Does Citizens United rank as one of the worst decisions of any SCOTUS?

[archives]

“Fifteen years later, Citizens United defined the 2024 election”
“The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.”

“The most striking consequence of Citizens United continues to be the expanded influence of the very wealthiest donors. Last year, donors who gave at least $5 million to super PACs in the presidential race spent more than twice as much as they did in 2020. Roughly 44 percent ($481 million) of all the money raised to support Trump came from just 10 individual donors. The top 10 donors supporting Harris accounted for nearly 8 percent ($126 million) of her campaign. For both candidates, most of this money came from outside groups like super PACs.”

“These changes set the stage for Musk in particular to play a central role in the election. He gave at least $277 million to two super PACs that supported Trump. Harris had her own billionaire backers, most of whom also donated through super PACs and dark money groups“

“Massive spending was not the only way that billionaires were able to shape the 2024 race. X amplified Musk’s activity. Prior to Citizens United, the direct use of corporate resources to advocate for a candidate was typically limited to traditional press activities, which are exempt from most campaign finance rules. Now, however, a corporation like X — which, had it existed prior to Citizens United, would likely not have been categorized as engaging in press activity.

Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election

The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.

www.brennancenter.org

In other words, today, political offices are bought, no way an individual gives a candidate $240 million without expecting something in return, it certainly ain’t because he “likes his policies.” And that doesn’t even include foreign nations “contributions”

This, and several other equally stupid decisions, shows how Robert’s Court has totally fucked up America, and contributing to a nation quickly evolving into an oligarchy

Always remember Obama in his State of the Union address publicly in front of a nationwide TV audience scolding the Court for this decision, and Alito shanking his mead no, which 2024 proves Obama was 100% correct

 

[cawacko]

Didn’t Harris massively out raise Trump? Candidates would obviously rather have more money than less but having the most money doesn’t guarantee victory.

Edit: Didn’t Hillary Clinton out raise Trump by like a 2-1 margin?

 

[Phantasmal]

The absolute worse. Our politicians are bought and paid for, there are some who don’t take Dark Money.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

citizens doesn't even hit the top 5 worst, unless the intent is to keep the citizenry stupid as fuck.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

“Fifteen years later, Citizens United defined the 2024 election”
“The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.”

“The most striking consequence of Citizens United continues to be the expanded influence of the very wealthiest donors. Last year, donors who gave at least $5 million to super PACs in the presidential race spent more than twice as much as they did in 2020. Roughly 44 percent ($481 million) of all the money raised to support Trump came from just 10 individual donors. The top 10 donors supporting Harris accounted for nearly 8 percent ($126 million) of her campaign. For both candidates, most of this money came from outside groups like super PACs.”

“These changes set the stage for Musk in particular to play a central role in the election. He gave at least $277 million to two super PACs that supported Trump. Harris had her own billionaire backers, most of whom also donated through super PACs and dark money groups“

“Massive spending was not the only way that billionaires were able to shape the 2024 race. X amplified Musk’s activity. Prior to Citizens United, the direct use of corporate resources to advocate for a candidate was typically limited to traditional press activities, which are exempt from most campaign finance rules. Now, however, a corporation like X — which, had it existed prior to Citizens United, would likely not have been categorized as engaging in press activity.

Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election

The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.

www.brennancenter.org

In other words, today, political offices are bought, no way an individual gives a candidate $240 million without expecting something in return, it certainly ain’t because he “likes his policies.” And that doesn’t even include foreign nations “contributions”

This, and several other equally stupid decisions, shows how Robert’s Court has totally fucked up America, and contributing to a nation quickly evolving into an oligarchy

Always remember Obama in his State of the Union address publicly in front of a nationwide TV audience scolding the Court for this decision, and Alito shanking his mead no, which 2024 proves Obama was 100% correct

Lord Acton's "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" can be updated to the 21st century to "Wealth tends to corrupt and absolute wealth corrupts absolutely".

Notice the number of people flocking to Trump in pursuit of wealth, either getting it or keeping it. As Hegseth's testimony displayed today, some people will do anything for wealth such as give complete obedience to a single man in violation of their oath of office.

 

[Hume]

“Fifteen years later, Citizens United defined the 2024 election”
“The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.”

“The most striking consequence of Citizens United continues to be the expanded influence of the very wealthiest donors. Last year, donors who gave at least $5 million to super PACs in the presidential race spent more than twice as much as they did in 2020. Roughly 44 percent ($481 million) of all the money raised to support Trump came from just 10 individual donors. The top 10 donors supporting Harris accounted for nearly 8 percent ($126 million) of her campaign. For both candidates, most of this money came from outside groups like super PACs.”

“These changes set the stage for Musk in particular to play a central role in the election. He gave at least $277 million to two super PACs that supported Trump. Harris had her own billionaire backers, most of whom also donated through super PACs and dark money groups“

“Massive spending was not the only way that billionaires were able to shape the 2024 race. X amplified Musk’s activity. Prior to Citizens United, the direct use of corporate resources to advocate for a candidate was typically limited to traditional press activities, which are exempt from most campaign finance rules. Now, however, a corporation like X — which, had it existed prior to Citizens United, would likely not have been categorized as engaging in press activity.

Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election

The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.

www.brennancenter.org

In other words, today, political offices are bought, no way an individual gives a candidate $240 million without expecting something in return, it certainly ain’t because he “likes his policies.” And that doesn’t even include foreign nations “contributions”

This, and several other equally stupid decisions, shows how Robert’s Court has totally fucked up America, and contributing to a nation quickly evolving into an oligarchy

Always remember Obama in his State of the Union address publicly in front of a nationwide TV audience scolding the Court for this decision, and Alito shanking his mead no, which 2024 proves Obama was 100% correct

Legalized bribery.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

citizens doesn't even hit the top 5 worst, unless the intent is to keep the citizenry stupid as fuck.

What are your "top 5"?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Didn’t Harris massively out raise Trump? Candidates would obviously rather have more money than less but having the most money doesn’t guarantee victory.

Edit: Didn’t Hillary Clinton out raise Trump by like a 2-1 margin?

Only at first, for a few weeks. Then the oligarchy got scared and poured their gold upon #TRE45ON.

 

[cawacko]

Only at first, for a few weeks. Then the oligarchy got scared and poured their gold upon #TRE45ON.

Is that true though?


This is from Oct 24th NY Times:

Harris Sets Record for Biggest Fund-Raising Quarter Ever​

Donald Trump is raising less money than he did during his run in 2020, building a far smaller campaign than Kamala Harris.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign set a record for the biggest fund-raising quarter ever this fall, raising $1 billion in the three-month period that ended Sept. 30.

Each month since Ms. Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee, she has significantly out-raised and outspent Mr. Trump, building a vastly bigger campaign than has the Republican nominee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/21/us/elections/harris-trump-campaign-finance.html

Trump Vs. Harris Fundraising: Harris Outraises Trump By Nearly 5-to-1 Among Last Minute Big Donors​

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign has given Democrats a substantive fundraising lead, with last-minute federal filings released ahead of Election Day suggesting her campaign is maintaining a massive lead over former President Donald Trump in the final days of the race, based on the bigger donors cutting checks to each candidates’ campaigns.

While the campaigns won’t report their full finances again until after Election Day, candidates are still required to report donations of $1,000 or above to the FEC within 48 hours—which are largely breaking for Harris, whose campaign raised $19.5 million from bigger donors between Oct. 17 and Nov. 1, as compared with only $4.5 million for Trump.

Trump Vs. Harris Fundraising: Harris Outraises Trump By Nearly 5-to-1 Among Last Minute Big Donors

Harris' campaign and affiliated groups have raised $1 billion since she entered the race.

www.forbes.com

 

[Diogenes]

Legalized bribery.

Is it?

 

[Hume]

Is it?

That's your prerogative.

 

[Diogenes]

Only at first, for a few weeks. Then the oligarchy got scared and poured their gold upon #TRE45ON.

Is that so?

 

[Hume]

Is that so?

That's your prerogative.

 

[Diogenes]

Hillary Clinton raised more funding than Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. According to the Federal Election Commission data, Clinton's campaign, along with the Democratic National Committee and other related committees, raised approximately $1.4 billion. In contrast, Trump's campaign, along with the Republican National Committee and associated groups, raised around $957 million.

Kamala Harris significantly outraised Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Reports indicate that Harris and her affiliated groups raised over $1 billion since she entered the race, with some sources citing even higher figures like $1.2 billion for the Harris Victory Fund alone for certain periods. In comparison, Trump's campaign and its affiliated groups raised considerably less, with amounts reported around $388 million for the campaign committee and additional funds through joint fundraising committees like the Trump 47 Committee, which still did not match Harris's totals.

@Grok

 

[Hawkeye10]

There are so many horrible decisions.....and so many 5-4 decisions....which is evidence of a broken court.

SCOTUS will not be saving us.

 

[cawacko]

Only at first, for a few weeks. Then the oligarchy got scared and poured their gold upon #TRE45ON.

Piggy backing on my previous post, it's about impossible to raise $1B (like Harris did) with a bunch of $25 donations from working class folks.

California, and the Bay Area specifically, is a political ATM for politicians. Both parties come here to raise big money but not surprisingly Democrats tend to dominate. When Biden, and then Harris, come here they aren't going to East Oakland to raise money. They are going to homes of the richest (the oligarchs) in places like SF, Woodside and Atherton.

They of course just playing the game that everyone has to play and to their credit they play it well. But as we seen the shift of more college educated voting Democratic and more working class voting Republican, it's not shocking the richest tend to be college educated.

 

[Teflon Don]

No

 

[Tobytone]

“Fifteen years later, Citizens United defined the 2024 election”
“The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.”

“The most striking consequence of Citizens United continues to be the expanded influence of the very wealthiest donors. Last year, donors who gave at least $5 million to super PACs in the presidential race spent more than twice as much as they did in 2020. Roughly 44 percent ($481 million) of all the money raised to support Trump came from just 10 individual donors. The top 10 donors supporting Harris accounted for nearly 8 percent ($126 million) of her campaign. For both candidates, most of this money came from outside groups like super PACs.”

“These changes set the stage for Musk in particular to play a central role in the election. He gave at least $277 million to two super PACs that supported Trump. Harris had her own billionaire backers, most of whom also donated through super PACs and dark money groups“

“Massive spending was not the only way that billionaires were able to shape the 2024 race. X amplified Musk’s activity. Prior to Citizens United, the direct use of corporate resources to advocate for a candidate was typically limited to traditional press activities, which are exempt from most campaign finance rules. Now, however, a corporation like X — which, had it existed prior to Citizens United, would likely not have been categorized as engaging in press activity.

Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election

The influence of wealthy donors and dark money was unprecedented. Much of it would have been illegal before the Supreme Court swept away long-established campaign finance rules.

www.brennancenter.org

In other words, today, political offices are bought, no way an individual gives a candidate $240 million without expecting something in return, it certainly ain’t because he “likes his policies.” And that doesn’t even include foreign nations “contributions”

This, and several other equally stupid decisions, shows how Robert’s Court has totally fucked up America, and contributing to a nation quickly evolving into an oligarchy

Always remember Obama in his State of the Union address publicly in front of a nationwide TV audience scolding the Court for this decision, and Alito shanking his mead no, which 2024 proves Obama was 100% correct

Sounds good, you're really trying to sound even-handed and equally hard-hitting. Except, there are a few tiny facts that always seem to mess up tbe perfect left-wing narrative.
First off, let me point out that in both 2016 and 2024, the Democrats outspent the Republicans by a mile, and in both cases, the Dems lost. This makes it pretty damn hard to argue that money wins elections. No, ideas win elections, or, bad ideas lose them.
Oh, and Harris had sooo many small donations, while Trump relied on big, greedy, rich scum for his campaign. I made quite the effort to find out where all these 'small donations' were coming from because, frankly, I couldn't imagine the average middle-class or lower-class citizen would waste their hard-earned money on such a phony hack. So, I dug in, and surprise, surprise, it's a fucking labyrinth. All these 'little donations' funneled through Act Blue, that lovely little organization that does the libtards' campaigns the favor of collecting all those tiny checks or CC transactions and keeping the books. They're supposed to be all about transparency. Just try asking for that info and see how 'freely' they provide it. They've been and still are being hounded for such information because of accusations of fraud, foreign contributions, hundreds of similar signatures at the same banks, suspicious CC names and details, blah, blah, blah. Given the 4% they skim off the top, it's mind-boggling why Harris or anyone would want Act Blue to collect those dollars instead of just having the money go straight into their campaign. hmmm.Laundering? Naa, Well, that was wordy, but maybe someone finds it interesting.
As for X, this one cracks me up. How about Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, etc., etc.? Are those not social media apps? Oh yeah, wasn't there something about 420 million that Mr. Facebook admitted to spending, not counting all the 'misinformation' he banned and the stories that were absolutely true but got deleted? And how about every network other than Fox? Most are essentially extensions of the DNC. Then we could talk about all the websites, Hollywood, universities, and... I know I'm missing about a hundred more things.
So, don't try this bullshit how the SC ruined the noble intentions of politicians to fight an even fight. lol The decision the SC made was spot on, in keeping with our 1st Amendment, which is a big one for non-drones, that is. All we need to clean up elections are better candidates. The amount of money is just an easy scapegoat for the side that loses because it sounds good. I'll argue for no limits every damn day of the week. You see, no limits could, in theory, allow a person with relatively little money to run with one or more wealthy backers. Arbitrary limits only serve to limit who has a chance in politics. Don't we all want anyone to have a shot that has the right ideas and traits to lead the country, regardless of how connected or wealthy they are?
I'll probably hear we should just give each candidate the exact same amount of money, what's wrong with that? Nothing if you're naive enough to believe that all other factors are equal. Like the media coverage is always equal, social media platform owner are all straight down the middle, hollywood never favors one candidate over another, and again I'll mention the A-Political Universities across the fruited plains. The fact is money is just as much speech as any of the other things mentioned, so we should never limit it. Transparency, Sure

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Piggy backing on my previous post, it's about impossible to raise $1B (like Harris did) with a bunch of $25 donations from working class folks.

California, and the Bay Area specifically, is a political ATM for politicians. Both parties come here to raise big money but not surprisingly Democrats tend to dominate. When Biden, and then Harris, come here they aren't going to East Oakland to raise money. They are going to homes of the richest (the oligarchs) in places like SF, Woodside and Atherton.

They of course just playing the game that everyone has to play and to their credit they play it well. But as we seen the shift of more college educated voting Democratic and more working class voting Republican, it's not shocking the richest tend to be college educated.

The filings should reveal who gave what to whom. Like this:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5026691-elon-musk-donates-trump-campaign/

Musk spent at least $250M to help elect Trump, filings show​

Tech billionaire Elon Musk spent at least $250 million to help propel President-elect Trump back into the White House, the latest reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show.

 

[Walt]

It gives corporations more rights than American citizens. Because an "American" corporation can be created by almost anybody in a foreign country, it gives foreigners more rights than American citizens.

It is bad.