaganda which could influence voters. (Maybe they try to stay nonpolitical, or not produce propaganda to influence voters, but when they do get political or controversial, no one suggests that a gov't agency should step in and suppress their free speech, even if they might influence voters.)

What is so special about the Hilary film that it and only it had to be banned for the good of the public? and no other political film or production of any kind -- except a very few cases where military secrecy or security was an issue -- ever was banned orC needed to be banned from the media such as that one film was banned? i.e., a purely domestic political propaganda film relating to the political parties or politicians? despite the incentive of the opposing side to suppress it? There were some controversial films/books banned at the state and local levels, but never by federal agencies, because of the 1st Amendment protections of free speech.

Out of all the controversial and political films produced going back to 1900, why is the Hilary film of Citizens United Inc. the only one which ever was blatantly banned from being allowed on the media?

You keep circling one example because you want to reframe a campaign finance rule as if it were the first federal ban on political speech in U.S. history. That premise is false.

The Hillary movie fight happened because federal election law already restricted corporations from using general treasury funds to pay for electioneering in federal races. The 2002 law tightened that by creating a defined window near elections for certain broadcast communications that name a candidate. The FEC applied that rule to Citizens United’s planned video on demand release, and Citizens United challenged the rule.

Calling that “the only time the federal government ever censored political propaganda” is a rhetorical trick. For decades before 2008, federal law restricted corporate spending in federal elections in multiple ways. The Citizens United decision did not “restore an ancient right that was never touched.” It overturned parts of an existing federal regime that had been upheld in prior cases and that had been enforced well before this movie.

Now the ACLU point you keep using as a trap. Nobody serious is saying “the ACLU has no First Amendment rights.” The ACLU does have speech rights. The real dispute is narrower and you keep flattening it on purpose. The dispute is whether the government may regulate corporate treasury election spending to prevent corruption and distortion while still leaving corporations free to speak through other channels, including PACs, member speech, press activity, and ordinary issue advocacy. Citizens United answered that question one way. People who disagree are not calling for Soviet-style censorship. They are arguing for a different campaign finance line, not for banning political ideas.

Your “why only Citizens United” question is also backwards. It was never only Citizens United. The rule applied to every corporation and union. Citizens United is just the case that reached the Supreme Court and changed the rule for everyone.

So here is the clean bottom line. Citizens United was not about whether “Citizens United Inc is people.” It was about whether corporate treasury spending tied to elections can be limited. You can argue that should never be limited. But you do not get to rewrite history and pretend there were no federal limits until 2008, or pretend anyone who disagrees is secretly demanding book bans. That’s not an argument. It’s a dodge.

You could say the same about many/most corporations (profit and non-profit) which do something controversial or political. E.g. why weren't some PBS programs banned by the FEC, like some "Frontline" programs which are political and might influence voters? and are produced by a corporation which acquires more political power through financial expenditures than Citizens United ever acquired. PBS and other corporations occasionally produce propaganda of one form or another, like videos or print publications or audio productions which might influence voters and are even intended to influence them on an issue being debated in an election period. PBS documentaries (e.g. the Frontline episodes) are very political in some cases and could easily influence voters during an election period.

Isn't it good to have these influences, which can be educational for voters? And yet how can politicians in power be trusted to judge which "influences" on us are healthy ones and which ones should be banned?

How many hundreds/thousands of other films should also have been federally banned, which had corporate funding and contained political content which might influence voters? How many were banned earlier, back to 1900 when films began to be produced? It's true that the controversial film Birth of a Nation was banned, but only in a few isolated localities, never by federal law. Why was it necessary to break from this precedent in 2008 and federally ban a partisan political propaganda film for the first time in U.S. history? What was the reason to do this in 2008, but never before going back 100 years?

You’re still smuggling in a false premise by calling this a federal ban on political films.

The rule was about corporate treasury funded electioneering communications, basically paid broadcast distribution and ads that name a candidate close to an election. It was not a general government power to screen every political documentary and decide what the public may watch.

That is why PBS Frontline is not your parallel. Frontline is journalism and documentary programming distributed by a media outlet in its ordinary press function. Federal election law has long treated the press differently from outside groups buying election season broadcast time to run candidate focused messaging. If you erase that distinction on purpose, you can pretend the government should have been “banning PBS,” but that’s just you rewriting what the law targeted.

Citizens United was not singled out because it was uniquely scary. It got flagged because it was a non media entity using corporate funds to distribute a candidate centered program in the election window in a way the statute defined as electioneering communication. You can argue that statute was wrong. Fine. But stop calling it “the first federal ban on political propaganda since 1900.” It wasn’t that, and you know it.

And your question about trusting politicians cuts against you. If your real principle is “no rules at all, ever,” then say that plainly and own the consequences, including foreign money and corporate treasury money saturating elections without limit. But don’t hide that radical position behind a fake history lesson about PBS being “next on the chopping block.”

You mean like the influence of PBS and other corporations which produce and broadcast films?

How do you know what the Constitution "never intended"? other than in your subjective feelings? mystical cosmic vibes? Why do your cosmic vibes tell you it intends for that one film in 2008 to be banned, even though there are many other film producers, corporate and noncorporate, which have vastly more "political influence" than Citizens United ever had?

Neither the nation as a whole, nor the historians/experts agree on what "the Constitution never intended" or intended about someone not gaining political influence. The Constitution never suggests that "artificial entities" -- like the ACLU and other corporations or Native American tribes or families or cooperatives or partnerships or associations etc. are forbidden or restricted from having political influence and expressing it through producing some kind of propaganda. That the Constitution is silent about something -- "never intended" it -- does not mean that it therefore prohibits it. Rather, if anything, the spirit of the Constitution is that the federal gov't should leave all individuals and groups free to exert any influence they wish, with none ever being censored, or their productions banned, such as the FEC selectively banned that film in 2008.

There are some laws restricting political campaign donations, which Citizens United did not change. But there are no laws -- as falsely implied in the phrase "political influence that the Constitution never intended" -- saying that groups (including corporations) are restricted from exerting political influence. You can't name any such law. There are only some laws restricting the amount of donations, nothing saying anyone is prohibited from having influence on voters or election outcomes and spending as they wish to exert influence.


Exerting political influence on people is not wrong or illegal or improper or unconstitutional for anyone (including a corporation).

There are entities (artificial and non-artificial) which gain political influence in one way or another, maybe very extensive influence that others do not gain. There are entities which gain (unequal) influence in many ways, maybe affecting people's lives, but there's nothing illegal or derogatory or "unconstitutional" about it, and thus there's no reason to go around banning their films at the whim of some federal agent who is offended by them. Such as you insist that the FEC had to ban that film in 2008. What other federal bans do you want federal agents to impose onto someone? Do you want to ban some political talk shows during election periods? Why not? That's an obvious example of unequal political influence which some have because they are well funded by someone (both corporate and noncorporate) having vastly more power than 99% of us.

No one is giving the reason why this particular act of censorship in 2008 was necessary and why the Court was not correct to overrule that arbitrary act by the FEC. Your slogan "corporations are not people" is no explanation why this act of censorship was necessary in this one case when it had never been necessary before. Stop making up stories about imaginary cases where you assume it happened so you don't need any facts other than just your storytelling as your only evidence.

And don't say "But we're not for book-banning!" Yes you are -- if you're for film-banning as in this case, then you're also for book-banning, because there's no difference. They're both about free speech and free press.

You’re still doing the same dodge, just longer.

You keep yelling “why ban that one film” as if the FEC was an all purpose Ministry of Culture. It wasn’t. It enforced a narrow statute about corporate treasury funded electioneering communications in a defined election window. That’s why the case exists at all. It was not a general power to ban political speech across America, and pretending it was is pure theatrics.

You also keep pretending my view is “the Constitution never intended influence” or “my vibes say ban it.” I have not said influence is illegal or immoral. I’m saying corporate law creates an entity that can aggregate capital, shield owners, and persist, and that changes what election spending means in practice. The debate is about whether we treat that spending identically to an actual citizen’s speech. That is a policy and constitutional question, not your made up morality play about “you want book burning.

PBS is not your gotcha because press outlets are treated differently under election law and First Amendment doctrine. If you can’t admit the press carve out exists, you’re not arguing, you’re role playing.

And drop the “if you allow any rule you’re pro censorship and book banning” move. Rules about who can spend from what pool of money, in what election window, are not the same thing as banning ideas. If you want the absolutist position that there should be zero limits on any spending by anyone including corporations and foreigners, say that plainly. Just don’t lie about what the law was and don’t pretend every rule is Nazis and Soviets.

Your whole argument collapses to this. You want a single rule, money equals speech, unlimited, no distinction between a citizen and a state chartered entity, no meaningful guardrails. That’s your ideology. Own it.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

Why is only Citizens United Inc. "not people"?


WILL NO ONE EVER ANSWER this question?

Why do you insist that the film about Hilary had to be banned? What was it about Citizens United Inc. that its film needed to be banned for the public good? Many well-financed corporations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which are controversial, are far more powerful than Citizens United Inc. ever was, and no federal agency ever prevented them from producing controversial propaganda which could influence voters. (Maybe they try to stay nonpolitical, or not produce propaganda to influence voters, but when they do get political or controversial, no one suggests that a gov't agency should step in and suppress their free speech, even if they might influence voters.)

What is so special about the Hilary film that it and only it had to be banned for the good of the public? and no other political film or production of any kind -- except a very few cases where military secrecy or security was an issue -- ever was banned or needed to be banned from the media such as that one film was banned? i.e., a purely domestic political propaganda film relating to the political parties or politicians? despite the incentive of the opposing side to suppress it? There were some controversial films/books banned at the state and local levels, but never by federal agencies, because of the 1st Amendment protections of free speech.

Out of all the controversial and political films produced going back to 1900, why is the Hilary film of Citizens United Inc. the only one which ever was blatantly banned from being allowed on the media?

. . . in this case, corporations were not granted political power by the state — they were allowed to acquire it through unlimited financial expenditures, [which was declared legal] under the Citizens United ruling.

You could say the same about many/most corporations (profit and non-profit) which do something controversial or political. E.g. why weren't some PBS programs banned by the FEC, like some "Frontline" programs which are political and might influence voters? and are produced by a corporation which acquires more political power through financial expenditures than Citizens United ever acquired. PBS and other corporations occasionally produce propaganda of one form or another, like videos or print publications or audio productions which might influence voters and are even intended to influence them on an issue being debated in an election period. PBS documentaries (e.g. the Frontline episodes) are very political in some cases and could easily influence voters during an election period.

Isn't it good to have these influences, which can be educational for voters? And yet how can politicians in power be trusted to judge which "influences" on us are healthy ones and which ones should be banned?

How many hundreds/thousands of other films should also have been federally banned, which had corporate funding and contained political content which might influence voters? How many were banned earlier, back to 1900 when films began to be produced? It's true that the controversial film Birth of a Nation was banned, but only in a few isolated localities, never by federal law. Why was it necessary to break from this precedent in 2008 and federally ban a partisan political propaganda film for the first time in U.S. history? What was the reason to do this in 2008, but never before going back 100 years?

The concern is that corporations gained a form of political influence that the Constitution never intended for artificial entities, . . .

You mean like the influence of PBS and other corporations which produce and broadcast films?

How do you know what the Constitution "never intended"? other than in your subjective feelings? mystical cosmic vibes? Why do your cosmic vibes tell you it intends for that one film in 2008 to be banned, even though there are many other film producers, corporate and noncorporate, which have vastly more "political influence" than Citizens United ever had?

Neither the nation as a whole, nor the historians/experts agree on what "the Constitution never intended" or intended about someone not gaining political influence. The Constitution never suggests that "artificial entities" -- like the ACLU and other corporations or Native American tribes or families or cooperatives or partnerships or associations etc. are forbidden or restricted from having political influence and expressing it through producing some kind of propaganda. That the Constitution is silent about something -- "never intended" it -- does not mean that it therefore prohibits it. Rather, if anything, the spirit of the Constitution is that the federal gov't should leave all individuals and groups free to exert any influence they wish, with none ever being censored, or their productions banned, such as the FEC selectively banned that film in 2008.

There are some laws restricting political campaign donations, which Citizens United did not change. But there are no laws -- as falsely implied in the phrase "political influence that the Constitution never intended" -- saying that groups (including corporations) are restricted from exerting political influence. You can't name any such law. There are only some laws restricting the amount of donations, nothing saying anyone is prohibited from having influence on voters or election outcomes and spending as they wish to exert influence (except maybe the new 2002 election reform law which was overturned by the Court in 2010).


Exerting political influence on people is not wrong or illegal or improper or unconstitutional for anyone (including a corporation).

There are entities (artificial and non-artificial) which gain political influence in one way or another, maybe very extensive influence that others do not gain. There are entities which gain (unequal) influence in many ways, maybe affecting people's lives, but there's nothing illegal or derogatory or "unconstitutional" about it, and thus there's no reason to go around banning their films at the whim of some federal agent who is offended by them. Such as you insist that the FEC had to ban that film in 2008. What other federal bans do you want federal agents to impose onto someone? Do you want to ban some political talk shows during election periods? Why not? That's an obvious example of unequal political influence which some have because they are well funded by someone (both corporate and noncorporate) having vastly more power than 99% of us.

No one is giving the reason why this particular act of censorship in 2008 was necessary and why the Court was not correct to overrule that arbitrary act by the FEC. Your slogan "corporations are not people" is no explanation why this act of censorship was necessary in this one case when it had never been necessary before. Stop making up stories about imaginary cases where you assume it happened so you don't need any facts other than just your storytelling as your only evidence.

And don't say "But we're not for book-banning!" Yes you are -- if you're for film-banning as in this case, then you're also for book-banning, because there's no difference. They're both about free speech and free press.

. . . and without the kind of accountability or democratic input that typically comes with delegated authority.

What "delegated authority"? When you go to the bathroom to relieve yourself you have the same "delegated authority" to do that just as surely as Citizens United had "delegated authority" to produce that film you wanted banned. The U.S. Constitution gives us all the liberty to do what we want with our lives or our property, so everything we choose to do is from the "delegated authority" granted to us. And in groups, the vast majority of acts taken are done without "accountability" or "democratic input" from -- from whoever you think was supposed to hold them accountable. Who do you insist must be put in charge of imposing this "accountability" which 99% of the time is not the case, or not necessary?

Just because some groups occasionally vote on something does not mean that the norm is to not act unless you first hold a formal vote on a decision, according to someone's designated procedure. There's no such designated procedure all groups (including corporations) must follow before their decision is legitimate. And in the few cases where there is some formal procedure imposed, it's routine for it to be ignored if that would be more convenient, or followed if that's really best in a particular case. There's no need to demand that the formal procedure must always be followed even when no practical need requires it. Any member who seriously objects just resigns from the group. Whatever your "delegated authority" and "accountability" rhetoric means, it's just your subjective impulse, not something mandatory for all groups (or corporations) to comply with as you demand it or else they're subject to being banned from publishing something.

It's the norm for those running the group to make decisions without holding a vote following a prescribed "democratic" procedure or being screened by a prescribed "accountability" proceeding. 90% of the time a group does not hold specially prescribed "democratic" proceedings before it can act according to the wishes of those who run the group. You have no facts to show that Citizens United flouted some federal "accountability" requirements or regime you want to impose. And the real decision-making patterns are the same for both corporate and noncorporate entities, depending on how formal they choose to be. Where there are required procedures, they are followed when it's convenient or necessary, and ignored (probably in most cases) as inconvenient.


Should the ACLU be banned from publishing anything controversial during an election year?

It might influence voters, and 99% of us have much less wealth and political power than the ACLU, so it could easily manipulate us unfairly, even change the election outcome.

You haven't once given any reason why this one singular act of censorship by the FEC was necessary to protect the public interest. Your legalistic explanations could fit hundreds or thousands of other cases of films produced or various forms of political propaganda, produced by corporations and noncorporations, exercising their 1st Amendment rights, in some cases where they likely had influence on voters, maybe even to the point of changing the election results. And even if they did influence an election outcome in a case or 2, there was nothing wrong with that. It's not illegal or harmful or damaging to society for someone (even someone having "power") to promote a cause and thereby influence voters and change the outcome of an election -- as long as the change is due to persuasion of voters and not by falsifying or destroying ballots.

And until this case in 2008 there was never any pretense by someone that therefore someone's political propaganda had to be banned as you're insisting that this one film in 2008 had to be banned. You're not distinguishing this one case from all the thousands of possible cases where also a film or other propaganda could have been banned for reasons similar to what you're giving in this case why such censorship was necessary.

If you're saying this case, or Court decision, was a "game-changer" which unleashed a barrage of new propaganda appearing later, what are the examples of such propaganda you would ban? What other similar propaganda films since then should also have been suppressed? Name what else you want to ban in addition to this one film in 2008. Why only this one? Why not also books you think might be unwholesome for people to read and might influence their voting? If you can't name one other example, then you're saying this one film by Citizens United was very special in history, as the only case ever of political propaganda in the U.S. which needed to be federally banned. Why? What is so special about this one film that you're obsessed with banning it? and overturning the Court decision to protect the producer from having its 1st Amendment rights suppressed?

And prior to the 2002 election reform law (leading to the 2008 FEC censorship which you insist was necessary (but can't say why)) -- tell us what other films or political propaganda had been banned by the federal government? Why can't you name a single case of this? Why do you continue to tell the falsehood that it had been the norm to ban political films etc. like the FEC did in 2008? and yet you can't name one example? but only pretend there were hypothetical cases and so it must be a fact? How many more facts do you have which we're supposed to believe even though they're only hypothetical and never really happened?



CLARIFICATION: One earlier film from Citizens United was also restricted in 2004. In 2008 the Hilary film was banned for 30 days prior to the election. Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 film was not restricted by the FEC.

You’re still conflating ordinary liberty with state-conferred legal power, and that’s the mistake you keep circling without ever landing.

Going to the bathroom is not “delegated authority.” It doesn’t create a separate legal actor, doesn’t aggregate other people’s money, doesn’t shield anyone from liability, and doesn’t exist independently of the human being doing it. A corporation does all of those things. That’s the difference, and pretending otherwise is just wordplay.

No one is claiming groups must vote on everything or follow some idealized democracy test. That’s a straw man. The point is simpler and narrower: when the state creates an entity that can pool capital from many people, persist indefinitely, and act in politics as a single speaker insulated from personal accountability, the speech is no longer just people talking. It’s an institutional instrument. Treating that identically to a human being’s speech is a policy choice, not a constitutional inevitability.

You keep demanding “why this one film,” but that misses the point. The case wasn’t about the moral quality of the film. It was about whether Congress could draw a line around corporate treasury spending in elections to prevent structural distortion. The Court said no. Others think yes. That disagreement doesn’t require anyone to want book bans, talk-show bans, or a censorship regime. That’s another rhetorical leap you keep making because it’s easier than addressing the actual issue.

You also keep invoking the ACLU as if it’s a trap. It isn’t. Saying a corporation isn’t a human person does not mean it has no speech rights. It means its rights are derivative, conditional, and regulable in ways human rights are not. The ACLU itself has said exactly that. This isn’t radical, and it isn’t hatred. It’s how constitutional law has always distinguished persons from legal entities.

And finally, stop claiming there was “never” federal regulation before 2002. There was. The scope changed, the tools changed, and Citizens United changed the doctrine again. That’s how law works. Declaring one enforcement action the birth of tyranny doesn’t make it so.

Bottom line is no one is obsessed with banning one film. The argument is about whether unlimited corporate treasury spending in elections is constitutionally required. It isn’t. Reasonable people can disagree with the Court without wanting censorship, without wanting to silence dissent, and without buying into your all-or-nothing absolutism.

That’s the answer you keep asking for.

NHC

 

[Swammerdami]

In a personal first I have Ignored my very first thread. Apologies to all participants except ... he knows who he is.
This post attests that it's possible to read and post to an Ignored thread.

In other news I have finally received my long-overdue promotion from O-4 to O-8.

 

[WAB]

In other news I have finally received my long-overdue promotion from O-4 to O-8.

?

 

[bilby]

Why is only Citizens United Inc. "not people"?

It isn't. All corporations are not people. Indeed, the set of things that are not people is extremely large. The planet Jupiter is not a person. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a person. My puppy Tashi is not a person.

WILL NO ONE EVER ANSWER this question?

I JUST DID and there's no need to shout.

NHC DID TOO^

Why do you insist that the film about Hilary had to be banned?

I don't. I haven't seen anyone else here insisting on that, either.

 

[bilby]

In other news I have finally received my long-overdue promotion from O-4 to O-8.

?

Yeah, I am confused too. An Air Vice Marshal is an OF-7 rank in Commonwealth Air Forces (equivalent to Major General, O-8, in the USAF); But Swammerdami indicates in his profile that he is a Vice Marshal, with no "Air", and that's not a military rank at all.

My guess would be that a Vice Marshal wears a flurorescent vest and controls the crowds outside a brothel that is hosting a mass attendance event of some kind.

 

[ZiprHead]

WILL NO ONE EVER ANSWER this question?

Will you please stop with this bullshit question. It's been answered numerous times. Stop being such a baby.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why not censor PBS? or NBC or CNN or Fox newscasts/commentary?
(during the election year)

How are you deciding whose political speech to ban (restrict etc.) and whose not to? Why are you obsessed with banning this one film (or maybe 2) from Citizens United, and no other film? Why did Citizens United have to be suppressed and no one else?

You could say the same about many/most corporations (profit and non-profit) which do something controversial or political. E.g. why weren't some PBS programs banned by the FEC, like some "Frontline" programs which are political and might influence voters? and are produced by a corporation which acquires more political power through financial expenditures than Citizens United ever acquired. PBS and other corporations occasionally produce propaganda of one form or another, like videos or print publications or audio productions which might influence voters and . . . . How many hundreds/thousands of other films should also have been federally banned, which had corporate funding and contained political content which might influence voters?

Since you refuse to answer this again and again, the following must be what you're actually saying:

. . . political content which might influence voters? How many . . .

You’re still conflating ordinary liberty with state-conferred legal power [e.g. PBS, which produces political programming which might influence voters and so should be censored, banned, during the elections], and that’s the mistake you keep circling without ever landing.

OK, at least this is now being consistent. You would also ban PBS political content programming and videos during the election period, if it might influence voters. I disagree -- I want PBS to keep producing the same political content. Why do you want to also ban PBS? as your above argument requires?

Going to the bathroom is not “delegated authority.” It doesn’t create a separate legal actor, doesn’t aggregate other people’s money, doesn’t shield anyone from liability, and doesn’t exist independently of the human being doing it. A corporation [like PBS] does all of those things [and so should be banned or restricted from political programming during election periods]. That’s the difference, and pretending otherwise is just wordplay

I disagree that PBS political programs should be censored only because this corporation exercises "delegated authority" and "aggregates other people's money" and "shields people from liability and exists independently of the human being doing it." Why do you think those are reasons to ban PBS programs which are political?

No one is claiming groups must vote on everything or follow some idealized democracy test. That’s a straw man. The point is simpler and narrower: when the state creates an entity [like PBS] that can pool capital from many people, persist indefinitely, and act in politics as a single speaker insulated from personal accountability, the speech is no longer just people talking. It’s an institutional instrument. Treating [PBS productions like] that identically to a human being’s speech is a policy choice, not a constitutional inevitability [and so PBS and other political speech producers should be prohibited from showing their political content programs during the election period, so it does not unfairly influence voters].

I disagree with you that PBS political speech should be curtailed or banned. ALL political matter should be presented freely by any producers, no matter who, regardless if it might influence voters. It's not wrong for corporations or anyone else to have an influence on voters.

You keep demanding “why this one film,” but that misses the point. The case wasn’t about the moral quality of the film [but about all political content video productions, including from PBS, not just "this one film"]. It was about whether Congress could draw a line around [PBS and other] corporate treasury spending in elections to prevent structural distortion. The Court said no. Others think yes. That disagreement doesn’t require anyone to want book bans, talk-show bans, or a censorship regime [unless the books or talk show and other electioneering communications are produced by corporations like PBS, in which case they should be banned during the election period. Banning PBS political programs and other "electioneering communications" for only a few weeks during election time would not be "banning" anything or suppressing their rights].

I disagree -- I think any prohibition of "electioneering communications" even near election time is unconstitutional. All producers including broadcasters both private and public and corporate and noncorporate and all news producers of any kind should be left free to publish any propaganda they wish, including political propaganda during election time. Censoring PBS during the election period as your argument calls for would do more harm than good.

Stop demanding that PBS political speech be banned or restricted or suppressed just because PBS is a corporation and there's an election going on. It's not wrong for any producer to have an impact on voters, possibly influencing them. Why do you think the voters are too stupid to be able to receive this political speech and consider it thoughtfully?

You also keep invoking the ACLU as if it’s a trap. It isn’t. Saying a corporation isn’t a human person does not mean it has no speech rights. It means its rights are derivative, conditional, and regulable in ways human rights are not . . .

Wrong. Human rights are also derivative, conditional and "regulable" -- no essential difference between the rights of a human individual and the rights of a group of individual humans. E.g., a jury member is deprived of some 1st Amendment rights just like a corporation is in certain cases, because no "right" is absolute. Rights to human individuals are subject to certain conditions which can vary from one human to another, just as rights to groups can vary from one group to another. So there is nothing special or unique about the rights of groups in contrast to individual humans. All rights are subject to limits depending on the particular case.

. . . [and so banning political programming from corporations like PBS during election periods is not denying any free speech rights].

Yes it is. To ban or suppress PBS political speech as your argument requires, you must give the practical reason or need for it. It's not just that you have this God-given right to suppress something because you might have the political muscle to impose it ("might makes right"), but rather, that the free speech you want to curtail would do some kind of harm to society, and you have never given any example of the harm which that political speech (by PBS or other political-speech producer) would inflict onto society.

So first tell us what the harm would be to society if that political speech (by PBS or by Citizens United or other producer) should be allowed. That's the first big step you must take. It's not enough for you to just say you have the power to do it -- no, you have to show that there's a need for the gov't agency to step in and suppress that political speech, like the FEC did in 2008. Which you have not done, with your rhetoric and legalese techno-jargon abstractions. Give us the practical reason why this particular political speech (in the Hilary film e.g.) would harm society, whereas that other political speech over there would not harm society. Where the censorship is really legitimate, you can name to us what the harm is that would be inflicted onto society by allowing the free speech. Why can't you name what the harm would be (as you have not done so far)?

Can you finally figure it out how it is that you've not answered this at all? You've not explained what puts this one producer in the category to be suppressed and the other in a different category not to be suppressed. Trumpers in the gov't would have no trouble taking your criteria and applying it to hundreds/thousands of productions, from PBS or others, to suppress their videos etc. which contain political content that would influence voters and maybe change an election outcome. Our country and our elections would be greatly damaged if we should adopt your proposed clamp-down on free speech (which the Court rejected in 2010).

And finally, stop claiming there was “never” federal regulation before 2002.

If I said that I should be taken out and shot. We agree that there were many many federal regulations before 2002. If any such thing is in my post somewhere, it was a demon which took over and possessed my body at the time, and I apologize -- I'll seek psychiatric help to expel that demon if you found any such nutty remark in a previous post of mine.

There was.

There was no federal banning of any political films until 2002. That's what I've repeated over and over again, and you have no facts to show otherwise. You want to institute new federal banning or restriction of films, which never happened prior to the 2002 law. Such ban did happen in 2008, which was overturned by the Court in 2010, and you want that Court decision to be overturned so that banning of political propaganda can again be inflicted onto producers like in the 2002 law.

The scope changed, the tools changed, . . .

Yes, federal censorship and banning of films is a new fascist scope and fascist tool which the FEC introduced in 2008/2004 following the 2002 election reform law, which fascist-thinking Progressives want to re-institute by throwing out the Court decision of 2010 which so far has protected us from this fascism.

. . . and Citizens United changed the doctrine again.

restoring the original 1st Amendment rights like they were back to the origin of the Constitution, without any federal banning of any political propaganda. And you still cannot name one case going back to 1789 of any federal banning/censorship of any film, with the 2008/2004 FEC action being the first case of it. Stop pussyfooting around and name one earlier case where a federal agency banned any political propaganda. (i.e., domestic politics, not something military or military secrecy/security during war time)

That’s how law works. Declaring one enforcement action the birth of tyranny doesn’t make it so.

Bottom line is no one is obsessed with banning one film.

True, your fascists also banned a 2nd film (or tried to -- it's not clear) earlier in the 2004 election period -- which before I had not known of. So you're obsessed with banning those 2 films only, and overlooking all the millions of other "electioneering communications" which also could be banned for the same reasons --- they might influence voters, and they're produced by corporations, like PBS -- which should never be politically censored, but by your rules they'd have to be restricted from showing many of their newscasts and documentaries during election time. Luckily your oppressive fascist law was overturned by the Court. Trumpers hate PBS and would be happy to use your election reform guidelines to suppress PBS. Thanks to Citizens United, the Trumpers will have much greater difficulty trying to suppress news coverage this fall when the Administration will try to manipulate and censor public information to steal the election.

The argument is about whether unlimited corporate treasury spending in elections is constitutionally required. It isn’t.

No, you know that's not the argument. It's about unlimited spending by anyone (not just corporations) on political subject matter, regardless whether it would influence voters, and regardless who is spending it (no discrimination against anyone). Whereas you want to curtail political speech by certain entities you hate which you call "corporations" -- and you intend for this censorship to be targeted only against certain select "electioneering communications" producers on your political enemies list, while all "electioneering communications" producers you agree with are given a free pass to continue producing their electioneering communications without limit.

The Supreme Court turned down your fascist suppression of free speech by making it very simple: ALL producers of any videos or political propaganda (and "electioneering communications") are protected by the 1st Amendment, even if they're corporations (like PBS); and so they cannot be suppressed in putting their production into the media in some form to influence voters. This protection is extended to ALL Americans regardless of what kind or group they may be. Just saying silly slogans like "Oh, but that's a corporation and so they're 'not people' and don't have the same rights" etc. etc. is tossed out as just so much rubbish --- Stop it! ALL ARE PROTECTED! all individual humans and all groups of individual humans no matter what you call them, even if you find a way to say they're "not people" or they're "aliens" or they're "communists" or "nazis" or "the Antichrist" or any other nutcase terminology. You cannot deprive people (as individuals or as groups) of this basic right to free speech -- freedom to not be censored in putting out their political propaganda, no matter who is offended by it or how scapegoated they are.

And you've not explained why Citizens United is the only exception to this. Your mumbo-jumbo legalese has not addressed this at all, over all the times you've repeated it, never once explaining how your standards would not also apply to hundreds or even thousands of other producers who also put out political propaganda in many different forms (which many others could not afford to do -- so this power to politically influence the public is definitely UNEQUAL, like much else in life).

The real solution: Get used to it! Stop crusading to shut someone else down who might have more power than you -- that's just a fact of life. There are millions of unequal players in the arena -- many who are weaker than you are, probably even being trampled underfoot by you or your comrades and you don't even know it. You can crusade in some ways to change things, and there are many ways to make changes without doing it by censoring something and stomping down anyone's 1st Amendment rights. And limiting political speech rights is not only an assault on those doing that speech, but also on millions of little people-spectators who want that speech there as something they can choose to listen to, or also to ignore by just changing to a different channel.

That's what American healthy freedom should be about.

Reasonable people can disagree with the Court without wanting censorship, without wanting to silence dissent, and . . .

So then you DON'T want the censorship and DON'T want the silencing of dissent which the FEC did in banning that film! And so you agree that it was unconstitutional to ban the Citizens United film, and therefore you disagree with the FEC silencing them and suppressing that film, and so you agree with the Citizens United decision.

And if you disagree, it's only over some technicality in Citizens United, but you agree that the censorship by the FEC was wrong and that the Court in that case was mainly right in rejecting that censorship and free-speech suppression.

Yes, reasonable Americans should agree that it was a good decision, regardless if there were some other fine-point technicalities in the decision which were mistaken (which is probably true in 90% of cases).

. . . without buying into your all-or-nothing absolutism.

translation: "free speech" is a principle which applies when we're defending our own personal speech or speech of our group. But it's a relative notion, not absolute, so it need not apply to someone of opposing views to our own (to anyone who is wrong), and so it's OK to ban or suppress free speech by the bad guys, the wrong Party, or wrong candidate.

No, on that point you're wrong. Basic free speech rights should be extended to ALL groups and individuals, with no exceptions -- it's ABSOLUTELY for everyone! NO ONE EXCLUDED -- not capitalists, not landlords, not bankers, not pawnbrokers, not ticket-scalpers, not speculators, deplorables, mobs, gangs, investors, CEOs, slumlords, nabobs-of-negativism, corporations, Jews, publicans, goon-squads, scribes-pharisees-hypocrites, moneychangers, retards, honkies, dickheads, dumpster-babies, trailer-trash, queers, scabs, foreigners, drifters, half-breeds, sweatshop-owners -- name your scapegoat -- they all have the basic free speech rights (including any GROUP of any of the above).

If the free-speech group you hate is really doing something wrong, or needs to be corrected, you have to oppose them with alternative free speech of your own, to counter theirs. The remedy is not to shut down their free speech, but to do counter-speech of your own, in some form. There are many ways to put forth your own free speech to oppose theirs, without the need to silence them and decrease the total speech that's allowed in society.

 

[RVonse]

, and so it's OK to ban or suppress free speech by the bad guys, the wrong Party, or wrong candidate.

Its not OK to ban or suppress free speech by "the bad guys". That is our first amendment which should be protecting every individual from censorship.

But it should be OK to ban or regulate the speech being artificially amplified and manipulated by money. Because big money is not speech even though our supreme court did their best to pretend that it is.

Capital is necessary for a free market economy but should not be allowed to steer our elections. Otherwise the nation is controlled by the highest corporate bidder (China) who might not even be located in the US at all. There is actually a national defense argument not to allow unlimited corporate money in elections.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"Big money" my ass!

Its not OK to ban or suppress free speech by "the bad guys". That is our first amendment which should be protecting every individual from censorship.

But not every group? not every church? newspaper? corporation like the ACLU? labor union? These don't have any 1st Amendment rights and so can be censored by the federal government? (jack-booted) federal agents can raid their meetings and disperse them because the group has no 1st Amendment right to assemble peaceably? and any propaganda they produce can be confiscated/banned? Why? because a group is "not people"?

But it should be OK to ban or regulate the speech being artificially amplified and manipulated by money.

Who defines what is "artificially" amplified vs. non-artificially? the President? the current Party in power?

What about advertising speech? Aren't all the commercials artificially amplified and manipulated by money? How is the political advertising any more artificial or manipulated by money than the product advertising? Should the feds ban any speech which is "amplified" or "manipulated" by money? This would include any speech in schools or churches. All this speech is "amplified" or "manipulated" by money.

Because big money is not speech even though our supreme court did their best to pretend that it is.

You mean the Citizens United decision -- do you even understand the facts of that case? Or are you just reciting the "corporations are not people" chorus? What "big money"? You mean the approximate 1.2 million $$$ spent by Citizens United Inc. for their 2008 film about Hilary? which was banned by the FEC from being posted on the Internet? That's what you mean by "big money"?

But not the hundreds of millions $$$$ political ad money paid to each major network like NBC or ABC or FOX in a presidential election year? that's not "big money"?

Or what about the 20-30 million $$$$ annually spent by PBS on documentaries which are often controversial and contain much political content very critical of certain politicians or parties in power, and which almost certainly influence voters and could impact some election outcomes?

Those tens and hundreds of millions $$$$ in one year to major networks/broadcasters are not "big money"? But the 1.2 million spent by Citizens United Inc. was "big money"?

Why are you demanding that this relatively small corporation be banned from presenting their political film, while allowing the giant multi-billion-dollar corporations to spend vastly more on their political speech and productions? which obviously have far greater impact on voters, and more potential to change an election outcome?

No one is answering this. They are just chanting "corporations are not people!" as a thoughtless slogan to overturn the Citizens United decision, which they can't explain, imagining it has something to do with restricting "big money" in politics, even though Citizens United is tiny compared to the really "big money" interests who dominate politics and influence elections far more than Citizens United ever could. Even the target of their political film, multimillionaire Hilary Clinton, is by herself more wealthy than the entire Citizens United corporation. So how does this Court decision have anything to do with protecting us against "big money" in politics?

Capital is necessary for a free market economy but should not be allowed to steer our elections.

Yes, you mean the "capital" of the smaller players -- crack down on that! you're saying -- (you and HolyCows and Ziprhead and Swammerdami and bilby and etc.), but the big players, where the billions are spent influencing voters, you're oblivious to. "Smash down that one flea of a company" you're chanting with your "corporations are not people" sledge-hammer, while you unconsciously swallow the mega-giants and their billions.

So, "not be allowed to steer our elections" means: Stomp down on the smaller guy who spends a million $$$ on a political film -- be sure to ban that, but hands off the giants who each alone produces billions' worth of ads and documentaries and news commentaries to influence voters. PBS steering elections with its capital is maybe only 10-20-30 times bigger than Citizens United, while the major commercial networks are more like 1000 times bigger. So the general election reform rule you're demanding here seems to be (before you were foiled by Citizens United): the bigger a corporation is, the less is their political content to be restricted or the more they're to be allowed to steer our elections -- and therefore let's overturn Citizens United, which was even-handed toward ALL the players, saying it's free speech to spend what you want on political propaganda, with no censorship on anyone -- the 1st Amendment protection is extended to all people -- individuals and groups -- no matter who or what kind of people entity it is.

That Court's understanding makes much more sense than yours.

Otherwise the nation is controlled by the highest corporate bidder (China) who might not even be located in the US at all.

No, it's "controlled" by no one of the "big money" interests, because it's not true that the biggest of all controls the one whole nation. Under Citizens United there is a vastly greater number of players in the game who are all seeking to direct the voters/elections in their direction, so that they offset each other again and again, knocking down each other's crusade.

How nutty it is to think you make any one of the "big money" interests more powerful by opening it up to ALL the interests big and small, with each one trying to manipulate voters in its direction. Rather, what entrenches the more powerful ones is to have "election reform" law which everyone here wants targeted against the smaller players like Citizens United Inc., while the big players are left free to broadcast billions' worth of political propaganda -- with their "big money" business as usual and politics as usual.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Who or what are you saying is "artificial"? has too much "influence"?
And that therefore their free speech rights must be curtailed?

The concern is that corporations gained a form of political influence that the Constitution never intended for . . .

No they did not. The vast majority, probably 99%, gained no political influence, or virtually none. The vast majority are small, with total assets much less than $1 million, and therefore having no "political influence" to speak of.

And Citizens United Inc. has only a small amount of "political influence" (or had only a small amount in 2008). It would have paid in the range of 1 to 3 million $$$ to present their film, in 2008 (had it not been banned), which represents only a tiny amount of "influence" compared to the $200+ million spent by the Hilary campaign in that primary election period.

. . . corporations gained a form of political influence that the Constitution never . . .

What "form of political influence"? Political films or documentaries might be an outcome of the new technologies today (along with many other genres), but these new technologies are more and more available to ordinary people to do, at modest cost. Anyone can post their own video production on the Internet, at little or no cost. They can spend a few thousand more $$$ to make the production more slick, maybe even 10 or 20 or 50 thousand -- however much, but there's nothing wrong about these new production methods made more and more accessible to small groups or individuals. Why isn't political propaganda content just as legitimate to produce as any other form of video production? along with any "political influence" from it? What's derogatory about politically influencing someone? The viewers free to not watch it if they prefer.

Any Joe Blow can produce a video which bashes a major political celebrity -- and can even get a few hundred (or thousand?) viewers to watch it. Or, invest $10,000 or $50,000 or so to make it more impressive and reach a larger audience. What's wrong with any of that? Low-budget or high-budget (or in between) -- isn't either a legitimate contribution to offer to viewers who are interested? What's offensive about it just because the producer is incorporated, or has a million or 5 million $$$ to plow into it, to increase the impact? It's an art form, with an educational element. Adding more polish or glitter to it is part of the creativity. Or makes it more "professional" etc.

The giants like ABC and NBC and PBS etc. spend vastly more, to increase the impact further. Even C-SPAN. Nothing of theirs was banned. All of them have disproportionate influence and an "unfair" advantage over the average guy, or even the average corporation -- the vast majority of which are too small to make the investment necessary to capture a large audience. Citizens United Inc. is NOT one of the giants having unusual "political influence" -- or it's a little bigger than average, but also it specializes in bashing certain celebrity candidates, and this might have extra impact -- this type of production can have sensationalist appeal. But even so, its spending is just peanuts compared to the 100 million or so $$$$ spent by the political celebrities they bash.

Bernie Sanders spent over $200 million in his 2016 presidential campaign. So he alone is bigger and wealthier than Citizens United Inc. So, why should it be forbidden for someone to spend a few million to bash him? or any other political celebrity? That 2 or 3 or 4 million is not excessive "political influence" which the Constitution "never intended" -- the Constitution "intended" for all groups and individuals to be free to publish any political propaganda they wish, protected by the 1st Amendment. ALL groups of any kind, no matter what -- even "artificial entities" -- so what if it's "artificial"? So a citizen is "created" by the government, and so is "artificial" according to this. But being "artificial" by itself shouldn't mean an entity's 1st Amendment rights are any less. Or having more "political influence" than another. Any "artificial entity" / group of humans is still included in "the people" that the 1st Amendment is intended to protect.

. . . political influence which the Constitution never intended for artificial entities, and without the kind of . . .

"artificial" entities don't have the same basic 1st Amendment rights? Why not? Why shouldn't ALL groups of any kind have 1st Amendment rights? all of them no matter what -- even "artificial entities" -- so what if the group is "artificial"?

You can't just condemn any group you feel like excluding, and explain it by just putting a label on them. If anyone or any group has less rights or has an inferior status to another, then you have to give the reason why. You can't just arbitrarily exclude someone (or some group) by calling them "artificial" and saying that it's all "relative" and not "absolute" -- no, you have to give the reason. Which you've not done.

So a corporation or a partnership or a cooperative or a marriage or a naturalized citizen or an adoption of a child etc. is something "created" by the government and so is "artificial" according to this. Everyone or every group of that category then is "artificial" and not the Real Thing? Even if you insist that they're "artificial" as people or citizens, still that shouldn't mean their 1st Amendment rights are any less (if you can't explain why -- just labeling them "artificial" is no explanation.) Or that they have "political influence" -- yes, some individuals and groups have more "influence" than others, but that doesn't diminish their 1st Amendment rights.

Any "artificial entity" / group of humans is still included in "the people" which (or who) the 1st Amendment is intended to protect. If you say some type or some group is of a lower status because of their "influence" or their artificiality or because everything is "relative" rather than "absolute" -- then give the practical reason why, in each case. Why is Citizens United "artificial" and thus in an inferior category such that its free speech rights are any less than the rights of PBS or the ACLU or NBC or CNN etc.? You've not answered this. You only just keep repeating that "corporations" are in a special category, which doesn't distinguish Citizens United from all the other corporations whose political propaganda was not banned.

. . . without the kind of accountability or democratic input that typically comes with delegated authority.

Again this includes ALL corporations (and probably many NONcorporations also), and so you're falsely saying this is the reason the Citizens United film had to be banned, and yet you're not applying this to any other corporations -- you're not demanding that productions of the megacorporations also be banned, even though they have vastly more wealth and "political influence" than Citizens United ever had. And they're just as "artificial" because they are corporations "created" by the state. So again, explain why you insist that the Citizens United film had to be banned, as you are insisting if you preach that the Court's ruling in this case must be overturned.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Are Progressives just as deranged as the Trumpers?

Here's what Progressives are saying:

Everything that's wrong right now is all caused by one Supreme Court Decision, Citizens United. According to Thom Hartmann (and even Joan Esposito following him on the Chicago station), if that one decision had not happened, we would not be in the mess we're in now. Except for that one decision, we wouldn't have this current Trump nightmare.

And most Progressives seem to believe this pigslop, just like the Trumpers believe whatever lies are told to them by their Demagogue-Leader. The only difference is that the Left has more than one Demagogue-Leader-Messiah at the top telling them the lies. (And they are frantically seeking their own Trump-guru-Pundit to unite around as their Supreme Demagogue Leader on the Left.)


What causes their OBSESSION with Citizens United?

Explain how corporations, like the ACLU and the Girl Scouts, must be deprived of 1st Amendment rights, in order to protect us against some Right-wing Tyranny threatening us? How did these modest non-profit organizations, like Planned Parenthood, the American Humanist Association, ACLU, the Girl Scouts, Citizens United Inc., etc. deprive us of democracy and give us Trump, by having their right to free speech and free press restored to them by this Supreme Court decision? How does protecting the 1st Amendment rights of non-profit corporations give us Trump and take away our democracy (as may happen this fall if Trump finds a way to nullify the elections)?

Was Citizens United Inc. threatening to take away our democracy, by producing a political propaganda film? and the heroic FEC saved America by banning this film from poisoning our minds? If not, then why did that film have to be banned by the FEC (which the Supreme Court overruled in their decision)? Why does no Progressive Pundit ever admit forthrightly that this decision was necessary to uphold free speech, but instead they all demand that the decision be reversed and that all corporations, like the ACLU and the Girl Scouts, be branded as "not people" and denied 1st Amendment rights?

How did you get deluded into thinking these modest corporations are threatening our democracy?

This mindlessness of the Left is just as nutcase as that of the Trumpers, who say the January 6 rioters did nothing illegal, and that the U.S. must take over Greenland and Cuba and Venezuela, and that Trump must "nationalize" the elections this fall in order to ensure that the elections will not be stolen again like they were stolen by Democrats in 2020.

As long as the Left-Progressives keep blaring out these senseless slogans (corporations are "not people") and equating small non-profit corporations like the ACLU and Citizens United Inc. with "oligarchs" who are taking over the country, we have as much to fear from them (the rabid Left) as we have to fear from the Trumpsters/Right-wing fascists. How many more publications or films does the Left plan to suppress if they can regain power and unleash the FEC to censor political propaganda during the elections? like they did in 2008? Why is this power to ban political propaganda so important to them?

Their plan, or impulse, seems to be to suppress political propaganda which is not pre-screened and approved by some government-authorized political propaganda agency (FEC) (like Trump's Administration pre-screened the Epstein Files), because they believe the general public is too stupid to judge the political propaganda and thus won't vote for the right "leaders," and that the country is lost unless the right political party is in power and dictates which political propaganda is allowed and which has to be suppressed for our own good.

If something like this isn't what's driving them, then why do they insist on reversing that Supreme Court decision to protect everyone's free speech? and instituting a new crusade to deprive corporations of 1st Amendment rights? And why do they keep lying and saying that corporations never had 1st Amendment rights prior to that decision? pretending that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and other corporations never before had 1st Amendment free speech rights?

Or is it just that Left-Progressives are deranged, can't think, don't even know what "corporation" means? Who's more dangerous to society -- an ignorant non-thinking nut who's deranged? or a conniving scoundrel with insidious motives? either way we're in trouble.


Fanatics/dogmatists never relent

They absolutely refuse to give up their mindless slogans and lies. Just as Trumpists refuse to admit that the 2020 election was not stolen, and cannot admit that Trump is wacko (as his more recent behavior has finally made manifest to everyone who's not deluded), so also Progressives can't snap out of it and recognize that the FEC violated the 1st Amendment rights of a non-profit corporation (in 2008) -- and they even lie (or are deluded) about what the Court decision was, pretending that the Court somehow one day just said "bribery of politicians is hereby made legal" because that's how the Justices felt that day, or because 5 of them were paid by Republicans to grant new free-speech rights to corporations which never had them before 2002. Progressives are so deranged that they actually believe this is how the Court makes its decisions -- no plaintiff, no Smith vs. FEC or "Smith vs. Jones" etc., but simply the Court convening one day out of nowhere and (maybe suffering a hangover from last night) suddenly pronouncing who is "people" and who is not (and therefore has no 1st Amendment rights). They'd have to be stoned (or worse) to issue such a cock-eyed decision, and Progressives also wacked-out to believe this Supreme Court tale told to them by their Left-demagogue pundits.

Regarding this case they know nothing of the facts, about the company Citizens United Inc., or about the election of 2008, or about the film produced by Citizens United Inc. Their mind is a total blank on any facts of the case, and all they comprehend is the cliché "Corporations are not people" and that the Court enacted by fiat a new policy that billionaires can bribe politicians all they want, all campaign limits are eliminated, and the FEC and Citizens United Inc. never existed or are just metaphors in a cloak-and-dagger tale about billionaires and "corporations" (the bad guys) vs. all the rest of us (the good guys), and the bad guys won, and therefore we now have Trump and the "oligarchs" taking over the country.

These are mindless lies -- just as mindless as anything the brain-dead Trumpers are saying.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Citizens United, Explained

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

www.brennancenter.org

(Much of the above is also said below. Much of the same logic. I.e., Citizens United must be overturned in order that elections can be designed so as to ensure the that right candidates win, through FEC regulations to manipulate voters toward the correct candidates. Because if normal Constitutional rights are protected (1st Amendment free speech), it tips the scales in favor of the wrong candidates/party winning.)

Any group given formal authority by the state should be subject to oversight.

Whatever you mean by "formal authority" and "oversight," there is no such "authority" given to "corporations" such that their 1st Amendment rights need be curtailed. No one's 1st Amendment rights are absolutely free from possible regulations/conditions ("can't yell fire in a crowded theater" etc.). But the burden of proof is on you to show that SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS must be imposed onto certain entities which you brand as "corporations." You've stated no such "authority" given to all corporations and not given also to many noncorporations. You've cited no "authority" all corporations have uniquely as corporations, making them uniquely in need of "oversight" and restrictions on their 1st Amendment rights such as banning political propaganda they published. Like the FEC in 2008 banned that film.

But again, local clubs and informal associations aren’t using massive financial power to influence federal elections or flood airwaves with campaign ads.

99% of corporations also are not doing this. But what if some club or association does do it? Is that bad? Why? Why should the far more massively powerful FEC or the more massively powerful political party dominating 2 or 3 branches of the government have all the extra financial power (and police power also) to influence elections? Don't deny that they do in fact impose that power and exert massive influence on elections to promote and prolong their hold on that power. There are hundreds of ways they apply that power and influence election outcomes.

And what's the "massive financial power" in the case of Citizens United Inc.? 2 or 3 million $$$$ is "massive financial power"? Compared to what? Compared to NBC or CBS or PBS? These corporations exert vastly more financial power than Citizens United Inc. ever could. And it's a virtual certainty that they influence federal elections massively more than Citizens United did (or would have) in 2008 when your FEC cracked down on this modest non-profit corporation and banned its film.

Corporations, by contrast, can spend millions in political advertising, shaping . . .

No they can't -- stop inventing your own facts. The vast majority of them, probably 99% of them, cannot -- they don't have millions to spend on that or anything else. "Corporations" means ALL corporations, including the millions of small companies struggling to survive, which vastly outnumber the giant mega-corporations. Again, you cannot identify who this enemy is you keep calling "corporations" -- why can't you properly identify who this enemy is that you hate and keep calling "corporations" falsely? Why don't you figure out who it is you really hate and want to impose restrictions on and deny 1st Amendment rights to? You haven't identified them yet. Why not?

. . . shaping the electoral environment in ways grassroots groups simply can’t.

No, 99% of corporations (profit and nonprofit) cannot exert such political influence or shape "the electoral environment" at all, any more than grassroots groups can. When will you finally figure out who this boogieman is that you want to impose restrictions on? 99% of corporations (99.9% of them) are not anything like you're describing. They do not and cannot "spend millions" and shape "the electoral environment" as you're falsely saying. And you proved (or your Progressive FEC thugs back in 2008 proved) that it's not the rich and powerful whose rights you want to curtail -- cracking down on a modest non-profit which was far less powerful than the ACLU or Planned Parenthood or Girl Scouts, who have vastly more wealth than Citizens United Inc.

That’s why the comparison breaks down — "

Yes, your comparison and analysis falls to pieces when we look at the details and the facts. You can't make a coherent statement what you're comparing to what. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that this was a real case, argued in the Supreme Court, and that it was about a small company (compared to the giants NBC CBS CNN PBS etc.) with virtually no power to influence anything. Why don't you quit making up stories (that this small corporation was a threat to "shape the electoral environment") and fictional comparisons and figure out what this case was really about, rather than just reciting clichés and platitudes to promote a partisan political narrative.

it’s not about theoretical “power granted” but about real-world impact and scale.

Whatever world you're dreaming about, it has nothing to do with Citizens United Inc., which had no power or "real-world impact and scale." You want to exempt billionaires like Elon Musk from any restrictions, because he's not a corporation. And then you incomprehensibly imply that a small corporation scraping up a couple million bucks to spend on a propaganda piece had more "impact" and "scale" and political power and influence than a multibillionaire like Musk.

Why are you saying Elon Musk (individual person) is entitled to 1st Amendment protection for any political propaganda he wants to impose on us (and maybe does impose in dozens of ways), and yet a small company less than .1% as powerful must have its 1st Amendment rights curtailed and its film banned? Why do you filter out the tiny flea speck Citizens United as a threat, but give a total pass to the multibillionaire CAMEL Elon Musk (or other multibillionaire) just because he's not a "corporation"?


your candidate must win, no matter what --
--- otherwise the system wasn't "fair"!

No, you're wrong. Voters many times have voted down the side which spent more money on advertising, or the side with more campaign fund donations. You cannot impose censorship laws which dictate which candidate or which side is supposed to win (e.g., the candidate which spent less). You cannot have as your premise that the right candidate will lose unless you impose certain restrictions, including censorship and banning of certain political propaganda because a "corporation" did something you don't like. That curtails the 1st Amendment rights of those publishing the propaganda. If your only argument is that allowing such free speech automatically means the wrong candidate will win, then you're virtually dictating in advance who's supposed to win the election, and the election is invalid unless the correct candidate wins. If that's what you think, then you have no argument against Trump doing whatever he has to do to rig the elections.

The way you structure the election and referee the political propaganda or enforce the results cannot be rigged in advance in order to ensure that the "right" candidate wins. Which is what the election reform law of 2002 tried to do, trying to impose censorship onto the "electioneering communications" from whoever is publishing something political which might influence voters. There is nothing wrong with anyone, any entity of any kind, publishing something to influence voters, promoting a political cause, and possibly influencing an election outcome. You can't prove that this influence was illegitimate, any more than a thousand or million other influences.

Your premise that they must be stopped if it could influence the election the wrong way is in effect your prejudice that only the election outcome matters, and if it turns out differently than you demand, then the process must have been flawed and so must change however necessary to produce the outcome you dictate is the right outcome. Electioneering and propagandizing is simply a normal part of the process, i.e., trying to influence voters, and you're suppressing free speech to rig the system to stop that activity on the premise that it has the wrong impact on voters by persuading them to vote the wrong way.

Maybe the propaganda can be regulated to make it more truthful, to filter out the lies, if these are proven. Maybe something can be done to better educate the voters, make them more critical, have them learn more about the candidates or ballot measures. There are ways to promote better outcomes without resorting to censorship as the 2002 law did.

To reverse the Court decision in this case is to say in effect that the voters are too dumb to figure out the truth, and so we have to censor the information to them, to protect them from their stupidity. Because they will stupidly be manipulated by those trying to influence them; and because they're nothing but mindless cattle, they will inevitably be manipulated into making the wrong choice.

Wanting to reverse this Court decision puts you in the same category as Trump (or the Trumpers), who want to deny voting rights to all who disagree with them or don't follow their demagogue-Leader. Because to not follow their Leader is to be wrong, and those who are wrong are too stupid to have any right to vote.

This is what Trump does. He identifies all those who might vote against him, and then tries to exclude them from voting by whatever means it requires in order to disqualify them -- creating new eligibility rules for excluding them, etc. -- whatever might work to exclude another million or so voters who might vote wrong.

And this is essentially what the 2008 FEC rule did -- excluding selected "corporations" from 1st Amendment rights, because they're "not people" -- and then applying this selectively to censor their "electioneering communications" which have content contrary to your partisan political preferences, in order to produce a more desirable election outcome. It is dirty politics either way -- whether you arbitrarily exclude selected voters from voting, or whether you arbitrarily deny 1st Amendment rights to selected publishers of "electioneering communications" which might influence voters the wrong way.

You want to Rig the Elections, by any means (in your case, through censorship, denying 1st Amendment free speech), in order to force the outcome toward your prejudice that your party or candidate is the right one, and any other outcome is NOT FAIR. That's why you want to overturn Citizens United.

 

[scombrid]

That is a lot of gymnastics to support rigged elections while pretending to oppose rigged elections. Have fun being ruled by the oligarchs. The Heritage Foundation thanks you for your loyalty.

 

[ZiprHead]

Whatever you mean by "formal authority" and "oversight," there is no such "authority" given to "corporations" such that their 1st Amendment rights need be curtailed.

Please cite the part of the Constitution that says corporations have first amendment rights.

 

[Bomb#20]

Whatever you mean by "formal authority" and "oversight," there is no such "authority" given to "corporations" such that their 1st Amendment rights need be curtailed.

Please cite the part of the Constitution that says corporations have first amendment rights.

ZH: https://iidb.org/threads/yet-another-war-this-time-with-iran.30002/page-32#post-1340783
Cop: [Knock knock]
ZH: Yes?
Cop: I have a warrant to search these premises, sir. Step aside, please.
ZH: This warrant says you're seizing my computer for violation of the Communications Decency Act?!?
Cop: Ah, here it is. [Carries away computer]
ZH: [Following cop] That law was overturned!
Cop: Tell it to the judge.
ZH: [To judge] The government has to give me back my computer. The Communications Decency Act was overturned!
Judge: Only for people.
ZH: Huh?
Judge: It was overturned on first amendment grounds. Please cite the part of the Constitution that says computers have first amendment rights.
ZH: Huh?
Judge: Your computer violated the CDA. I'm sentencing it to two years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. You can ask for it back when its sentence is up and it pays the fine. Next case.