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
I think we were tricked into supporting the Citizens United case by groups who knew in advance just what the decision would mean. I think a maximum total contribution per candidate should be 500k. The money should be from individual voters only, not from PACs or Corporations, or whatever entity they dream up next. Individual voters only and no in-kind donations of any sort. Any money received over 500K should be put into a fund to be distributed among all entrants for both primaries, divided up evenly. No candidate should receive over 500K in any event.
No individual campaign needs over half a million dollars to communicate with the voters who elect them.
Take the money out of politics and over time you will be rid of professional politicians and government workers.
This would also mean no donations of any value by lobby groups.
Implement the 500K PlanPass a one page law stating that all politicians must be subject to all laws they vote for. No exemptions, no exceptions.Pass a law that states that all Federal workers be barred from working for any company affected by the laws they pass or the policies they create for 10 years. If necessary, continue their Federal salaries for those 10 years.No stock or commodity trading by any Federal employee will be allowed for a year after their employment ends.No unions for any Federal employees.Of course, to do any of this would require an Article 5 Convention and a Constitutional Amendment.
I would like it if neither corporations NOR labor unions could monetarily support candidates or parties.
I also think we’d be better off if only residents (and residency requirements would have to mean something) of a state could donate to candidates running for office in THAT state. I’d allow residents of a state to donate to any candidate running for a Congressional seat in any district in that state.
Make a law that the candidates can get 10 million tax payer dollars and that’s all they can spend. No outside money allowed. After all, their jobs are suppose to be for we the people. I don’t think we would have to worry about very many running.
No. That would become just another bottomless pit with unelected people spending taxpayer money and with the current justice system, never held accountable.
When have they ever been held accountable?
Individuals run for office, supposedly citizens – not entities, unions or superPacs. Therefore, I believe individuals of USA should donate to campaigns NOT entities, unions, PACs nor foreign entities or individuals.
I do not support the CU decision now and would not have supported it in 2010 had I been remotely involved in politics. The field should have been leveled by removing unions from their financial support (beyond what an individual can give) instead of bringing the corps and PACs into the picture.
Below except is from: “Thomas Paine on Corporations and Charters in “The Rights of Man” (Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Other Essential Writings of Thomas Paine”, Pp.330-331)
“I answer not to falsehood or abuse, but proceed to the defects of the English Government. I begin with charters and corporations.
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect- that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. If charters were constructed so as to express in direct terms, “that every inhabitant, who is not a member of a corporation, shall not exercise the right of voting,” such charters would, in the face, be charters not of rights, but of exclusion. The effect is the same under the form they now stand; and the only persons on whom they operate are the persons whom they exclude. Those whose rights are guaranteed, by not being taken away, exercise no other rights than as members of the community they are entitled to without a charter; and, therefore, all charters have no other than an indirect negative operation. They do not give rights to A, but they make a difference in favour of A by taking away the right of B, and consequently are instruments of injustice.”
An interesting article on this very topic based on a history professor knowledgeable in our founding fathers views on the topic and the fact that “corporations” then and now are different and the CU opinion made corps the same as citizens, which they aren’t.
https://hbr.org/2010/04/what-the-founding-fathers-real.html
Here is a link to the actual ruling. It is 183 pages but the ruling itself is on the first 7 pages; the ruling is a combination of reversal, affirmation and remanding back to the lower court, and is worth reading the first 7 pages.
I like Citizens United ruling as it evens the playing field. In both the ruling, and in a recap (will post link to that in reply) unions were also prohibited. Though, knowing the unions they found work-arounds and my view is that the Citizens United ruling gave the republicans permission to begin playing the same game the unions had long been playing.
Interesting wording “the Court held that the First Amendment ‘prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech” – something the DOJ is doing by jailing the J6 defendants.
Last paragraph of page 3 (of the actual ruling) and top of page 4:
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may be also commit a Constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.”
I see the above paragraph to be a foundational approach that the AG’s of several States, the lead State being Missouri, going after the WH directing tech sites such as Twitter and Facebook what speech, posts, should be shadow banned, deleted, blocked or given ‘fact-check’ notices overlaid on the most often blacked out posting.
Seems the Republicans, and those who favor MAGA ideas and candidates, need to get their act together and use the law, not dissimilar to having to lower our standards and begin playing the ballot harvesting game.
The gist of Citizens United is funding speech, whether movies, billboards, online chats and memes. What Zuckerberg and his ilk did funding local and State voter registrars and election officials, providing means of gathering drop boxed ballots, poll watching and such – Citizens United covers not one iota of those moves and seems a lawsuit addressing the financing of State and local election practices beyond what the citizens representatives have budgeted for those tasks calls for its own lawsuit and eventual Supreme Court ruling.
Here is the link to the text of the ruling:
https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf
and here is a quick recap from the FEC site:
https://www.fec.gov/updates/citizens-united-v-fecsupreme-court/
I supported it then, and I support it now. It is a proper reading of the Constitution. Bessie2003 makes very good points. I believe a bigger problem is that we have an Administrative State with too much power that is not answerable to the people at the ballot box. Every regulation or law that is enacted should be voted on by the people’s representatives who are answerable to the people at the ballot box. The Administrative State as it currently operates is unconstitutional in my opinion. If our representatives cannot hide behind the Administrative State, than they will by necessity be more responsive to the voters.
SCOTUS rendered the proper decision and it’s not a matter of supporting or opposing the decision that matters rather how we now overcome the results of having more Free Speech or too much Free Speech to the point of purchasing a candidate or an election. To me it’s the same thing when Google spends a little bit of their own money to pay their techs to send Republican emails to the spam folders or implementing algorithms to encourage/remind Democrats to vote and having it disappear on their browsers without the ability to trace it or even prove that it happened. Of, FaceBook/Twitter shadow-banning certain sites/comments that they politically oppose. Or the Public Union who can put together and fund a political movement to fir their boss through an election. Money spent on political campaigns either by individuals businesses or unions or other groups of people is Free Speech and I don’t think it could be seen any other way.
For decades since my parents were Republican delegates in 1980 and 1984 for President Reagan I can recall reading the opinion polls at that time that broke down Liberal/Conservative/Independent by political party as well as exist polls and watching election results proving what we all knew to be true and that is the majority of the electorate are conservative.
Back in the early 90’s when I was a Teamster and worked at UPS I learned that in some ethnic communities it was common practice for Hispanics to want to give you their ballot in union elections. They would hold picnics for candidates and as a huge group give you their ballots or in my case when they tried to do it I refused to take them. I decided – as a secret conservative Republican to run against the entrenched do-nothing Teamsters leadership in our local union. I convinced the DOL to administer the election and defeated them by 4 votes out of thousands that were cast. They spent tens of thousands against me while I spent maybe a $1k and a heck of a lot of time talking to members. But, once I became the Secretary Treasurer I got to see first-hand that it on a Joint Counsel level that most local unions belong to was nothing but another political arm of the Democratic Party run by avowed Marxists! It was never my public intention to hold that position for very long as I simply ran to defeat the entrenched thugs who ran it. I ended up in short order resigning that position so that the President who ran with me on my reform slate of candidates could work to clean it up as it was his life-long ambition to do so but didn’t have the time or gumption as I did to do what was necessary to defeat the opposition.
Part of what I observed in the back-rooms of the Joint Council part of the union that I was able to view first-hand how they worked-hand-in-glove with he Democratic Party to elect Democrats. It was during that period that California implemented the Motor-Voter Law where you were automatically registered to vote by virtue of obtaining a drivers license. This would add tens of thousands of voters if not millions in some states to the voter rolls that never had any intention of voting. This movement to implement Motor-Voter laws all across the country at that time had one purpose and that was to allow the Democratic Party to literally drive people to the polls to vote using union dues money. The unions would purchase the registered voter lists then organize campaigns to drive people to the polls to vote based on their party registration status. Personal vehicles including renting vans and buses were used to drive people to the polls. Now fast-forward a few years and when my brother ran for State Rep in Michigan I went door-to-door on his behalf. It took many hours in a rural setting to knock on if I was lucky 100 doors where it would take you about 90 seconds to walk down one driveway, down the street and up the next driveway to knock on another door but in an inner-city where these huge apartment complexes are you literally can knock on thousands of doors when the next set of voters at the next address is 30 feet down the hall or 4 feet across the hall. It was in the inner-cities where they concentrated their driving voters to the polls.
Fast-forward to the 2000 elections and the counting of the Chads in Florida. I can recall waking up in the middle of the night thinking up ways Democrats were cheating. I know that in California they began to move towards mail-in-ballots in the mid-to-late 2000’s and illegals registering to vote was known to be occurring. I had moved from Californian back to Michigan in 98 before the state went downhill very quickly in the 2000’s. It was one of my many wake up in the middle of the night thought sessions I came up with the idea or hypotheses of illegal votes being use by the Democratic Party based on using the information of registered voters who NEVER vote to vote absentee or mail-in ballots. It was a simple concept based on asking yourself or a friend a question of when was the last time you voted and then called the local County Clerk of Elections and asked them IF you voted. No one does that nor do those who are registered to vote but never have voted or those who moved or even died. Simple concept – register as many people as you can. Only on a good Election Day about 60 to 65% of the people go and vote leaving 35% of registered voters in the data base to fool-with. Of course now I think it’s called Phantom or Ghost voting. This is why you hear more and more people show up to vote only to find out they’ve already voted.
Collecting Ballots, Phantom or Ghost voting is now right out in front of all of us now. Thanks to Sundance for his ability to put into words and clearly show why Trump lost in 2020 and no Republican can win in 2024 or beyond due to the massive effort in many states to codify into law Election Ballot Collection Season that gives Democrats weeks to go door to door and collect ballots, drive voters to the polls and use non-profits to help collect those ballots. Just announce the candidate and collect the ballots. No electioneering needed. Run the numbers on how many ballots you need on average to collect and stuff into the ballot collection boxes and the Republican doesn’t have a chance. Republicans win on Election Day only to see them lose over the next few days or weeks.
100’s of millions and a couple of billion $$ is really not even needed to for political speech purposes when all you need to do is collect the ballots to win. That’s where we are and thanks again to Sundance for using this venue to bring it out into the open.
To heck with the Hunter Biden congressional hearings. To heck with the Biden/China 10% commission for the Big Guy. To heck with the Ukraine funding investigation or even the Fauci/Covid investigation because if we do nothing to compete or end the collection of the ballots we will be spitting in the wind. What is currently happening in Arizona to Kari Lake and others is just the next step after what they did to Trump in 2020. Michigan is lost and Arizona at least at the top is lost as well.
Time to wake up before we are all Californianized!
That’s an excellent piece. Kudos to you.
I hope everyone reads this.
Excellent! Thank you for your insights.
I supported it, but not now. I am in favor of limiting contributions to Eli El, individual voters, with a specific limit. Anyone caught using individual donors to spread money around should be illegal, with both real donor and spread around or fake donors being prosecuted. I know there will be a thousand ways to get around this, but I think it would be a start. Term limits are also something that we need, very badly. A lot more limits on in kind contributions, as well.
Right now, and for many years, I have not trusted “professional politicians.”
Money is the mother’s milk of politics … fatally spoiled milk. Two wrongs did not make a right in 2010, and they do not make a right in 2022. We now find ourselves in a position where, to survive, we must learn how to harvest ballots as efficiently as the other side, but we should harbor no illusions about the consequences of this decision. It will take vast sums of money to do this, and this money will inevitably come from the donor class– but the votes that are harvested will be cast in large numbers by the least informed among us, if they are even mentally competent. Thus we are attending the funeral of the Republic as the Founding Fathers conceived it.
I was never in favor of it because
it just brought more big money into the equation.
I feel ALL big money should be banned
make them earn it a small donation at a time
all big money does is corrupt
I would like to implement a one day national voting. The polling places would be hospitals, fire stations and police stations. Make it easier for people who don’t get a day off. A Sunday seems like a good day for national voting. Ballots for overseas citizens and military. As for financing a national campaign, only money designated from that box you check on your taxes. Local campaigns, in state residents and instate businesses.
Lord’s day. No Sunday voting.
I was against the decision then, and am even more so now. I’ve always been a government skeptic, witnessing how they take everything good and find a way to mutate it for their benefit, ie their wallets. The corrupting of this decision was inevitable. But I was/am against unions’ donations as well.
Individuals should be the only ones allowed to donate, otherwise we forever run the risk of pols being bought, which they currently are. And reasonable limits for individuals.
My biggest beef has always been the fact that government employees can be members of a union. So what we have is a situation whereby, say the teachers union donates to the local democrats and comes out in support of democrat candidates for the Board of Education. Then they get their choice democrats elected, then when it is time to “negotiate” the next contract the union now is “bargaining” with the people that they just supported to be elected. Who’s side are the elected candidates on in this case? This is a conflict of interest that should not be allowed.
Anyway that this can be stopped legally? By a State Law?
So, either they can be part of a union, or the union cannot donate to, nor support any candidates where a conflict of interest is, or may be present.
IMO government can not restrict anything associated with spending. Maybe some sunlight law requiring real time disclosure of all contributions to PACs or candidates. I remember when Rush was positive on CU, but again I don’t think government is capable of restricting money flow. Public opinion and publicity may be stronger on bringing up imbalances.
Government employees are restricted from receiving gifts/gratuities, as a way to prevent fraud and favoritism. I see this more as a rein on politicians than a restriction on how we spend our money. And these PACs are a great way to hide illegitimate donations, like from foreign interests.
Lobbies are bribes…plain and simple
I’ve always resented out of state contributions as where ever I’ve resided. Outside influences always in opposition to legitimate majority within a state, county, city. Missouri now stuck with 35 pages worth of manure from Amendment 3 passing, an initiative from a totally outside source. It is on the uniparty within state government for getting nothing done on modifying the initiative process here, however – very difficult to get any meaningful legislative passage on important issues.
I like Sundance, supported the decision. In my naïveté, I thought big business was patriotic and had altruistic intentions. Boy was I wrong. In my defense, I was young-ish.
I am for getting most money out of politics and would possibly be in favor of publicly funding candidates with varying amounts of money for different offices.
This could possibly open the door for different parties to displace the R’s and the D’s.
Displacing or replacing the two mega parties would be a good thing.
I didn’t support it then or now. I believe corporations, unions or any organized group with money or power to influence politicians has made my vote as a citizen almost irrelevant.
Keep corporations and unions out of contributing to candidates or parties.
Keep all foreigners (people, corporations, unions, etc.) out of contributing to candidates or parties.
Keep all politicians out of contributing to candidates or parties except as an individual citizen.
“Let’s go Brandon!”
I run a corporation, it is NOT an individual entity despite what the lawyers and tax folks say. Instead it is a tool to diversify risk.
The BOD and Executives are the “people” and should never be allowed to use their tool to manipulate elections through their entity.
The overarching problem, and it has accelerated recently, is a general lack of knowledge about “hard ideas”. People are too lazy.
We literally just had a group of investors admit “yeah we didn’t bother with the actual work of due diligence”!
There is a general deference given to big companies and professionals because people assume “they must know what they are doing”.
They don’t. They skated by, got a cush job, and are benefitting from it. They are the same dumbasses you deal with in your normal day just with fancier clothes and toys.
The Risk is mitigated by partnerships, and a corporation is not an individual entity. The problem is, partnerships can work like a trust. A trust, not in the best interest of the public, made worse by those same dumbasses.
The decision must secure the foundation of our elections; one man one vote.
One man one vote replaced Englands Land Lords law; only Land Owners could vote.
Any rule that legalizes “special” people a special privilege of buying more influence, because of the amount of the donation, creates a silent powerful class system, ie; some Voters are more valuable because they can spend more money.
When blocs of voters are bartered, auctioned, bought or sold to enrich a 3rd party we call that slavery.
The Will of the People is nowhere to be found once each vote represents purchasing power.
My choice is always peaceful transitions of government. To do so in 2024 and forward we will have to replace our means to accomplish that. When courts refuse to see the evidence proving or disproving an election was legitimate, then voting can no longer secure Government.
Hundreds of millions of Voters know that and are slowly being convicted we cannot vote our way out of corruption, deceit, fake ballots, infirmed candidates or the Corporate legacy builders.
MAGA will have to ballot its way out of this. Pray to God they succeed!
@sd . Aits both your arguments. Ballots and $$$. 1991 college business classes asked what’s the future of unions? Numbers were dwindling such that union $ was hitting all time low. CU fought a paper tiger of union $ and created an iron behemoth. Better counter would have been a faux conservative union. Nuts and bolts it’s the right free speech decision though on principle. Currently I’m thinking it’s the decision that will lead to a viable third party winning run. There is enough free speech opportunity to go for it and enough center to grab. It’s the only answer to shoddy ballot tactics by the RNC v their opponent.
Pt of ref: 2007, the labor department reported the first increase in union memberships in 25 years and the largest increase since 1979. 2010 was directly related to the ‘scare’ of increased membership.
Absolutely. The sooner MAGA figures this out, the better.
The Bill of Rights was written for citizens to preserve their individual liberty in the shadow of a coming federal power.
Freedom speech is a God given inalienable right of a human being. A corporation does speak, and it is absurd to pretend that the Founders would have considered for even a second that all corporations “are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”.
This is a commonsense interpretation of the Constitution in context of the 1000’s of years of rule by kings and elites which the F0unders fled. Some obscure devious legal definition of a “person” weaseled in a court decision by men in black robes cannot change that.
Didn’t support then, argued against it and Union giving, in favor of unlimited public individual donations rather than fictitious persons. Ultimately went along as a temporary though problematic solution that I could do nothing to $top.
I’m flattered to be asked for an opinion , because I have a great deal of respect for you Sundance .
Your opinions, analysis , hard work and dedication to informing people about what really is happening behind the curtain .
And this site has become my most often read site, trumping the likes of ,lew rockwell, American thinker,and zerohedge .
Thinking about answering, it made me wonder why I even think about,and follow politics.
After watching a video make by Larken Rose , it seems fairly useless to have any faith in statism.
And I’m not sure what the solution is to that . What I do know is, it ain’t working . I don’t have faith it can ever work,or that any one can change it .
I can’t turn away. I want to be informed, I want to know what’s coming, I want to be prepared,and share my knowledge .
I’m a union member, and believe in unions for the most part. Yet is disagree generally with who they want members to support politically,and the fact that unions can protect bad workers from getting fired.
To answer your question, it seems like it fueled a bigger fire . And I really wasn’t familiar with the decision prior to your posting .
I’m going to try to post that video, it’s pretty eye opening , and can really change your perspective in thought .
https://rumble.com/v11i8gl-statism-the-most-dangerous-religion-by-larken-rose.html
I was not for it then, and am not for it now. Personally, I don’t believe corporations are people. How about a corporation equals one person and one vote? I just see it as corporations can buy themselves a politician to support their cause, which we used to call bribery. CU also made it easier for foreign money into our elections. HRC was a master at getting around the so called PAC laws and foreign money.
For years I have been archiving news. In 2012, I came across this in the comments of a Mother Jones article, and maybe it would work, or maybe not, as we have come a long way since then, but it is food for thought.
You are missing some of the most powerful methods to neutralize SuperPAC’s and unlimited spending.1) Change corporate civil and criminal liability protections. How often have you seen a SuperPAC sued for slander, libel or defamation? It never happens, which is one of the reasons they can say whatever they want, with no consequences. One way to neutralize the SuperPACs is to change the legal liability protections. While under Citizen’s United a corporation can engage in whatever speech it wants, that does not prevent society from allowing those same corporations to be held liable for their speech. On simple reform: change the liability laws so that if any corporation or organization engages in “speech” that is intended to influence the outcome of an election, the corporation, it officers, directors, all shareholders and all donors can be held personally liable, both civilly and criminally, for the content of the speech. Furthermore, extend the law to give third parties standing to sue, so that no wrongful speech will go unchallenged.2) Change the requirements for corporate governance. At present, the officers of a corporation can direct the corporate to engage in lobbying, political activities or political speech. The law could be changed however to require that before any corporation engages in political spending, its articles of organization (charter) must be amended, by unanimous vote of all shareholders, to permit the political activities or speech. Furthermore, all expenditures on political activities must be unanimously approved by all shareholders or members in advance.Either or both of these changes would have a huge effect on corporate and SuperPAC political activities, and neither require a direct challenge to Citizen’s United.”And then the foreign money angle. https://theintercept.com/2016/08/03/citizens-united-foreign-money-us-elections/ )
The citizens voting seems to be in the way of the corporations and foreign interests.
I’ve always been opposed to any corporation, small business, unions or organized group of any sort, sending money to political campaigns. Period. It’s absurd the amounts of money being spent on this political influence agenda by those with deep pockets. Donations from individuals is ok, but only up to a limit decided by law and with immediate transparency who the money is coming from.
Any other reason for funding any part of elections, such as ballot harvesting, etc. should be banned completely. It’s just too easy to corrupt elections and the people running in them. End the money influences and we might get more fair elections again.
It might sound strange, but I think Citizen’s United should be challenged (by who I don’t know), and the Supreme Court send this issue back to the States to manage just as they did with Roe V. Wade.
Elections are “supposedly” run by each of the fifty states and related territories. Why do they not have a say into who or what entity can send money to influence an election when they do not reside there?
Are corporations allowed to send money to support a person nominated to the Supreme Court? I don’t think so but I’m sure there is a lot of dark money flowing to the likes of those on the committee that “selects” them’
This to me is not a representative form of government when those with the corporations with the most money have more power to sway any election than the citizens of each state and the collective of them.
Cu was a disaster for us. Lefty corporations have weaponized dollars for use against us.
I was just pondering on this very decision today, Sundance. I see CU as an overall bad outcome that has allowed corporations to essentially buy elections. The SCOTUS should have went the other way and banned the unions from raising unlimited funds. Treat all political donations as individuals and MAYBE allow corporate interest to contribute an amount 10x that of individuals ($3500 iirc) so that $35K is all each Big Tech and Big Pharma company can give. Also all donations must be 100% transparent. Big business must name all the individuals on their boards as donors to specific candidates/funds. No more shadow money from SuperPACs.
Or we can go back to congress appropriating equal amounts of tax dollars to campaigns on the federal level. This would make our election season more sane and not perpetual in nature. It seems like we only go about 8 months without hearing about the clowns running for office and begging for cash.
For me it’s simple. Independently, the people have a right to an opinion. And we should each express ours, independent of what others are saying. Individuals should be able to directly donate to, and support candidates.
“PAC’s and Super PAC’s” were created to massively collect money for political reasons. Basically, giving the DNC, RNC, or your favorite political influencer the power to affect people’s opinions. They should all be outlawed.
Essentially corporations and unions are both collections of people. Both of these organizations are controlled by a small number of people. Any opinion expressed in the name of an organization is going to be the opinion of those who control it, not the general membership. Neither of these organizations should have the ability, let alone the right, to impact our elective process. Election spending, donations, service, and support should come from individuals, not groups of people. And it should be limited in some way so a specific individual cannot “buy” the election. Perhaps limiting support to fewer than a specific number of candidates or the state of the supporter’s residence.
In interesting aside to this opinion is the case of the DNC and RNC themselves, including all their special purpose sub organizations. Should these two companies be able to spend on elections? I don’t think so. I don’t see any difference between them and the Unions and the Corporate Super PAC’s.
Office holders (the elected) are elected by “The PEOPLE”. Corporations and Unions can not vote.
Only “The People” should be allowed to fund the campaigns.
Corporations and Unions do not elect office holders. Corporations and Unions are regulated by Office holders.
To let Corporations and Unions participate in the election process, by way of monetary support, makes the Office Holder a slave to the corporations and Unions.
I don’t support the direct and hidden fusion of political and economic power.
If you want to support someone then the ad must state who funded it.
Sunlight is the best cure.
Unfortunately, the sunlight comes too late. The damage by slanderous campaigning has been done. State election commissions have no teeth to enforce campaign financing violations.
I was for it (CU) then, and I am against it now.
All the democrats did was to take their loss and as is their mantra, they “never let a crisis go to waste”, simply because they are excellent backhanded survivors.
(Directed at both Repub & Dem)
Corporations and Unions should be banned from donating unlimited money. These entities are owned and run by individuals who vote and donate to their individual candidates, and every individual is guaranteed, by the Constitution, the right to vote… but then again, why does the entity get a vote by using unlimited funds? The folks who vote should fund the candidates with limited funds, not the entities. Therefore no one is deprived of their freedom of speech, it keeps the whole darn process “real”, and the money can be tracked.
O’brother talk about whats wrong in politics,’MONEY’.
McCain/Feingold than comes Citizens U! I think it was planned that way!
Limit the amount they can spend and limit the amount they can take in! And any money left over goes into a treasury account and that money is distributed evenly to all candidates running in the next election.
Make it equal, this amount is all you have. You loss its on you. In other words spend your money wisely.
Much of the discussion here assumes that more spending on elections by corporations after Citizens United has made elections, politics, and government worse. But is that really the case? Not that elections, politics, and government aren’t bad, but is increased election spending the root cause?
Years ago unions had a large influence in elections. Union leaders encouraged their members to vote a certain way. But in those days there were not just the very left-wing public employee unions that we know today who vote in favor of big government. America’s Main Street industrial base included many industries populated by trade unionists who tended to vote in favor of politicians who supported their interests – a strong American Main Street. But when America was de-industrialized by policies like NAFTA, TPP, and MFN to China, the “Main Street/America First” counter-balance to the left was lost.
Now we just have a uni-party that favors globalism and international bankers who finance globalism. We all know that for the most part there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference in the candidates in a political race. The only competition is which political consultants will become the elected official’s high paid staff. Essentially the policies will be the same no matter who wins.
My point is that campaign finance isn’t the real problem. As Sundance often says, the real issue is the national economic policies that favors either Main Street or Wall Street.
Now, many of you will object and say that financing by outside groups like Zuckerberg’s CTCL did influence the 2020 election. I agree, but the things they did were not simple elections communications (TV ads, mailings, door-to-door solicitations) that were permitted by Citizen’s United. Groups like CTCL actually injected their operatives into election offices and were running the elections! See here. Citizens United only allowed elections communications by corporations. It didn’t allow all the other things done by groups like Zuckerbergs’s CTCL. So overturning Citizen’s United won’t fix the problem.
It took 100s of millions of dollars of Zuckerbucks to accomplish an election commandeering and that was from dark money and PACs. Cut off the life blood of financing of the groups and their operation dies. These folks won’t work for free.
True, but leveling the playing field for the common man would help to chip away at the harmful fiscal and social policies that have been implemented by his enemies in the globalist banking cabal.
IMO, it’s not a question of free speech, I am all for that. The problem with the Citizens United Decision is the unequal power of speech it gives to major donors versus the everyday individual. The better choice would be not to allow unions, as an organization, the power to raise money from it’s members for political purposes.
LOBBYISTS, PACS and Corporations have unlimited funds to spread their speech to potential thousands, if not millions, of people through ads on TV and press releases. The individual citizen, on the other hand, has only a few options and limited funds to contribute and also has to rely on other sources to speak for them. This requires an element of trust that these sources have their personal interest at heart. Case in point is the last two elections.
How many people contributed to PACS, RNC and DNC only to find that their funds were appropriated to candidates not of their choosing in the primaries?
Good candidates were deprived of funds because the RNC/DNC did not care for them. They were overwhelmed by millions of dollars in ads spent against them from these organization while their opponents had an unfair advantage.
The funding from the RNC and DNC organizations came from individual small donations and, in my opinion, should not be spent in the primaries at all. They were meant to be spent on candidates in the general election.
Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy’s funding choices decided many of the primary races. VERY BAD FORM. It is not their place to decide for their constituents as to which candidate gets funded and who does not in a intra-party election.
As with any contest, there are rules of the game and one expects the rules to be fair to all players.
Perhaps the question we should be asking is the following.
For example, are the Billionaires behind the RNC working in such a partnership. And, is this not the progenitor to the Multinational Companies.
5 Reasons Your Company Should Partner Up With Its CompetitionSure, you’re competing for the same customers and dollars. But sometimes working with your competition can be mutually beneficial.
By Craig Bloem, Founder and CEO
https://www.inc.com/craig-bloem/why-partnering-with-competitors-is-often-best-move-your-company-can-make.html
I think congress currently has that down pat, hence, the uniparty…
IMO, the first 3 words of the US Constitution answers the question! “We the people” created a government, for our security and to be funded by us. We the people are very unique in that each of we citizens possess a HUMAN SOUL. Therefore, every member of our government must possess a human soul and should be elected by only those with a human soul. It is clear from reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the topics of every paragraph is addressing human souls. They were not concerned with the conduct of animals, the rights of trees or the election of robots.
Corporations, unions, gangs, tribes and foreign rogue bands may be populated with people who have human souls and may perhaps be US citizens, but that should not mean the “organization” takes on an aura of life equal to a human soul. An organization is artificial and a creation of man, not God.
It made sense to me at the time with what we were told by the media. Don’t support it now. Lot’s of good ideas on here but no politician is going to vote away his money.
When and how should we prevent companies from working in a partnership? Bring Antitrust cases against the companies involved, since they are not working in the best interest of the public. But how will we know when they are working in a partnership?
Good evening Sundance. I thought at the time that the Citizens United decision would level the political playing field & remove the unfair advantage labor unions & Democrats held. But today… with international, global corporations providing all the campaign funds to candidates … we mere voters are irrelevant. So I’d say it’s turned out to be a horrible assault on our freedom. It leveled nothing & ceded all the power to corporate non-citizens.
Citizens United is a complete farce. Corporations are not people. They exist only to avoid responsibility and accountability. The corporate form of business should be banned and totally done away with. Political contributions for Federal offices should be limited to persons who are citizens. Contributions for state offices should be limited to residents of the state in which the candidate is running for office.
It would have been better to impose the individual limit on unions rather than lifting it for corporations. Allowing powerful interests to spend unlimited amounts of money was a big mistake
CU has accelerated the trend toward oligarchy. The big financial interests now completely control the politicians and write all the legislation, out in the open and right in your face. Representative government is the big lie papered over a system that works directly against the common interests of the citizenry. I would say we should impose a litmus test on any candidate running in our primaries to commit to public financing and term limits, but that would entail a level of pretense what with the ballot manufacturing operations now ubiquitous in the swing states.
I’m of the mind that the republic has slipped under the swamp after taking its last gasp of air with the election of Trump in 2016.
The fact of the matter is Americans are too comfortable in their gilded cages surrounded by mountains of cheap plastic consumer baubles from china to stick their necks out or force a change.
Short of an act of God or the appearance of a Caesar type figure on the banks of the Rubicon with the 13th legion at his back, the American experiment is over. Now all that is left is to wait for it to burn to the ground to see what rises from the ashes.
Sorry if that is overly black-pilled, it’s just where my head is at.
True, but we are obligated to fight against it.
Came up with a solution to the wrong problem statement. The issue regarded over-influence of unions. Citizen’s United serves citizens as well as the Patriot Act serves Patriots. Truly the beginning of the end of the Republic.
America’s problem is at the top..
so why is everybody attempting to solve the problem from the top down.. how about from the bottom up..
Politicians are totally disconnected from the People they are supposed to represent.. they need to experience the prosperity they cultivate.. and the inflationary conditions they pretend to not notice..
so I propose the “Uncle Buck” Amendment.. the regular guy amendment..
every politician can only earn the median household income of their respective States.. so if they want to make more.. work toward making your State’s median household income to increase..
and should a politician exceed the amount.. just follow the current Income Tax Bracket they impose on the American people to assess what percentage of the excess that will be donated toward paying off their respective State’s debt..
RATE OMI BRACKET PER AMOUNT OVER MEDIAN INCOME (OMI)
10% $0 to $11,000 10% of taxable income.
12% $11,001 to $44,725. $1,100 plus 12% of the amount over $11,000.
22% $44,726 to $95,375 $5,147 plus 22% of the amount over $44,725
24% $95,376 to $182,100 $16,290 plus 24% of the amount over $95,375
32% $182,101 to $231,250 $37,104 plus 32% of the amount over $182,100
35% $231,251 to $578,125 $52,832 plus 35% of the amount over $231,250
37% $578,126 or more $174,238.25 plus 37% of the amount over $578,125
etc.. etc.. etc..
and should they be seen.. like.. driving a $250,000 Tesla or something.. they will have to publicly account for it..
otherwise it is to be raffled off to the People through their State Lottery.. and all proceeds go toward paying off their respective State’s debt..
..and the winning Uncle Buck gets to drive a “slightly used” $250,000 Tesla..
..but will have to give up their “slightly used” brown 1977 Mercury Grand Marquis Brougham to their politician..
Maryland $87,063 New Jersey $85,245 Massachusetts $84,385
Hawaii $83,173 Connecticut $79,855 California $78,672
New Hampshire $77,923 Alaska $77,790 Washington $77,006
Virginia $76,398 Colorado $75,231 Utah $74,197
Minnesota $73,382 New York $71,117 Rhode Island $70,305
Delaware $69,110 Illinois $68,428 Oregon $65,667
North Dakota $65,315 Wyoming $65,304 Texas $63,826
Pennsylvania $63,627 Vermont $63,477 Wisconsin $63,293
Nebraska $63,015 Nevada $62,043 Iowa $61,836
Arizona $61,529 Georgia $61,224 Kansas $61,091
South Dakota $59,896 Maine $59,489 Michigan $59,234
Idaho $58,915 Indiana $58,235 Ohio $58,116
Florida $57,703 Missouri $57,290 North Carolina $56,642
Montana $56,539 South Carolina $54,864 Tennessee $54,833
Oklahoma $53,840 Kentucky $52,238 Alabama $52,035
New Mexico $51,243 Louisiana $50,800 Arkansas $49,475
West Virginia $48,037 Mississippi $46,511
I actually love this idea
its simple really.
its my legal money (in this case a businesses). If they want to give it all away. thats their choice. where it goes is theirs as well.
you cant spout liberty and freedom and then turn aghainst it just because you dont like the other guy can do it better.
Then what is the point of voting or citizens’ involvement in politics?
I didn’t support it then, & even more so now. Back then I had a suspicion, an inner voice that screamed at times… this is gonna be bad. I had no specific details or clues in mind, but due to government lies regarding Oklahoma City, Waco, 9/11, FDA/AMA/ADA & their lies about countless toxic food ingredients, vaccine ingredients, etc. I knew it was just a matter of time…
The picture of suspicious cat comes to mind.
I was literally amazed at the conservatives I knew who celebrated CU. Could they not see the writing on the wall?
I did the Twitter poll. I supported it then but do not support it now.
I felt, in my bones at the time, that it could be used as a cudgel but I never had an inkling of how it would turn out. I was into it then because the opposition was so well funded.
But, I do enjoy the boo-hooing the left (still) does over CU.
On the one hand, since a corporation cannot vote, what business is it for a corporation to donate to political causes. If they can’t, there go the lobbyists. Who will write the laws? A bit of honest sarcasm. On the other hand, free speech is not just an individual right. The 1st Amendment acknowledges the right to a free press which includes corporate expression of opinions, and also government must not either establish or prohibit religious expression. In these cases, it is transparent who is saying what.
If we were dealing with a nation that had real moral standards, these issues would be moot. A court and nation that will not permit public displays of the Ten Commandments has lost its moorings and their decisions and opinions cannot be trusted.
Simply put, this decision is where the “Klaus Schwabs” of the world came from.