So citizen's united did not change politics?

[PLAYER57832]

STILL think that citizen's united was just an innocuous and meaningless ruling:
Listen to or read this:
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159768245 ... ver-donors

[Night Strike]

So I assume you still oppose freedoms of speech and association?

By the way, do you even know what the group Citizen's United is?


They were a group wanting to promote an anti-Hillary Clinton movie but were barred from doing so because it was considered political speech and thus regulated under election laws. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban such political speech. The Citizen's United group was never even fighting to allow Super PACs; they just wanted to promote their free-market-produced product, yet McCain-Feingold was infringing on their free speech to do so. This fall, they will be releasing a new movie that interviews Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama in 2008 but have realized they were duped and won't be voting for him again.

[PLAYER57832]

So I assume you still oppose freedoms of speech and association?

Only if you consider truth fiction and fiction truth, which apparently you do. This is about MONEY, not speech.


Its one person, one vote, not $10000, one vote.

And obviously, you did not even bother reading or listening to the link.

[Night Strike]

So I assume you still oppose freedoms of speech and association?

Only if you consider truth fiction and fiction truth, which apparently you do. This is about MONEY, not speech.


Its one person, one vote, not $10000, one vote.

And obviously, you did not even bother reading or listening to the link.

You mean the story containing obviously lies such as Obama's campaign having raised more money than Romney's over the past couple of months? NPR is a pro-liberal "news" organization, just not as overt as places like MSNBC, so of course they're running stories about how conservatives exercising their rights is actually doing evil.

And I never said you got to vote based on how much money you have. Ads cost money, and the Super PACs make sure that outside groups of individuals can band together to buy ads that support their political viewpoints. Your system allows only approved candidates to have the freedom of political speech, not all people. If people do not believe or support what they are saying, they aren't forced to vote for the cause. Under your system, only the candidates get to directly put out political speech and there's no way for other citizens to share their political speech.

[BigBallinStalin]

(A) How did the Citizens' United case change the political arena?

(A1) As in, what exactly were the outcomes (intended and unintended)?

(A2) and how do these outcomes differ from the times before Citizens' United?

[SirSebstar]

that must be where super pacs have NO relations at all with a particular grouping, funny how that works out to the advantage of one or the other parties...
Also, that must be why the USA has a multi party system.. eh right, they don't.

in short, big bucks and lack of responsibility do it again!

[Army of GOD]

Attention everybody in the world: it's Citizens United, no possessive apostrophe.

[BigBallinStalin]

AoGs' is right! We stand's corrected.

[rockfist]

Was Citizens United the ruling that allowed the "non-affiliated" super pac supporting Obama to blame Mitt Romney for someone's cancer death - even though it wasn't consistent with the facts?

Yeah, Obama had a tough choice between principals and politics...from this decision it would seem his most important principal is winning politics.

[Phatscotty]

(A) How did the Citizens' United case change the political arena?

A new scapegoat on which to pile their shortcomings

[Night Strike]

Was Citizens United the ruling that allowed the "non-affiliated" super pac supporting Obama to blame Mitt Romney for someone's cancer death - even though it wasn't consistent with the facts?

Yeah, Obama had a tough choice between principals and politics...from this decision it would seem his most important principal is winning politics.

Yep, the completely "non-affiliated" group that made their ad from the same interview that the Obama campaign had made a previous ad from. The guy was wearing the same shirt in both ads!

[crispybits]

Now I'm not up on American politics particularly, but...

CU win a court case allowing them to make a negative film about the Democrats

Republicans now complain because *shock horror* it allows the Democrat supporting groups to make negative films about the Republicans?

I don't like the ruling in the first place for reasons already stated by others in at least 2 threads (elections *should* be about policies not advertising budgets and the wallet size of political supporters), but from my distant and slightly out of touch position it looks like one side campaigned for a change and is now moaning that the other side can also use that change for their benefit. And on that basis my instinct is to say "ha ha - careful what you wish for suckers!"

[Night Strike]

Republicans now complain because *shock horror* it allows the Democrat supporting groups to make negative films about the Republicans?

Republicans aren't complaining about Citizens United because they recognize that the government can't limit political speech.

[saxitoxin]

From the hair-rending bellows, shrieks of horror and scenes of people throwing themselves upon widow's beds of hot coals, you'd think CU had overturned a quarter-millenia of U.S. political tradition, instead of quashing a law that had been on the books for just 7 years.

[thegreekdog]

From the hair-rending bellows, shrieks of horror and scenes of people throwing themselves upon widow's beds of hot coals, you'd think CU had overturned a quarter-millenia of U.S. political tradition, instead of quashing a law that had been on the books for just 7 years.

You're right Saxi, it didn't really change anything.

[SirSebstar]

Republicans now complain because *shock horror* it allows the Democrat supporting groups to make negative films about the Republicans?

Republicans aren't complaining about Citizens United because they recognize that the government can't limit political speech.

rofl....
unless you consider, e.g. new york republicans making a bill to ban anonymous postings on the internet.. I mean syria would love to kinow for sure who is tweeting what, but i guess unless you have billions of dollors in your pocketbook, you have no right to a political choice... yup republicans as the guardians of the constitution, as long as they can declare who the groups is that is guarded by the constitution, and oh it does not qualify for anybody they disqualify from the group.. well done

i have no rights because i am not american, even though I may have an american passport.... yup, real republican of you.

[saxitoxin]

Republicans now complain because *shock horror* it allows the Democrat supporting groups to make negative films about the Republicans?

Republicans aren't complaining about Citizens United because they recognize that the government can't limit political speech.

rofl....
unless you consider, e.g. new york republicans making a bill to ban anonymous postings on the internet.. I mean syria would love to kinow for sure who is tweeting what, but i guess unless you have billions of dollors in your pocketbook, you have no right to a political choice... yup republicans as the guardians of the constitution, as long as they can declare who the groups is that is guarded by the constitution, and oh it does not qualify for anybody they disqualify from the group.. well done

i have no rights because i am not american, even though I may have an american passport.... yup, real republican of you.

This has got to be a joke because no one whose country was ruled by a coalition that included of a Bond-villain look-alike would be bold enough to criticize anyone else. (I think even Attila the Hun is off-limits to the Dutch.)

Quiz: Which is Geert Wilders and which is Max Zorin?

[PLAYER57832]

Republicans now complain because *shock horror* it allows the Democrat supporting groups to make negative films about the Republicans?

Republicans aren't complaining about Citizens United because they recognize that the government can't limit political speech.

Even when the donors are utterly unknown and NOT necessarily even US citizens.

Nope, buying millions of dollars in ad campaigns without even having to give your name is not free speech, it is hiding behind what your money can BUY.

Speech means you say something and stand by what you say, for all to see... and accept whatever consequences of public dislike.

The First amendment protects against government oppression of voiced and written opinions and means that the government has to provide protection for even unpopular people voicing unpopular opinions.

The idea that it somehow protects a hidden donor from hiding behind a committe or union without any need to even identify who they are makes as much sense as the idea that some people only count as 3/5 a person. (and yeah.. that was "in the constitution also!).

[BigBallinStalin]

Since the OP seems to be so knowledgeable about Citizens United, perhaps she could answer the following:


(A) How did the Citizens' United case change the political arena?

(A1) As in, what exactly were the outcomes (intended and unintended)?

(A2) and how do these outcomes differ from the times before Citizens United?

[saxitoxin]

In related news, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen yesterday had their FOIA request denied with the FEC for disclosure of the corporate sponsors of the Democrat National Convention and the Republican National Convention. The FOIA was filed with the FEC because Public Citizen argues the two state-sanctioned parties - whose conventions are paid for by the U.S. - are actually departments of the government as opposed to political parties as the term is understood in most countries.

The Democrat National Committee has refused to release a list of their corporate donors and the Republican National Committee will only release a partial list. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama famously raced back to the Senate to change his vote on federal telecom immunity for AT&T after that company wrote a $1 million check to the DNC and agreed to host a champagne bar at the convention. That happened before Citizens United and it's still happening after.

http://www.citizen.org/reporter-memo-pa ... ee-for-all

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, but Obama cares about people. The Democrats want people to earn their fair share!

[saxitoxin]

Yeah, but Obama cares about people. The Democrats want people to earn their fair share!

He's getting the Welcome Wagon hitched-up to welcome community members to the convention!



My favorite line:
"We're ready for the most dangerous event the city has ever hosted."

[PLAYER57832]

Since the OP seems to be so knowledgeable about Citizens United, perhaps she could answer the following:


(A) How did the Citizens' United case change the political arena?

(A1) As in, what exactly were the outcomes (intended and unintended)?

(A2) and how do these outcomes differ from the times before Citizens United?

Listen to or read the story I linked, then comment.

[saxitoxin]

Since the OP seems to be so knowledgeable about Citizens United, perhaps she could answer the following:


(A) How did the Citizens' United case change the political arena?

(A1) As in, what exactly were the outcomes (intended and unintended)?

(A2) and how do these outcomes differ from the times before Citizens United?

Listen to or read the story I linked, then comment.

It's not a "story." Journalistic pieces use some combination of expert sources, vox pop, reporter observation and documentary analysis.

This, by contrast, is just an interview with an opinion page writer (Jane Mayer) who is the granddaughter of the founder of Leham Brothers - one of the Democrat Party's biggest corporate donors before it went bankrupt - saying "Obama is a principled man who only takes gajillions from Wal-Mart because he has to."

Player - I feel that it's very important you learn to apply critical thinking skills and not simply offer your head as an empty vase into which anyone can pour anything.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, but Obama cares about people. The Democrats want people to earn their fair share!

Only a tad more than the Republicans... and that is a VERY low standard.