Neither further proof of the Robert’s Court idiocy

[QP!]

But it is. It encompasses the entirety of my statement, "The one who spends the most money is not always the winner."

The point you CHANGED.

Here again is what Terry said and you replied to with and i replied to, which DOES NOT have the point you are not trying to pretend we are discussing.

So again Terry's statement as quoted below that YOU REPLIED to is NOT a very good assessment. You have to CHANGE Terry's statement or youyr own to ADD IN what you now are saying to make it correct.

T. A. Gardner said:
I don't see it that way. Money is important in a political campaign, but it is not anywhere close to the thing that wins or loses one.

Considering that Kamala spent over a billion in 100 days and still lost that would be a very good assessment.

 

[zymurgy]

"This led to the creation of Super PACs (officially “independent-expenditure-only committees”)"

derp derp. The constitution also led to Super PACs -

the alphabet led to works of art too.

what court case created SUPER PACS? It wasn't Citizen United - and that's a fact. - you retards so desperately want to ignore the facts

 

[Damocles]

The point you CHANGED.

Here again is what Terry said and you replied to with and i replied to, which DOES NOT have the point you are not trying to pretend we are discussing.

So again Terry's statement as quoted below that YOU REPLIED to is NOT a very good assessment. You have to CHANGE Terry's statement or youyr own to ADD IN what you now are saying to make it correct.

I didn't change a thing. I quoted a Truism then did a sarcastic quip about something that could prove the Truism...

You keep ignoring the reality. The Truism is 100% true. The person that spent more money did not win the election.

 

[QP!]

I didn't change a thing. I quoted a Truism then did a sarcastic quip about something that could prove the Truism...

You keep ignoring the reality. The Truism is 100% true. The person that spent more money did not win the election.

The problem is that you are lying.

This was the EXACT post by Terry...

T. A. Gardner said:
I don't see it that way. Money is important in a political campaign, but it is not anywhere close to the thing that wins or loses one.

and this was your EXACT reply which i quoted and referred to...

Damocles said:
Considering that Kamala spent over a billion in 100 days and still lost that would be a very good assessment.

everyone can see you are trying to change what is in those two posts to add something that was not in them and that i did not reply to.

Terry's statement is not a "very good assessment" as written there, as you say and only by you trying to CHANGE it, as you are now by trying to add something not in those quotes, can you claim that.

 

[QP!]

"This led to the creation of Super PACs (officially “independent-expenditure-only committees”)"

derp derp. The constitution also led to Super PACs -

the alphabet led to works of art too.

what court case created SUPER PACS? It wasn't Citizen United - and that's a fact. - you retards so desperately want to ignore the facts

The person ignoring facts is the person who does not read anything that proves him wrong and i already proved you wrong.

-----------


How Citizens United v. FEC changed the flow of money into PACs and political spending:

---

• Ruled that corporations, unions, and nonprofits have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on independent political speech
• Overturned limits on independent expenditures, not direct contributions to candidates

---

• Allowed unlimited independent spending by outside groups
• This led to the creation of Super PACs (officially “independent-expenditure-only committees”)

---

• Super PACs can:
  • Accept unlimited donations from individuals
  • Accept unlimited donations from corporations and unions
  • Spend unlimited amounts supporting or opposing candidates
• They cannot donate directly to candidates or coordinate with campaigns

---

• Wealthy individuals and corporations can now:
  • Write million-dollar checks to Super PACs
  • Fund massive ad campaigns, media blitzes, and voter outreach
• Political spending shifted from:
  • Campaigns → Outside groups
• This made PACs (especially Super PACs) far more powerful than traditional PACs

---

• Nonprofits (like 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups) can:
  • Spend on politics
  • Donate to Super PACs
  • Often don’t have to disclose donors
• This increased anonymous political funding

---

• Before Citizens United:
  
  • PAC donations and corporate political spending were heavily limited
• After Citizens United:
  
  • Unlimited money can flow into Super PACs
  • Political influence became more concentrated among large donors and organizations
  • Campaigns rely heavily on outside spending rather than direct fundraising

---

One-Sentence Summary​

Citizens United didn’t remove limits on donating to candidates — it created a system where unlimited money could flow into Super PACs, allowing wealthy donors, corporations, and unions to spend massive sums influencing elections independently.

 

[zymurgy]

Citizens United (January 21, 2010) removed federal restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions (and certain electioneering communications limits). It did not itself eliminate the dollar caps on what individuals could contribute to a PAC.


SpeechNow.org v. FEC (March 26, 2010) is the decision that held that contribution limits cannot be applied (consistent with the First Amendment) to a political committee that only makes independent expenditures and does not contribute to candidates. That holding is the legal predicate for the modern “independent expenditure–only committee”—what everyone now calls a super PAC.


so you are simply wrong on which court case did what. The Super PAC as we know it was born from the SpeechNow court case

 

[archives]

you are the one needing education

SpeechNOW.org v. Federal Election Commission

ballotpedia.org

this is the case that created the Super PAC. Citizens United is not it. If this case was not decided, we would still be using 527's and hiding the coordination, like was always done

You didn’t even read your own “proof,” “SpeechNOW.org is the first case in which a federal court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which removed contribution limits on independent expenditures,” it came after Citizens United and the latter was applied to the decision. No Citizen United no SpeechNow decision

NEXT

 

[archives]

Pointing out that the person that spent the most doesn't always win is a non-partisan thing.

And the thread is on the consequences to our democracy of unlimited money flooding into campaigns bought to us by Citizens United regardless of which billion dollar campaign wins

 

[zymurgy]

You didn’t even read your own “proof,” “SpeechNOW.org is the first case in which a federal court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which removed contribution limits on independent expenditures,” it came after Citizens United and the latter was applied to the decision. No Citizen United no SpeechNow decision

NEXT

Of course I read it. This is the case that changed what we bitch about, not Citizen United.

Citizens United allowed corporations to donate - but the caps were not impacted.

Big money was always allowed - but it had to be "unaffiliated", which is just rich speak for "done with lawyers"

 

[archives]

Of course I read it. This is the case that changed what we bitch about, not Citizen United.

Citizens United allowed corporations to donate - but the caps were not impacted.

Big money was always allowed - but it had to be "unaffiliated", which is just rich speak for "done with lawyers"

Citizen United made it possible, the decision was based on Citizens United, as I said, without Citizens United there would be no later decision

 

[QP!]

Of course I read it. This is the case that changed what we bitch about, not Citizen United.

Citizens United allowed corporations to donate - but the caps were not impacted.

Big money was always allowed - but it had to be "unaffiliated", which is just rich speak for "done with lawyers"

you admit you do not read others material which is why you keep repeating the wrong disproven material.

As was said, SpeechNow flowed out of Citizens united and as such you CANNOT say Citizens United had no impact when it was what the other was built upon.