Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Shivetya, Jan 13, 2010.

  1. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Jan 16, 2008
    This case should come up for a ruling next week, , and hopefully the Supremes will rule in favor of Citizen's United.

    Regardless of the fact that CU is primarily a Conservative group what they are working towards benefits both sides, who it doesn't benefit is incumbents (which is another great name for McCain Feingold - The Incumbents Protection Act)

    What this is all about is allowing anyone, corporation, union, PACs, or individuals, to run ads whenever they want to. Right now incumbents have demonstrated they are more than willing to use McCain Feingold to prevent any ad they legally can when the election nears. In other words, they can claim that ad "X" violates the rules because it is from "Y" who we legislated as not having a right to run such an ad.

    While many don't like the idea of a corporation contributing one way or another to a political race that is what happens with approved PACs and similar constructs. Why should it be any different for a corporation than an individual (like Soros) to back groups they like? So what the current laws have actually been used for is to block competitors to incumbents (I have not found a case where a challenger blocked an incumbent or their associates under the law) and those who support them from mounting the challenge.
  2. mcrain macrumors 68000


    Feb 8, 2002

    Ok, you're so wrong (in my opinion) it's hard to respond. McCain-Feingold was designed to prevent corporate financing of incumbants so that voters would be represented, not corporations.

    That being said, do you really think allowing corporations that can be sued by shareholders for doing socially responsible things (yet, not profitable - see 1st year law school) will contribute to a fair representation of the voters?

    Finally, your signature is wrong too. The economy has done its best when the highest earners were taxed at higher rates. Why? Why you ask? Because money was used within the economy. Oh, also, if you have 100 million dollars and you're used to living on 1 million a year, and the government takes an additional 2 or 300,000 dollars, you start using your investments in a more productive (for the economy) manner, ensuring you have the money you want.

    Hey, what do I know? I'm certain my education and experiences give me no insight into these issues.
  3. paddy macrumors 6502a


    Jun 25, 2005
    You can multiply wealth by dividing it amongst others, it's called the multiplier effect.
  4. kavika411 macrumors 6502a


    Jan 8, 2006
    Not trying to needlessly bump an old thread, but NPR's "Fresh Air" today will host the attorney who successfully appealed Citizen's United and the manager (I guess that's the word) of Stephen Colbert's Super Pac. Ought to be very interesting.

    It will stream at noon on WBHM. (Click on big red "listen" button in upper left hand corner.)

    EDIT: noon (central time zone)
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    Probably not a good idea to reveal that guy's location to anybody.
  6. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
    Pointless to respond to the entire troll, but, for the above:

    Corporations are not people.

Share This Page