Reason.tv: 3 Reasons Not to Sweat Citizens United
by Nick GillespieNo recent Supreme Court ruling have evoked more liberal fury than Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a campaign-finance case involving government censorship of a political documentary called Hillary: The Movie. The Federal Election Commission prevented the anti-Hillary Clinton film from being shown on television just before the 2008 Democratic primaries, a decision that was upheld by lower courts. Siding with The First Amendment, the Court struck down laws regulating independent political advertising by for-profit and non-profit corporations before an election even as they reaffirmed rules about disclosure and disclosures for ads and against direct corporate giving to candidates.
Critics fear that corporations will now overwhelm the political marketplace with commercials and advertisements that will program citizens to vote for whatever agenda “the corprations” want at a given moment.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann railed against the decision, calling it “a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little democracy is left in this democracy” and comparing it to the notorious Dred Scott decision, which ruled that had no rights under the Constitution. His fellow corporate media host at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, exclaimed, “If you are a regular person who has ever made a campaign donation before, forget about ever having to do that again. What’s the point?”
Cyberlaw theorist Lawrence Lessig has called for a consitutional amendment to roll back the Citizens United ruling and President Barack Obama called out the Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union address, proclaiming to a standing ovation:
The Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.
Is there any truth to some hyperbolic, doomsday scenarios? In a word, no. The Citizens United ruling increases freedom of political speech, not simply for powerful, politically connected corporations like Citigroup, AIG, and the companies that run The New York Times and other media outlets, but for small-pocketed nonprofits such as Citizens United too. If you want to get bent out of shape about something, direct your ire at a massive and constantly growing government that has its hands in virtually every aspect of economic and social life in America.
“3 Reasons Not to Sweat The Citizens United Ruling” was written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts.
Approximately 3.30 minutes. Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions.
Subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel and received automatic notifications when new material goes online.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
108 Comments
Olby and Madcow…….2 prime examples of what happens when mentally unstable individuals mis-dose.
Remember to vote in Nov. 2010 and 2012….We have a lot of work to do!
One more reason McCain was a terrible candidate. I can't wait until 2012 when there will finally be a candidate who believes in the power of the individual and can see that a republican form of government as provided for by the Constitution is the only route to a prosperous and free country.
The continued attempt to portray opposition to the Supreme Court's decision as "liberal" does everyone a disservice. i can't believe anyone would find that a good ruling. If corporations are individuals then we might as well have Goldman Sachs run for president. (not as if they don't own the Treasury already)
Foreign corporations cannot "spend without limits in our election." The SCOTUS didn't touch that. To be charitable, the POTUS is ill-informed.
I can't believe that anyone would think that a law which has the power to ban books is a good law.
Why can't you believe it? The law does not say corporations are individuals; individuals are individuals, and no matter how they choose to group themselves (corporation, church, team, party), they reserve the right to speak freely. I know, I know; only corporations are evil, but other groups are ok. What I find to be amazing is the bigotry expressed against a certain kind of organization of citizens.
Did you read the article? The article was about a small group of people who made a movie and wanted to purchase ad time before an election. SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE. INDEPENDENT FILMMAKERS. You know, the common people?
MUST STOP FREE SPEECH OF PEOPLE. It's too dangerous. Your kind are all alike, tiny little tyrants who want to suppress the "wrong" speech.
Maddow and Olbermann are pure comedy. Those two are so over the top I'm not finding it hard to believe their ratings are in the tank. You'd have to be certifiable to actually buy anything they say.
Also, the Justices that didn't stand up and clap…. that said more right there than any of Obama's 3 million speeches. Sometimes the gap between right and wrong is so very clear.
Liberals lack reason – they see your name "Reason" tv. . .you've already lost them.
and who is that going to be?
[...] of the First Amendment: “Congress Shall Make No Law” Nick Gillespie, Big Government: Reason.tv: 3 Reasons Not to Sweat Citizens United John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Director Adam McKay: SCOTUS Ruling in Favor of Free Speech is [...]
I think this will be a good think – it'll help start making who donates money more transparent. I hope!
goldman sachs did just run for president, and they won. Or haven't you noticed the string of goldman execs in the obama administration?
The POTUS doesn't need all the information to declare that the Supreme Court acted stupidly.
Yes, I did notice and I'm mad about it too. That's why I can't understand why people around here call him "socialist" and "Marxist" when he is in the pockets of the financial industry just like so many other big players.
And this is what the left won't admit to. I've seen the argument, "If a corporation is a person, then how can I punch it in the nose?" Answer: don't buy from it.
And further, what corporation is going to want to lose a large portion of its customer base? Corporations aren't going to want to throw big money at alienating people.
Olbermann is certifiable, Maddow is delusional.
I don't think that even Rachel thinks much of Keith, but when you're a lousy employee, it's nice to have someone even worse next to you.
Actually I think your first paragraph is a good point. Corporate money is already there which is why Obama and McCain both received loads of money from the financial sector. But my view is that this ruling will just allow big industry to to totally squash the voice of the people whereas before it had a smaller hammer.
Hope this email response works..
Cheers – thought it was just me!
I understand your point but I don't know just how big the corporate hammer was since all that money was hidden from us until someone leaked how much was spent just where and then we all go crazy like it's the first time that ever happened.
I guess we'll just have to sit and wait to see what happens although I too do not want Monsanto picking my candidate.
It seems a slippery slope. I think the corporate world as portrayed in the Alien movies is closer to reality than anyone wants to imagine.
Neither party believes in any of that, but both parties agree on the importance of blocking ballot access by third-party candidates. So, unfortunately, we'll get to choose between Smelly Crap and Smellier Crap all over again.
Your view is completely backwards. The SCOTUS ruling reduces the power of the government to squash the voice of the people, incorporated or otherwise.
Perhaps, once the POTUS realizes how unpopular his comment was, he'll get together with them for "Beer Summit 2010."
So you would have no issue with the same actions being taken by an unincorporated firm?
What’s not to understand? The hypocrisy of socialism and socialists is anything but novel.
[...] link: » Reason.tv: 3 Reasons Not to Sweat Citizens United – Big Government Social Bookmark This [...]
WATCH THE FILM ABOUT HILLARY; OBLABBY IS USING THE SAME BASIC PLAYBOOK.
Get some popcorn a braf bag and enjoy your shower afterwords you'll need it!
Now before you liberal Hillary loving pantybombers get twisted do me a favor: show me the lies you claim in the film and back it up with evdience to prove your positions truthfulness.
LA Times had a article in today's paper about the final countdown of Olberman countdown show, suggesting he will be removed from MSNBC soon.
Yeah, we got that.
The concern is on how CORPORATE money will squash the voice of the people.
An unincorporated business (sole proprietorship) as a rule has access to much less money. However I think that most business partnerships should be included under this ban. I think that the idea is that if the money in the business belongs to one man then that money is his to spend as he feels necessary. If the money is owned by more than one person (partnership or corporation) it can be controlled.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann railed against the decision, calling it “a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little democracy is left in this democracy”
Since liberals want to replace democracy with authoritarian state socialism, and since Olbermann is the liberal's whipping boy, I'm surprised he's even concerned about "democracy".
The real issue…libs love to hate corporations, and they fear the repercussions of their hate.
Just so long as there's no Rahm and/or bowling involved!
It's not "squashing" if someone has more money than you.
Again, since you didn't read the article, either. The ruling was about a SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE who became a corporation. They were INDEPENDENT FILM MAKERS. The law forbade this SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE from buying ad time. Now it doesn't.
So corporate money will control your mind? What amount of money is going to stop you from thinking what you want, is my question.
I don't see private banks controlling the issue of currency. The Fed chief is subject to Senate approval, so there goes that bit of Ron Paul nuttiness.
Do the banks deprive people of property? The problem that we've experienced lately is the INVERSE of this.
Do the corporations deprive people of property? No, but the Supreme Court, and its eminent domain ruling DOES.
Zero for three. You're out.
Who controls the issue of currency? The Fed. Who owns the Fed? Not sure but a consortium of banks is suspected. Who appoints the Fed Chairman? Congress. Can Congress even make the Fed open their books for an audit? No. Can Congress control the operation of the Fed? No. Does the congress control the issue of currency? No. Who does control the issue of currency? An unknown corporation called the Fed. Ron Paul is not so nutty after all.
Who owns most of the property in the US? The banks through mortgages. When the banks foreclose on the mortgages who will claim title to these properties? The banks. I guess they just might ending up owning most of the property in the US.
Where do the banks get the the money they use to loan? From corporations. So the banks and the corporations both participate in this business.
Sounds like three of three to me. Batting a thousand.
On the contrary, people will be forced to use their brains more than in past elections. There are sure to be some nice attack ads of Barack Obama that will compel people (maybe, an Obama loyalist or two) to investigate. Perhaps, a movie or three in the same vein as "Hillary". This is obviously not savvy with the Obama administrations rhetoric-based protocols. People may actually ask Obama to explain himself. No more controlling information.
No more empty gimmicks like Hope and Change is a GOOD thing. False gimmicks will be torn to shreds as they should be. Hopefully.
With greater freedom comes greater freedom.
"If the money is owned by more than one person (partnership or corporation) it can be controlled."
So a billionaire can release a political movie or book, but a grassroots organization may not. Got it.
Olberman is retarded. His network makes it's money from selling ads. They lose money on him and lousy ad sales on his program.
You act like this ruling will introduce corporate money into elections that's not already there, in the background where we can't see who is donating or how much was donated.
The left alwyas howls about free speech and yet when the Supreme Court says the First Amendment prohibits congress from fining associations of citizens for simply engaging in free speech they bitch.
Really all this does is pull funding out in the light where we can all see it. No wonder the Dems are upset.
POTUS is ill-informed …………. Correct!
For the first hundred years of our country corporations were denied access to the political system through their incorporation contracts. This idea that contracts can infringe on the natural rights afforded the people is nothing new as evidenced by the court orders and settlement agreements (contracts) that gag or prevent the freedom of speech.
The SC did not go far enough, they should have returned the gag order that the government imposed on corporations for the first hundred years of our existence. The huge sums of money available to corporations drown out the individual citizen and corrupt the politicians and political parties.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ……… "I hope we ….. crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" Thomas Jefferson Mr Jefferson seems to have predicted what we are experiencing today.
I find it very interesting the most people completely miss the point of this case. The Supreme Court decision was the ONLY decision that could be made under Constitutional law. It is NOT the job of the Supreme Court to regulate political campaign contributions. The ONLY job of the Supreme Court is to validate law against the Constitution, period! This "job" was fulfilled in this case, and the Supreme Court did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do. If you want restriction on "campaign contributions", then you enact law doing so, you don't try to enact law the prohibits fundamental rights. That is a poor and ineffective way of regulation anyway. The only reason why this began in the first place, was because the PROGRESSIVES that ruled in the first case, were trying to push their "progressive"/"communist" agenda to try to suppress free speech, our fundamental 1st amendment right! It matters not whether it is an individual, small business, for-profit, not-for-profit, corporation or other, the 1st amendment is VERY clear. The Constitution of the United States of America is NOT the place to regulate campaign finances and/or their sources.
Further more, according to the Constitution of the United State of America, NO entity other than the Federal Government shall coin currency. The Federal Reserve Corporation violates this fundamental Constitutional article. Further still, NO entity other than the US Congress shall set the value of that currency. Again, the Federal Reserve Corporation violates that Constitutional article as well.
Ron Paul is absolutely and un-disputably, 100% correct on this matter. The Federal Reserve Corporation is, in itself, un-Constitutional. There is no dispute on this.
Top notch work, Mr. Gilespie. Being a Virginian, I also loved the piece you did on Gov. McDonnell and the ABC stores. Keep those articles and clips coming!
If anything, it should be easier. Right now that money just flows through PACs, so the "very big and evil oil and tobacco corporation of America" must launder all of its contributions through "the puppies and kittens for children PAC" and no one knows who's really behind it.
Yes, it is very unconstitutional and very not-going-away-anytime-soon.
[...] See more here: » Reason.tv: 3 Reasons Not to Sweat Citizens United – Big Government [...]
The way I see it is that some folks feel that a corporation (a group of individuals) somehow, by nature, becomes an anti American entity and thus the rights of these individuals must be limited.
We should realize that all things are man made and are hopefully created for his benefit.
Hal the computer in the movie "2001…" is like a corporation in that it was created by a group of men for the purpose of providing technical assistance for the crew.
When Hal went astray, it was an individual crew member who triumphed in their struggle.
Faith in the individual to do the right thing is the way to go in lieu of limiting the rights of the individual, besides…..
"You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can not fool all of the people ll of the time."
Listen we can go back and forth on this forever. You want to continue with the way it is now, I do not. Political parties and PACs have a special place in our system now and as long as corporate (business money) is removed from the system that would be fine with me. Now you come up with another objection. Or just state that you want to continue with the corrupting system that we now have.
Why the ad hom and evasion? That's not very convincing.
You want to go back to handbills and word of mouth? Get real.
What evasion? Its a fact that you will come up with another excuse for no change. We disagree, that seems to be your position. As far as attack, I did not attack you. You have no counter to the Parties and PACs. Your answer to the post is this? That's not very convincing. You have yet to answer why we should continue with this corrupting system?
Your proposed solution is a plutocracy of billionaires and the criminalization of organized speech. That's not a viable alternative to free speech. The root cause of the problem is that government has too much power. Lacking that power, there's little reason for business to spend billions of dollars to influence legislation. Your solution is not to reduce that power, but to slap a gag order on the governed. Is it clear now?
I'd urge a bit of caution here though – the secret world of lobbying is used by both corporations and unions to fight for their political ends. The game of "hide the money" has been played out for years and like anything else money can be used to corrupt this process.
I hope we clear house and start seeing real, open and responsible government again.
No. But it would require the candidates to ACTUALLY have supporters in the community they are trying to represent. Congressman Chaffetz from Utah raised only $443,395 for his election last fall. Look at the breakdown at:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/...
He won the election against the Republican Party supported candidate and a Democrat. If you will notice most of his money was raised from individuals. Large company donations or huge amounts of money are not required to win elections. Actually meeting the people must carry more weight than slick TV and radio adds.
"I propose no limits on individual free speech."
Then you'll have "corporate speech" laundered through "individuals" and the FEC/IRS will have to comb through people's finances even more evasively to stamp-out free speech. A swell idea.
"evasively"? Sheesh! extensively
The decision was not about a banned book. It was about the government restricting the free speech of only some of the corporations and letting those they wanted to have access to the political system. The decision granted free speech to all corporations. If you believe that corporations are people like humans and have all the freedoms granted to We The People, then this was the only decision that they could have made. I can not make that jump to corporations having the natural laws granted to We The People by our creator. We The People created the corporation.
It can be controlled, Nationalized if you will. Not so far fetched giving the present administrations penchant for nationalizing private businesses.
What is their (foreign corporations) limits on spending in our elections?
Read the case. It's about a banned movie, which could have easily been a book. Banning books is not the road to liberty.
Yes our government has too much power. That should be returned to the ideas of the founders also. The States sovereignty has been usurped. But who are the governed? The people. The corporations are legal entities created and controlled by the governed. There are far fewer billionaires and at least they are actually 'the governed'". I propose no limits on individual free speech. What is the purpose of a corporation/business? To make a profit. Every decision made is to accomplish that end. They will try to influence legislation to accomplish that end at the expense of their competitors, the environment and the people. Most regulations enacted in the past are to prevent bad acts by these corporations. If we shrink the power for the Federal government that power goes to the States and the Corporations involvement will increase at the State level. Just passing on the problem.
I repeat, I have proposed no limits on free speech. We have free speech now. You have no logical argument. goodby.
Stamping out "corporate speech", which is really just the organized free speech of free people is what your whole rant is about. Your argument is full of holes that you refuse to acknowledge. Goodbye.
Yea, we got that too.
It doesn't matter who the ruling was for, it will allow giant corporation money to be spent on elections commercials. You don't think that money will have an effect huh?
Corporate money control MY mind? Hardly, but then again I am not one of the 280 million sheeple in this country. I don't choose my politicians from a Pepsi ad.
To answer your question. More than you have.
They have the right to speak as individuals. There is limit on their speech.
A firm or corporation is merely a collection of various "We The People" who have no fewer rights because they've pooled their resources.
Espresso…
[...]Listed below are links from authority web sites that have been used as a source to this post [...]…
Nice post. I hope you keep on writing such good articles
[...] This is hogwash: » Reason.tv: 3 Reasons Not to Sweat Citizens United – Big Government. [...]
Improve your vision naturally!…
Thanks. Left you a trackback to help your readers improve eye vision naturally….
Get your online degree!…
Left you a trackback for your readers to help them get an online degree….
Cool sites…
[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……
Website trackback Link…
[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
Online Article……
[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……
Check this out…
[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……
[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……
[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……
Related……
[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……
Blogs ou should be reading…
[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……
Superb website…
[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……
Best Links 2011…
excellent points altogether, you just gained a new reader. What would you suggest in regards to your post that you made some days ago? Any positive?…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……
Cool sites…
[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……
You should check this out…
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……
Sites we Like……
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……
Check this out…
[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……
Sources…
[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……
Awesome website…
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……
Best Links 2011…
Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I find It really useful & it helped me out a lot. I hope to give something back and help others like you aided me….
Sources…
[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……
[…] … great article that everyone should read […]…
[...]The information mentioned in the article is some of the best available [...]……
Awesome website…
[...]ASL Asbestos Services 272 Bath Street Glasgow, Strathclyde G2 4JR 0141 278 3587[...]……
Websites we think you should visit…
[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……
Best Links 2011…
Normally I do not read article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do so! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thanks, very nice post….
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……
[...]these are a handful of urls to web pages we link to as we believe these are worthwhile visiting[...]……
[…] … great article that everyone should read […]…
You must be logged in to post a comment.