Citizens United in light of today's corrosive rhetoric? What were your thoughts then and how have they changed or remained the same?

2023-09-18T16:23:32-04:00

Given the plethora of articles, depending on your point of view (i.e., political slant) how do you find the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling has impacting the pre-2024 political landscape and can "We the people..." do anything specifically to impact modification of the ruling in the near future? Or, is modification even required. Why? or Why not?

Here are some references for review:

- Citizens United v. FEC (January 21, 2010): https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/

- Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (March 27, 1990): https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/austin-v-michigan-state-chamber-of-commerce/

- McConnell v. FEC (December 10, 2003): https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/mcconnell-v-fec/

- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

- Federal Election Campaign Act (1971/1974): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act

- Federal Election Commission (FEC) Mission and History: https://www.fec.gov/about/mission-and-history/#

I have read through these and other references; plus, still wrapping my head around these arguments. At first I had one opinion and now I find myself asking several questions, similar to and seemingly very different from the justices.

What are some your informed thoughts as a reader?

Please be respectful of other who respond. This is just a forum to understand the current lay of the land, if you will regarding this topic.

The survey question is simple:

Has you stance on the 2010 Changed or Not in terms if the court's decision was, in you opinion Appropriate or Not-Appropriate?

Citizens United v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Citizens United v. FEC

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Sep 18 at 2023 4:31 PM

2023-09-18T16:31:25-04:00

I am okay with it as long as the REAL funder is identified

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 18 at 2023 7:04 PM

2023-09-18T19:04:37-04:00

Who among us ever swore to preserve, protect, and defend "democracy?" Not I. Who among us ever swore to preserve, protect, and defend the government? Not I. We (all of us who served) swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Now, what does the Constitution have to say about voting? Generally, it says that the individual states are responsible for establishing and enforcing voting laws. Amendments sought to close loopholes that states used to deny the right to vote based on race, color, creed, etc. That being said, most objections to Citizens United attempts to influence elections appear to be lodged by those who disagree with the political bent of that group. That is, they are complaining on ideological grounds. In other words, had Citizens United campaigned vigorously for Hillary, nary an objection would be raised. That is not persuasive in measuring the validity of a law. Of course, they never actually say that. They argue that corporations are inherently evil (unless, of course, their ideological bent is in agreement with the progressives). They argue the same when objecting to the political utterances of the "rich". Interestingly, when one studies campaign reports, the "rich" and corporations tend to contribute to both sides (they hedge their bets). When the wealthy and corporations contribute to one side only, it is typically the progressives and, to that, they have no objection. Again, because their objections are prejudicial, they are not persuasive. I will allow you to figure out which survey option I should click.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Sep 18 at 2023 7:17 PM

2023-09-18T19:17:51-04:00

1) corporations are not people
2) money is not speech.

I still cannot understand how the SCOTUS came to the conclusion that allowing rich people unlimited expenditures and commensurate access would NOT lead to corruption, the appearance of corruption, or loss of faith in democracy.

Very stupid conclusion from some very smart people.