Citizens United 2.0: Major Supreme Court Ruling Will Further Expand Reach Of Money In U.S. Elections

supreme courtThe Supreme Court’s conservative majority feels that any limit on the flow of money into political campaigns is a violation of free speech, the New York Times reports:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a major campaign finance decision, striking down some limits on federal campaign contributions for the first time. The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and most likely increase the already large role money plays in American politics.

The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority, was a sequel of sorts to Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. But that ruling did nothing to affect the other main form of campaign finance regulation: caps on direct contributions to candidates and political parties.

Dissenting from the bench, Justice Stephen G. Breyer called the decision a blow to the First Amendment and American democracy. “If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” he said, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”

20 Comments on "Citizens United 2.0: Major Supreme Court Ruling Will Further Expand Reach Of Money In U.S. Elections"

  1. BuzzCoastin | Apr 2, 2014 at 3:28 pm |

    the money whores consolodated their political/economic power in 1913
    the Supremes are just there to make sure the whores maintain power
    cause when the Supremes sing
    wee the sheeple swoon

  2. Well, money is a form of speech. In fact, it’s nothing more than a form of speech.

    • Gjallarbru | Apr 2, 2014 at 4:07 pm |

      If your “speech” is enough money to drown out every other voice, then there is no free speech, only expensive speech.

      • And that’s the problem we face, no “if”s about it. The freedom of the more powerful is always a threat to the freedom of the less powerful.

    • Reuben the Red | Apr 3, 2014 at 11:05 am |

      If money came out of my mouth when I spoke, I might agree. But it does not, and it is not free speech. Money can be neither free nor enslaved. Only people.

      • Do books come out of your mouth when you speak? Money is essentially the same thing, written speech–in its case a written agreement. It’s certainly not real, concrete wealth.

        • Reuben the Red | Apr 3, 2014 at 11:41 am |

          That was a terrible metaphor, considering that it is actually possible to orally dictate a book to a computer directly which would turn my natural verbosity into arrangements of sentences and paragraphs in a book format.

          Money is a written agreement like a mugging is an agreement between two people. Money is a cultural tool for assigning artificial/superficial value arbitrarily, sometimes based on scarcity or sentimental value but also based on speculation and fraud.

          Money is not speech. A trained ape can spend money but can’t speak.

          • I disagree, and stand by my metaphor.

            Just because money is speech, doesn’t mean that it’s truth.

          • Reuben the Red | Apr 3, 2014 at 11:46 am |

            That’s free speech. Didn’t cost you a dime.

          • Yes it did. We had to buy a computer and pay for electricity.

          • Upon further thought, I agree.

            > it is actually possible to orally dictate a book to a computer directly
            which would turn my natural verbosity into arrangements of sentences and
            paragraphs in a book format.

            I believe that proves my point. Books are a from of speech. Or should I use the term communication?

            > Money is a written agreement like a mugging is an agreement between two people.

            Yes, a mugging is an agreement. A coerced agreement, but an agreement nonetheless. And money is also a coerced agreement.

            > Money is Money is a cultural tool for assigning artificial/superficial value
            arbitrarily, sometimes based on scarcity or sentimental value but also
            based on speculation and fraud.

            That’s right. And “a cultural tool for assigning artificial/superficial value
            arbitrarily, sometimes based on scarcity or sentimental value but also
            based on speculation and fraud is” a form of communication. Like I said earlier, speech can be a lie.

            > A trained ape can spend money but can’t speak.

  3. Liam_McGonagle | Apr 2, 2014 at 4:01 pm |

    Well, it’s hard to balance all the competing priorities in large groups, so any ordering principle is bound to be arbitrary. So why not money?

  4. Ugh. Another bad day for America

  5. InfvoCuernos | Apr 2, 2014 at 5:47 pm |

    Imagine that. Its like prostitutes voting to outlaw free sex.

    • Eric_D_Read | Apr 3, 2014 at 12:48 am |

      Great maintaining the frame of controlled opposition too.
      The marks in both parties just eat up these 5-4 votes.

  6. Virtually Yours | Apr 2, 2014 at 7:21 pm |

    On one hand, it is boggling to think that we could ever have allowed ourselves to reach this point; while on the other, it just seems like the logical outcome of our current priorities (or lack thereof…) Hate to sound like a broken record, but sortition would render this entire discussion/debate moot: selecting qualified candidates for roles of leadership/guidance/management/oversight via lottery would completely redefine our current notions of campaigns, candidates, and elections. Goddess forbid we should live in a world where that kind of money gets donated towards education and healthcare, instead, but then we’re back to the conversation about priorities (and ain’t nobody got time for that…)

  7. Eric_D_Read | Apr 3, 2014 at 12:53 am |

    What the fuck ever.
    Vote with either your ass, your feet, or a shotgun. Everything else is just masturbation.

  8. Rhoid Rager | Apr 3, 2014 at 8:13 am |

    …and this is shocking because?

Comments are closed.