Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 2

[Matt]

Yeah. I don't think a politician who broke from over a 100 years of being funded by big money in America will be just a footnote in history. Unless the Koch bros start writing our history too.

No one is funded by "big money." Such is a violation of federal law. Big money comes in the form of PAC spending. Sanders has benefited from PAC spending. Other uses of "big money" (a term that is thrown around with no real understanding of campaign finance law) could be viewed as donors. I suggest you take a cold hard look at Sanders's donor list. Its all public records. It is a virtual whose who of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and CEOs. Specifically, his congressional campaigns are funded by these folks. But surely that's just because they believe in progress, right? Wrong. Its because Sanders has, throughout his career, sat on several committees that fund federal tech development grants. Curious that so many have gone to Sanders's top donors. Isn't it?

But that is the hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders in a nutshell. Corporate money is bad and leads to quid pro quo...unless, he is the one receiving the money. What's that? His committee actions suggest there is quid pro quo...well, that's okay cause its Bernie, guys! The real evil is PACs. Wait! You mean to tell me that Pro-Sanders PACs (including Sanders himself) funneled millions into a primary challenge against Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, all for the sake of spiting her? That's okay too! Spending in politics is only bad when Bernie's not the one cutting the check.

 

[Hypestyle]

how about eliminating PACs period? Alas, "Citizens United", so the worst in funding policy mechanisms remains.
the political/economics systems here aren't slightly off course. it's dramatically f_____ up, and most people it seems are okay with it. ah well.

 

[Matt]

how about eliminating PACs period? Alas, "Citizens United", so the worst in funding policy mechanisms remains.
the political/economics systems here aren't slightly off course. it's dramatically f_____ up, and most people it seems are okay with it. ah well.

There is one big problem with this: THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

There is a misconception surrounding Citizens United. First of all, its not nearly as expansive as its opponents act. To the contrary, it is actually a relatively narrow holding. It doesn't preclude statutory regulations on campaign spending. It simply precludes blanket bans on political spending by organizations such as labor unions, non-profits, and PACs. And if one reads the opinion and actually has an understanding of the First Amendment and the jurisprudence behind it, its not hard to see that it is actually a reasonable opinion that makes a good bit of legal sense. Political speech is provided the highest degree of Constitutional protection. A blanket ban of any type of speech has never flown in this country, much less a blanket ban on political speech.

You don't get to pick and choose when the Constitution applies. Its not legislation that is intentionally vague and left to the interpretation of a regulatory agency. The Constitution is absolute. There is no Constitutional guarantee to having your speech amplified at the same level as someone who can afford advertisements and the likes. The First Amendment does not read as: "Congress shall pass no laws that abridging the freedom of speech...unless they are trying to make everything super fair for everyone."

Citizens United makes Constitutional sense. And short of an Amendment (and Americans should think long and hard about the overarching implication of an Amendment to the Constitution that limits ANY right much less speech) there is no changing that.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Except the first amendment and other rights are reserved for American citizens, not corporate entities, aka corporations are not people. Citizens United also allows for unlimited spending on campaigns, circumventing campaign finance regulations, and allows donors to hide their identities. So you have unknown people hiding behind faceless corporations which are benefitting from constitutional rights reserved for American citizens, the majority of which now do not matter to the politicians who are supposed to be working for them because they are too poor to even compare to billionaire donors who command the politician's favor. *Deep breath* The ruling severely damages and corrupts American Democracy and erodes citizens' faith our elections and frees politician's from actually having to serve the interest of the people.

But yes, unfortunately the only way to change Citizen's United now is a constitutional amendment which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Matt]

Except the first amendment and other rights are reserved for American citizens, not corporate entities, aka corporations are not people. Citizens United also allows for unlimited spending on campaigns, circumventing campaign finance regulations, and allows donors to hide their identities. So you have unknown people hiding behind faceless corporations which are benefitting from constitutional rights reserved for American citizens, the majority of which now do not matter to the politicians who are supposed to be working for them because they are too poor to even compare to billionaire donors who command the politician's favor. *Deep breath* The ruling severely damages and corrupts American Democracy and erodes citizens' faith our elections and frees politician's from actually having to serve the interest of the people.

But yes, unfortunately the only way to change Citizen's United now is a constitutional amendment which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a corporation is, from a legal perspective. A corporation is....wait for it....A COLLECTIVE OF PEOPLE! Its not the corporation's right to speak at issue. It is the people who form the corporation's right to speak. By your logic, organized protests by the NAACP should be broken up because its not the people who are protesting but rather the organization of the NAACP.

Further, you say that the ruling "damages and corrupts American democracy and erodes yada yada yada." But that is a POLITICAL QUESTION. Not a legal one. Its not for the Court to decide political questions. That is for Congress. The Court exists to ensure that laws pass constitutional muster. The Constitution is unflinchingly applied. That's the only way it works. That is why any blanket restriction on speech, even by collective actors, is shot down. Now, your counterpoint is, of course, that Congress won't change the rules because it benefits them. And the Court's response would be "then it falls to the people to elect those who will." And to the extent that you wish to argue that spending has diluted the political process, we have seen Obama beat Clinton, Sanders come out of no where to gain traction, and Trump taking down the entire Republican field while also spending considerably less than most of them. The political process is alive and well. Its up to the people to do something about it.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Yes, corporations are a collective of people. And the banning of super PACs made possible by Citizens United does nothing to infringe on their first amendment right to support candidates within the means of campaign finance regulations. But Citizen's United makes Super PACs possible and allows them to subvert campaign finance regulations by allowing them to dump unlimited amounts of money into electioneering funds as a means to influence elections in ways individuals are not allowed. They are also able to do it anonymously, which is another thing individuals cannot do. As for your example involving the NAACP, there is a pretty stark difference between them and a corporation considering the NAACP is a non-profit organization who is subject to making political donations within the rules of campaign finance regulations.

I understand the latter part of my concerns being a political question and never suggested otherwise. The statement was merely an observation of what Citizen's United means for Americans. But I wholly agree with your final statement the political process is up to the people to do something about it. First and foremost I hold American citizens responsible for who they voted into office (or rather, their overwhelming abstinence from voting, and lack of being engaged responsibly in politics, allowed into office.) But regardless, there are many political systems at work designed to disengage and suppress American voters from the political process, which is one of the alarming effects resulting from Citizens United that I take great issue with.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Citizens United spells a horrible fate for state governorship and congressional seats, if not the presidency [yet]. The republicans excel at one thing, they know the best way to stranglehold America is from the bottom up. Their quiet streak of gerrymandering, voter suppression, right wing media, and now campaign finance is nothing short of breathtaking. Democrats haven't lost over 1000 seats in state and federal government over the years by being smart.

 

[Matt]

Yes, corporations are a collective of people. And the banning of super PACs made possible by Citizens United does nothing to infringe on their first amendment right to support candidates within the means of campaign finance regulations. But Citizen's United makes Super PACs possible and allows them to subvert campaign finance regulations by allowing them to dump unlimited amounts of money into electioneering funds as a means to influence elections in ways individuals are not allowed. They are also able to do it anonymously, which is another thing individuals cannot do. As for your example involving the NAACP, there is a pretty stark difference between them and a corporation considering the NAACP is a non-profit organization who is subject to making political donations within the rules of campaign finance regulations.

Let me ask you a very simple question: what gives you the right to know what someone else is doing with their money? What gives you the right to know how they exercise their political power? What source of law, do you believe gives you the right to know who donates what and who spends what? More over, what source of CONSTITUTIONAL law do you believe bestows that right upon you? Is it the First Amendment? Second? Third? DPC? EPC?

You're complaining about a SUPREME COURT HOLDING. The Supreme Court does not decide public policy. They decided Constitutionality.

"Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech."

That doesn't say "Congress shall pass no law unless they have a really good reason."

So, unless you have a Constitutional right to see the spending of someone else, there are no Constitutional grounds upon which the blanket ban in question in Citizens United could be upheld on the grounds upon which you speak.

Moreover, that was not even what was at issue in Citizens United. The question was simply whether the BCRA, a blanket ban on speech, passed Constitutional muster. Nothing about whether a law that place reporting requirements on Super PACs is legal. And under Citizens United, that law would probably be upheld. And there in is your source of law. A statute. But...a statute has to be passed. And that takes us back to....THE POLITICAL PROCESS. Ta da! And that ends your fifth grade civics lesson for the day.

Citizens United spells a horrible fate for state governorship and congressional seats, if not the presidency [yet]. The republicans excel at one thing, they know the best way to stranglehold America is from the bottom up. Their quiet streak of gerrymandering, voter suppression, right wing media, and now campaign finance is nothing short of breathtaking. Democrats haven't lost over 1000 seats in state and federal government over the years by being smart.

So what would you do? Tear up the Constitution because you disagree with the political process?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well we do have the ability to amend the Constitution. I think that would be a good start.

 

[Matt]

Well we do have the ability to amend the Constitution. I think that would be a good start.

But think about what you suggest. How exactly would the Amendment read?

"A citizen may not spend more than X amount of dollars"?

"Campaign spending is to be limited to X"?

Something along those lines.

Think about what you are describing . . . a restrictive Amendment. We've done it once before. It was called prohibition. Not our finest hour.

The Constitution is not what the government can keep you from doing. It is your rights, as a citizen. You're suggested we create a right that limits another right (political speech). That is an INCREDIBLY dangerous slope to go down. Especially when, once again and I cannot stress this enough: CITIZENS UNITED DOES NOT PRECLUDE REGULATION, CAPS, OR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; IT SIMPLY PRECLUDES A BLANKET BAN ON SPEECH.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Citizens United spells a horrible fate for state governorship and congressional seats, if not the presidency [yet]. The republicans excel at one thing, they know the best way to stranglehold America is from the bottom up. Their quiet streak of gerrymandering, voter suppression, right wing media, and now campaign finance is nothing short of breathtaking. Democrats haven't lost over 1000 seats in state and federal government over the years by being smart.

Honestly, I think Democrats just got lazy politically. It's not that they didn't have ideas but I think Democrats figured they could legislate progressive policy through the courts like the Civil Rights era while Republicans focused on strangling that progress by legislation in the states and obstructing at Federal level.

I don't know if stopping gerrymandering will fix the fact Democrats don't show up in numbers for local and midterms like Fox News voters.

Millennials will stand outside a McDonalds for Mulan sauce for 5 hours but 3 weeks of early voting to counter voter suppression of older minority voters is too much?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

They sold out to the oligarchs. Moved to the right under Bill. Stopped being a party of working people.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Let me ask you a very simple question: what gives you the right to know what someone else is doing with their money? What gives you the right to know how they exercise their political power? What source of law, do you believe gives you the right to know who donates what and who spends what? More over, what source of CONSTITUTIONAL law do you believe bestows that right upon you? Is it the First Amendment? Second? Third? DPC? EPC?

You're complaining about a SUPREME COURT HOLDING. The Supreme Court does not decide public policy. They decided Constitutionality.

"Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech."

That doesn't say "Congress shall pass no law unless they have a really good reason."

So, unless you have a Constitutional right to see the spending of someone else, there are no Constitutional grounds upon which the blanket ban in question in Citizens United could be upheld on the grounds upon which you speak.

Moreover, that was not even what was at issue in Citizens United. The question was simply whether the BCRA, a blanket ban on speech, passed Constitutional muster. Nothing about whether a law that place reporting requirements on Super PACs is legal. And under Citizens United, that law would probably be upheld. And there in is your source of law. A statute. But...a statute has to be passed. And that takes us back to....THE POLITICAL PROCESS. Ta da! And that ends your fifth grade civics lesson for the day.

Dude, I understand the different roles of government branches, so knock off the condescending attitude. It's unnecessary. We both know FECA regulations put limits on donations and requires records of who those donations are coming from. Those regulations are there for a good reason. Citizen's United allows for those regulations to be circumvented resulting in unlimited amounts of dark money to buy elections/candidates. You can scream all you want that a Supreme Court found it to be constitutional so I need to shut up about it. Yeah, it's the law of the land and we gotta deal with it now. I get it. But it still taints the "...POLITICAL PROCESS", and I think its okay for me to take issue with our democracy being eroded and American voters being disenfranchised in favor of the special interests of billion dollar corporations. Just because something is found constitutional doesn't mean the constitution isn't flawed and nothing should be done to fix it. Which brings it all back to who Americans are voting into office, or rather who is getting into office because Americans aren't voting because there is so much money corrupting the political process that it is infringing on the power of our vote.

 

[Matt]

Dude, I understand the different roles of government branches, so knock off the condescending attitude. It's unnecessary. We both know FECA regulations put limits on donations and requires records of who those donations are coming from. Those regulations are there for a good reason. Citizen's United allows for those regulations to be circumvented resulting in unlimited amounts of dark money to buy elections/candidates. You can scream all you want that a Supreme Court found it to be constitutional so I need to shut up about it. Yeah, it's the law of the land and we gotta deal with it now. I get it. But it still taints the "...POLITICAL PROCESS", and I think its okay for me to take issue with our democracy being eroded and American voters being disenfranchised in favor of the special interests of billion dollar corporations. Just because something is found constitutional doesn't mean the constitution isn't flawed and nothing should be done to fix it. Which brings it all back to who Americans are voting into office, or rather who is getting into office because Americans aren't voting because there is so much money corrupting the political process that it is infringing on the power of our vote.

You claim to understand this, yet literally nothing you botched about has a damn thing to do with Citizens United. Citizens United does not allow regulations to be circumvented. Neither Congress nor the FEC has put regulations on Super PACs. Therefore Citizens United addresses no such issues. All Citizens United stands for is the proposition that a blanket ban is unconstitutional.

 

[Motown Marvel]

You can repeat the phrase “blanket ban” all you want, it’s the spending of unlimited and unregulated amounts of money on campaigns because corporations were afforded the same constitutional rights as the individuals who make up the corporation. Except unlike these corporations, donations from individuals are documented, capped, and regulated by FECA. There is no reason why a corporate entity should be afford the rights of an American citizen. And their newfound ability to buy elections violates the voting power of the American Public, threatening the “one man, one vote” ideals which our democracy is based on.

 

[Matt]

You can repeat the phrase “blanket ban” all you want, it’s the spending of unlimited and unregulated amounts of money on campaigns because corporations were afforded the same constitutional rights as the individuals who make up the corporation. Except unlike these corporations, donations from individuals are documented, capped, and regulated by FECA. There is no reason why a corporate entity should be afford the rights of an American citizen. And their newfound ability to buy elections violates the voting power of the American Public, threatening the “one man, one vote” ideals which our democracy is based on.

Too bad the words “one man, one vote” do not appear in the Constitution. You know what does? “Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech.”

Again, everything you complain about can be regulated through congressional laws. This isn’t about extending corporations limitless protection. All that CU does is prohibit blanket bans on political spending. It would apply to an individually owned PAC same as it would a corporation. My point being, you are so angry about Citizens United, yet you don’t even seem to know what CU is.

 

[Motown Marvel]

The doctrine of "One Man, One Vote" is supported by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment which SCOTUS upheld in Baker v. Carr when the equality of American voters was threatened by redistricting. The corruption of money in politics which Citizens United opened the floodgates for also threatens the power of American voters when the influence of our vote cannot equal the influence of dark money from corporate contributions. I disagree that the free speech of a corporate entity is being infringed upon because I find it alarmingly flawed that a corporate entity would have free speech protection in the first place seeing as it is not an American citizen. Yes, the narrow majority of the SCOTUS found otherwise, and it sickens me. And you claim this can be regulated through congressional laws while at the same time claiming spending money is a form of free speech which congress cannot infringe.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

The doctrine of "One Man, One Vote" is supported by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment which SCOTUS upheld in Baker v. Carr when the equality of American voters was threatened by redistricting. The corruption of money in politics which Citizens United opened the floodgates for also threatens the power of American voters when the influence of our vote cannot equal the influence of dark money from corporate contributions. I disagree that the free speech of a corporate entity is being infringed upon because I find it alarmingly flawed that a corporate entity would have free speech protection in the first place seeing as it is not an American citizen. Yes, the narrow majority of the SCOTUS found otherwise, and it sickens me. And you claim this can be regulated through congressional laws while at the same time claiming spending money is a form of free speech which congress cannot infringe.

I think the point Matt is making is the the SCOTUS doesn't make law. They only give you a general guideline on what doesn't infringe on the Constitution. So if Congress is actually dead set on containing money in politics is up to them to figure out how it would pass muster. It's not the Supreme Courts job to tell Congress this is how you have to write it get an A on your term paper.

 

[Motown Marvel]

I think the point Matt is making is the the SCOTUS doesn't make law. They only give you a general guideline on what doesn't infringe on the Constitution. So if Congress is actually dead set on containing money in politics is up to them to figure out how it would pass muster. It's not the Supreme Courts job to tell Congress this is how you have to write it get an A on your term paper.

As I've stated before, I understand the basic powers of each branch of the government. I understand the SCOTUS doesn't write law. But their judgements do affect the enforcement of laws. And seeing as the Citizen's United ruling was a narrow 4-5 ruling, it makes the topic of its constitutionality rather debatable. And my point isn't expecting the SCOTUS to do something about this. But something, in general, needs to be done about money corrupting politics. It is a problem which has been compounded by Citizen's United, whether you feel it is constitutional or not.

 

[Matt]

The doctrine of "One Man, One Vote" is supported by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment which SCOTUS upheld in Baker v. Carr when the equality of American voters was threatened by redistricting. The corruption of money in politics which Citizens United opened the floodgates for also threatens the power of American voters when the influence of our vote cannot equal the influence of dark money from corporate contributions. I disagree that the free speech of a corporate entity is being infringed upon because I find it alarmingly flawed that a corporate entity would have free speech protection in the first place seeing as it is not an American citizen. Yes, the narrow majority of the SCOTUS found otherwise, and it sickens me. And you claim this can be regulated through congressional laws while at the same time claiming spending money is a form of free speech which congress cannot infringe.

Regulation and ban are two very different things. Listen dude, you’re out of your league. You’re arguing fine, nuanced points of law (such as the difference between a constitutionally permissible regulation and a impermissible ban on speech) without the qualifications or knowledge needed to understand these nuances. You claim an equal protection violation without articulating how one’s right to vote is being compromised. Someone exercising political speech, no matter how loudly, does not infringe upon one’s right to cast a vote. There is no metric by which the value of a vote can be measurered or quantified to an amount of spending.

Also, you are throwing around words like “narrow majority.” I challenge you to find one Court of Appeals opinion that says “well, I understand the majority opinion states this, but it was so slim that we are going to rule in the alternative because the dissent shows this is unsettled.” The law doesn’t work that way. And you, quite frankly, do not understand the topic about what you are arguing.

 

[Matt]

I think the point Matt is making is the the SCOTUS doesn't make law. They only give you a general guideline on what doesn't infringe on the Constitution. So if Congress is actually dead set on containing money in politics is up to them to figure out how it would pass muster. It's not the Supreme Courts job to tell Congress this is how you have to write it get an A on your term paper.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

 

[TheComicbookKid]

As I've stated before, I understand the basic powers of each branch of the government. I understand the SCOTUS doesn't write law. But their judgements do affect the enforcement of laws. And seeing as the Citizen's United ruling was a narrow 4-5 ruling, it makes the topic of its constitutionality rather debatable. And my point isn't expecting the SCOTUS to do something about this. But something, in general, needs to be done about money corrupting politics. It is a problem which has been compounded by Citizen's United, whether you feel it is constitutional or not.

I was a kid when it came out so I don't know what case brought it before the court but in general your argument against the court seems wrong.

We can all agree money in politics is harmful but I doubt that broad question and it's ramifications was what the court was supposed to hearing arguments for.

There was already money in politics the court seem to be bound by the restraint of who and how much was allowed. That's it. Even if they had concerns they couldn't legislate a Dodd Frank judgment from their positions.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Regulation and ban are two very different things. Listen dude, you’re out of your league. You’re arguing fine, nuanced points of law (such as the difference between a constitutionally permissible regulation and a impermissible ban on speech) without the qualifications or knowledge needed to understand these nuances. You claim an equal protection violation without articulating how one’s right to vote is being compromised. Someone exercising political speech, no matter how loudly, does not infringe upon one’s right to cast a vote. There is no metric by which the value of a vote can be measurered or quantified to an amount of spending.

Also, you are throwing around words like “narrow majority.” I challenge you to find one Court of Appeals opinion that says “well, I understand the majority opinion states this, but it was so slim that we are going to rule in the alternative because the dissent shows this is unsettled.” The law doesn’t work that way. And you, quite frankly, do not understand the topic about what you are arguing.

You are taking implications from what I said which do not exist. The majority ruled and its the law of the land now, I accept that as being the reality in which solving these issues have to exist within. But, the narrowness of its victory does leave room for recognizing points of the dissent which find Citizens United to be unconstitutional and severely damaging to our political process. Yes, I understand those points don't matter since the Court has ruled and that cannot be changed short of a new amendment which isn't going to happen. But none of that is going to stop me from taking issue with the ruling, recognizing how it damages our democracy, and seeking solutions on what is a very real problem.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Also you keep talking about the narrowness of the decision but that doesn't really matter?

Brown vs. Board was a 9-0 decision but we are still fighting segregated school policy cause it's Congress that handles the laws. The problem didn't originate from a SCOTUS ruling so it nearly impossible that a ruling would fix it.

 

[routhman]

Regulation and ban are two very different things. Listen dude, you’re out of your league. You’re arguing fine, nuanced points of law (such as the difference between a constitutionally permissible regulation and a impermissible ban on speech) without the qualifications or knowledge needed to understand these nuances. You claim an equal protection violation without articulating how one’s right to vote is being compromised. Someone exercising political speech, no matter how loudly, does not infringe upon one’s right to cast a vote. There is no metric by which the value of a vote can be measurered or quantified to an amount of spending.

Also, you are throwing around words like “narrow majority.” I challenge you to find one Court of Appeals opinion that says “well, I understand the majority opinion states this, but it was so slim that we are going to rule in the alternative because the dissent shows this is unsettled.” The law doesn’t work that way. And you, quite frankly, do not understand the topic about what you are arguing.

I think you could tone down the condescension. Yes, we know you're the law expert, and we're not, but it's just lazy to argue that people are wrong because of your degree.

I think it's obvious that the voting power of a board member of a corporation is augmented by the people that the board member is able to influence through campaign contributions, in that there are sheep who thoughtlessly will latch onto that corporation's rhetoric and go to vote for the corporation's, rather than their own, beliefs.

At the same time, it's a desirable feature of political discourse that we can win others to our side by way of argument, so you could argue that the individual is capable of the same sort of voting-power augmentation as the corporation, just on a much smaller scale because the individual cannot connect with as many people. It is clear therefore that we can't pass any sort of law barring any & all voting-power augmentation, because individuals augment their voting power through interpersonal conversations all the time.

It is also clear at least that an individual or organization's ability to augment their voting power scales with their available resources.

The question is: Is that fair to the people? And if we agree not, and if CU stands, is there anything we can do to make the voting landscape more fair without establishing a dangerous precedent?

It seems to me that you're happy without any regulation. Is that right?