Citizens United - Just curious if anyone thinks it was a GOOD decision

[CD]

In reply to the question of this thread, I think it was a good decision, in the uniquely American context. Here is part of the decision:

"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion." Pp. 20–25. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html)

[NCVol]

You don't think restrictions that prevent a single individual or company from flooding the airwaves with political propaganda to further ONE wealthy donor's narrow interests "furthers a compelling interest?"

Seems self evident to me that ONE person - Warren Buffett or Charles Koch - or an entity (Exxon OR Apple) shouldn't be able to spend, say, $100 million on "speech" while ordinary Americans if they're lucky can spend $2,000 since that's all they can afford.  OF COURSE the political process in that scenario is absolutely guaranteed to favor the narrow and self interested goals of a single wealthy individual over the interests of the broader public. 

If we elect individuals to serve the plutocrats, Citizens United guarantees we will be successful, in my view. 

I can see how in some twisted, tortured viewpoint of the 14th and 1st Amendment, a corporation is a protected "person."  Fine.  It's the law of the land, so I suppose the Constitution says so, whether we like it or not. 

What I cannot begin to comprehend is the notion that the Constitution SHOULD guarantee Exxon's right (whatever the heck "Exxon" is - is it the Board of Directors, the CEO, a plurality of the shareholders, a majority, the interests of the largest shareholder, it's U.S. division, the worldwide conglomerate?) to dump, if it wants, a $billion into our electoral process, while you are effectively muted. 

So I favor amending the Constitution to reverse the effect of Citizens United.  Corporations/Unions/Churches/Non-profits aren't people, those of us who breath, have kids, get sick, die, fight wars, get a paycheck, drink the water, breath the air, walk the streets are people.  And money isn't speech.  Speech is speech - Exxon can express its political preferences in interviews, press releases, public speeches, on CNN, etc.  they just can't form a PAC, fund it with $1 billion, and flood the airwaves with political ads. 

Seems reasonable. 

[CD]

“You don't think restrictions that prevent a single individual or company from flooding the airwaves with political propaganda to further ONE wealthy donor's narrow interests "furthers a compelling interest?"” – NCVol

A “single individual”? So now you also favor restricting the free speech of individuals? Apparently you do.

“Seems self evident to me that ONE person - Warren Buffett or Charles Koch - or an entity (Exxon OR Apple) shouldn't be able to spend, say, $100 million on "speech" while ordinary Americans if they're lucky can spend $2,000 since that's all they can afford.”

This is “self evident”? Not to me. Not to the Founders. Not to the Supreme Court. It is a funny kind of “self evident” that is not evident at all. Perhaps you are mistaking your own sense of what is FAIR for American principles of Liberty, and therefore your personal sense of social fairness makes free speech restrictions self evidently just. Fortunately, we are not yet ruled entirely by the whimsical self evidential social consciences of some who would trash the 1st Amendment for their higher notions of fairness.

Anyway, what about that hypothetical $2,000? Suppose someone has $2,000 to spend on political speech, while some others have nothing to spend. Is that fair? I know! Let’s confiscate the $2,000 from the guy that has it, and redistribute it to all those with nothing. Then everyone will have about 5 cents for their political speech. Alternatively, we could just tell the guy with $2,000 that he may not spend it on political speech.

First Amendment? Who cares? We have a greater sense of fairness than those old white guys did over 200 years ago. And if anyone is not sure as to what is fair, we’ll tell him! We’ll just make a new law, or, better yet, regulation! Then our magnanimous sense of fairness will prevail across the land, that old Constitution will be interpreted aright at last for Progressive Man and there shall be no evil rich people having their say just because they can afford it. The rightness of it is just so self-evident!

[NCVol]

A “single individual”? So now you also favor restricting the free speech of individuals? Apparently you do.

If "speech" = money, then damn right I do.  And so have 100 years of legislatures and governors and Presidents and therefore those who elect them.  They all recognized that money IS a corrupting influence on politics and reasonable limits on that serve the public interest. 

I'm sure you do as well.  Or maybe you agree that if Prince Abdullah wants to set up a non-profit (say, "Organization to Promote Real American Values!!") with $100 million, that will then funnel the money to a Super PAC, to elect Sharia Law proponents in 1,000 local school districts, so that local schools will in the name of religious freedom provide prayer mats and directions to Mecca, then that's GREAT!!!  Or that it's fine for the U.S. Subsidiary of Bank of China to funnel $1 billion in communist money to its Super PAC to influence U.S. legislators to favor China's interests... 

There's nothing in the First Amendment that restricts its provisions to U.S. Citizens or legal residents...  And corporations are people, therefore Bank of China is fully protected under the First Amendment to funnel a $billion into our political process?   

Bottom line is it's a red herring to equate money with speech.  I don't have any issue with Buffett or Charles Koch being able to freely express their opinions in 1,000 different outlets, and guys like that have any number of outlets at their disposal - TV, editorials, press releases, speeches, organizing conferences, and more.  Their "speech" isn't being limited AT ALL.  What might be restricted is their ability to fund hit pieces in a carpet bomb of political advertising in an election year, and that simply isn't a limit on Buffett's or Koch's "free speech," and if it is a "restriction" of free speech, then it clearly, IMO, advances a compelling state interest. 

This is “self evident”? Not to me. Not to the Founders. Not to the Supreme Court. It is a funny kind of “self evident” that is not evident at all. Perhaps you are mistaking your own sense of what is FAIR for American principles of Liberty, and therefore your personal sense of social fairness makes free speech restrictions self evidently just. Fortunately, we are not yet ruled entirely by the whimsical self evidential social consciences of some who would trash the 1st Amendment for their higher notions of fairness.

Give me a f'ing break with the Founders nonsense.  They didn't address the issue of speech = money, and for 100 years we had restrictions that recognized that reasonable restrictions on the ability for a single individual to shovel piles into the political process isn't actually a restriction of free speech or it furthers a compelling state interest, like not allowing shows to utter "fvck" during prime time viewing. 

Anyway, what about that hypothetical $2,000? Suppose someone has $2,000 to spend on political speech, while some others have nothing to spend. Is that fair? I know! Let’s confiscate the $2,000 from the guy that has it, and redistribute it to all those with nothing. Then everyone will have about 5 cents for their political speech. Alternatively, we could just tell the guy with $2,000 that he may not spend it on political speech.

Nice invention of straw men.  The only question is whether there should be some limit, any restrictions at all.  I think there should be since money corrupts the process and allowing unlimited money is a guarantee for a corrupt system.  Do you favor outright bribery?  Why the hell not, since it's Buffett's money?  Shouldn't he be able to make a gift to whoever he damn well chooses?  If it's a regulator, great.  President?  Fine.  Local County Commission Chairman voting on a zoning matter - why shouldn't a local business give $10,000 to each commissioner as a personal gift?  You're saying ANY limit equal communism!!! OH NO I WANT NO ONE TO HAVE ANY MONEY!!!  It's stupid. 

First Amendment? Who cares? We have a greater sense of fairness than those old white guys did over 200 years ago. And if anyone is not sure as to what is fair, we’ll tell him! We’ll just make a new law, or, better yet, regulation! Then our magnanimous sense of fairness will prevail across the land, that old Constitution will be interpreted aright at last for Progressive Man and there shall be no evil rich people having their say just because they can afford it. The rightness of it is just so self-evident!

The issue comes down to two questions, really. 

1) Does money corrupt the political process? 
2) If it does, should we impose reasonable limits to try to mitigate the corruption.