#citizens united vs fec

[robnraged]

On Citizens United vs FEC and why we've lost the ability to make an informed choice.

Hey, True Believers, Here’s my Citizens United vs. the FEC piece. I was going to throw in a lot of background, you know, history, and Andrew Jackson selling positions in the government for money, etc., but, I won’t. This is, after all,  a land of “career politicians,” and what the hell is that about except making money and garnering status and influence? Instead, I’ll start with documentary…

[tomorrowusa]

Elon Musk essentially bought the election. And he had no ethical problem with deceiving voters in the process.

Elon Musk plowed at least $260 million into efforts to send Donald Trump back to the White House, new filings show – a massive infusion that makes him one of the largest single political underwriters of a presidential campaign and underscores the outsized influence of the world’s wealthiest person on this year’s election. Thursday’s filings with the Federal Election Commission show that the Tesla and SpaceX executive gave a total of $238 million to a super PAC that he founded this year, America PAC, which worked to turn out voters on Trump’s behalf in key states. But he also was the financial backer of other groups that cropped up in the final days of the election to support Trump, including one that spent millions on advertising to defend his record on abortion. It had sought to link Trump’s views on abortion to those of late Supreme Court Justice and liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Musk, through a trust that bears his name, donated $20.5 million to the group, named RBG PAC, on October 24, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. He was the sole donor to the group, which was formed in mid-October. The donation’s timing meant that Musk’s involvement was not disclosed until Thursday’s post-election filings with the federal regulators.

And Musk even promoted RFK Jr. in swing states where Brain Worm was still on the ballot.

According to the new filings, Musk also donated $3 million to the MAHA Alliance, a super PAC that ran stark ads in key swing states urging supporters of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to back Trump in the closing stretch of the campaign. Kennedy himself had ended his independent campaign over the summer and endorsed Trump. MAHA stands for “Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy’s spin on Trump’s MAGA catchphrase. Trump has now tapped Kennedy, one of the nation’s most prominent anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists, to oversee the Health and Human Services Department.

If Musk invested $260 million in getting Trump elected, you can imagine what sort of return on that investment he is expecting.

A historical digression...

The ability to buy elections is a result of the odious Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission SCOTUS decision in 2010. Citizens United happened because George W. Bush was able to appoint Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court. And George W. Bush won in 2000 thanks to the idiotic third party candidacy of Ralph Nader. If just 538 of the 97,488 people in Florida who voted for Nader had instead voted for Democrat Al Gore, Bush would not have been elected and Citizens United probably would not have happened. And without Citizens United, it would be very difficult for billionaires like Musk to buy elections.

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is just another example of how the Roberts' Supreme Court decimated campaign finance regulation in its Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon et al. v. FEC decisions.

In particular, according to Politico Magazine, in McCutcheon, SCOTUS decided that unless money is given to a candidate's campaign in exchange for favorable policy decisions/laws (i.e., "quid pro quo") it isn't technically a "bribe." Therefore, it isn't sufficiently "corrupt" to be outlawed.

(Although even the SCOTUS "gang of six" must be feeling a little anxious that Trump appears to be running around lately begging billionaires for campaign contributions with promises that he will do their bidding.😳)

An article in Quartz, comparing the U.S. and British election systems, mentions a theory by a political science professor, Justin Fisher, that the difference in how much money is allowed in both systems is largely due to different values,

Fisher says the vast differences in money spent stem from contrasting philosophical approaches: the US favors liberty—the freedom of expression, which includes financial donations—while the UK favors equality. “Most European elections, and the UK is an example of this, are based on the principle of equality, of trying to ensure that the spending does not unduly advantage one side or another,” he explained. [color/ emphasis added]

The Roberts' Court clearly values the "liberty" of the wealthy and corporations to "freely speak" by making large monetary contributions to political campaigns.

Yet, it seems that the Roberts' Court doesn't value the "liberty"/ "free speech" rights of "the little guy" as much.

For instance, if, as the Roberts' Court claims, "money = speech," then wealthy people and corporations produce such a huge amount of "speech" (through their enormous campaign donations) that it drowns out the "voices," and limits the impact of the average American's political "speech."

And given how Trump appears to be "selling" his presidency to those billionaires willing to make huge campaign donations, the Roberts' Court's overvaluation of the "liberty"/ "free speech" rights of the wealthy and corporations results in corruption and the undo influence of the wealthy/ corporations on the laws and policies that the political benefactors of their monetary largesse implement when they are in office.

I think the only way to undo the damage the Roberts' Court has done to our nation will be if we elect a Democratic president and Congress, and are able to expand the Court. Because the "gang of six" isn't going to change their minds about any of this. And as long as they are in a majority, our nation is in peril of becoming a kleptocracy.

“Billionaires buying elections is not what this country is supposed to be about,” said Sanders.

By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT

Published August 9, 2024

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) have spoken out about corruption in politics following the defeat of Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri) in her primary this week by pro-Israel groups that poured millions of dollars into unseating the progressive lawmaker.

AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), spent $8.5 million on the campaign to oppose Bush, helping to make it the second-most expensive House primary in history — only beaten by Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s (D-New York) primary in June, in which UDP poured $14.5 million into electing a pro-Israel challenger to Bowman.

To many who championed the two lawmakers for speaking out against Israel, the two losses were a show of AIPAC’s outsized influence on elections and the ability for deep-pocketed interest groups to buy elections.

[brainpickings]

My 2 Cents on Palestine

Recently I was asked my opinion about Gaza and Biden. I said that I thought politically Biden is stuck between a rock and a hard place because we have Israel as an ally. So, politically Biden can’t forcefully say Israel is wrong because that would send the wrong message to our other allies.

It’s fucked up but welcome to the world of international politics.

Also the Jewish political action committee AIPAC is one powerful group, they have already brought down one member of Congress who criticized the war by giving her opponent a large sum of money which helped that person out spend her and caused her to lose. AIPAC has set their sights on taking down any members of Congress who oppose the war on Gaza.

Thank you Citizens United vs. FEC and the always purchased Supreme Court.

Basically, Palestine is fucked, and has been since the British walked away from them after WWII. The Jews want that land and have been using terrorism and violence to get it ever since. Most of the rest of the world just looks the other way partly because of how the Jews suffered during the world war and partly because of how the world looked the other way while they were suffering.

It wasn’t just the Nazi’s that didn’t want more Jews.

Because they are an ally the US will not call them on the colonizing effort to get that land. Don’t forget that the United States wrote the playbook on how to colonize land in the modern world. Hitler actually sent members of the Nazi Party over here to study how the United States removed the native Americans from their land.

It wasn’t through the use of Hallmark cards and candy.

As for the war crimes Israel is committing the United States will not call them out on that either because we did it to in the war on terrorism. Empires use violence and torture to get what they desire.

Personally, I think what we should do is offer the Palestians refuggee status here in the United States. But not just in any state, only in the state of Texas. Why Texas? Because that's how you mess with Texas.

[arlengrossman]

The Reason Corporations Rule America

The 5-4 Court that granted personhood to corporations in the 2010 Citizens United vs FEC decision. Images supplied by Gary Kohls In Case Anybody Hasn’t Noticed, Corporations Rule the World, They Fit Mussolini’s Definition of Fascist Entities and They Aren’t Our Friends (click link…

[magxit]

it is worse that they don't think they are a in a cult but they think they are smarter than everyone. — republicans think they are smartest , liberals think they are smarter, lol. This is politics (which I hate) .. I’m non partisan, I refuse to identify with any of them because they are all the same. Our government has been taken over by corporations and politicians on both side are profiting from them and us, this is not how our country should be running, but it is sadly. The most money being made is starting wars and everyone being sick and unhealthy, throw in a pandemic, it’s insane.. ugh, I want to go back to bed, drink some tea and binge movies or some series until next Friday, lol… can’t wait for this election to be over!! 😩

You can blame the Supreme Court! They did this. Citizens United VS FEC

[endlessummernight]

all problems in the united states are caused by racism, ronald reagan, or citizens united vs fec. and many times all 3

[2boldlyqueer]

while I haven't read the text of the proposal itself (yet, I'm mad enough to try to work thru the legalese now), all the reports on it, including the Jewish insider say something like, "U.S. companies and individuals" in their discussion of the ramifications.

Beyond that, if it truly is only businesses, I would then point to Citizens United vs FEC, as the Supreme Court decided that not allowing corporations to spend money on political advertising was a violation of their first amendment rights. In his majority statement, Justice Kennedy wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." He went on to say that the First amendment doesn't specify that corporations are not the media, so by suppressing corporations speaking about politics they are violating that aspect of the first amendment as well. By that logic, this is still unconstitutional just in a slightly different way.

(I just want it noted on the off chance this spreads - I think the Citizens United decision was really stupid; of course the first amendment doesn't mention corporations, that wasn't really a thing back then like it is now, and I'd be happy if they overturned it, but in politics you have to use every single thing you can and in this specific instance it is helpful in making my case.)

[publicuniversalenemy]

okay so. the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC basically said that like. as long as corporations arent giving money DIRECTLY to politicians/their campaigns, they can spend all the money they want on political speech. otherwise it would violate their first amendment right to free speech.

the question was whether you can limit speech by limiting money. so like. if there’s a book (or in the actual case, a movie) that contains advocacy for or against a candidate, which contains no class of unprotected speech. can you restrict who can finance the publishing of said book (or movie). like. can the government say ‘an individual person can pay to have this published, but a corporation cannot’ or is that unconstitutional. the ruling was basically that a corporation has the same right as an individual to spend as much money as they want, INDEPENDENT OF A CAMPAIGN, in support or in opposition to a candidate or campaign.

the question was ‘do people lose the right to spend money on political speech when they incorporate as a corporation or union’ and the court said ‘nah’. and while there is the point of ‘well if people DO lose the right to spend money on political speech when incorporated, what about news outlets? arent those technically corporations, too?,’ there is the (pretty obvious imo) rebuttal of like. dude. general fucking motors isnt the same as the goddamn new york times. one is selling shit. the other is engaged in journalism. why would they be subject to the same standards. but also honestly. i dont think corporations of ANY kind should be able to spend corporate money on sayin ‘vote for XYZ’ or ‘dont elect ABC’. like. news outlets reporting information ABOUT politicians and their campaigns is one thing, and is super fucking important. but literally. corporations, and ESPECIALLY those whose purpose is profit, not education or some shit, shouldn’t be allowed to advocate for or against political campaigns. only individuals should. if you work for a corporation, and wanna spend the money you earned there on a political campaign, fucking go for it. but like. it just literally makes no sense to me why a corporation should be allowed to say ‘vote for them!’ and broadcast that message using corporate earnings. honestly corporate lobbying should be a HELL of a lot more limited too. again. people should be able to spend money supporting or opposing campaigns n specific issues n shit. corporations ain’t people. they should have FAR more limited rights. damn.

[fakelawyergirl]

Case Brief #1

Topic Overview:

Chapter one explains in the detail how laws are made, the categories of laws and when they are used, with regards to certain rulings and the governing bodies that create, approve and enforce the laws.  The Legislature creates laws, the Executive approves the laws and the Judiciary interprets law. In the establishment of laws, few independent bodies were put in charge to enforce certain laws of a similar nature rather than those breaches always being brought into court, those independent bodies like the FEC would handle those grievances.

With regards to the case of Citizens United vs. The Federal Elections Committee, Citizens United were accused of electioneering communications by releasing a movie in 2008 about the then running Sen. Hillary Clinton for Presidential office. Citizens United believes that Section 203 of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) and Section 441(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) both breaches the First Amendment.

 Defining Key Terms:

- Electioneering communication - political advertising using any broadcast, cable or satellite that advocates for a candidate for federal office made within 60 days or 30 days before primary elections.

- Injunction - an authoritative warning 

- Writ of certioari - an order used by the Supreme Court to review questions of law or to correct errors.

 Important Cases:

- Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)

- McConnell vs. FEC (2003)

- Federal Elections Commissions vs. Wisconsin (2007)

 Relevant Doctrine:

Breach of the First Amendment

Appellant must prove..

The Appellee prohibits the right to free speech

 My Questions/Concerns:

Why is the freedom of speech always fought for especially in instances where it slanders another individual.

 References:

1. “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 14 Jan. 2021, www.britannica.com/event/Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission. 

2. “Certiorari.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/certiorari. 

[longwindedbore]

Why the Midwest and the Factory Workers embraced Trump

“... both Clinton and Obama advocated free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who consequently lost their jobs any means of getting new ones that paid at least as well. Clinton pushed for Nafta and for China joining the World Trade Organization, and Obama sought to restore the “confidence” of Wall Street instead of completely overhauling the banking system.

“Both stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class. They failed to reform labor laws to allow workers to form unions with a simple up-or-down majority vote, or even to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated labor protections. Clinton deregulated Wall Street before the crash; Obama allowed the Street to water down attempts to re-regulate it after the crash. Obama protected Wall Street from the consequences of its gambling addiction through a giant taxpayer-funded bailout, but allowed millions of underwater homeowners to drown.

“Both Clinton and Obama turned their backs on campaign finance reform. In 2008, Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general election campaigns, and he never followed up on his re-election promise to pursue a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United vs FEC, the 2010 supreme court opinion opening wider the floodgates to big money in politics.”

“... because I directly witnessed much of it: it was because Clinton, Obama and many congressional Democrats sought the votes of the “suburban swing voter” – so-called “soccer moms” in the 1990s and affluent politically independent professionals in the 2000s – who supposedly determine electoral outcomes, and turned their backs on the working class. They also drank from the same campaign funding trough as the Republicans – big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.

“A direct line connects the four-decade stagnation of wages with the bailout of Wall Street, the rise of the Tea Party (and, briefly, Occupy), and the successes of Sanders and Trump in 2016.

“... In 2016, Trump won 58% of the vote in the counties with the poorest 10% of the population. His share was 31% in the richest.

[dragoni]

First of its kind study shows CEO political donations favor GOP

A new, first of its kind study tracks the political leanings of CEOs by examining 18 years of political contributions by more than 3,800 CEOs of S&P 1500 companies.

The big picture: The chief executives of America's largest public companies are more than twice as likely to lean Republican in their campaign contributions than to favor Democrats.

Among big energy companies, CEOs' Republican leanings are even stronger: more than 9 in 10 energy CEOs side with Republicans, and none with Democrats.

The study, by professors from Harvard Law School and Tel-Aviv University, classifies a CEO as a Republican or a Democrat if they gave at least two-thirds of their campaign contributions to one party or the other. CEOs that distributed their contributions more evenly between the two major parties were classified as neutral.

Why it matters: Money matters in politics — and CEOs wield significant power in America.

The public trusts CEOs more than journalists and government officials, according to a recent Edelman survey, and 84% "expect CEOs to inform conversations and policy debates on one or more pressing societal issues."

They sit on presidential advisory committees like President Trump's Strategic and Policy Forum, which included J.P. Morgan's Jamie Dimon and GM's Mary Barra, and Barack Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

And they potentially influence how their companies make independent political expenditures, a large and growing source of campaign finance since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United vs. FEC decision.

The other side: CEOs are responsible for maximizing shareholder value, and "some might argue that support for Republicans is consistent with shareholder interests because share value would benefit from the low-tax and deregulatory policies promoted by Republicans," according to the study.

The result

#Corporatocracy  #Plutocracy #Oligarchy

Laws written by corporations who Paid to Play  #CitizensUnited #DarkMoney  #MitchMcConnell  #KochSucker

$1.5 TRILLION in tax cuts for the rich and corporations

Why Trump’s $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Hasn’t Sparked Hiring or Investment, Fortune

[sataniccapitalist]

Using the Citizens United Anniversary to Promote Ending Corporate Constitutional Rights

Dear ,

This week marks the 9th Anniversary of Citizens United vs FEC, the (in)famous Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates of money in elections from the super rich and corporate entities -- further drowning out the voices of those of us without money, which is most of us!  

Move to Amend was here right at the beginning -- in fact we formed *before*Citizens United to be ready! We publicly launched our campaign on the day of the decision and passing the 28th Amendment has been our priority ever since!

The corporate hijacking of elections and government predates Citizens Unitedby decades -- in the case of corporate constitutional rights, by more than a century!

Commemorating the anniversary of Citizens United is an excellent opportunity to educate, advocate and organize around the fundamental solution: ending the influence of big money in elections and ending all forms of corporate constitutional rights by passing the We the People Amendment.

Here are 5 ideas for what you can do:

1. Get involved in Move to Amend!

We've made big strides in the past nine years but there's still much work to be done. Join the grassroots movement for the 28th Amendment by signing up here: http://movetoamend.org/volunteer. After you sign up one of our team members will give you a call to help you get started!

2. Become a monthly donor!

Especially if you don't have the time to volunteer, you can at least pitch in to help others who are doing the work to end Citizens United every day. Become a monthly donor now to pitch in in a critical way:http://movetoamend.org/monthly.

3. Give your local electeds an update!

If your municipality passed a Move to Amend resolution anytime over the last 9 years, attend your next local council or trustees meeting (bring others with you if you can). Most meetings have opportunities for the general public to speak. Thank council for their far-reaching action.

Give an update on the We the People Amendment (including how 65 US Representatives co-sponsored in the last session and more expected in 2019-2020, along with introduction for the first time in the U.S. Senate, plus more than 700 communities and states having passed resolutions or ballot measures -- many of them listed here).

Ask your local elected reps to personally take the Pledge to Amend. Finally, ask them to reach out to state or federal representatives to ask them to take the Pledge to Amend (for state Representatives and Senators) and to co-sponsor the We the People Amendment.

4. Get a local resolution passed!

If your municipality has not yet passed a Move to Amend resolution, again, attend your next local council or trustees meeting (and bring others with you!) and ask the Council or Commissioners to introduce a resolution (sample here).

Additional tips:

It's critical elected officials and the public understand that the goal of our constitutional amendment is much deeper than only reversing Citizens United. It's about ending political money defined as constitutionally-protected “free speech” AND ending all forms of corporate constitutional rights. Corporations have hijacked the courts to win civil and property rights that have overturned democratically-enacted laws and regulations that have protected people, communities and the environment. Simply having elections that are less corrupted does nothing to address constitutional rights won by corporations through the Supreme Court.

Let your local media know you will be speaking at your council/trustees meeting

Use the event as an opportunity to recruit people from other groups to testify on the negative impact of money in elections and corporate constitutional rights on their issues.

5. Circulate the Motion to Amend petition!

Adding more people to our national list is the only way we will build the necessary people power to build a grassroots movement required to pressure Congress and our state legislatures to pass and ratify the We the People Amendment. Spend 1-2 hours over the next week petitioning in a public place. Recruit a few others to join you. Or you can forward this link to your friends and family and ask them to sign up online: http://movetoamend.org/join.

6. BONUS TIP: Follow Move to Amend on Social Media!

Keep current on all the important news from the movement to amend:

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

[nanmykel]

Strange Goings-On...

Strange Goings-On…

                (That means things that I don’t yet understand:) A non-binary who goes by “them” committing the Club Q mass killing… A Walmart manager killing his employees near closing time in a breakroom. (Were they supposed to be working to close up?) Resistance to using the Red Flag law to forestall possible-to-probable mayhem. How the 2010 Citizens United vs. the FEC case effectively blocked…

[agreenroad]

Twelve Years Since Citizens United, Big Money Corruption Keeps Getting Worse - Public Citizen

Twelve Years Since Citizens United, Big Money Corruption Keeps Getting Worse – Public Citizen

“This week we were outraged to watch two senators stand in the way of improving democracy. In addition to protecting our right to vote, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would have been the first blow struck against the overreaching Citizens United vs. FEC decision which happened more than a decade ago. Shockingly, it has been 12 long years, and neither regulators nor Congress have tackled…

[jayzises]

What are Super PACs?

A respected presence in the New York City investment and financial services sphere, Jay Zises holds a BA in political science and history from New York University and currently serves as chairman of A Cap Inc., Investment Management. Outside of his profession, Jay Zises has previously served as chairman of National PAC, a national political action committee. In the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission (FEC), a new type of PAC, Super PACs, was formed. Super Political Action Committees (PACs) can spend as much money as they choose to disapprove or promote a candidate, and they can take unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions. It’s important to note that super PACs cannot give directly to a political candidate, but they may spend as much money as they want on ads that disapprove or support a candidate as long as they are not affiliated with the candidate. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) requires super PACs to report their donors.