Let’s Talk About 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision – IOTW Report

Let’s Talk About 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision

Important Discussion – Let’s Talk About 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision with a Decade of Hindsight.

CTH: 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. MORE HERE


9 Comments on Let’s Talk About 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision

  1. Neither corporations nor unions are people.
    Since they aren’t people, they have no “rights.”
    All of these “rulings” are nonsensical and neither corporations nor unions should be involved in ANY part of the political process – certainly not be allowed to take OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY and use it to sway political opinions which may be in opposition to the OTHER PEOPLE whose money has been surreptitiously extracted. Neither corporations nor unions use the money of the partisan hack decision makers, but they use the money of the unwitting stockholders and members (who are people).

    The SCROTUS is a plague on America who are unable (or unwilling) to see reality.

    Similar to those assholes in the Middle Ages who (heatedly) debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

    Sophomorons, ALL.

    mortem tyrannis
    izlamo delenda est …

    5
  2. @Tim – FJB NOVEMBER 26, 2022 AT 2:18 PM
    I understand what you are saying, but unions and corporations are people. Just like the NRA, Siera Club, etc. Limit them all to individual giving. That would drastically reduce funds to all candidates and force them to actually face the voters.
    (Not that did any good in Pennsylvania).

    3
  3. What bothers me is that most of the discussion seems to be whether it should be allowed based upon whom it helps most, rather than what is Constitutional and what is not. Argue for what is right, not for what is expedient.

    5
  4. The original problem was that the unions weren’t limited in their spending. The real fix would have been yo put a cap on them. As unions are going to support Dems about 100% of the time, this heavily favored Dems. All that the freeing of corporations did is fuel their influence on elections. Corporations now run the US. They give money to the Uniparty that helps them make money, that’s why they hate Trup so bad.

    2
  5. @F4UCorsair November 26, 2022 at 2:16 pm

    > Easy fix. Unions and corporations are limited to the individuals limit.

    There is a fix. And it is simple. But it’s not easy. And nothing that licks the pedestal of The Rules(TM) that put us here, is on the same continent as any “fix”.

    Just. Stop. Embarrassing. Yourselves.

  6. The Republicans thought the Citizens United ruling was great because the Chamber of Commerce largely sided with the Republican proFatCat viewpoint.
    Then, when Trump came along and promised to clean the Swamp and close the border Corporate America started siding with the anti-Middle Class Democrats.
    Now we are screwed because the hurdle to convince the average American to truly vote in their own self interest is overwhelming.

Comments are closed.