What the fuck is citizens united and why is my dad so upset about it?

absolutely not
it's abhorrent to a free and open democracy to allow the funding of politics be executed by shell corporations
it barely scraped by with a 5/4 supreme court ruling

does kavenaugh support overturning citizens united and getting corporate donations out of elections?

>99% of communication

Social media whore detected.

Maybe soon you'll learn your lesson about patronizing closed systems over open protocols

dissolution of unnecessary corporate laws that are limiting the free-ish market.

Just don't get fucking fat. Have some pride in your humanity. If muh genetics are fucked then be glad you didn't pass it on to any offspring

Son, he's upset because he's a screeching liberal pussy. I'm so sorry

such as?

>what the fuck is citizens united and why is my dad so upset about it?
It says that corporations can contribute to political campaigns. Basically legal bribery, on the basis that "corporations are people."
This creates problems because candidates receive indirect support from companies in return for voting in those companies' interests.

No. Kavanaugh is strongly in favor of Citizens' United.

Nigga that's gay.

shit dude, why did we like this guy again?
so how would donations and contributions work if it wasnt a corporate entity? you cant just donate to a politician as individuals if you are a lobby like the NRA or the NAACP. they take in donations from multiple members and use it to fund their donations and political messaging. would they be affected by citizens united?

Maybe if I spent my life in legalese, and corporate talk instead of computers and math I could have an answer to a complicated question that requires a postgraduate knowledge to answer.
Fuck dude, it's econ 101 to remove as many reasonable barriers to entry to promote other markets to enter so better products can be produced

>so how would donations and contributions work if it wasnt a corporate entity?
PACs and official campaigns would only be able to take donations from individual people.

>would they be affected by citizens united?
Probably, to some degree. They wouldn't be able to take donations from corporations or other organizations. I don't think the NRA would be especially affected, since they have a very large membership.

Kavenaugh basically created super PACs and citizens united (he was a judge at the time that had a ruling in the case)

Citizens United ruled that spending money on politics is free speech

Democrats benefit the most from it.

It says that corporations have a first amendment right of free (political) speech.
Money is considered a form of speech.
Therefore, it allows companies to donate to politicians.
It's definitely not an easy legal decision to make, considering that it leads to bribery but actually seems to make legal sense.
Any democrat opposed to Citizens United should tread lightly, since unions are the biggest donors to democrats. If companies aren't people, then neither are unions.

>no proof
back up your claim nigger

>This whole fucking thread

youtube.com/watch?v=If7jb7C9Zeo

btw the four justices on the Supreme court to side with the FEC were Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Stevens, so congrats for siding with the Jewish communist wing of the court.

The actual case that was being tried was when a conservative organization wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election. The FEC had anti-free speech laws saying they couldn't do that, and when challenged on 1st Amendment grounds they tried circling around the issue by going "well corporations don't have first amendment rights" which the court rightfully ended up smacking down as corporations are owned by people and if said people want to organize their money and want to air an anti-Hillary Clinton film, they're as entitled to do so as anyone else under the 1st Amendment.

Attached: 1536246219006.png (720x861, 341K)

>In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. Federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the U.S. Constitution.

>The court upheld requirements, however, for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.
Gee, I couldn't imagine why the left wants this overturned.

He made an influential ruling that created superPACs, and has expressed a legal opinion in line with the Citizens United verdict. He's pretty clearly in favor of it.

nytimes.com/2018/07/23/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-citizens-united-campaign-finance.html
washingtonpost.com/opinions/brett-kavanaugh-the-man-who-created-the-super-pac/2018/08/20/e6c0763c-a241-11e8-b562-1db4209bd992_story.html?utm_term=.0228b21d70f6

Not necessarily. Overruling Citizens United would also keep Soros out of American politics.

Direct donations, by individuals or collections of individuals (corporations, non-profits, etc.), *ARE* regulated. Citizens United declared that associations of free Americans can independently advocate for what they believe in.

If politicians were actually worried about MUH RUSSIA, they would have fought against Citizens United, AIPAC, and the rest. Instead, the DNC and Soros has dumped tens of millions of dollars through SuperPACs to support carpetbagger politicians in Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, and Arizona to name a few.

Until they propose and pass a new bulletproof law or amendment on campaign finance, jail lobyists, and destroy their own SuperPACs, they are talking out their asses.

>Money is considered a form of speech
Which is patently ridiculous and why I oppose citizens united, as a general rule.

im still not sure how i feel, but im leaning towards the left and saying citizens united takes too much power out of the hands of average individuals and places it into unaccountable peoples and corporations hands

>Which is patently ridiculous and why I oppose citizens united, as a general rule.

Literally 99% of all normal "free speech" activities can now be outlawed because you just opened up a new legal precedent called
>If the speech in enabled by money, it's grounds for government regulation
so now your picket sign is under the purview of the FEC and FCC as you had to pay $3 for that poster board and sharpie.

Oh, you wanted to publish a book? Well sorry that violates campaign finance law if you want to spend money on a printing press or hiring someone else to do it.

And don't even think of printing off fliers for that rally you were going to attend. That is tied to money is certainly under the jurisdiction of FEC regulatory compliance now.

Btw you also can't protest by shouting on your own lawn as ownership of said property ("big money in politics") gives you untoward influence over your local political scene as you have an economic advantage in reaching people that isn't equally shared by all.

Attached: 1456836678808.jpg (287x395, 16K)

we need another trust buster

It means the jews can spend as much money they want though their PAC's

Attached: 1538832489871.gif (360x202, 1.58M)

Incorrect. Not letting corporations and collective entities make political contributions is not the same as the shitty examples you're giving and you know it. You standing on your lawn is not a collective entity like a corporation or a union, you dense nigger.

Attached: 1501184332548.jpg (1224x1445, 247K)

printing fliers isnt donating money to pacs or campaigns you fear mongering idiot

It prevented the government from stopping people from spending money on campaign ads.

Your money is your speech. If you want to buy a commercial that's supporting (or criticizing) a candidate, you're well within your right.

This frustrates the Left because the Right tends to have wealthier people.

you should lean towards a government with limited powers, abolish most of the federal government then there is no reason why any rich corporation or individual would want to give money to a campaign in the first place since there would be no law to influence

>Not letting corporations and collective entities make political contributions
>printing fliers isnt donating money to pacs or campaigns you fear mongering idio

Not what was being decided in the case.

Try growing a brain.

>This frustrates the Left because the Right tends to have wealthier people.

soros, bloomberg, oprah, bezos, zuckerburg, the clintons, nearly every big time hollywood celebrity

i'm fully aware of the koch brothers and sheldon adelson (or trump) but i will never understand how the democratic party has been able to convince people that the republican party is the party of the wealthy elite

cenk, nice ID

>Not what was being decided in the case.

That's literally what it is.

>The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010, that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

>Bust the trusts! Remove regulations!
What regulations?
>lolidk too complicated lel

Fuck you

>That's literally what it is.

They made an anti-Hillary Clinton film that they wanted to make into commercials. The FEC tried banning them from doing so.

The case was not "political contributions" or anything to do with campaign donations. At this point you're being intentionally dishonest as you can apparently google the Wikipedia article but intentionally ignore the part where it, you know, actually says what the scope of the case was about, which is to be expected from a Leftist.

Attached: 1514916497108.jpg (566x566, 22K)

Protip: if your legalese is so fucking complex and patchwork that a reasonably educated person cannot understand it; it's almost certainly bullshit.

US tax code is one such example.

Is political advertising even useful or persuasive though?

Does it even effect NPCs at this point?

>The case was not "political contributions" or anything to do with campaign donations.

It specifically refers to political expenditures. If you want to get hung up on the legalese of it, fine. Collectives shouldn't be able to run "independent expenditures" on behalf of candidates.

And they once CU is reworked; how about we actually enforce the federal ban on the contributions you're referring to.

Corporations can use money to express the collective will of their constituents.
As the Bill of rights intended.

>Overruling Citizens United would also keep Soros out of American politics.
That's not true at all. What he is doing currently would already comply with an overruling of Citizens United because he donates personal funds to a PAC or Super PAC, and in turn those entities spend money for political motives.
Citizens United is a red herring. Money is already spent in horrifically large amount in politics. And the irony is that the case was only started to silence an anti-Hillary documentary.

It existing as a ruling or not really doesn't accomplish much aside from taking a third or fourth party out of the money-shuffling process that is political funding. If it were overturned tomorrow the paper trails would simply go back to including more PACs and Super PACs that businesses and individuals could use to funnel funds in the exact same way and for the exact same goals.

Democrats want it reverse because it would force things to go back to that as a norm, and would continue the prior cycle of this funding being much more opaque.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
>In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. Federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the U.S. Constitution.

>It specifically refers to political expenditures

Me spending $3 on a sign opposing Roe v Wade fully counts as a "political expenditure" under the dissenting opinion in Citizens United.

It's not "legalese", you're intentionally warping language to frame things so that it sounds like outright, literal bribery is what is being decided.

Attached: beady.jpg (624x716, 58K)

The US Revolution of 1776 was an uprising against corporations, specifically the 13 colonial corporations operating under royal charters.
After the revolution, corporations were extremely limited. They could only live for a few years and then wrap-up operations.
For example you could start a corporation to raise money to build a bridge, charge a toll for 5 years to repay investors with some profit, and then dissolve the corporation and gift the bridge (as agreed) to the town.
Then corrupt judges were put on the Supreme Court and corporations were granted one privilege after another.
Now we live in a corporatocracy.
When was the last time the Sherman Anti Trust act was enforced? The break up of AT&T in the late 1970s???

Attached: 2party.jpg (226x674, 70K)

Every time this is explained there is no response.

Now that liberal businesses like Amazon and Google have been able to amass so much wealth it is time to shut it down on them until it is handy for us again.

>Me spending $3 on a sign opposing Roe v Wade fully counts as a "political expenditure" under the dissenting opinion in Citizens United.
YOU aren't united with anyone, you fucking retard. "Me" doesn't count as a " nonprofit corporation, for-profit corporation, labor union, or other association."

>It's not "legalese", you're intentionally warping language
Says the guy who thinks spending money to help a candidate isn't de facto "campaign contributions". I'm calling a spade a spade. CU is NOTHING but a way for organizations to bypass federal campaign contribution ban.

Attached: 1501274178279.gif (412x384, 1.3M)

I have another one for you
>get fat
>suffer no consequences for getting fat
>receive tax payer money for getting fat
>wonder why people are fat
The obesity trend started in the late 60s, I wonder what else did?

Attached: 11785e991c11394a1bce0d3b74068fa7.jpg (736x1062, 115K)

Citizens United was running the pro Kavanaugh ads.

>if said people want to organize their money
The problem is that many people DON'T want to organize their money for these purposes. If a group of individuals want to contribute money for something, then they can do it as individuals. Letting unions cajole workers into giving up union dues to fund campaign action is a fucking retarded idea.

>CU is NOTHING but a way for organizations to bypass federal campaign contribution ban.
But they can still do that through PACs and Super PACs. So it doesn't stop whether the precedent is there or not.

If the precedent isn't there, then only organizations with enough resources and time to found a PAC or Super PAC can use funds for political aims in the way they want.

Guess what happens if the FEC denies a PAC filing if Citizens United were overturned? Congrats, nobody can spend any funds for political goals if the FEC doesn't let them form a PAC. And the FEC can randomly change rules to undercut existing groups they don't like.

This user has the answer. Now I’ll sage and find the next slide to fuck on

It's a decision which affirms that, since corporations are people, they have first amendment rights, and that money = speech. Therefore, corporations have a first amendment right to dump billions of dollars into elections without violating any campaign finance laws.

>But they can still do that through PACs and Super PACs.
>endless whataboutery
I'm more than happy to look at the legality of PACs as well. How about any collective contribution to any political purpose is outlawed, including pacs? If money is being given for political purposes; it must have the names of individuals tied to it and the contributions MUST be to the campaign itself; not PACs, unions, corporations or anything else. Violation is a felony.