Posted on Sep 18, 2023
5
5
0
Given the plethora of articles, depending on your point of view (i.e., political slant) how do you find the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling has impacting the pre-2024 political landscape and can "We the people..." do anything specifically to impact modification of the ruling in the near future? Or, is modification even required. Why? or Why not?
Here are some references for review:
- Citizens United v. FEC (January 21, 2010): https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/
- Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (March 27, 1990): https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/austin-v-michigan-state-chamber-of-commerce/
- McConnell v. FEC (December 10, 2003): https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/mcconnell-v-fec/
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
- Federal Election Campaign Act (1971/1974): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act
- Federal Election Commission (FEC) Mission and History: https://www.fec.gov/about/mission-and-history/#
I have read through these and other references; plus, still wrapping my head around these arguments. At first I had one opinion and now I find myself asking several questions, similar to and seemingly very different from the justices.
What are some your informed thoughts as a reader?
Please be respectful of other who respond. This is just a forum to understand the current lay of the land, if you will regarding this topic.
The survey question is simple:
Has you stance on the 2010 Changed or Not in terms if the court's decision was, in you opinion Appropriate or Not-Appropriate?
Here are some references for review:
- Citizens United v. FEC (January 21, 2010): https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/
- Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (March 27, 1990): https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/austin-v-michigan-state-chamber-of-commerce/
- McConnell v. FEC (December 10, 2003): https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/mcconnell-v-fec/
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
- Federal Election Campaign Act (1971/1974): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act
- Federal Election Commission (FEC) Mission and History: https://www.fec.gov/about/mission-and-history/#
I have read through these and other references; plus, still wrapping my head around these arguments. At first I had one opinion and now I find myself asking several questions, similar to and seemingly very different from the justices.
What are some your informed thoughts as a reader?
Please be respectful of other who respond. This is just a forum to understand the current lay of the land, if you will regarding this topic.
The survey question is simple:
Has you stance on the 2010 Changed or Not in terms if the court's decision was, in you opinion Appropriate or Not-Appropriate?
Freedom of Speech
Government
Elections
Government Funding
Edited 1 y ago
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
1) corporations are not people
2) money is not speech.
I still cannot understand how the SCOTUS came to the conclusion that allowing rich people unlimited expenditures and commensurate access would NOT lead to corruption, the appearance of corruption, or loss of faith in democracy.
Very stupid conclusion from some very smart people.
2) money is not speech.
I still cannot understand how the SCOTUS came to the conclusion that allowing rich people unlimited expenditures and commensurate access would NOT lead to corruption, the appearance of corruption, or loss of faith in democracy.
Very stupid conclusion from some very smart people.
(2)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
Yep!
Smart people can be idiots when "blinded by light" or in this case "darkness" disguised as light by some linguistic legerdemain (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/legerdemain).
Like they say "words (i.e., language matters) and when language is weaponized in such a manner that is violates the whole premise of the 1st Amendment it is - dangerous!
Besides when you think about Citizens United and read, really read the Preamble to the US Constitution that decision is in direct contradiction to "We the people..." and what we want as a whole people, not buildings (i.e., corporations) masquerading as people like the Borg of Star Trek (i.e., the hive mind!) images present.
Just saying.................
Smart people can be idiots when "blinded by light" or in this case "darkness" disguised as light by some linguistic legerdemain (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/legerdemain).
Like they say "words (i.e., language matters) and when language is weaponized in such a manner that is violates the whole premise of the 1st Amendment it is - dangerous!
Besides when you think about Citizens United and read, really read the Preamble to the US Constitution that decision is in direct contradiction to "We the people..." and what we want as a whole people, not buildings (i.e., corporations) masquerading as people like the Borg of Star Trek (i.e., the hive mind!) images present.
Just saying.................
Legerdemain). Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Legerdemain). has 0 definitions.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Who among us ever swore to preserve, protect, and defend "democracy?" Not I. Who among us ever swore to preserve, protect, and defend the government? Not I. We (all of us who served) swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Now, what does the Constitution have to say about voting? Generally, it says that the individual states are responsible for establishing and enforcing voting laws. Amendments sought to close loopholes that states used to deny the right to vote based on race, color, creed, etc. That being said, most objections to Citizens United attempts to influence elections appear to be lodged by those who disagree with the political bent of that group. That is, they are complaining on ideological grounds. In other words, had Citizens United campaigned vigorously for Hillary, nary an objection would be raised. That is not persuasive in measuring the validity of a law. Of course, they never actually say that. They argue that corporations are inherently evil (unless, of course, their ideological bent is in agreement with the progressives). They argue the same when objecting to the political utterances of the "rich". Interestingly, when one studies campaign reports, the "rich" and corporations tend to contribute to both sides (they hedge their bets). When the wealthy and corporations contribute to one side only, it is typically the progressives and, to that, they have no objection. Again, because their objections are prejudicial, they are not persuasive. I will allow you to figure out which survey option I should click.
(2)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
CPT Jack Durish As usual a very enlightened response.
I agree the "rich" give to both sides to "hedge their bets". I could not agree more!!!
When one examines the FEC sight (https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/) and type in say - "Bill Gates" or "Elon Musk" any one other big names in to the search it is interesting what emerges in the 264 or so line item contribution that are displayed for "Bill Gates" or the 20 results for "Elon Musk" or the 93 results using "Twitter" as a search parameter.
Everyone should know how each contribution is being tracked. But more importantly what about the 2.916 million returned results when using "PAC" as search parameter. I don't have time to download and study this massive list as I have a real job. That said, or the 74 results when using the search terms "Vets" or "veterans".
What about the 15 results when using the search term "homeless" or the 49 results when using the search term "unemployed". What a search by "Employer" using "Microsoft" as the search parameter. I am just picking on Microsoft for the purpose of example ONLY. But it is interesting that their have been 303,790 entries by individuals contributing whose employer is listed as Microsoft Corp.
What groups like "No Labels" or the "Forward Party" or "Independents". The slicing and dicing of data is endless pending your "political bent". Humm...................... Well their were 2,974 results using "Forward" as a research parameter. Plus, there were 89 entries returned for the period 2019 to 2023 year to date when using "Independent" as a search parameter.
What was interesting about the search term "Independent" was the details regarding this organization (https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00032979/):
"D.R.I.V.E. - DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT VOTER EDUCATION (THE PAC OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS)"
Just saying this (1) profile alone is interesting to develop questions about. Makes you wonder about "media". Well it really don't make me wonder, but it is curious...don't you think. But as you said the "rich" and "influential" nearly always "hedge their bets" so motivations are often "mixed" at best!
A quick look at the media is also in order:
1st their are 1,449 entries for the search term "Soros" (i.e., George Soros)
2nd their are 2,063 entries for "FoxNews" as a search term
3rd their are 78,313 entries for "NBC" as a search term
4th their are 1,464 entries for "CNN" as a search term
5th their are 68,564 entries for "ABC" as a search term
6th their are 69,661 entries for "CBS" as a search term
7th their are 5,390 entries for "BBC" as a search term
8th their are 422,393 entries using "Media" as a general search term
9th their are 97,077 entries using "News" as a general search term (Of course some these results are "Newport News Shipbuilding", which is 22,801 of that number.)
Lets look at the two National Committees to begin to close this treat out for the period 2019 with YTD 2023.
> Republican National Committee their are 7.030 million entries using as a general search parameter - "Republican National Committee" with all its permutations.
> Democratic National Committee their are 4.363 million entries using as a general search parameter - "Democratic National Committee" with all its permutations.
> Socialist Party their are 126 entries using as a general search parameter - "Socialist".
> Their, interesting enough when using "God" as a search parameter 113 results are returned for the expanded term "Government is not God".
The really interesting piece of data was when I used the the term "Not Employed" the 38.109 MILLION entries that were returned for the period 2019 then YTD 2023.
Finally, I live outside of Charlottesville City, Virginia about 20 minutes. So, what about the 22906 Zip slap inside the Charlottesville City limits. There are 1,464 entries returned for the period 2019 to 2023 (year to date). speaking of "Charlottesville" as a search parameter their were 336,465 entries for the same period 2019 to 2023. Scanning that list brought up some interesting points to consider. Just saying............
Again, it is fascinating the amount of intel the FedGov has and uses. You notice I did not "surprising", because that is - NO surprise! Yet, there are issues with this kind of data being publicly available for reasons that are not in keeping with "FREE & FAIR" elections regardless of the candidates running for offices from "Dog Catcher" to POTUS! In any event, it is all very fascinating.
OK, I am up today in front of computer on Sat morning 18 Nov 2023 with a football game to watch at 4 pm that may impact what post-season Bowl my team might be invited to before rivalry weekend the weekend after Thanksgiving that could change all that if we beat our arch rivals.
Regardless of your bent, I encourage "We the people..." to focus on "Pac" contributors and do there own "honest if possible" analysis of the data if they are able via a "neutral lens".
So, I need get some "real work done", but the game and help my wife with things too.
Jack, again. Thank you for your insightfulness!!! Yepper, "...We (all of us who served) swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..."
(FYI - As a data guy, I just cannot help myself.....LoL........)
I agree the "rich" give to both sides to "hedge their bets". I could not agree more!!!
When one examines the FEC sight (https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/) and type in say - "Bill Gates" or "Elon Musk" any one other big names in to the search it is interesting what emerges in the 264 or so line item contribution that are displayed for "Bill Gates" or the 20 results for "Elon Musk" or the 93 results using "Twitter" as a search parameter.
Everyone should know how each contribution is being tracked. But more importantly what about the 2.916 million returned results when using "PAC" as search parameter. I don't have time to download and study this massive list as I have a real job. That said, or the 74 results when using the search terms "Vets" or "veterans".
What about the 15 results when using the search term "homeless" or the 49 results when using the search term "unemployed". What a search by "Employer" using "Microsoft" as the search parameter. I am just picking on Microsoft for the purpose of example ONLY. But it is interesting that their have been 303,790 entries by individuals contributing whose employer is listed as Microsoft Corp.
What groups like "No Labels" or the "Forward Party" or "Independents". The slicing and dicing of data is endless pending your "political bent". Humm...................... Well their were 2,974 results using "Forward" as a research parameter. Plus, there were 89 entries returned for the period 2019 to 2023 year to date when using "Independent" as a search parameter.
What was interesting about the search term "Independent" was the details regarding this organization (https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00032979/):
"D.R.I.V.E. - DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT VOTER EDUCATION (THE PAC OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS)"
Just saying this (1) profile alone is interesting to develop questions about. Makes you wonder about "media". Well it really don't make me wonder, but it is curious...don't you think. But as you said the "rich" and "influential" nearly always "hedge their bets" so motivations are often "mixed" at best!
A quick look at the media is also in order:
1st their are 1,449 entries for the search term "Soros" (i.e., George Soros)
2nd their are 2,063 entries for "FoxNews" as a search term
3rd their are 78,313 entries for "NBC" as a search term
4th their are 1,464 entries for "CNN" as a search term
5th their are 68,564 entries for "ABC" as a search term
6th their are 69,661 entries for "CBS" as a search term
7th their are 5,390 entries for "BBC" as a search term
8th their are 422,393 entries using "Media" as a general search term
9th their are 97,077 entries using "News" as a general search term (Of course some these results are "Newport News Shipbuilding", which is 22,801 of that number.)
Lets look at the two National Committees to begin to close this treat out for the period 2019 with YTD 2023.
> Republican National Committee their are 7.030 million entries using as a general search parameter - "Republican National Committee" with all its permutations.
> Democratic National Committee their are 4.363 million entries using as a general search parameter - "Democratic National Committee" with all its permutations.
> Socialist Party their are 126 entries using as a general search parameter - "Socialist".
> Their, interesting enough when using "God" as a search parameter 113 results are returned for the expanded term "Government is not God".
The really interesting piece of data was when I used the the term "Not Employed" the 38.109 MILLION entries that were returned for the period 2019 then YTD 2023.
Finally, I live outside of Charlottesville City, Virginia about 20 minutes. So, what about the 22906 Zip slap inside the Charlottesville City limits. There are 1,464 entries returned for the period 2019 to 2023 (year to date). speaking of "Charlottesville" as a search parameter their were 336,465 entries for the same period 2019 to 2023. Scanning that list brought up some interesting points to consider. Just saying............
Again, it is fascinating the amount of intel the FedGov has and uses. You notice I did not "surprising", because that is - NO surprise! Yet, there are issues with this kind of data being publicly available for reasons that are not in keeping with "FREE & FAIR" elections regardless of the candidates running for offices from "Dog Catcher" to POTUS! In any event, it is all very fascinating.
OK, I am up today in front of computer on Sat morning 18 Nov 2023 with a football game to watch at 4 pm that may impact what post-season Bowl my team might be invited to before rivalry weekend the weekend after Thanksgiving that could change all that if we beat our arch rivals.
Regardless of your bent, I encourage "We the people..." to focus on "Pac" contributors and do there own "honest if possible" analysis of the data if they are able via a "neutral lens".
So, I need get some "real work done", but the game and help my wife with things too.
Jack, again. Thank you for your insightfulness!!! Yepper, "...We (all of us who served) swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..."
(FYI - As a data guy, I just cannot help myself.....LoL........)
Find what you need to know about the federal campaign finance process. Explore legal resources, campaign finance data, help for candidates and committees, and more.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google