11th Anniversary of Citizens United Ruling

Got this email from our Representative Deb Haaland (Rep D, NM), nominated to be first Native American to serve as Secretary of the Interio:

Eleven years ago, today, the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission determined that corporations and outside groups could freely, and limitlessly, fund political campaigns. This decision fundamentally changed the way political campaigns operate: by weakening transparency, it opened the floodgates to private interests and dark money in politics, allowing billions to be spent by groups who do not have to disclose their donors. The far-reaching implications of Citizens United must be dealt with head on.

In the 117th Congress, Representative John Sarbanes has introduced H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which reaffirms Congress’ authority to regulate money in politics, pushing back on the Court’s decision. Dark money has no place in our homes, our bodies, our environment, or our politics. Addressing Citizens United is the first step toward political campaign integrity – we must return the democratic process to the people and away from private interests seeking to manipulate it.

What do you think?

We need some sort of stewardship on transparency which was clouded opaquely in the last administration.

Would agree wholeheartedly, that and a couple more which laid down the foundation for Citizens United need to be dealt with if we are ever to reclaim that which was once ours.

Even the Westminster System (The Queen, Royalty, Parliament etc) is plagued by Political Donations.

In Oz we have rich Chinese making donations who may or may not be representatives of the Chinese Government.

Shining a light on shady donations and regulating Social Media would make a big difference to everyone's confidence in Politics.

Sat X RB said:

Even the Westminster System (The Queen, Royalty, Parliament etc) is plagued by Political Donations.

In Oz we have rich Chinese making donations who may or may not be representatives of the Chinese Government.

Shining a light on shady donations and regulating Social Media would make a big difference to everyone's confidence in Politics.

Click to expand...

Indeed, Sat X RB.....maybe we can get a few potholes plugged, detours re-routed to a better transparent life. Takes time and effort. Those that have greasy pockets will lament of money, money, money, trickle turned off.

I vaguely recall that Citizen's United ruled drama back then. Good time to readjust.....

Had it explained that Citizen's United is based upon Buckley v. Valeo in 76, and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 78.

Chapter 2, Free Market Democracy, identifies BUCKLEY V. VALEO as the starting point for the Court’s entanglement of democratic theory with the theory of free market capitalism, when it held that campaign spending is a First Amendment right. Certain limits on contributions to candidates were upheld, on the ground that preventing real or apparent corruption was a valid concern. In contrast, limits on independent spending were struck down, and equalizing political influence and ability to run for office were declared to be unconstitutional goals, wholly foreign to the First Amendment.

Kuhner, appealing to a variety of theorists and empirical studies, vehemently disagrees. The Court’s understanding of free speech bespeaks a crude neoclassical view of capitalism, in which regulating the buying and selling of political speech constitutes an impermissible infringement of the free market, betraying a “Lochnerian indifference to realities of control, power, and authority” (p.58). Not only was it an error to use any economic theory as a means of constitutional interpretation, but the Court used a flawed and biased economic theory, perhaps inspired by Milton Friedman, that assumes a perfect, fully competitive [*362] market.

Chapter 3, Corporations Speak, extends the examination of the Supreme Court’s work. Justice Powell, a fervent advocate of pro-business political activism, wrote for the majority in FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON V. BELLOTTI, striking down a state law that barred corporations from spending in connection with ballot initiatives. Voters, he argued, have a vital interest in “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources” (p.71). Justice Powell, who had once written a memo to the Chamber of Commerce lamenting that “few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders” (p.77), was blind to the point that, because the media market is oligopolistic, corporate participation would render the two sides unable to make their arguments with comparable force.

Four Justices dissented: White, Brennan, Marshall, and, remarkably, Rehnquist. White argued that “what some have considered to be the principal function of the First Amendment, the use of communication as a means of self-expression, self-realization, and self-fulfillment, is not at all furthered by corporate speech” (p.81). Rehnquist wrote, “I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges and immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to regulation” (p.84). Corporations differ from human beings in their incentives, organizational capacity, and wealth, yielding undue advantages in political contestation. Kuhner, again citing several political philosophers and empirical studies, agrees.

CAPITALISM V. DEMOCRACY: MONEY IN POLITICS AND THE FREE MARKET CONSTITUTION by Timothy K. Kuhner. Stanford: Stanford Law Books, Stanford University Press, 2014. ISBN: 978-0-8047-9158-8.

https://www.lpbr.net/2014/07/capitalism-v-democracy-money-in.htm

Corporations are people, my friend.

buzzmobile said:

Corporations are people, my friend.

Click to expand...

Corporations are ran by people who have rights. It’s only when these rights come into conflict with the rights of others that they come into question. They have the right to donate money just as we do. It’s the influence that should be questioned.

h.h. said:

Corporations are ran by people who have rights. It’s only when these rights come into conflict with the rights of others that they come into question. They have the right to donate money just as we do. It’s the influence that should be questioned.

Click to expand...

"Dark money", eh? $$$ thrown for no purpose other than power? Guess the wheel keeps on turning.

The reason our country has such inequity is because of the corporate veil of liability and the extension of that veil through the manipulation of politics through lobbying since the 50's.


It has really undermined the country much in the same way corruption destroyed greece.

h.h. said:

Corporations are ran by people who have rights. It’s only when these rights come into conflict with the rights of others that they come into question. They have the right to donate money just as we do. It’s the influence that should be questioned.

Click to expand...

yes, the people that work at corporations should have the same rights as others, be able to donate etc. but their donations should be limited in size just like ours, and their names registered just like ours. no dark money, no anonymous donations etc. a corporation should not be able to donate $$$ in their employees names either. doubt seriously there is a company anywhere in the US that EVERYONE working there agrees on anything.

armedoldhippy said:

yes, the people that work at corporations should have the same rights as others, be able to donate etc. but their donations should be limited in size just like ours, and their names registered just like ours. no dark money, no anonymous donations etc. a corporation should not be able to donate $$$ in their employees names either. doubt seriously there is a company anywhere in the US that EVERYONE working there agrees on anything.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. We need campaign reform. Corporate laws need reformed.

Lots of small corporations. Not all are publicly traded. In costs $50 to incorporate in Colorado. Ten bucks a year to file a report. Many are a corporation of one.

Weird said:

The reason our country has such inequity is because of the corporate veil of liability and the extension of that veil through the manipulation of politics through lobbying since the 50's.


It has really undermined the country much in the same way corruption destroyed greece.

Click to expand...

Aptly agree! h.h., yes reform needed.
First COVID under control, jobs, but within the 4 years, reform platforms BIPARTISAN!!

Weird said:

The reason our country has such inequity is because of the corporate veil of liability and the extension of that veil through the manipulation of politics through lobbying since the 50's.


It has really undermined the country much in the same way corruption destroyed greece.

Click to expand...

I agree with the concept expressed completely, but would suggest the time line goes back much further.
Would cite the businessman's plot of the thirties as an example.

I have read that a Company is: "... an invisible soulless identity entire of itself." This might have been from Hooker, Henry the Eighth's Attorney General who while seeing the economic advantage of people pooling their 'venture capital' was altogether leery of the idea of inventing 'identities'.

So we have an English King to blame for Companies ...

Gry said:

Four Justices dissented: White, Brennan, Marshall, and, remarkably, Rehnquist. White argued that “what some have considered to be the principal function of the First Amendment, the use of communication as a means of self-expression, self-realization, and self-fulfillment, is not at all furthered by corporate speech” (p.81). Rehnquist wrote, “I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges and immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to regulation” (p.84). Corporations differ from human beings in their incentives, organizational capacity, and wealth, yielding undue advantages in political contestation. Kuhner, again citing several political philosophers and empirical studies, agrees.

CAPITALISM V. DEMOCRACY: MONEY IN POLITICS AND THE FREE MARKET CONSTITUTION by Timothy K. Kuhner. Stanford: Stanford Law Books, Stanford University Press, 2014. ISBN: 978-0-8047-9158-8.

https://www.lpbr.net/2014/07/capitalism-v-democracy-money-in.htm

Click to expand...

Sat X RB said:

I have read that a Company is: "... an invisible soulless identity entire of itself." This might have been from Hooker, Henry the Eighth's Attorney General who while seeing the economic advantage of people pooling their 'venture capital' was altogether leery of the idea of inventing 'identities'.

So we have an English King to blame for Companies ...

Click to expand...

Always thought the concept behind them amazing.
The idea was to allow the good old boys network to pocket all the profits,
while dumping liability and waste on the public.
Deckstacking 101
US forefathers were attentive students which went to the top of the class.
Whoops, don''t believe we are supposed to mention that word, maybe I
should have used 'group' as opposed to class.

Gry said:

Always thought the concept behind them amazing.
The idea was to allow the good old boys network to pocket all the profits,
while dumping liability and waste on the public.
Deckstacking 101
US forefathers were attentive students which went to the top of the class.
Whoops, don''t believe we are supposed to mention that word, maybe I
should have used 'group' as opposed to class.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that sentiment, and frankly I don't look as fondly on the Philadelphia Convention as many.

Gry said:

I agree with the concept expressed completely, but would suggest the time line goes back much further.
Would cite the businessman's plot of the thirties as an example.

Click to expand...

I think it can be traced back even further.

The timeline I chose was based on post WWII sentiment. It seemed the military complex had been realized as a facet of the industrial revolution. Victory had left many existing businesses open territory for expansion. This attenuated through out America drawing the boomer generation to self fulfillment of the American dream, not as an integral facet of democracy itself.

This created a climate where it became acceptable to manipulate for the purpose of profit and most of America was too distracted by self interest to bother getting involved.



Seems the anti trust provisions have been undermined decade after decade since that time until corporate right and value exceeds human right and value.

Then there was that whole “taming of the west” thing.

Weird said:

I think it can be traced back even further.

The timeline I chose was based on post WWII sentiment. It seemed the military complex had been realized as a facet of the industrial revolution. Victory had left many existing businesses open territory for expansion. This attenuated through out America drawing the boomer generation to self fulfillment of the American dream, not as an integral facet of democracy itself.

This created a climate where it became acceptable to manipulate for the purpose of profit and most of America was too distracted by self interest to bother getting involved.



Seems the anti trust provisions have been undermined decade after decade since that time until corporate right and value exceeds human right and value.

Click to expand...

Nice description.
If people in general have become second tier citizens, left wondering what the perception would be for minorities.