Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed.
Worse, a corporation has no soul and, theoretically, can live forever. Certainly longer than any American citizen.
Does Citizens United rank as one of the worst decisions of any SCOTUS?
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
Worse, a corporation has no soul and, theoretically, can live forever. Certainly longer than any American citizen.
They can live forever, or if they get into trouble be killed with no regrets. So if they do something illegal, or expensive, everyone involved can walk away and setup a new corporation immediately. trump is a master at stealing the assets from a corporation, and leaving the debt to die with the corporation.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It's all bad to give an entity so much power over our government.
The Founders were concerned about royalty in America. Now we should be worried about an oligarchy via corporations.
For the first hundred years of America, to create a corporation it was required that you show a social good that comes from that corporations. It was a rare process, and certainly not a right. The Founding Fathers would never have tolerated just having the corporations we have today.
And maybe the Founding Fathers were wrong. I can accept that, but I still think we need to be careful of giving too many rights to corporations.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
5th worst is Schenck v. United States. thankfully that was overturned
4th worst is Kelo v. new london
3rd is Plessy v ferguson. thankfully that's also been overturned
2nd is a tie between Dred Scott and Korematsu
absolute worst is Pierson v. Ray (1967) which gave government agents qualified immunity
Appears someone ^ missed the point and in turn attempted to turn the thread into partisan attacks
As I noted, the out of control spending is done by both sides, and if you want to got there, yes, technically, Harris received more funding, however it was widespread, while Trump’s, which wasn’t far behind, largely originated from a handful of individuals, as noted, no one contributes $240 million without expecting to get something in return. Regardless, all of this doesn’t include dark money, fundings with anonymous donors.
It isn’t a partisan issue, rather a reality, campaign financing is out of control, and as I said, putting us on a path to an oligarchy
Another one missing the point, viewing it in partisan glasses
It is not about who raised the most money, but rather the extraordinary amount of money raised, ain’t is out of control. If ten individuals can contribute close to half a billion dollars to a candidate something is wrong, and none of this includes the dark money raised by PACs
Point being Citizens United is a disaster and is putting us on the path to an oligarchy
Bravo
Correct, right now it is ranked ninth worse case in Supreme Court history behind such as Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, Buck, Lochner, and few others, not a list any Chief Justice wants to be on in history
Zero relevance to the thread
Diogenes
It's my prerogative
Think so, Anchovies?
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.
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
“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
So, you don't like free speech. Got it.
Yet Obama and Democrats are the KINGS of dark money and massive amounts received by Soros and other tech billionaires. Rather ironic.
How do you think Kamala racked up a billion to spend on her misbegotten, failed campaign? Mom and pops donors?
The know-nothing about anything bloviates!
Moronic as usual.
Not about free speech, as you’ve been educated numerous times, no right in the Constitution is absolute, it is about buying politicians, and the Gov’t office they holdSo, you don't like free speech. Got it.
Yet Obama and Democrats are the KINGS of dark money and massive amounts received by Soros and other tech billionaires. Rather ironic.
How do you think Kamala racked up a billion to spend on her misbegotten, failed campaign? Mom and pops donors?
NEXT
Brainless.
Many of the assumptions underlying this opposition are simply incorrect, however. If the arguments employed against Citizens United are any indication, the opponents’ positions are based on an erroneous understanding of the American constitutional system and a fundamental misreading of the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the most common critiques of Citizens United are based on beliefs about what the decision did—recognizing corporate personhood and ignoring that the Founders never meant to “give” free speech rights to corporations—that are either entirely false or, at the least, reflect a serious misunderstanding of American government. Read correctly, with an accurate understanding of history and Supreme Court precedent, Citizens United is a decision consistent with both the words and intent of the First Amendment.
In January 2010, a five-Justice majority struck down Section 441b. The Court stated unequivocally that the First Amendment restricts the ability of the government to abridge the freedom of speech of corporations. The Court found that Section 441b was an outright ban on speech and that the PAC alternative was not a real alternative for corporations because PACs are separate associations and expensive and difficult to establish and administer.
The Court also noted that the government’s reasoning would also allow it to ban media publications, but that it had so far exempted media corporations from the law’s broad reach. The Court rejected the government’s proffered justifications for the law. It overturned two relatively-recent decisions, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce14 and portions of McConnell v. FEC,15 which held that the government may ban the independent expenditures of corporate and union entities.
Justice Stevens, joined by three other Justices, filed a lengthy dissent, arguing that Congress could constitutionally make it a felony for corporations and unions to pay for political advertisements using money from their general treasury.
The Court also noted that the government’s reasoning would also allow it to ban media publications, but that it had so far exempted media corporations from the law’s broad reach. The Court rejected the government’s proffered justifications for the law. It overturned two relatively-recent decisions, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce14 and portions of McConnell v. FEC,15 which held that the government may ban the independent expenditures of corporate and union entities.
Justice Stevens, joined by three other Justices, filed a lengthy dissent, arguing that Congress could constitutionally make it a felony for corporations and unions to pay for political advertisements using money from their general treasury.