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
From my POV, these are almost pointless conversations if were not willing to discuss tangible, workable solutions.
You can not unelect tyranny… Period!!! No election can or will ever fix where we are, it’s an out and out LIE to keep pushing the idea.
You can not put faith in politicians or any existing party… At best it’s naive, at worst it’s outright propaganda.
You can not pretend that strawman arguments (individuals) or condemnation of “pick and choose” make believe entities (deep state) are “the problem”… Or that removal of such things are even possible.
We’re too far gone…
We need to be talking about high level perspectives and realistic solutions! It doesn’t matter if it’s a state or national divorce, civil war or any flavor there of… The voice for that conversation must be found.
Or, simply admit all of this talk of change is complete crap meant to keep the disenfranchised at bay.
Hey Dev, one solution is at link above in my post. Take the time to watch—we need good news! We truly ARE a GIT ER DONE country. We will figure this out!
Yup, it’s that black and white.
We either get rid of our domestic communists (globalists, WEFreaks, whatever) or they will get rid of us.
And they are well on the way.
How to do it?
“WHATEVER IT TAKES” (remember that?)
—
I’d re-re-repost my old “Still the problem” pic but I’ve made the point to death and beating a dead horse is no fun.
Preach it!
The Solidarity Movement in Poland, with Lech Walesa, the USA with Ronald Reagan, the Catholic Church with now Saint Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher led a movement, that collapsed Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe. = A reorganization of the World Order is possible.
I’m old enough to remember ‘Nuclear Bomb’ drills, and crawling under my school desk in Grade School. … The Big Thinking Liberals actually laughed at Ronald Reagan, when he predicted, = Communism would end up on the Ash Can of History.
…… Here we are struggling again, as History does seem to rhyme in our struggles against tyranny. We do not have a common language, culture, or Religion in American, any longer. … But the desire for freedom is universal.
The struggles against an ‘unelected tyranny’ seems to always continue. … No one but God can accurately see the future. … We can only ‘struggle’ against the tyrants in our lifetime. … At least we can identify the villains like, Klaus Schwab, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and George Soros. … In many ways, it seems the Devil always enlists lunatics to become our oppressors. Lucifer only appears as an angel of light to lunatics.
*****************************
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
…….. “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
“Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
~~The Good Book.
Wealth can be a deadly curse or a blessing. … America is a rich country, and Americans are blessed or cursed with our wealth. … We shall see what happens in our future.
“Wealth can be a deadly curse or a blessing.”
If your Biblical quotes are accurate, it seems Jesus came down heavily in favour of the ‘curse’ option?
It does seems like a ‘guilt by association’ fallacy to me, but what do I know compared to Jesus.
I seem to remember it was “the love of money” that was the problem, not being wealthy per se?
Yes, that’s true. And perhaps it’s also true that wealth,more often than not, leads to love of money, and the things money can buy.
Stereotypes are so 1980s.
Dant, ~ many people might suggest you attend a good Church, for a more thorough understanding of the Commandment: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ … ‘Rich’ and ‘Wealth’ is a relative term. … God doesn’t wear a ‘green eyeshade visor’, while tabulating on a calculator. … A well educated Pastor is capable of teaching the Faith. [I’m a mere amatuer.]
+To clarify an understanding of ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ = There are ~numerous Saints ‘without a formal education’ ~ that understood God’s meaning of Love ~ directly through a gift of the Holy Spirit.
To a starving person, someone with a big bowl of food, might be considered ‘wealthy’ ~ at the moment, to a starving person.
God is concerned about the purpose we use our wealth. … ‘Gold’ is not evil in itself.
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” [NIV] 1 Timothy 6: 10.
The ‘key’ to the gifts from God is ‘Love of everyone.’
The Good Book, = Jesus taught all of us to ‘Love one another as I have loved you.’
Ok.
You say “God is concerned about the purpose we use our wealth.”
Apparently not.
Your statement is a simple contradiction of the English language meaning of :
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
It’s very direct, no obfuscation……are you sure you aren’t making it up?
Dant, as I said you need to go to a good Church; the Bible is part of Church teaching.
Fortuitously, my Church bulletin this morning had a small essay by a Priest on the meaning of ~Rich.
*****************************************
In part:
‘The adjective “rich” (plousios) means the abundance of material resources, likened to an abundant supply. If material life is so rich that people forget the grace of God, this is what Jesus said about the difficulty of entering the kingdom of heaven: “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
…
“Materials are inherently good as to experience God’s great love for people. Nevertheless, if people indulge themselves in material life, it is simply idolatry. Materials that could have come into encounter with God will instead become a stumbling block for people and consequently, they leave God for their materialistic enjoyment.”
*****************************************
People need to attend a good Church, with a well educated Paster; that has a good understanding of scripture.
I agree with Dev. Talking about an opinion is nice, but we have a much bigger problem. Tyranny has been installed. What’s worse? No matter how long you talk about solutions, there is no way to implement any of it.
Dant, … ~All people need to attend a good Church, with a good Pastor, so they can be taught to understand Scripture as taught by Jesus. … While reading the Bible, we should understand, that Jesus Christ created a Church to teach scripture. … Jesus Christ did NOT carry around a Big Sack of Bibles, handing out the Bibles and saying, “Read this book, and come to your own conclusions.”
From Scripture in part:
“The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 ~>“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”<~ So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33
In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.”
[Acts 8 (NIV)]
*******************************
Wealth is actually a relative term to describe the Gifts from God. … God judges our use of all of his gifts; which are given to all of us. … We should all attend a place of Worship, that teaches a good understanding of, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
How do you discuss tangible, workable solutions to a problem without discussing what the actual problem is?
These open discussions and sharing of our points of view are what allow us to examine and better define what the problems are in order to form the foundation of workable solutions.
A good example of this is exactly what happened with the “Citizens/United” decision by the courts. The problem was that unions held an unfair advantage. Instead of taking a hard look at the problem, it found a ‘solution’ to the problem that just made the problem worse and made far more additional problems that now need to be fixed.
Whereas the solution was quite simple-eliminate the union advantage and never equate money or a group or business right of speech with an individual’s freedom of speech.
I supported it then, but do not support it now.
I would humbly suggest that all parties be limited by the same amount and be done with it. Zuckerburg is limited to one vote, he should be similarly limited to spend $2500 including all of his PAC’s and hidden corporations that bribed local officials and stuffed ballots. All entities limited to $2500, including unions. And no getting around it by funding 500,000 NGO’s at $2500 each — each politically active corporation counts toward your limit.
Would ballot harvesting be as effective if votes were not paid for?
I absolutely agree with NH! It’s all way out of control!
But bribing local officials and stuffing ballots is still illegal. Citizens United did not make bribery and ballot stuffing legal. Getting rid of Citizens United will not stop bribery and ballot stuffing
As far as I’m concerned CU made bribery legal
Reducing the available funds ought to reduce some of the cheating, that is, the cheating that is paid for.
A little out-of-the-box thinking here. While I appreciate Sundance’s thinking on this, perhaps we’re looking at this backwards.
Republicans and Democrats are monopolizing political campaign raising and spending. Maybe what is needed is some kind of antitrust suit against both parties using antitrust legislation.
Political jiu jitsu.
We’ll never get big money out of politics, but maybe we can redirect it or force some “equity” in its distribution.
I hear equity is in vogue now.
Ooooooooo! I like your thinking. Class action lawsuit. Fraud and theft of services come to mind.
Here is my thought. Anyone can give anything they want to any campaign. Any person, corporation or entity. There are only two restrictions. Every donation is disclosed and every donation is split 50-50 with half going to the candidate of choice and half to the opponent. If there are multiple candidates in a race, it is split evenly among all candidates. Bottom line, the public finance the campaigns and every candidate gets the same to spend. Win on policy and issues not on the number of ads you can afford.
It would probably work with a 2:1 split as it give opposition some cash to use but not as much.
I know, pretty pie in the sky.
BTW, tepid support then and tepid disapproval now.
I like it, but who has deep enough pockets to bring lawfare against the two parties?
Thanks. I was wondering the basis upon which this could be challenged. Who can represent us?
I’ll have to spend more time pondering. But it has felt increasing as if my representatives have been igoring me here in SC. Does Graham even campaign anymore?
Especially since covid, I have only gotten form letters back and never addressing my issues regarding covid social terrorism and workplace vax harassment (all reps have pleaded in the final paragraph to go get jabbed and offered unlimited assistance into helping me get jabbed).
For midterms there were signs every 20 feet to support the greener community propositions(additional 1% sales tax for more roads and parks) and I wonder who’s having these signs made.
Our county taxes just went up by unanimous vote. Schools keep getting more money and worse teachers. Our “R” representatives are ever more swampy and parsel tounged (mostly Nikki Haley picks) and increasingly not representing the most basic R platform values.
But I don’t see politicians even trying with the American people anymore. No Contract with America. No strong stances or action for any of the top polling issues such as immigration, economy and dislike of Biden .
Maybe it’s just the extra corporate money that has given our representatives a new master to please though until now I’ve thought that it was the open primaries that guaranteed democrats and idiots would nominate RINOs in perpetuity.
I am looking forward to voting that mincing poodle out at the next SC primary. He dared to introduce a bill that would make Roe v Wade the law of the land, while pretending it was a national abortion ban. The same poodle that had no plan to repeal and replace Obamacare after raising $100 million from poor folks opposed to it?
I do not receive form letters any more. I started putting “Eff YOU” in thick black marker on the front.
I no longer am harassed.
I only support the individual voter donating. I didn’t support CU case then and do not support it now.
I spent a great deal of time annually going through a “challenge procedure” to get a refund of my mandated union dues that went to political causes.
I do not support corporations, (global or otherwise), churches, unions, organized community groups or any other manner of organizations that are NOT originally formed to run a campaign, from donating to any political candidate or political party.
All politics should be supported on an individual basis only with limits.
Of course, this won’t happen and if it did, there will be a percentage of corrupt actors who will work around the rules and limits.
WV law does not allow churches to incorporate. I love that!
Yes!
Who can vote in an election?
A citizen living in the candidate’s district.
Who do elected officials represent?
Constituents! Citizens living in the elected official’s district!
They are the ONLY ones who have the Right, standing, authority to donate to a candidate/issue and participate in an election.
How I wish your position was the law. If only those in a candidates representative area could donate in any form, it would almost immediately reform much of our country’s problems.
And while we’re at it, corporations, non-profits, unions, churches, etc. are NOT individual voters and ought have no rights to donate to any campaign, including “in kind” donations.
I agree!
Just imagine how that would change the life of an elected official!
No more getting rich by ‘representing’ The People.
Elected officials would once again be dependent upon and loyal to their constituents.
Being dependent upon and loyal to their constituents was one of the reasons the Framers settled on two year terms for House representatives.
Outside financing and political parties changed that.
What about the idea of only registered voters being permitted to donate to a campaign?
If you aren’t registered to vote, you cannot donate. And put a cap on donations, like $1000 per election cycle.
Donating would not be required to vote, that would be optional.
But it would get corporations and unions out of the picture.
That would make sense and would be doable.
However, when we are dealing with politics, sensible and doable seem to be the least likely of acceptance by the government, legislators, courts, etc.
Ploward-Piven?
Sound familiar?
Wonder why…..
Cloward-Piven?
Blush…duhr
Yeah, them too.
Political donations should be limited to actual individual citizens or a business with physical presence in a district, or state. Obviously a presidential contest is outside of those boundaries, but business’ & PAC’s should be held to the maximum donation, actual or in kind, as an individual’s are.
And a real physical address.
Physical presence? What about sales or subject to regulation in a jurisdiction?
My sister and I got into quite the debate regarding businesses donating.
She was an elected official for many years – held two different offices.
Businesses can’t vote!
Also, some business owners don’t even live in the same area as their company.
(just something to think about)
Keep the business out unless it is also limited the same as a citizen. Then you also have to protect from satellite offices of a business run from another location. For every solution that appears simple, we have to consider every possible misuse or corruption of the revised process.
Could we have a constitutional amendment that prohibits donations to political campaigns unless they are from an eligible voter?
I supported it then and reluctantly support it still. Nonetheless, I believe worse harm is caused by the untold amounts of in-kind campaign contributions that come in the form of free media, all masquerading as news programming and editorial comment.
Networks and news organizations large and small broadcasted anti-Trump propaganda and fake news almost 24/7 for four years. I would like to see that in-kind contribution quantified, and a value to a campaign or political party put on that.
“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.”
This describes my sentiment exactly. In hindsight, all CU did was attempt to correct one wrong by introducing another. Rather than permit corporations to make political contributions, the ability of labor unions to make political contributions should have been curtailed.
In this context there is no conceptual difference between corporate CEO’s and labor union presidents when it comes to political contributions. Both have massive amounts of cash at their disposal with no real check on what they do with it (don’t raise BOD’s as an objection, since most CEOs pack their boards with their friends).
ALL political contributions should come from individual persons, not unions, corporations, PACs, block clubs, or any other groups. People. Just people. With limits on that as well so that Zuckerberg can’t just buy candidates.
I never support any bill or legislation from congress as whatever they are deciding upon is either illegal or already covered, but they need another angle for the grift.
I believe corporations are NOT people. They are fictional entities created for a purpose—running a business. Real people in corporations already have other ways of making their political voices heard. Now that we have Citizens United, a small number of managers use the corporation as a multiplier to drown out the voice of average Americans.
I am fed up with corporations trying to tell me they are “the way, the truth, and the life” and I must buy every idea they are selling. They should go back to selling products and get out of the private lives of real people.
Citizens United needs to be revoked and we should take a look at unions too.
Ahhh, you hit upon the CORE problem—maybe without realizing it. If you are a 14th amendment u.s. citizen you ARE a corporation! Have been since birth.
Here’s an idea, members of congress must recuse themselves from voting on any piece of legislation/corporations that donated to their campaign. Media must disclose political contributions, PAK contributions and advertising revenue by manufacturer.
Through the courts, take government out of the picking winners and losers game. This would remove most of the motives to bribe the political class. If that proves impossible to accomplish, then restrict all donations to “X” dollars; prohibit all persons from donating to campaigns outside their state of residence, their Congressional or state legislative district or other jurisdiction in which they reside.
I was born and raised in the UK before leaving for the US at the age of 21. Back in the 1960’s and early 1970’s I remember that each candidate was given about five minutes of television time several times prior to the election. Our TV Programming would be interrupted by a voice saying, “The following is a party political broadcast from the so and so party.” and we would all groan. There were no paid television advertisements.
I. did a web search and found the following:
How much can UK political parties spend on elections?
Candidates and their agents at a UK Parliamentary General Election must follow certain rules about how much they can spend, who they can accept donations from and what they must report after the election. The spending limit for each candidate standing for election is £8,700 ($10519.16) plus 6p ($0.073) per registered parliamentary elector.
Why are our political parties allowed to spend millions on each candidate? Where there is money there is graft!
If I remember correctly the politicians only run for something like 6 weeks-3 months tops? They don’t have election “seasons” that run on for years. Maybe I am thinking about a different country, dunno.
Per your last paragraph…and after they are “elected”, the bill comes due. There’s always a piper to be paid.
This is not a bad idea. Putting limits on campaign expenditures or public funding of campaigns is another possibility. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it appears to me the mistake made by the Court was to not put the same limits on union contributions as on corporations. At the time probably no one anticipated the Left wing of the democrat party moving so far to left they have become the new Nazi Party and the rise of super wealthy international Liberals who now crave power as much as they do cheap Labor.. The News today seems almost like a Captain America Comic Book come to Life, I can almost picture Soros, Gates and Zuckerberg in secret meeting shouting Hail Hydra!.
Could the problem be that the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886) case has somehow been used as precedence in determining court cases clarifying the “corporations are individual U.S citizens” argument. From what I understood, it was never declared in a court decision, but issued as a statement by the court that they do not refute any argument that corps. are people.
The only place this will ultimately be decided is by SCOTUS, and until the aforementioned case is correctly judged upon, I think SCOTUS will keep using this as their default position.
The legal machinations of political “donations” in the US are beyond my interest.
My comment is that if influence is available and that space is not occupied, money will somehow flow to it to exploit the opportunity.
It’s a rule…. like gravity.
You can hinder it but it is unstoppable. You ban cash, it will happen via insider trading tips or future benefits years after you leave Congress and are of little interest.
For every rule there is a work around.
To the USA’s eternal shame lobbyists write legislation today, right now.
If you can’t even stop that what chance with the opaque money flow?
Knowing that politicians would not block union contributions, CU seemed to be the only way to balance union contributions.
The CU case was about a corporation buying a newspaper ad against HER>.
We have had a good slide down the slippery slope.
Which is worse, hundreds of millions of Zucker-bucks or Mitch funding Republican opponents?
CU increased the numbers and brought the contributions out in the open.
There is no way to stop money in politics…It is too engrained in the systemically corrupt system.
It is better to have disclosure of the contributions?
The problem is disclosure is after the election, or with enough delay that there isn’t transparency before this current election. As others have mentioned there is no stopping the flow of money and those receiving the money will not plug the dam.
CU has ruled that money is speech.. If so there has to be a method of indicating every contribution in real time publicly on a web site.
I believed CU balanced the scale against Union money (but still no accounting for Union door knocker’s or ballot collectors) but the money is corrupting everything. Santorum won the State Colorado caucus and handed his national delegates to Romney for a reportedly payoff of $3million in campaign debt. More free money means more good candidates get bought off.
The Supreme Court wont rule against itself. How can guardrails be placed back on a system that is running wild?
Money is the problem.
Lobbying is nothing but legalized bribery.
My question about the money corporations can give to SuperPacs is where does the money truly come from? Profits? Money laundering?
It’s obvious to me, for most part, politicians are in it for the money. Corporations knowing this easily corrupt pols bvia the advantage of th CU decision.
Take away the money, then or now, and CU was/is irrelevant.
Did/do I support CU, no.
Is the Trump Organization considered a corporation?
If so wouldn’t this mean he can legally donate as much as wants to his presidential campaign because of CU?
This will get deleted because it’s off topic, but the railroad industry wants to go on strike and you can say goodbye to the economy for good
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsnationnow.com/business/rail-strike-industry/amp/
Excellent article. This (CU) was always a stone in my shoe.
CU grossly distorted the 1st Amendment, IMHO. Too many liberal SCOTUS benches had already soured my opinion of many historical rulings. To me – and I believe in the founders’ minds – “speech”, per 1A, is “speaking or writing publicly”.
Allowing the unlimited/ unchecked injection of corporate or union money into a campaign should have always been dealt with separately because of the unequal influence of organizations with larger bank accounts. As usual, government created a problem (deciding that huge national labor unions = individual voices = individual donations) , then solves it by creating a worse problem.
CU smelled of corruption then; it REEKS of corruption now.
What **should have been** & still needs to be addressed is to moderate the unfair advantage labor unions have over individual donors. Money and speech should always have been treated separately. The founders created a Senate to equalize small states with large states in one house of Congress.
CU did NOT equalize individuals’ speech with massive labor unions. It merely opened the door for corporate bank accounts to be used to influence government policies. Large corporate funds have rarely if EVER funded policies that accurately represented the preferences of the vast majority of middle class individual citizens.
That SCOTUS decision was quite obviously based upon a Hobsons Choice.
I supported management and shareholders getting a say about issues relevant to their industry. Too many times issues were not able to be framed with input from reasonable executives advocating for common sense legislation that would benefit an industry and thus benefit the workers of that industry. Labor already had a say for many decades but the others did not and it always appeared that labor was against the long term interests of shareholders (and customers.) The unintended consequence is that Baby Boomer corporate management took CU to mean their personal political grievances could now be funded (without checking with individual shareholders, just their fellow wokesters on Wall St.) and we now have “woke” multinational corporations that work against the interests of civilization for their corporate short term interests (or next quarter reporting, which ever comes first.)
The other issue with CU (and all political donations except individual donations) is that we need names of people that made the donation decision. There can be layers of PACs giving to PACs and the actual decision makers can hide behind a PAC corporate veil. Citizens must be able to aggregate the donations, the decision makers at each PAC, and then ultimately we need the names of the corporate decision makers. A person somewhere at some time decided to write the check. Who is that? There needs to be more sunshine. Think of the amount of obfuscation that Soros goes through to fund his hundreds of little projects. The information should be aggregated through reporting to the FEC, centralized in a database that individual citizens can sort, and common threads of political operatives can be shown to other citizens. I think we will find an ever expanding number of people involved with an ever shrinking number of people funding the whole apparatus. And then we just might discover that not everyone that funds campaigns is an American citizen. Regular folks need to know that.
A lightly talked about issue is that of tax exempt non-profits. Citizens need to be able to remove the tax exempt status of non-profits that are clearly operating political advocacy campaigns. We also need to be able to cross reference names of 501c4s with 501c3s to see the correlation of names and relationships. The US is granting tax exempt status to organizations that harm our civilization. Just nuts.
As a consequence, the citizen is less able to control the outcome of their democracy, and that is a terrible thing. Citizens cannot demand their representatives force transparency into the donations process because the UniParty has outsmarted us again. The UniParty wins no matter who votes or collects ballots.
And that is why the entrenched interests fear Trump, MAGA, ultra-MAGA, and Super-Duper MAGA. That is why Republican, Inc. will fight to keep us out of the party. I have now concluded it is more important that The Reformation take place within ourselves before we can reform others. Trump has exposed all of this and changed the way some citizens think about our government. And, ultimately, that is a good thing.
“Trump has exposed all of this…” with more than a little help from the CTH.
My thought: Needs to add one topic to Constitution if it is not there yet – any financial donations to candidates must be limited to actual individual citizens only with upper limit specified.
Using the Brave search engine, I typed the following words “is a corporation designated as a moral person legally”.
So, yes they are. However, thinking out-of-the-box, they don’t have the ‘citizen’ designation. And that is probably among the reasons they get away with it.
Sorry. I typed too fast. – And that is probably among the reasons they should not get away with it.
Interesting point. However, non-citizens – say, legal permanent residents who are non-citizens – have the same first-amendment protection for their speech, including political speech, and we citizens have a right to hear their opinions. They don’t have a right to vote in our elections. I think that these things are rather obvious, and proper.
But I do think there is something to your point. Even if corporations, rightly or wrongly, can be considered fictional “persons” for some legal purposes, it would seem obviously absurd to consider that such legal personhood is tantamount to “citizenship”.
I’m not sure, but maybe that distinction could be part of a basis for restricting corporations “right” to make unlimited campaign contributions.
If they’re a “person” legally, then they should have the same donation restrictions as an individual person.
Same goes for labor unions. Let the union represent its members in contract negotiations and for group discounts on benefit packages. But let the individual members donate privately to political campaigns. Union bank accounts should be off limits for political donations.
I never supported CU. Individuals have freedom of speech. Corporations do not and should not relating to elections and candidates. By giving corporations the same rights as individuals completely muted the voices of all but the rich.
I believe NO political funds should come from outside the district of the particular election. ONLY those actual persons residing within the district should be able to donate political funds, and that prohibition should include funding by the parties as in McConnell giving/refusing funds during elections. When outsiders come in and fund their chosen candidate they are muting the voices of those who actually live/vote in that district.
I believe all PACs should be illegal and banned. Speech is speech and money is money. Money is NOT speech. Money is just a big stick to beat down political speech not wanted by the rich.
Sorry but I don’t have a twitter account and therefore can’t vote in your poll.
Not on twitter. Never have been. I didn’t support Citizen’s United then and dont now. It had a “patriot ACT” smell to it. CITIZEN UNITED should be repealed and sent back to the states. Or just REPEALED—period.
off topic: this is an idea whose time is NOW! I sent it to my local banker encouraging him to spread the word among bankers. Here us the link. Direct link: https://home.solari.com/special-solari-report-a-sovereign-state-bank-and-bullion-depository-for-tennessee-with-senator-frank-niceley/
GIT. R. DONE!
Citizens United was a Supreme Court decision. It can’t be repealed. Only laws can be repealed.
*overturned
I do not support.
Supported then, do not support now.
I thought that it might counterbalance the corruption of the unions’ management decisions. I now think that adding corruption to fight corruption is a poor idea.
The amount of money currently spent on political campaigns is truly obscene and disgraceful. The only people who benefit are the shills in media, the propaganda machines and the politician who will do or say anything for money and power. Disgusting.
I was blissfully ignorant of the 2010 CU ruling, but at that time if I thought that Democrats and especially Obama was against it, I would have been for it. I personally believe that everything Obama did while he was in power should be undone; the corrupt snake.
I am not certain I have a solution; but if campaigns could not receive large amounts of monies from groups, PACs, Unions, etc., then that might take some of the corruption out. Right now, the people are disenfranchised because of all the big money buying the politicians. Politicians work for those who elect them; Big Pharma, Big Tech, etc., instead of working for the people they should be representing in their districts, regions, or state.
My belief is a politician, whether Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, or whatever, should work for ALL the citizens in their district regardless of whether that citizen voted for them or not. They should be doing their best to represent all.
If there’s a way to remove the money from campaigns, lobbyists, or wherever the big dollars come from, then that is what should be done. The wording, phraseology and “spin” on what a candidate stands for, what a bill truly says, what a law really means should be clear and transparent. No hidden “gotcha” phrases.
Bottom line, Sundance, is I don’t know how a candidate would get their message out without having money or media to disseminate it, but the way the system is working now is totally wrong.
Maybe the “journalists” should be held accountable to report on Candidate A and Candidate B equally, whether it be air time, video or print. Whatever would eliminate the skewed parseltongue that big money buys.
I supported the ruling when it was issued. I think it was mostly that obama was mad about it and I thought it equaled out union donations.
I have learned much since then.
My belief now, much debated (with myself) belief, is that’s it’s wrong.
It’s not a support/don’t support. Donations from any non-constituent is election interference.
The only people who are eligible to vote in the election for a candidate/issue are the only people who have the Right, standing, authority to donate/participate.
I have come to the conclusion that it is NOT a free speech issue.
It’s an election integrity issue. It’s blatant buying of OUR representatives.
Non-constituents, groups, PACs, unions, businesses, organizations have no Right, standing, authority to donate or participate in an election.
They CAN’T vote in an election, therefore, they CAN’T participate in/donate to an election.
How many State Constitutions have this election law?
Political campaign contribution limitations.
Section (1) For purposes of campaigning for an elected public office, a candidate may use or direct only contributions which originate from individuals who at the time of their donation were residents of the electoral district of the public office sought by the candidate, unless the contribution consists of volunteer time, information provided to the candidate, or funding provided by federal, state, or local government for purposes of campaigning for an elected public office.
Section (2) Where more than ten percent (10%) of a candidate’s total campaign funding is in violation of Section (1), and the candidate is subsequently elected, the elected official shall forfeit the office and shall not hold a subsequent elected public office for a period equal to twice the tenure of the office sought. Where more than ten percent (10%) of a candidate’s total campaign funding is in violation of Section (1) and the candidate is not elected, the unelected candidate shall not hold a subsequent elected public office for a period equal to twice the tenure of the office sought.
Section (3) A qualified donor (an individual who is a resident within the electoral district of the office sought by the candidate) shall not contribute to a candidate’s campaign any restricted contributions of Section (1) received from an unqualified donor for the purpose of contributing to a candidate’s campaign for elected public office. An unqualified donor (an entity which is not an individual and who is not a resident of the electoral district of the office sought by the candidate) shall not give any restricted contributions of Section (1) to a qualified donor for the purpose of contributing to a candidate’s campaign for elected public office.
Section (4) A violation of Section (3) shall be an unclassified felony.
I think that’s fabulous.
Is that an actual law someplace??
It is from the Oregon State Constitution.
Is it obeyed?
From what I see, it is not being obeyed anywhere.
Whether it is a law, or simply a good, logical and natural way
of doing it honestly.
These things happen you know, when people loose their way
and get off track of – “I am The Way, The Truth and The Life”
Have those restrictions helped Oregon elections better reflect the voice of the people vs special interests?
I apologize in advance for any typos, typed this on my phone and got on a roll. It’s a concept and work in progress, but something I believe is worth pursuing. I hope this opens a productive dialogue/thoughts:
I tend to take realism as a viewpoint. I abhor abortion, but know it will be done despite legality – think prohibition and alcohol consumption.
Just as a river will eventually change course given new influences and time, the democrats found a way to out do the other party through better organization. The unions were better organized. BLM is better organized at having people take a particular collective action. The polling place near a historically black college voted 98%+ for Hillary in 2016.
Money doesn’t matter, it’s collective action. If you can get R’s to turn out in presidential election numbers during mid-term and off-cycle elections, then you can crush these commie D’s – KY and LA have Dem governors in states carried heavily by the R presidential candidate. Doug Jones won the special election for Sessions AL senate seat.
Balaji Srinivasan lays out the path in his free book: The Network State – thenetworkstate.com
You may not agree with all his points, but creating a community that has a collective view and takes collective action can be powerful. All Amazon is, is a collective group of people who want ease of use, a large selection of goods at low prices. Yes, it’s a corporation that pairs sellers and buyers, but what’s to say 1 million people can start a group that agrees to buy eggs and meat from a group of ranchers who agree to produce quality eggs, poultry, beef and pork?
We live in an era where anyone can amass a 1ook+ following. Instead of it being an actor, what if someone like Sundance started a community to take action? A blockchain could be used to verify the following and certain actions – say poll watchers.
The group would start small, but then grow on along an S-curve. Once the group got to 1 million there’s countless things they could do collectively that fall within a core value. Let’s assume everyone wants traditional Founding Principles to guide their daily lives. They could start crowd funding real estate in small enclaves spread across the continent, or even world. They could fund their own schools, distribution networks, etc.
These ideas and followings are only limited by our own belief system: it can’t be done, not that many people will do it, it’ll take too long, it’s Mitch McConnell’s fault, it’s Joe Biden’s fault, it’s because there’s a recession, etc.
In reality, the longer we try to change the current system instead of laying the foundation for a parallel economic system then the further behind we fall.
My point is, the longer we care what the CU decision means as it relates to our existence the longer we are beholden to the GOPe.
The Uniparty and corrupt corporate political structure is the raging river everyone is force to follow, for now. We slowly chip away at the shore, diverting some money and resources that seems insignificant, but eventually we could have 30 million people that bought into a new, parallel system. For those that have employer healthcare, do the math on your monthly contribution plus your employers and multiply that by 30 million, heck even just 10,000. The point is that a large block of people could fund their own healthcare, education, finance, food, production, etc. systems.
It must start small and grow. In the beginning it won’t seem like much; however, it can grow to be larger than most countries. It all starts with a small group and a belief.
My realism viewpoint tells me we have lost the current battle and won’t compete under their rules. We need to establish our own rules and system. If half of PDJT voters networked all functions of their lives we could then out fund in all aspects. We wouldn’t need them for anything: not their banks, not their goods, not their education, not their healthcare.
All economics is relative. A group of 30 million is larger than most countries in existence and would create their own economy. It could operate outside of their global system and be unaffected (BitCoin as digital property and other coins for the payment systems, some block chain to verify membership (“citizenship”) and property.
Imagine if 30 million people agreed to pay a 5% “tax” (membership dues/charitable donation) on their income to the non-profit umbrella corporation that implements their values: funds civic groups, libraries, parks near property holdings (neighborhoods built by like-minded people), offered low-interest mortgages, etc.
It doesn’t matter what we think of CU, it’s happened. How can we better exploit it than the Uniparty, Dems, GOPe, etc.
Twitter and Facebook will be relics (maybe not Twitter, Musk is going to adapt it): anyone still use AOL, MySpace??? Instead of a few companies with billions of users, the future will be 1,000’s to 100,000’s of smaller “companies” with more close knit user groups.
The Nation State will eventually go the way of the City-State. A network state of like-minded individuals spread out geographically, operating within the laws of various nations will eventually become a thing.
A city created by 100k+ people could function under its own principles while being perfectly legal within a state. You just don’t start it overnight, it’s something you work towards and within several years to decades it could be achieved, but you must start.
I’m willing to try.
It’s kinda like the candy coated bitter pill, the candy coating is the 1st Amendment, the bitter pill is what the intentions of the power brokers are. When they put limits on the amount an individual can contribute, does this violate the 1st Amendment? If it does not violate the 1st Amendment, then shouldn’t limits apply to the corporations and other groups as well? Are these corporations and other groups granted special privileges the individual Citizens are not allowed? What’s to stop the wealthy individuals from circumventing contribution limits by creating a nonprofits or some other groups to do so so? Unions have members and they can contribute if they want to, when the Union takes their members money to make unlimited contributions is this fair to the average citizen that doesn’t belong to a union or some other privileged group?
Supported then/Don’t support now
Individual donations only, limited amount, no unions, no PACs
And while we’re at it, NO EARLY voting, voting day is National day off (if possible), voting from 12:01 midnight to 12:00 midnight. Only military are allowed to vote early if they’re overseas and not on American soil or people that are in nursing homes or bedridden. Paper ballots ONLY with only a hand-held calculator for adding. NO MACHINES. Voting in your PRECINCT only and in person. No same-day registration…really, if you’re too lazy to go register to vote a month before an election, you don’t deserve the privilege of voting. And, this goes without saying, but going to say it anyway….YOU HAVE TO BE AN AMERICAN to vote in our elections!
Personally I think the court was correct in it’s decision, but I think regulators should forbid the directors of publicly traded companies from contributing to political campaigns without first getting approval for the specific campaign expenditures from the shareholders. The shareholders are the owners. It’s their money that is being used to elect candidates that they may or may not approve of. At a minimum the companies should be required to ask shareholders to delegate political action authority to the board before they are allowed to support any candidate or campaign.
I have been a member of a few unions in my working career. USW, IAM, UFCW
Each time I was required to join to be eligible to work.
I never liked union representatives supporting a straight Democrat ticket seeing that approximately 50% of union members were Republicans. Our union dues were taken and used to support a party we didn’t agree with. At the very least any money should have divided into a percentage representative of union members political choices. 55% democrats vrs. 45% Republican or whatever the number may be.
Now I want no union or corporation to be able to donate more than any single donor amount. Give the power back to the average voter.
And I’ll add a couple things, No Lobbyists , plus no representative or senator can give a speech unless there’s at least 60% of their elected counterparts sitting in the same room.
….my experience…better union than ruled by Napoleon complex mini-despots
Money is money and speech is speech
A “free press” as described should be responsible for equal dispertion of campaigners platforms.
Obviously money can buy whatever is desired.
I also believe the more money you have the LESS speech you should have.
“Knowing what you know now, how do you feel about the Citizens United decision?“
I should have got one of those signs that said –
Be Careful What You Wish For
You Just Might Get It
Having had family members who were/are in unions, as well as family members who were/are in private trade industries or are members of smaller groups that often feel “left out” of political decisions, I have held to ONE position for many years, and continue to believe it is the best way forward.
Very simple : One person/one vote/unlimited funds IMMEDIATELY disclosed!
Since neither unions nor corporations can (technically) cast a vote for any candidate, they should NOT be able to “bundle” contributions to be given to ANY person running for office or to any initiative/referendum on the ballot. ONLY individual voters should be allowed to contribute money BUT it needs to be disclosed, IN FULL, in a way that is easily accessible by anyone who wants to find it, within 24 hours of the time it is received! If I support Joe Smith for Senate and I want to give him $10, then he should know that and so should anyone else who is curious about his supporters. If Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos wants to give 10 Million dollars to Joe’s opponent, then everyone should know about that right away as well, so that Joe can mention that Sally Jones is utterly beholden to the handful of people who have given her huge amounts of money, while he has one million “regular” folks who have each given him ten bucks! (Also, voters can see exactly how much support is coming from people within their district/state vs from national groups with an agenda that may not be what they or they neighbors want!)
Likewise, NO Corporations, NGOs, “Charitable Foundations” (wink, wink), or Labor Unions should be able to endorse or financially support any candidate or “bundle” contributions for them! For example, if the IAFF wants to hold a candidate forum for all the people running for City Council, and at the end of it, the Executive Committee decides to endorse Bob over Frank, then they can make that decision known to their membership, and Bob can mention it in his ads. But, NO money should be taken from the dues that are mandatorily collected from each member for collective bargaining and given to Bob – that is an individual decision that EACH member should be allowed to make without any pressure or coercion.
And the same goes for Corporations – I worked for a Regional Bank in the Pacific Northwest back in the late 1980s and we had a massive “campaign” to force every employee to “donate” one hour of pay per week (or per month – can’t remember now) to the United Way and I refused to do it, because Mary Gates (Bill’s mother) was the new Chairperson of King County United Way and she had added Planned Parenthood as a recipient organization. (The apple didn’t fall far from the tree on that one, did he?) There was a HUGE Bruhaha within the bank but I refused to back down – went all the way up to the VP level and I know it cost me career wise but I really didn’t care. It was WRONG then to demand I give my money to a cause I did not support and it is wrong now for corporations to take money from their employees OR their customers to give to a cause they may not agree with or support! (Think of the BILLIONS that went to Act Blue in 2020 when every company was jumping onto the BLM bandwagon – did the customers have any say in those contributions? NOPE!)
So, that is my long, drawn out answer as to what I think the problem is and how I think it should be handled in the future! Sunlight is ALWAYS the best disinfectant and the more people know, the better decisions they will be able to make!!
The heart of Washington D.C. has become deceit…
Jeremiah 17.9….”The heart is deceitful above all things; who can know it?”
I remember President Obama abandoning any claim to class or Constitutional regard, when he dressed down the members of the Supreme Court in The State of the Union Address.
We have lost so much class and regard.
Barack Hussein Obama….
That decision to allow Wall Street to spend unlimited amounts of cash to elect their “preferred” candidates is what has solidified the permanent Uniparty class and all the ‘bought and paid for’ politicians who no longer need to serve we the people.
so, no- I’m not a fan of Citizens United. It should be repealed and replaced with a ban on both corporate AND union monies being spent on elections in any form.
I did not support CU then or now.
For Senate, Congressional and all state level offices only residents of those states and districts should be allowed to contribute to candidates.
Elected representatives would truly have to listen to their constituents or lose their source of funding.
Didn’t support it then, and it always ticked me off that unions got a pass.
Unions are supposedly made up of individuals, treat them as individuals.
That means strict limits.
Cash corrupts!!
Always has, always will. And it’s only getting worse.
In my opinion the biggest challenge would be getting these jackals to use existing “legislation”against anything that would pose a threat to the Big Club.
Good luck with that.
Didn’t support, don’t support it now, and I think PAC’s are evil. I have seen too much at the podunk level and I can only imagine what it is like in the big leagues w/these people. Some of it does filter down to the bottom and I have heard one person be told to make sure their best friend loses or else they won’t give the person any money for their race. It is all unsavory and dirty.
SD, thank you for this post.
I was just talking about this with a small business owner, who is extremely well-read and understanding.
We both know the following:
Unions always HAD the Citizen’s United ability to launder money to candidates to flip elections. Corporations were always doing this under the table.
Citizen’s United allowed the public acknowledgement to do the same for ‘Republicans’. Launder money to flip ballots. Yet, for whom? The empowered class, same side of the coin. Here we are.
I originally thought Citizen’s United would equalize the balance of what I thought the Democrats’ machine empowered.
Citizen’s United was just a public excuse to make legal laundering money for both sides of the same tyrannical coin.
I have learned this now. Mostly by your teachings.
PS ALL should be illegal. Only individuals should be able to donate. Or maybe none at all.
Can you imagine how far behing Donal Trump would leave behind everyone else, with union help or not if he did not have to contend with other’s pac’s?! It would be murder!
It looks like most people here agree with my personal opinion.
No one should be allowed to donate to a candidate for public office unless they are legally certified to vote for that person and the amount of their contribution should be limited to an amount that allows everyone to be somewhat equal.
I had no opinion on the braided case at the time other than I thought it would be a counterbalance to the unions. I knew a number of good (otherwise conservative) people that were union members in Philadelphia. Because they carried water for the city bosses there they were handsomely rewarded (direct $).
For years I’ve been saying something to the effect of: there should be absolutely no limits on any monies in the political arena with the only caveat that it all has to be reported on a public website within 24 hours of the contribution or spending of the money (amount, person(s) authorizing the donation or expenditure).
My feeling was that sunlight is a good disinfectant and this would eliminate dark money and super PACs (since every dollar hasta stem from an actual individual person).