knapplc Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 But that's not the landmark portion of Citizen's United. Everyone is for free speech. Citizen's United said money = speech, a connection hitherto unthinkable. It opened the door for all kinds of horrific corruption in the electoral process. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Many times I have to look at SCOTUS decisions and take my personal views of the individual case completely out of it. That is what the justices are supposed to do anyway. I agree with your basic feelings on this case. I want money out of the election process and the influence that buys. BUT, if you start banning certain people or organizations from the US contributing to campaigns or political organizations, then you need to ban ALL political donations. You can't pick and choose. If you want to ban multi billionaires from donating 100,000,000 to a campaign, then why can't someone else ban donations from anyone who is unemployed and living off of welfare? How about if someone wants to put a law in place that anyone who receives personal financial assistance from the government is banned from donating money to the political process? You see the slippery slope? Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 But nobody is banning campaign contributions. They're just not equating them directly with freedom of speech. These are inherently different things, yet the Supremes connected them in a unique and dangerous way. We're already seeing the effects of this ruling with the vast amounts of cash the Koch Bros. have poured into this campaign. Elections should NEVER be about who has the deepest pockets. Citizens United says that if you are wealthy, your voice counts more than a poor man's. That's the same foolishness as saying I have 22,000 posts here, so my opinion means more than yours (BRB) because you have 500. Our opinions are equal; I don't enjoy some greater right to be correct simply because I've amassed more than you. On top of that, the Supremes didn't differentiate between domestic and foreign money. There is no way Americans should tolerate Chinese (for example) corporations (or, indirectly, the Chinese government) flooding their airwaves with campaign ads in favor of a candidate they favor. That has dangerous and profound implications for this country. Link to comment
Recommended Posts