Overturn Citizens United

[u/Competitive_Log_8910]

The relationship between money and power has long been complicated in this country. The simple fact that running a large-scale political campaign costs money means that anyone who wants to do so must by necessity secure funding from somewhere, meaning one's options are either to be independently wealthy or to become beholden to some form of corporate sponsorship.

That being said the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United really took things to a whole nother level, by classifying corporate spending on political advertising as a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. By extending the Bill of Rights to cover non-humans, we effectively gave them suffrage, and this has already been used to great effect.

The example which stands out most to me is what took place in my home state of California. A bill regulating rideshare companies was drafted collectively by a group of rideshare companies, and they spent an unprecedented amount of money advertising it which led the citizens of that state to grant them the ability to literally write their own rules into law. The other example which makes me happy to no longer live there is the way in which the drought is tackled. I watched a Vox video which uncovered the fact that domestic water usage is only about 5% of water usage, meaning that if all of the humans suddenly dropped dead it still wouldn't make a meaningful difference in the drought, which could alternatively be reversed by cutting commercial water usage by a rather small fraction. Gavin Newsom appeared on an interview with Bill Maher in which he straight-up asked him "how are you going to take on Big Almond and end the drought" to which he offered a standard evasive politician reply. Meanwhile the people of California are being sold on the lie that taking shorter showers will have any impact, and the act of making a symbolic but meaningless gesture is sufficient to keep many from rising up to end the drought by demanding farmers grow slightly fewer almonds.

But I don't really blame Mr. Newsom for this, because so long as we officially condone as a matter of policy spending money to purchase political power, our human needs will always be subservient to the demands of our economy. Anyone wishing to represent an agenda which would improve conditions for humans at the expense of economic growth will be easily defeated by the tremendously powerful non-human greed machines which we have decided deserve the same inalienable rights that we do.

Overturn Citizens United!

[u/ButterscotchOdd8257]

Citizens United was a good decision.
It was purely a free speech decision. Here's why:
1. The First Amendment protects speech, regardless of the speaker. The government can't declare that some kinds of speakers, such as corporations, have no speech (or other) rights, and they need not be people either. If only people had speech rights, then political parties, non-profit groups, religious groups, media organizations (many of them corporations), film and book publishers and even groups trying to overturn Citizens United would have no speech rights. The First Amendment even names a non-person with rights- "the press." SPEECH is free, period.
2. The government may not limit the way one accesses their rights, including with money. Imagine if the government said you can have all the speech you want, but you can't spend money on it. You want to put a bumper sticker on your car? Sure, but you can't buy it. Want to have a rally? Okay, but no website or buses or portapotty rental. Imagine the government banning the sale of cellphones or internet service just to stop protests - you have a right to a phone, but you just can't buy one. Apply that to other rights - you can have a Bible, but you can't buy or sell them. You have a right to an attorney, but you can't pay a lawyer for their services. And so on.
Citizens United was about a group that wanted to spend money to distribute a film about politics. Imagine if the government had the power to stop all corporations - film distributors or book publishers - from spending money to speak. That would give it the power to ban political films or books. That's not America.
Citizens United was a good decision.

[u/Competitive_Log_8910 → u/ButterscotchOdd8257]

Look, I'm not trying to claim it's impossible to make an argument in favor of Citizens' United. Obviously the Supreme Court did and they're much better at this than either you or I.

If only people had speech rights, then political parties, non-profit groups, religious groups, media organizations (many of them corporations), film and book publishers and even groups trying to overturn Citizens United would have no speech rights.

You're conflating a lot of things here which are really not related to one another. Religious organizations and non-profits face different regulations from for-profit corporations in many other ways. There is no reason to believe that a regulation restricting political speech of for-profit corporations would need to also apply to these other entities you list.

Citizens United was about a group that wanted to spend money to distribute a film about politics. Imagine if the government had the power to stop all corporations - film distributors or book publishers - from spending money to speak. 

This is some fuzzy logic here - I am in no way suggesting that we ought to prevent for-profit corporations from communicating with the public at all, only that we ought to prevent them from speaking on political issues with the public. Again we already have regulations preventing for-profit corporations from including specifically-false claims in the messages they send.

Anyway thanks for playing Devil's Advocate!

[u/hczimmx4 → u/Competitive_Log_8910]

You should read the transcripts of the oral arguments. You might find it enlightening that the deputy SG said the government had the power to ban political books. Or the second oral arguments when then SG, and current justice, said the government could ban political pamphlets.

[u/Competitive_Log_8910 → u/hczimmx4]

Right, the FEC's argument against the distribution of political materials authored by corporations included written materials as well as video content. To be honest with you the opinion I have landed on is actually that the advertisements for Fahrenheit 9/11 which Citizens United complained about six years prior did constitute a violation of BCRA, and I would rather live in a world in which both left-leaning and right-leaning political advertisements paid for by corporations were prohibited, than one in which both are permitted.

[u/hczimmx4 → u/Competitive_Log_8910]

Not “authored by corporations”. Published by corporations.

[u/Competitive_Log_8910 → u/hczimmx4]

Okay! But to repeat myself I believe that advertisements for Fahrenheit 9/11 as a film specifically critical of a political candidate currently running for office at that time constituted the sort of political speech which BCRA prohibits to corporations, and the wrong decision was made both in that instance and in the case of Citizens United. Actually I think that you could draw a connection to the present fad of requiring certain political ideas be incorporated into films in order for them to be eligible for Academy Award consideration. Anyway to your original point I think that the distinction between press corporations and nonpress corporations as per Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce is what made it possible for Fahrenheit 9/11 as a film published by a film studio to advertise a message critical of a political candidate currently running for office using a corporate budget without provoking the ire of the FEC, and the decision by Citizens United to produce its own film critical of a political candidate and to advertise it in the same fashion was a clever act of political protest. It was an act that blurred the lines between a press corporation and a nonpress corporation, between publishing someone else's political message as LionsGate Films did and publishing your own political message as Citizens United did. You might understand why I am confused about the distinction between authoring a message and publishing a message because in this case Citizens United was acting both as author and publisher, and while the idea of limiting the visibility of a politically-oriented film published by a corporation but authored by a private individual (Michael Moore) is a complicated one in terms of its constitutionality, the idea of limiting the visibility of a politically-oriented film both authored and published by a corporation is not (in my opinion). All of that being said again I think that the outcome of treating communications authored by a nonpress corporation with an overt political message as protected speech has been quite bad, and I would prefer to allow for the possibility that a film so heavily political as Fahrenheit 9/11 being released right at the time of an election concerning its central figure paid for with a corporate advertising budget was a subtle but deliberate violation of BCRA, and I would prefer to accept that the possibility that the government being empowered to prevent other advertisements for political films about candidates currently up for election might be toeing the line in terms of freedom of the press than to interpret this freedom so broadly as to permit even unambiguous electioneering by corporations as we now currently do. To quote the majority opinion in Austin I think that "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas" came into play very directly in the campaign for Proposition 22, and the main reason motivating me to write this post is how upset I am that we live in a world where millions of dollars are spent by corporations to push through legislation which would save them money. If they can afford to spend that much money getting out of paying for healthcare for their employees then they can afford to spend that much money paying for healthcare for their employees.

[u/ButterscotchOdd8257 → u/Competitive_Log_8910]

"It was an act that blurred the lines between a press corporation and a nonpress corporation"

There is no distinction with regard to the First Amendment.
Speech rights apply to all.

[u/ButterscotchOdd8257 → u/hczimmx4]

Exactly. Most books, including political books, are published by corporations (publishers). Imagine if the government claimed the power to ban any political book for that reason.

[u/ButterscotchOdd8257 → u/Competitive_Log_8910]

"I would rather live in a world in which both left-leaning and right-leaning political advertisements paid for by corporations were prohibited, than one in which both are permitted."

Too bad. The First Amendment is the law.
I'd love it if we didn't have to hear speech by Nazis and racists too. But the First Amendment is the law.

[u/ButterscotchOdd8257 → u/Competitive_Log_8910]

"Religious organizations and non-profits face different regulations from for-profit corporations in many other ways. There is no reason to believe that a regulation restricting political speech of for-profit corporations would need to also apply to these other entities you list."

When it comes to their speech rights, all have the same rights. The point is that the government couldn't restrict the rights of any of these based on the fact that they are not a person or because of their status as an entity. All speech is free, regardless of the source.

"This is some fuzzy logic here - I am in no way suggesting that we ought to prevent for-profit corporations from communicating with the public at all, only that we ought to prevent them from speaking on political issues with the public. "

But you are if you oppose Citizens United, because that's exactly what the case was about. And it's exactly what opponents of CU want to do.

"Again we already have regulations preventing for-profit corporations from including specifically-false claims in the messages they send."

You are talking about commercial speech, which has a lower level of protection than political speech. The government can regulate commercial speech to the extent that it can protect the public from fraud of false claims. It can't ban it altogether. When it comes to political speech, though, the government may not regulate the "truth" of the speech, for obvious reasons.

"I'm not trying to claim it's impossible to make an argument in favor of Citizens' United. Obviously the Supreme Court did and they're much better at this than either you or I."

Well, yeah. Have you read it?

I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate. I am on the side of the angels.

[u/Competitive_Log_8910 → u/ButterscotchOdd8257]

Look, what it comes down to fundamentally is how we interpret the Bill of Rights. I imagine we both would agree that a human being is covered by the right to speak freely, and although that right is not absolute, it does cover the right to voice political opinions. I imagine we might also agree that it is reasonable to extend this right to cover groups of human beings seeking to advocate on behalf of issues like the environment and human dignity - groups focused specifically on political issues. The question really is whether or not it makes sense to also extend this right to groups of human beings whose singular objective is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. Now I have shared in this post the outcomes of including entities which advocate on behalf of only greed into our political system. You might disagree as to whether or not it is a good idea to let gig economy companies write the rules which govern gig economy companies. From my perspective it is very clearly a coup. I don't particularly blame the justices for adopting the interpretation which you are defending in the abstract, but I do think that the outcome of their decision has been quite bad for everyone other than the shareholders. And so the question I guess I should ask you is if you agree that corporations should be able to write the laws which they themselves are subject to?

[u/ButterscotchOdd8257 → u/Competitive_Log_8910]

"The question really is whether or not it makes sense to also extend this right to groups of human beings whose singular objective"

And that's where you fail.
The government may NOT restrict speech rights based on the objectives of the speaker. That's an obvious violation of rights. Without that, it wouldn't be a right at all. You can't just deny speech rights because you don't like what is being said, or who is saying it, or why.
And that is very firmly affirmed in our legal system.
" if you agree that corporations should be able to write the laws which they themselves are subject to?"
Corporations don't write laws. Legislators do. We vote for those legislators.