Political Roundtable Part XXX

[Zonkerbl]

I mean, I'm not a lawyer, I got the "money=speech" thing from reading anti-trust texts for my industrial organization class. Maybe the guy I was reading was super conservative. But I remember there being some landmark cases about billboards where it was established that money=speech and the government is therefore restricted from how much it can regulate the content of billboards.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=TV_BTPET9pQ2CFeaIO7PCw&s=19

[pancakes3]

the point of Citizens United wasn't that money = speech, or that corporations don't have rights. the [horrible] point was that Congress had no right to place limitations on how corporations may express their speech, the consequences of which permits corporations to use their general treasury to fund "electioneering communication" (specifically that they can begin outside spending without oversight)

This is a bad decision for many different reasons.

1) like you said, Zonk, corporations are legal fictions. they have no "natural rights." part of the reasoning in the decision was that a corporation is an "assembly" of people, and that the first amendment protects the right to assemble. the inability to distinguish an assembly of people and a corporation, the former of which was intended to describe a collective of individuals, and the latter of which is essentially a tax designation oversteps how speech works, and what speech was meant to be protected.

2) there are all types of other restrictions of speech placed on corporations. they can't lie on their taxes, they can't falsify earnings reports, they can't make false advertisements, etc. Even in the context of spending, there are limits on what a corporation can do with their money - they can't pay below minimum wage, they can't corner the market in violation of anti-trust laws, and up until this decision, they couldn't fund independent political ads.

3) prior to this decision, if a company wanted to make attack ads, under McCain-Feingold, they had to designate a political fund, that was regulated and disclosed. post-decision, through PACs and other vehicles, corporations were much more free to spend dark money under the guise of independent expenditures not tied to a specific donation to a candidate directly, and are not tracked or accounted for. the lifted restriction wasn't so much about giving corporations speech, but rather hiding the money.

4) a corporation is still free to voice its opinions (for free) as much as it wants. Disney did just this in Florida in speaking out against don't-say-gay.

5) the issue with "money as speech" is problematic in that it disproportionately amplifies the wealthy. in the context of speech, it is obvious that its one person, one voice. even within the context of assembly, it's still the aggregate of one person one voice. in the context of money, a corporation that is spending billions, ostensibly has a louder voice than every single voting American 4x over.

6) corporations aren't assemblies. there is no unifying voice or political opinion for a corporation, even if you argue that it's an aggregate of the shareholders. the voices (dollars) of its participants are (a) controlled by the executives; and (b) the participants themselves are majority/plurality other institutions. additionally, say a company like Exxon exercises its speech to open up government land for drilling, and you can argue that it's a straight line correlation with what the shareholders want and the speech it makes, it may not necessarily be that way. Maybe some shareholders want Exxon to use its money to pivot to green energy. Maybe some shareholders want Exxon to drill, but not on government land. Their voices, as an assembly, are drowned out, and yet there's no way for them to claw back their portion of the speech (dollars) that were expended on their behalf.

7) Citizens United was just the important domino that led to the cascading of Speechnow v. FEC and Carey v. FEC that created PACs and SuperPACs respectively that has caused the real darkening of money in campaign finance.

[doclinkin]

Repugnicans above a certain level fundamentally do not believe in Democracy, that is, government of the people by the people for the people. Or leastways they narrowly define which people count as people. This was in fact intended by the framers of the constitution, most clearly evident in the Electoral college, that the masses can indicate their desires yeah yeah yeah, but an overclass of learned property owners gets to overrule mob rule with their good common sense, to protect the status quo. Nowadays that means there is a special class of citizen with more rights than others: shareholders. When we point to the stock market as the measure of how our economy is doing, we are discussing wealth transfers from the working schmo to the ruling class. From paychecks to corporate profits. Shrug. Not sure what it will take for the mass of men to realize that hey, Karl Marx was right, but there's a strong chance that nobody benefits from the revelation of that wisdom.

[dobrojim]

For me a major problem with Citizens United was how it opened the floodgates
to spending dark money. I can suffer through ads that I may strongly disagree
with but to me, the important point is the buyers and makers of these ads
ought to have the honesty to say who they are, thus giving the listeners
and viewers context in understanding their motivations.

[Zonkerbl]

the point of Citizens United wasn't that money = speech, or that corporations don't have rights. the [horrible] point was that Congress had no right to place limitations on how corporations may express their speech, the consequences of which permits corporations to use their general treasury to fund "electioneering communication" (specifically that they can begin outside spending without oversight)

This is a bad decision for many different reasons.

1) like you said, Zonk, corporations are legal fictions. they have no "natural rights." part of the reasoning in the decision was that a corporation is an "assembly" of people, and that the first amendment protects the right to assemble. the inability to distinguish an assembly of people and a corporation, the former of which was intended to describe a collective of individuals, and the latter of which is essentially a tax designation oversteps how speech works, and what speech was meant to be protected.

2) there are all types of other restrictions of speech placed on corporations. they can't lie on their taxes, they can't falsify earnings reports, they can't make false advertisements, etc. Even in the context of spending, there are limits on what a corporation can do with their money - they can't pay below minimum wage, they can't corner the market in violation of anti-trust laws, and up until this decision, they couldn't fund independent political ads.

3) prior to this decision, if a company wanted to make attack ads, under McCain-Feingold, they had to designate a political fund, that was regulated and disclosed. post-decision, through PACs and other vehicles, corporations were much more free to spend dark money under the guise of independent expenditures not tied to a specific donation to a candidate directly, and are not tracked or accounted for. the lifted restriction wasn't so much about giving corporations speech, but rather hiding the money.

4) a corporation is still free to voice its opinions (for free) as much as it wants. Disney did just this in Florida in speaking out against don't-say-gay.

5) the issue with "money as speech" is problematic in that it disproportionately amplifies the wealthy. in the context of speech, it is obvious that its one person, one voice. even within the context of assembly, it's still the aggregate of one person one voice. in the context of money, a corporation that is spending billions, ostensibly has a louder voice than every single voting American 4x over.

6) corporations aren't assemblies. there is no unifying voice or political opinion for a corporation, even if you argue that it's an aggregate of the shareholders. the voices (dollars) of its participants are (a) controlled by the executives; and (b) the participants themselves are majority/plurality other institutions. additionally, say a company like Exxon exercises its speech to open up government land for drilling, and you can argue that it's a straight line correlation with what the shareholders want and the speech it makes, it may not necessarily be that way. Maybe some shareholders want Exxon to use its money to pivot to green energy. Maybe some shareholders want Exxon to drill, but not on government land. Their voices, as an assembly, are drowned out, and yet there's no way for them to claw back their portion of the speech (dollars) that were expended on their behalf.

7) Citizens United was just the important domino that led to the cascading of Speechnow v. FEC and Carey v. FEC that created PACs and SuperPACs respectively that has caused the real darkening of money in campaign finance.

The problem with this reasoning is that it implies that restricting the speech of corporations somehow reduces the disproportional representation of the wealthy. It's just not true. Restriction on speech => incentive for corruption => increased advantage for deep pocketed corporations.

Nevertheless, I think the solution to disproportionate representation of wealthy people's interests is to make sure there aren't that many uber wealthy people, and it's true that giving corporations the same rights as people creates a huge class of uber wealthy "people."

Like I said I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what the answer is. As an economist I can warn you of the unintended consequences of restricting speech, which, because corporations can afford more expensive lawyers than everyone else, will [almost] always end up benefiting the wealthy.

[Zonkerbl]

Interesting article from the Atlantic, which I of course interpret as "the problem created by evangelical Christians worshipping the Antichrist":

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=gX8mwnQX8ljGVuphIYgm8Q

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=D_9MDCkRhcNYS0HD5O_tJw&s=19

[Pointgod]

the point of Citizens United wasn't that money = speech, or that corporations don't have rights. the [horrible] point was that Congress had no right to place limitations on how corporations may express their speech, the consequences of which permits corporations to use their general treasury to fund "electioneering communication" (specifically that they can begin outside spending without oversight)

This is a bad decision for many different reasons.

1) like you said, Zonk, corporations are legal fictions. they have no "natural rights." part of the reasoning in the decision was that a corporation is an "assembly" of people, and that the first amendment protects the right to assemble. the inability to distinguish an assembly of people and a corporation, the former of which was intended to describe a collective of individuals, and the latter of which is essentially a tax designation oversteps how speech works, and what speech was meant to be protected.

2) there are all types of other restrictions of speech placed on corporations. they can't lie on their taxes, they can't falsify earnings reports, they can't make false advertisements, etc. Even in the context of spending, there are limits on what a corporation can do with their money - they can't pay below minimum wage, they can't corner the market in violation of anti-trust laws, and up until this decision, they couldn't fund independent political ads.

3) prior to this decision, if a company wanted to make attack ads, under McCain-Feingold, they had to designate a political fund, that was regulated and disclosed. post-decision, through PACs and other vehicles, corporations were much more free to spend dark money under the guise of independent expenditures not tied to a specific donation to a candidate directly, and are not tracked or accounted for. the lifted restriction wasn't so much about giving corporations speech, but rather hiding the money.

4) a corporation is still free to voice its opinions (for free) as much as it wants. Disney did just this in Florida in speaking out against don't-say-gay.

5) the issue with "money as speech" is problematic in that it disproportionately amplifies the wealthy. in the context of speech, it is obvious that its one person, one voice. even within the context of assembly, it's still the aggregate of one person one voice. in the context of money, a corporation that is spending billions, ostensibly has a louder voice than every single voting American 4x over.

6) corporations aren't assemblies. there is no unifying voice or political opinion for a corporation, even if you argue that it's an aggregate of the shareholders. the voices (dollars) of its participants are (a) controlled by the executives; and (b) the participants themselves are majority/plurality other institutions. additionally, say a company like Exxon exercises its speech to open up government land for drilling, and you can argue that it's a straight line correlation with what the shareholders want and the speech it makes, it may not necessarily be that way. Maybe some shareholders want Exxon to use its money to pivot to green energy. Maybe some shareholders want Exxon to drill, but not on government land. Their voices, as an assembly, are drowned out, and yet there's no way for them to claw back their portion of the speech (dollars) that were expended on their behalf.

7) Citizens United was just the important domino that led to the cascading of Speechnow v. FEC and Carey v. FEC that created PACs and SuperPACs respectively that has caused the real darkening of money in campaign finance.

You obviously know your stuff so any truth to the fact that Alito went out of his way to say abortion was different from gay marriage, interracial marriage, right to contraceptives that also hinge on the right to privacy? I’ve even seen some left commentators say that it means those rights are safe, I think Alito is a lying sack of ****, but I’m also a partisan. What’s your take?

[pancakes3]

You obviously know your stuff so any truth to the fact that Alito went out of his way to say abortion was different from gay marriage, interracial marriage, right to contraceptives that also hinge on the right to privacy? I’ve even seen some left commentators say that it means those rights are safe, I think Alito is a lying sack of ****, but I’m also a partisan. What’s your take?

he did, but i wouldn't say he tried very hard. he differentiated it by saying that abortion is different from other privacy cases in that abortion leads to the destruction of a "human life" and thus the Government has a greater interest in intervening than the other acts/rights protected by the other cases but didn't really square it and answer the question of whether there was a right to privacy or not. As of right now, the right to privacy still technically exists, although with Roe being a 50-year precedent, and cited heavily in all the following privacy cases, with it flatly overturned, it could be argued that there is no right to privacy any more.

the "right to privacy" is a "fabricated" right that many 20th/21st century supreme court decisions rest their decisions on, in finding that the right exists and is implied/relied-upon in the other amendments (3rd A - no quartering of troops, 4th A - search and seizure, and 14th A - due process). it was stated in Roe that it exists in the "penumbra" of enumerated rights. it's generally held that the constitution/federal government can only exert enumerated rights and that any rights not enumerated in the Constitution is reserved for the states, so it was important to get the right of privacy on the books via SCOTUS decisions; it can also be enumerated via amendment, like the bill of rights (first 10 amendments).

most legal commentators don't believe that this Court would overturn interracial marriage, or even contraception although contraception is being chipped away via other methods such as challenges by employers who are refusing to provide for health care that covers contraception due to religious grounds.

however, Alito also went out of his way to specifically NOT mention LGBTQ+ cases in his differentiation, which is a pretty clear signal that the court IS willing to overturn those decisions. you don't write 90 pages and dig up abortion laws from the territory of Hawaii from 1848 and just forget to include Obergefell.

i will say that there's no tea-leaf reading for this Court, or even mapping of what rights exist. They're going entirely off "feel" of their voting base. They're carrying exactly what you would think the typical florida housewife would support. interracial marriage would impact too many of trump base, for now. contraception is too prevalent to ban. lgbtq+ rights doesn't affect their base so it's fair game. affirmative action, while an equal protection case and not a privacy case, is on the table. due process for immigrants? out the window.

[Bonscott]

Just when you think things can't get worse Brandon proves people wrong.Gas going \back up.inflation at historic highs and now no food for babies.
Fine job democrats 2024 can't get her quick enough

[Zonkerbl]

Hope you enjoy those new jobs "Brandon" created for you and your family so you have enough money to complain about inflation

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=_mRbBMCzTLh46yIUPScgBw&s=19

[dckingsfan]

Hope you enjoy those new jobs "Brandon" created for you and your family so you have enough money to complain about inflation

Those drive-by posts get to you? I mean the disconnect should have started with blaming the Ds for high gas prices.

Basically take any issue you don't like and immediately assign it to the party you don't like.

Abortions are falling - OMG, 2024 can't come soon enough!

[Zonkerbl]

Hope you enjoy those new jobs "Brandon" created for you and your family so you have enough money to complain about inflation

Those drive-by posts get to you? I mean the disconnect should have started with blaming the Ds for high gas prices.

Basically take any issue you don't like and immediately assign it to the party you don't like.

Abortions are falling - OMG, 2024 can't come soon enough!

Are you saying Bonscott is a snot-nosed sniveling coward who doesn't have the guts to stick around in this thread to defend his brainwashed opinions?

[Pointgod]

Hope you enjoy those new jobs "Brandon" created for you and your family so you have enough money to complain about inflation

Those drive-by posts get to you? I mean the disconnect should have started with blaming the Ds for high gas prices.

Basically take any issue you don't like and immediately assign it to the party you don't like.

Abortions are falling - OMG, 2024 can't come soon enough!

Are you saying Bonscott is a snot-nosed sniveling coward who doesn't have the guts to stick around in this thread to defend his brainwashed opinions?

[dobrojim]

Hope you enjoy those new jobs "Brandon" created for you and your family so you have enough money to complain about inflation

Those drive-by posts get to you? I mean the disconnect should have started with blaming the Ds for high gas prices.

Basically take any issue you don't like and immediately assign it to the party you don't like.

Abortions are falling - OMG, 2024 can't come soon enough!

Are you saying Bonscott is a snot-nosed sniveling coward who doesn't have the guts to stick around in this thread to defend his brainwashed opinions?

I can't speak to his nasal condition but it's completely obvious that he's much better at
throwing around insults than he is at defending whatever policies he might support.

Oh wait, the GOP has no policies, at least none they will admit to. Of course there
is the obvious policy that re-election is soooo much more important to them than
what they privately will admit is best for the country.

It's a little pathetic how clever they think they are with this whole secret code
of Let's go Brandon actually meaning something profane, as if saying it that
way made them nice people.

[Zonkerbl]

:pounds chest:

DEBATE ME

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=hHchmo887ET69G6-CVnmVw&s=19

[dobrojim]

Alito - a hater

He has no business being a judge at any level.