Just don't call them unpatriotic, that would be too far....

[Svartalf]

That's my impression... basically, that ruling says that your right to free speech is directly dependent on how much money you can put behind it, and that corporations are a legitimate anonymizer for their owners' or management's political spendings.

[Warren Dew]

That's my impression... basically, that ruling says that your right to free speech is directly dependent on how much money you can put behind it, and that corporations are a legitimate anonymizer for their owners' or management's political spendings.

The ruling covers almost all newspapers, since they are run by corporations. Without that ruling, the government could control the press.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Let me guess -- Obama supporters see nothing wrong with this.

Am not an Obama supporter - but I see nothing wrong with naming the Donors, can tell a lot about a man from the company he keeps. And in politics flinging mud is all fair game.

I would only be against it if Obama was wearing his Mr President hat, rather than his Election Candidate hat.


Of course given the sums involved to buy the US presidency got to take money from everyone and anyone - including those who want a thankyou ($$$) afterwards....that being part of the reason the US is in such a financial mess, sums so large to collect to be President the thankyou figures have become unsustainable.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let me guess -- Obama supporters see nothing wrong with this.

Your guess would be wrong. But y'know what's about a million times more wrong? The Citizens United ruling. Just sayin'.

I love talking about citizens united. Would you like to discuss it on a separate thread? If you actually read it, and actually know what it was really about, you would be the first person here or on ratskep that was that informed. If you are like 99% of the anti citizens united crowd, then youve never read it and only parrot the msnbc hysteria.

But, i'll bite: What do you think citizens united held? And why was the decision wrongly decided?

You guess i am wrong....care to make your position clear? You would be the first. Have you seen any outrage from democrat supporters here?

[Coito ergo sum]

That's my impression... basically, that ruling says that your right to free speech is directly dependent on how much money you can put behind it, and that corporations are a legitimate anonymizer for their owners' or management's political spendings.

The ruling covers almost all newspapers, since they are run by corporations. Without that ruling, the government could control the press.

Give that man a cherooot.....

This is what folks dont understand. It could also silence PETA, the gay and lesbian alliance, the national organization of women, and any of an innumerable number of nonprofit CORPORATIONS.

Read the opinion folks! It actually makes sense, if they would just flippin' read it...

[Ian]

Let me guess -- Obama supporters see nothing wrong with this.

Your guess would be wrong. But y'know what's about a million times more wrong? The Citizens United ruling. Just sayin'.

I love talking about citizens united. Would you like to discuss it on a separate thread? If you actually read it, and actually know what it was really about, you would be the first person here or on ratskep that was that informed. If you are like 99% of the anti citizens united crowd, then youve never read it and only parrot the msnbc hysteria.

But, i'll bite: What do you think citizens united held? And why was the decision wrongly decided?

You guess i am wrong....care to make your position clear? You would be the first. Have you seen any outrage from democrat supporters here?

I have read about it, in depth, and I've been disgusted by it for two years. And despite your attempts to paint the anti-Citizens United crowd as ignorant (using careless language like "99% of them", etc.), I don't buy that even you believe such rhetoric.

Anyway, I'm NOT about to start a seperate thread on the issue in order to debate it in depth. Why not? Because 1) I just don't debate the serious stuff quite so in depth on this forum any more, and I really don't have much time lately, and 2) pardon my saying so - you know I like and respect you - but you're it's a pain in the balls to debate you. Between slashing up my paragraphs (or even sentences) and responding piecemeal to every half-point I make, nevermind never admitting that you've ever lost your footing on any particular position, it's just not worth it. Besides, talking about this issue too much will just get my blood boiling, and I don't like it when that happens.

A very succinct two paragraphs about it...

I understand the reasons for the ruling and why supporters are OK with it. Truth be told, I really don't fault the majority for ruling the way they did. And for the academic arguments of whether or not it was a just decision, it's easy to say "upholding free speech" as a justification and feel confident that you've got enough of the Constitution on your side. Yes, the majority was on solid constitutional grounds - as were the four dissenters. I really need to emphasize this point: I'm troubled by the effects of this ruling, not the validity of it, because I think it would have been a constitutionally valid ruling either way.

But the result is an undermining of democracy itself, not by unleashing free speech (was it not free enough before?) but by significantly deregulating the elections process and turning it all into a potential plutocracy - considerably worse than it already had been, anyway. Some have argued that Democrats might end up benefitting from this more than Republicans - I don't care. A couple days ago somebody donated $10 million to Romney's campaign - anonymously. Does that sort of thing not trouble you? Who is to say that person was even an American? Of all the details I don't like about this ruling, what's really awful is that it boils down to the fact that it throws open the door for abuses in ways that weren't available before. And if electioneering is left to be that anarchic, then Murphy's Law will rule.

If you'd like to chop that up and give me your reasons for why you support the ruling, feel free (though do try to focus on the effects of it rather than it's constitutionality, because like I explained I already don't disagree with that). I won't be responding, or at least not in depth. BTW, here's where you stand on the issue relative to the rest of the population:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

It's pretty ballsy to say that 99% of the people who are against the issue (who actually know what it is, anyway) are simply ignorant about it. You must not have much faith in people, including the vast majority of other independents and Republicans. Are they all glued to msnbc and parroting their hysteria too?

[Warren Dew]

A couple days ago somebody donated $10 million to Romney's campaign - anonymously.

Doubtful. Citizen's United explicitly left in place the limitations to donations to candidates' campaigns, which is currently at $2500 per candidate per election.

[Ian]

A couple days ago somebody donated $10 million to Romney's campaign - anonymously.

Doubtful. Citizen's United explicitly left in place the limitations to donations to candidates' campaigns, which is currently at $2500 per candidate per election.

Ah, but what can you give to a Super PAC? Unlimited cash, no public disclosure.

Of course, campaigns and the Super PACs which support them are not the same organization, nor are they allowed to be officially connected to each other. So that would never happen, people being honest and forthright when it comes to political campaigning and all...

[Warren Dew]

A couple days ago somebody donated $10 million to Romney's campaign - anonymously.

Doubtful. Citizen's United explicitly left in place the limitations to donations to candidates' campaigns, which is currently at $2500 per candidate per election.

Ah, but what can you give to a Super PAC? Unlimited cash, no public disclosure.

Of course, campaigns and the Super PACs which support them are not the same organization, nor are they allowed to be officially connected to each other. So that would never happen, people being honest and forthright when it comes to political campaigning and all...

Super PACs normally push a particular point of view beyond just supporting a candidate, and often work as much to shape the perception of the candidates they "support" as those they oppose. Super PACs are also allowed to switch allegiance. They just aren't the same thing as campaigns.

Also, super PAC contributions are not anonymous; Citizen's United left the disclosure requirements intact.

[Ian]

A couple days ago somebody donated $10 million to Romney's campaign - anonymously.

Doubtful. Citizen's United explicitly left in place the limitations to donations to candidates' campaigns, which is currently at $2500 per candidate per election.

Ah, but what can you give to a Super PAC? Unlimited cash, no public disclosure.

Of course, campaigns and the Super PACs which support them are not the same organization, nor are they allowed to be officially connected to each other. So that would never happen, people being honest and forthright when it comes to political campaigning and all...

Super PACs normally push a particular point of view beyond just supporting a candidate, and often work as much to shape the perception of the candidates they "support" as those they oppose. Super PACs are also allowed to switch allegiance. They just aren't the same thing as campaigns.

True, they're not. In much the same way that the bad cop is not the same person as the good cop when they pull that classic interrogation routine. What's that called again? I forget. But surely they're not actually collaborating behind the mirrored window before they come in and talk to you. That wouldn't be fair.

Also, super PAC contributions are not anonymous; Citizen's United left the disclosure requirements intact.

Yeah, but that could be side-stepped in about two seconds.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let me guess -- Obama supporters see nothing wrong with this.

Your guess would be wrong. But y'know what's about a million times more wrong? The Citizens United ruling. Just sayin'.

I love talking about citizens united. Would you like to discuss it on a separate thread? If you actually read it, and actually know what it was really about, you would be the first person here or on ratskep that was that informed. If you are like 99% of the anti citizens united crowd, then youve never read it and only parrot the msnbc hysteria.

But, i'll bite: What do you think citizens united held? And why was the decision wrongly decided?

You guess i am wrong....care to make your position clear? You would be the first. Have you seen any outrage from democrat supporters here?

I have read about it, in depth, and I've been disgusted by it for two years. And despite your attempts to paint the anti-Citizens United crowd as ignorant (using careless language like "99% of them", etc.), I don't buy that even you believe such rhetoric.

I don't believe the rhetoric ABOUT Citizens United, like the President's rhetoric. It is ignorant, because it has little to do with the SCOTUS decision. And,I base my decision on what folks have written about it on this forum. I haven't seen a coherent objection to the opinion. Mainly, it's just generalizations like "I'm disgusted with it."

Anyway, I'm NOT about to start a seperate thread on the issue in order to debate it in depth. Why not? Because 1) I just don't debate the serious stuff quite so in depth on this forum any more, and I really don't have much time lately, and 2) pardon my saying so - you know I like and respect you - but you're it's a pain in the balls to debate you. Between slashing up my paragraphs (or even sentences) and responding piecemeal to every half-point I make, nevermind never admitting that you've ever lost your footing on any particular position, it's just not worth it. Besides, talking about this issue too much will just get my blood boiling, and I don't like it when that happens.

A very succinct two paragraphs about it...

I understand the reasons for the ruling and why supporters are OK with it. Truth be told, I really don't fault the majority for ruling the way they did. And for the academic arguments of whether or not it was a just decision, it's easy to say "upholding free speech" as a justification and feel confident that you've got enough of the Constitution on your side. Yes, the majority was on solid constitutional grounds - as were the four dissenters. I really need to emphasize this point: I'm troubled by the effects of this ruling, not the validity of it, because I think it would have been a constitutionally valid ruling either way.

But the result is an undermining of democracy itself, not by unleashing free speech (was it not free enough before?) but by significantly deregulating the elections process and turning it all into a potential plutocracy - considerably worse than it already had been, anyway. Some have argued that Democrats might end up benefitting from this more than Republicans - I don't care. A couple days ago somebody donated $10 million to Romney's campaign - anonymously. Does that sort of thing not trouble you? Who is to say that person was even an American? Of all the details I don't like about this ruling, what's really awful is that it boils down to the fact that it throws open the door for abuses in ways that weren't available before. And if electioneering is left to be that anarchic, then Murphy's Law will rule.

If you'd like to chop that up and give me your reasons for why you support the ruling, feel free (though do try to focus on the effects of it rather than it's constitutionality, because like I explained I already don't disagree with that). I won't be responding, or at least not in depth. BTW, here's where you stand on the issue relative to the rest of the population:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

It's pretty ballsy to say that 99% of the people who are against the issue (who actually know what it is, anyway) are simply ignorant about it. You must not have much faith in people, including the vast majority of other independents and Republicans. Are they all glued to msnbc and parroting their hysteria too?

Free enough before? Citizens United was about a recently adopted statute which impacted freedom of speech. That's really the only point I'll make, since you're not inclined to discuss it in depth. That's just a basic misapprehension you appear to have - that this was some sort of change in the order of things - that the SCOTUS somehow changed longstanding election law. It didn't. It changed a fairly recent election la, the 2002 Campaign Finance Reform Act, that had made it's way up the appeals ladder.

Oh, I'll also comment on the $10 million anonymous donation to Romney's campaign. I think you're wrong about that, because there are contribution limits to campaigns. Check it out on www.fec.gov. You may be referring to a donation to a PAC or something.

Let's be clear -- Citizens United, if decided the other way, would have done NOTHING about campaign contributions. Citizens United involved independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. It did not involve monetary donations to a politician. The company, Citizens United, the plaintiff, was a NONPROFIT corporation which sought to air a film which was interpreted as critical of Hillary Clinton. Section 203 of the 2002 law prohibited any broadcasts which mentioned a candidate within 60 days before a general election. The law prohibited Citizens United even from ADVERTISING ITS FILM!

Why do I think people are ignorant of Citizens United v FEC? Because almost everyone who talks about it thinks that it would in some way impact large donations to political candidates and campaigns.

It just flat out would not have anything to do with that. At all. It would prohibit groups of people who were interested in politics from publishing their views. There are hundreds of small nonprofit companies all around the country. Take -- Freedom From Religion Foundation --- Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- and -- well, take the PETA and Citizens Against Government Waste. It would prohibit them from MENTIONING A CANDIDATE in their advertisements or publications at the precise moment in time when the public is most paying attention to political matters.

So, well, if you want to go on thinking that Citizens United, if decided the other way, would prohibit an anonymous donation to the Romney campaign, well, you can do that, but you'd be wrong. It wouldn't. And, such a donation, it appears to me, is illegal now. Here is a guide published on the NYTimes: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/guide ... -donations -- and, if Citizens United were decided the other way, that wouldn't change a bit.

[Coito ergo sum]

A couple days ago somebody donated $10 million to Romney's campaign - anonymously.

Doubtful. Citizen's United explicitly left in place the limitations to donations to candidates' campaigns, which is currently at $2500 per candidate per election.

Ah, but what can you give to a Super PAC? Unlimited cash, no public disclosure.

Of course, campaigns and the Super PACs which support them are not the same organization, nor are they allowed to be officially connected to each other. So that would never happen, people being honest and forthright when it comes to political campaigning and all...

Super PACs normally push a particular point of view beyond just supporting a candidate, and often work as much to shape the perception of the candidates they "support" as those they oppose. Super PACs are also allowed to switch allegiance. They just aren't the same thing as campaigns.

True, they're not. In much the same way that the bad cop is not the same person as the good cop when they pull that classic interrogation routine. What's that called again? I forget. But surely they're not actually collaborating behind the mirrored window before they come in and talk to you. That wouldn't be fair.

Also, super PAC contributions are not anonymous; Citizen's United left the disclosure requirements intact.

Yeah, but that could be side-stepped in about two seconds.

So, your problem is not with the Citizens United decision at all, since if he Citizens United Decision went the other way, it would have no effect on either of those points.

Remember - the CU v FEC decision was a decision relating to the Section 203 broadcasts rule, which limited any communication mentioning a candidate by a private company (nonprofit, union, for profit, whatever) within 60 days before an election, or within 30 days before a primary. I mean, surely you see that a decision upholding such a rule would have nothing to do with the campaign or super-PAC contributions rules?

[Coito ergo sum]

On a more toward the OP note -- while calling them unpatriotic is beyond the pale, even though nobody has yet produced a quote that showed that anyone in the Bush Admin ever called anyone unpatriotic.....Pelosi recently said that if you're a "decent human being" you'll vote for Obama, clearly implying that if one votes for others, then one is not a decent human being.

Oh, but don't say I'm unpatriotic...that would be too much....