I have given a great deal of thought to this in the past several years and I am welcoming all opinions. Just to let you know I intend to read every single comment, because ultimately this is important. AND I believe it will become a salient topic in the next two years [As did the recent conversation of Ballots -vs- Votes].
In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled on a campaign finance legal challenge known colloquially as The Citizens United decision. The essence of the decision was a speech issue. In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
Prior to CU corporations were limited in financial spending on behalf of political campaigns just like individuals. However, unions were not. Organized Labor Unions could spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates. Corporations were limited like individuals.
At the time of the January 2010 Supreme Court ruling Democrats and Barack Obama were furious. Corporations could now form SuperPACs and spend unlimited amounts of money ‘independently’ supporting candidates.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules on coordination and communication between the political campaigns and the independent SuperPACs was/is supposed to create a firewall. However, the obscure nature of that effort has failed miserably.
Real World Example. A SuperPAC can organize a pro-Ben rally, spend on the venue, spend on the banners, t-shirts, rally material etc., and then advertise it. If Ben shows up to deliver a speech, he’s not breaking the rules so long as Ben and the SuperPAC didn’t coordinate the event. Ben just shows up to share his support for the effort, thank everyone and everything is legal in the eyes of the FEC. Yeah, it’s goofy.
More commonly as a result of the Citizens United (CU) case, massive corporate advertising (considered speech) is permitted in support of the candidate; or the corporation can organize ballot collection or get out the vote efforts, etc. Again, as long as they do not coordinate with any “official campaign” ie. Mark Zuckerbucks, yeah, goofy. As a result, expanded corporate spending has massive influence over U.S. elections.
♦ Oppose CU – Democrats opposed the CU decision because they had an advantage with organized labor. Labor unions were considered a representative body of collective individual membership interests and could spend without limit on campaign support. Organized labor unions supported democrats. Factually, Barack Obama won his 2008 election specifically because the SEIU, AFSCME, UFCW, AFL-CIO and other organized labor supported him over Hillary Clinton.
The CU decision watered down this overall Democrat advantage because now corporations funding Republicans could counterbalance the spending support of the labor unions. Democrats stated the CU decision would inject billions into politics and would increase corruption.
♦ PRO CU – Republicans, in a general sense, supported the CU decision mostly because it did level the field with labor unions and also because the corporate lobbyist connections to the republican party meant a lot of corporate money was available to fuel republican Super Political Action Committees (SuperPACs). Factually, the CU decision created the ability of SuperPACs to exist.
The business of politics expanded with the CU decision and ultimately both the DNC and RNC clubs evolved to enjoy this unlimited donor spending.
The business sector of politics expanded as the financial aspects to the it grew. SuperPACs could now fund consultants, polling firms, campaign systems and the money inside politics as a business exploded.
Now we have political campaigns where spending tens-of-millions on a single race is commonplace. The modern ballot collection (harvesting etc) is now funded by this same flow of unlimited financial resources.
At the time of the 2010 Citizens United decision, I personally was in support of the ruling. However, in hindsight the benefits of leveling the field with organized labor have become overshadowed by the negatives associated with corporations now in control of which candidates achieve office.
Money was always a corrupting issue and politicians working on behalf of their donors was always problematic, long before the Supreme Court CU decision. However, CU exploded that problem on a scale that was/is almost unimaginable at the time.
A previous several million-dollar presidential campaign is now a multi-billion-dollar venture, and the corporations are purchasing every outcome.
So, here’s the question….
Knowing what you know now, how do you feel about the Citizens United decision?
I posted a recent poll on Twitter with this question, and I am interested in your opinion.
The responses so far are interesting:
Supported Then / Support Now = 19.8%
Supported Then / Do Not Support Now = 28.5%
Did Not Support Then / Do Not Support Now = 48.5%
Did Not Support Then / Support Now = 3.2%
Knowing what you know now, how do you feel about the 2010 Citizens United SCOTU decision?
Sup = Support
— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) November 25, 2022
*salient
The salient point IS NOT about free speech but using money to NULL speech.
Voting is a Constitutional Republic’s method of citizen speech to its governance. Every ballot harvest is imposing a will on a vote (speech).
If Obama hated it, I supported it….
Now I think campaign contributions can only come from people legally authorized to vote. If you cannot vote, you CANNOT contribute. No labor unions, no corporations NO PACS.
What do you think of minimum standards for Federeal elections.
You Must Have I.D.
No Mass Mailing of Absentee Ballots, Absentee Ballots MUST be Requested by an individual for Each Election.
NO Ballot Harvesting.
Maximum of 10 days of early voting in person.
Ballots NOT counted by Election day, Do NOT Count.
“Now I think campaign contributions can only come from people legally authorized to vote. If you cannot vote, you CANNOT contribute. No labor unions, no corporations NO PACS.”f
For myself, then, now and always. I’ve always been against money buying power over other humans. I don’t care where it comes from. It’s evil, and the humans who wield it to control and subjugate others are evil. So I guess, if I was ever a member of Twitter, which I will never be as long as drawing breath, I’d be in the 48.5% of that poll.
I’ve always been of the opinion that candidates should only be allowed to raise money from two sources. Legal voters who are legal residents of the state in which the candidate is running. And business or NGO entities that are legally domiciled or incorporated in the state in which the candidate is running.
And I would be fine with eliminating the second one.
It’s really a simple concept. No money from outside the state. Period.
An election contest for a house seat to represent the people of a district should not be funded with millions of dollars coming in from dark money groups who are outside the state.
In the Constitution of 1776, they were not supposed to have power over us.
They are supposed to work for us?
Yep. They were supposed to serve and then go back to their career. Politics wasn’t a career back then!
Good luck w/ that.
Colorado, I totally agree.
This is not The United States of Global Corporations.
These entities need to be excluded from our election process.
I would like to add to that list:
Senators and Representatives can only accept campaign money from citizens of their State or Congressional District.
Must be a US citizen AND have a valid ID
No Mass Mailing of Ballots
Absentee Ballots only allowed for military absent on duty, or medical condition (my Mother had a heart condition and could not stand in line), etc. and requests must be notarized. Signatures must be matched and verified
NO Ballot Harvesting
Early voting ONLY on the Friday prior to Voting Day (Tuesday); no other early votes
Voting day should be a National Holiday; or at minimum a shortened workday to allow for voting (2 hours grace during the workday to vote)
Ballots must be special serialized PAPER ONLY (a system such as used to identify money, or tracking like used in Las Vegas and/or the State run Lottery systems)
NO Tabulators or other types of machines can be used to tabulate the ballots; hand counts only
Counting must be completed and results published by 2am following close of polls at 7pm
Only persons in line at 7pm may cast a ballot after 7pm; ballots will not be received after 7pm
Hate to rain on some of your suggestions.
Serialized ballots can mean that your vote is NOT private anymore.
Having 200 plus positions on a Ballot. Can make hand counting difficult. Human error can occur when staring long periods of time at little dots.
Tabulated ballots are not inherently wrong. Only if they are programmed to cheat. Must have randomly lot checks on the Ballots. During the counting process, thus ensuring no hanky panky or making it more difficult to cheat.
Just some observations from the peanut gallery.
Add this: Anyone voting illegally will be fined $100,000 and serve 36 months in prison. Anyone who is not a US citizen who votes will be eye scanned, deported and banned from entering the US for the rest of their life. Any person or persons organizing illegal voting will be fined $1,000,000 and serve 15 years in prison.
The Devilbat add that both of these are a Feloney 1 crime.
The fact that democrats are allowed to use black churches as a political tool without any repercussion concerning tax-exempt status, along with a 99% pro-democrat media giving biased coverage, along with most unions being pro-democrat too….does any of this matter anymore?
I can’t answer your question….
…but your points are very pertinent.
The black church thing has long been a problem. It’s a clear violation of the law. I suppose we should also look at the law itself (Johnson Amendment).
The media coverage should certainly be considered “in kind” at the least.
I consider the CU decision to be devastating to our political landscape, but a reversal should also prohibit unions from donations as well, IMO.
The FBCI isn’t just a black church problem. It’s cultured and fostered just about every religious brand into a weak, naive pro-government training program.
Tell your flock to sit it on their hands and simply pray for free government money and tax exempt status.
It’s exactly how the Bolsheviks took Russia.
To suffer and be disenfranchised is to be closer to God…
Heard it this way . ” you go into a boxing match with your gloves on but the ref says ” we changed the rules from the time you left the dressing room ( and the Pa supreme court ruled in our favor!) and chains saws are aloud. you demand it to be fair and the bell rings …. your getting your head cut off ! WE have to do it better than them and they will be the ones to scream? the rules are already changed …. THE HORSE AINT OUT OF THE BARN HE OVER THE HILL !
In my very, very, very humble opinion I think that it was all a coordinated head fake by the Uniparty Vultures.
Just look at how both clubs have used Citizens United to screw the citizens of the United State of America.
Unlimited funds from corporations and unions means WE don’t matter and they don’t need our donations to run a campaign or worry about alienating us and losing our donations.
It’s all I can do not to blaspheme at this point.
100% and I completely fell for it, as I did 9/11 War in Iraq, etc.
I learned my lesson before Covid though, thankfully
You fell for it because you are not a psychopathic liar who grifts for a living.
Many years ago, the gruberment banned cigarette advertising. Reasons given boiled down to the argument that cigarettes were hazardous to your health. Events of the last two years have proven that politicians are also hazardous to your health. Therefore I propose that all political advertising be banned. Limit campaigning to 1 month prior to the election. Election DAY and paper ballots. Purple fingers might not be a bad idea, as well.
And you shouldn’t be able to advertise/campaign for someone in a state you don’t even live in. For weeks in Arizona, I had to listen to Liz Chaney say “I don’t live in Arizona but IF I DID…..” campaigning for Hobbs! Should not be allowed especially for someone currently in office.
Six weeks, I think, for campaigns. Require all broadcast and streaming media to allow politicians a decent amount of free time in days and evening (not graveyard after midnight) to advertise.
Yes, money is speech, but organizational money is not political speech. I think that’s the lesson we’ve learned from CU.
Paul Ryan your fav?…/s
heh heh heh! Not by a long shot. There’s a name for Ryan and his fellow travelers, but I have enough respect for my fellow Treepers not to use it here.
I think I fall into this camp also. They have perfected the art of manipulation of the public to a point where I trust nothing any government official says. I was not this way 15 years ago.
Their true victory is the complete takeover of all elections at the corporate level. We are no more than a pebble in their shoe.
300
…takeover of elections…
The single most important issue…even more important than the takeover of “news” media…
Was the vote ever presented to us unwashed masses rather than the courts?
This!
Nope.
And was the vote to give unions special funding privileges over individual citizens or nonunion workers ever presented to ‘us unwashed masses’ in the first place?
Nothing says democracy and republic like millionaires and billionaires influencing elections. All that money mostly goes to the people responsible for government corruption: the media because they are so biased and do not report or investigate Democrats, the bureaucracy or for the most part RINOs.
The media is purchased.
They serve their masters.
Did Not Support Then / Do Not Support Now
I believe corporations are people (the owners and stockholders) and that they have a right to express their views in the political realm. That view doesn’t change with who gets the money. The move to wokeness is obviously the Democrats’ response to Citizens United. They, in essence, bribed and intimidated businesses to support their goals. I don’t think we should change the law because the Republicans are too stupid or too corrupt to adjust. I think we should get rid of all the Republicans who are too stupid or too corrupt to adjust.
A corporation and unions are not a person. Donations should only come from a single person and only up to a certain limit. Each shareholder, member, owner can donate as they see fit as a person.
A corporation and a union are the people who belong to them. If they have been exploited, then we need to learn to exploit. I supported Citizens United back then, and I will remain consistent now. Unlike the Democrats, I will not change horses in midstream. If the Democrats exploited it, let’s exploit it back!
Oh do you now? How very genocidal sounding
Do you want idiots running our party???
I’m not buying the corporations are people argument. If that’s the case, then lets break the corporate veil, and allow stockholders to be held responsible in legal matters regarding the companies they hold stock in.
That’s exactly what Democrats said in the wake of Citizens United. If that’s the case, let’s apply the same pressure on them that the Democrats did!
I supported CU at the time. But although the “owners and stockholders” are people, they don’t all necessarily agree on who to support with the money they want to donate. And I’m not sure how it works, but if it is majority vote decides who gets the donations, it is no longer an individual donation.
I belonged to a teachers’ union for 35 years. They donated to candidates that I VOTED against. I hated that my money was donated to someone I did not support. I did eventually have the option of declining a small share of my dues from being used for political campaigns. But they didn’t reduce my dues. They just said they wouldn’t spend that part of it on donations. I’m sure they lied about that part.
I think individual donations with a limit is the way to go. And if there is going to be a group donation then it should be a limit too.
The amount of money spent on electing a candidate is ridiculous.
The owners and stockholders can donate as individuals. And how many of these corporations aren’t US companies? How much foreign money is getting laundered in as donations?
Most big corporations have gone woke, and therefore support Democrat candidates far more than Republican ones. As proof of this, just look at how big corporations are pulling their advertising from Twitter because they don’t like Musk allowing more, instead of less, free speech.
I would be opposed to that ruling now.
Don’t be silly. The corporations bought all of the politicians, regardless of their “Party Designation”. A pox upon them, their house and their spawn.
Amen, BDNB
I am not so convinced that corporations have gone woke, so much as they are trying to pander to what they think their customers think politically. Most of the time they are wrong, and pay a big price for getting outside their lane and not sticking to just selling their stuff, not political positions
To me, they seem to be pandering to activist employees rather than customers who just likeproduct. duct.
One of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Robert’s telegraphed his support for the position at his confirmation hearings.
My reason for not supporting it then is the same reason now.
Corporations are buying politicians and legislation.
Buying legislation? Hell, they’re writing it!
Corporations have always bought the politicians?
It is just more open now?
No one who wants real elections is for CU.
Groups of people, if a company or a union are not an individual. This is wrong and ripe for corruption.
This is one of the reasons they always split everyone into groups.
This is the cleaving of Americans by our satanic elites.
Can’t maximize profits by letting individuals vote. Can’t turn everyone into a 1 or a 0 on a spreadsheet. Can’t have indentured servants and imported slaves that only benefit those who make the rules.
Politics should be a part time job.
Individual voting, in person, with ID, same day count, no mail in, no harvesting.
Since we don’t have this, we are just going to keep getting rigged elections where the politicians vote for themselves and no matter how hard people vote it won’t matter.
Corporate entity is strictly a business construct and should have no free speech rights equal to an individual. Nor should a union be involved in politics
So what should be the limitation of free speech by corporations or other organizations? Can a company like Hobby Lobby not proclaim its Christian focus, its position against abortion? Limiting free speech is not the answer.
It’s not limiting free speech. Hobby Lobby, Chick Filet, My Pillow can proclaim their affiliation in the manner they choose.
The decision declared unlimited funding to political campaign’s as a form of speech to level the field with Unions supporting Democrats.
Unions were created to represent workers within corporations and morf’ed into using dues for political campaigns.
CU was the means for Republicans to compete with Unions so while Dems complained, they switch to targeting 503’s via IRS (Lois Learner) then to ballot harvesting, which makes the best use of corporate donations.
In the end it’s not about corporate speech but corporate funding determining an election, thus circumventing citizens voice.
Corporations are not citizens but legal entities to protect those who create them.
I did not support CU then, and I do not support it now. There are always strings attached with money, and companies boards seem to be overwhelming liberal. I remember a popular bumper sticker I used to see back then was “I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.”
A corporation is a legal entity, a mostly taxation entity, but a legal entity none the less.
Should a legal entity have a voice in choosing the politician who writes the tax code, that entity will be paying?
What if a politician is trying to destroy YOUR corporation? [an S-Corp can be one person]
Shouldn’t YOU be able to speak-out about it?
Corporate contributions = the death penalty?
Your thumb seems to be on the equivalency scale?
The rights of an entity should not supercede the rights of an individual. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the individual.
Seems like the wisest resolution — and to even the playing field — would have been to limit financial spending of Organized Labor Unions on behalf of political campaigns — the same as individuals & corporations.
[Don’t know if this was a possible option given the specifics involved in the CU case, but you’d think some group might have filed suit along these lines somewhere at some point.]
I always believed that if corporations are counted as “persons” then they should be allowed to spend exactly as much as any other person on political issues, that is now limited to $2900, I think. So to spend $2.9M one should start 1000 corporations….
Sup then/ No Sup Now
At the time it was an effective counter measure to labor unions.
The Left has now co-opted both channels are have formed the merger between business (those that are favored or cucked) and government.
It hardly matters what “the people” want anymore.
Would not just taking away this special privilege given to “unions” over individual citizens been a more effective measure?
Not on Twitter but I was 100% in favor of Citizens United, then. not now.
I also thought corporate America would stand against government overreach. Now I realize that was a fantasy too. Corporate America, while they can’t put you against the,wall are almost as bad as government.
Banks are discriminating against lawful gun sale purchases and loans for gun manufacturers.
…and oil/gas production
Also dumping/defunding clients whose own free speech they disagree with, see Ye and Mike Lindell.
Supported Then… Despise it now.
It did not level the playing field. It created a monster!
Time to kill the beast.
I was not paying attention then (shame on me)/Do not support now.
Jeb! is such a greased weasel.
Adolph Hitler was never elected to public office in Germany…he was appointed as Chancellor…
The same exact problem we have now…unelected persons are dragging our republic down…Lisa Monaco…Susan Rice…Ron Klain….Vakerie…Barack…
The list goes on and on…
Yep, the ‘swamp’, from our local towns all the way to D.C. No amount of campaign finance reform can clean up that mess. For a current example we need to look no further than Arizona on Nov 8. And now. No election can fix that. It’s the election process itself which is corrupted by unelected humans.
The Swamp.
Hitler came to power because the Germans voted for him. The NSDAP got up to 44 percent of the votes. Yes, formally the German Prime Minister, or Chancellor, or Reichskanzler and later on Bundeskanzler, is appointed by the President, but in all European parliaments the Prime Minister can be toppled by a majority. Hitler became Chancellor because he was the leader of a party, that just won the election. And remember no American machines then, only PAPIER. After that things started to get a bit hairy, we can all agree about that.
Personally, I don’t think any donations should be allowed to go to campaigns.
I believe at the taxpayer expense every candidate be allowed an advert on national TV, and one in the press.
Every candidate to debate, and every candidate to be interviewed. All questions to be the same to each candidate, and no interference from anyone regards the response.
All votes should be delivered in person with an ID. All votes counted under the security of cameras.
Take the money out of politics, and genuine people would stand for election. Salary, and serve the people. That is it!
Remember the saying, “Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.”
We got it
Unsure then/do not support now
Money and power always corrupts.
The amount of dollars to run a campaign is staggering. This has made it nearly impossible for a citizen of average or low means to compete. In order to run they must become beholden to the donors and the donors are often the ones looking to control the candidate for personal gain.
Until we accept government is not in place to give us stuff– power, money, grants, jobs, titles, welfare, safety nets, healthcare, college loans, etc– but ONLY to protect our God given liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights, we will continue down this path.
If all the recent political fundraisers are to be believed none of our liberties are even in the top 10 items the politicians are supposedly going to fighting for when elected.
If only .gov would stay out of our business and do that border protecting and preserving liberties and freedoms. Those humans made choices, particularly in the period since the decision under discussion.. Consequences necessarily obtain. We’re the arbiters of those consequences. It’s we who have been damaged and killed and our freedoms and liberties placed under attack from all directions. By them.
Never supported it because billionaires could more brazenly buy elections whether democrat or republican. None are for the people. An outsider doesn’t stand much of a chance anyway but this makes it even more difficult because all of the grassroots support is blown away by a single man or corporation. They already control who we get to even consider as electable through their corrupt media complex. Citizen united made it easier. Republicans and democrats are the same. Each have billionaires that play both sides.
Whatever it takes to legitimize the individual vote and return government to the citizens I would support. We have a system of corporatism now that must be reined in. Balancing the power between the unions and the corporations is no longer the urgent problem because their priorities are almost indistinguishable. The power ought to be balanced between the citizens and those working against their best interests. Today those would include multinational corporations, global banks, and the gigantic federal and state bureaucracies, to name a few.
Support for candidates should only be from registered voters in the district they want to represent. Since a candidate is elected to represent a district, all support should come from that district alone. This must apply to every level of our representative government.
This and the repeal of the 17th amendment will return the government to the people.
Didn’t support then, don’t support now.
TERM LIMITS for all Legislative branch would be quite the effective check/balance to massive spending on campaigns.
Simply because the ROI over time won’t be there for the corporate donor
class…
TERM LIMITS would also be a weapon against briber-uh… lobbying.
When CU was passed I was conflicted. On the one hand, it neutralized the union advantage that Democrats had. On the other, how can any organization fairly give campaign donations without violating the rights and misrepresenting the views of some members? On balance, I favored the decision.
Now, I can see how it has corrupted both parties. Campaign donations must be restricted to individuals. If their are individual limits, so be it.
Didn’t support it then, don’t support it now.
Corporations aren’t people too, they’re entities. Entities run by people who each have 1 vote & campaign finance limits just like me & every other citizen.
The volume of money corrupts the process, limits the potential candidate field & it’s pushed the nation over the edge into a fascist oligarchy.
In similar fashion to the Patriot Act, my view on CU has changed as I’ve seen it abused. I supported it then, but now see it as a tool used against the people rather than for the people.
No unions
No corporations
No PACs
Only individuals eligible to vote should be allowed to contribute to a set limit.
And only in the state they live in. We had a bad law passed here in Oregon (SR114) that was funded by big money from out of state. Now any citizen owning high cap magazines is a criminal, you can’t get a CC license and even if you CC legally, you can’t have a magazine in your hand gun.
Lord I hate the ignorant and gullible right now.
Candidates are beholden to their largest donors. Until the largest donors are “we the people,” the elected reps will represent their largest donors.
Unlimited money equals unlimited corruption.
I was a member (Steward) of the Teachers union in Florida at the time of CU and I saw that 80-90% of our dues was going to Democrat candidates along with the propaganda. I hated the fact that more was spent on Democrat politics than was spent on Teacher causes. CU seemed to be a possible solution but it only increased the amount being spent by AFL on Democrat politics. As soon as Funding for political office was allowed by any organization other that individual citizens the politicians quit paying any attention to individual voters. (Hindsite) To insure accountability to their constituents the elected official must only be able to obtain funding from voters in their representative districts. No PACS, businesses or professionals (DRs+ Lawyers)
It’s like an agricultural community that introduced wolves to keep the deer population in check and then was shocked to discover that wolves also eat children.
The only way to fix this country is to revert back to 1775 🇺🇸🙏🏻🇺🇸
I don’t support and haven’t supported money in politics. I understand that candidates have a need for money , but it should be capped for everyone contributing. I consider contributing to be people donating to a particular candidate and supplying any venue, or supporting to the cause whether is directly , or indirectly. If anyone benefits, it’s a donation
Thanks for the clear and short summary. As I read CU oppose I remember the sting in 2008 when BO got the nomination and cruised to the WH. I remember well the power the unions had at that point, especially coming from one I couldn’t wait to get away from.
The Pro CU position looked promising at the time as a much better alternative than what we faced with the unions. I hated my union by the time I left in 2009. Now it seems like the seven headed Medusa, nothing (we thought) could be worse. It could always be worse.
As I read your summary I kept thinking “but speech comes from a person not a corporation”. Since free speech is one of the central foundations of what our country was built on, I for one would support a thorough re-defining of the phrase: 1) free speech as it applies to individual persons, 2) as it applies to businesses (cake bakers?), 3) as it applies to non-profits, political organizations and every other kind of whatever you can name. I think we need to find the lid to Pandora’s box and weld it shut. Am I crazy? Next thing you know I’ll be having to bow down to robots because they’re binary non-transgender. Really? um, hell no!
Did Not Support Then / Support Now
Republicans are so bad at politics they are pathetic. This is just an attempt to create a new bogeyman to complain about.
You forgot one con:
Unlimited monies for private Intelligence gathering. By the way, the existence of a Private Intelligence Community (PIC) is why destroying the government IC/deep state will not stop the democrats.
We abolished tobacco advertising in the seventies without consequence, so the notion corporations or unions have an “organic” right to bribe politicians with contributions in the name of free speech is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.
Just another Kennedy opinion that’s come to bite us on the butt.
Here’s a different question …is the pursuit of the perfect campaign law a fools errand? The character of the nation means as much or more than the laws that govern it. If court rulings are seen as mere obstacles or opportunities rather than guidelines under which to operate, the perfect law will continually be beyond our grasp.
Not sure if I ever really supported it then or now – but, I’m sure I did lean towards support at the time and still some limited support now (as that is the current system). To revert, would imply going back to the uneven union playfield.
My current personal preference, even with its pros and cons, is that individuals may give as much as they want to a candidate / official campaign that they are legally allowed to vote for. (I.e. no PACs, no businesses,etc.)
This would mean that the only person someone from outside your state may be able to give money (or time) to is the presidential election.* No out of state money or people showing up to support anything else. If they can’t legally vote for the candidate, they get no say or support.
This woild go all the way to the local level – you can’t vote for them, then you can’t provide any support for them.
* And technically, since voters for the president are actually voting for the electors, then out of state money and support could also be eliminated.
It’s froth. A real Constitution would stipulate that all spending must come from only in-state donations. OTW, as long as Republicans “play by the rules” they will continue to be the minority.
Both premises miss the point.
These are not labor union elections.
These are not Corporations elections.
These are the citizens elections.
How did we get so far afield on any of this?
Perzactly!!!!!
“When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
– Frederic Bastiat
$peech issue…..pfft.
And no surprise that the more $$$ the more audible the Speaker is.
We the People may as well be mutes……oh….wait…..never mind.
Ploward-Piven is being crammed through and this board quacks about unions…
Read the script….
I supported CU. Looking back, it seems to me that if a corporation is a “person” then the corporation should have the same limitations on their speech as an ordinary person: $2700.00 .
Why should the free speech of a “corporate person” be louder than a normal person? Why limit one person’s speech and not all persons’ speech?
If President Trump has shown anything, it is money doesn’t matter when you have the right message, but with the advent of “news for profit” I sincerely doubt any other candidate could pull off a campaign on a shoestring.
Monies raised for campaigning should be limited to individual contributions. Their should also be a limit on the amount of the contribution….something like $1,000.
I did not support then nor now as I really felt and still do obviously that it was throwing gas on a fire. the game was always going to be zero sum in the end.
Whether CU was affirmed or not big money was going to influence campaigns either through corporations, unions or both. The thing that needs to be done is to reduce power in DC but it looks now like that us not likely to happen. It’s too entrenched.
Anyway I always felt CU was not going to go well.