(Citizens United) A Blockbuster Case Yields an Unexpected Result

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — People who hate Citizens United, last year’s blockbuster campaign finance decision, tend to blame it for allowing secret money from corporations and unions to flood the political landscape. But the critique is wrong on at least one point — the bit about secrecy.

An often overlooked part of the Citizens United decision actually upheld disclosure requirements, saying that “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

Lower courts have embraced the ruling, with at least nine of them relying on Citizens United to reject challenges to disclosure laws, often in cases involving political spending involving social issues. In particular, courts have rejected attempts by groups opposed to same-sex marriage to keep their supporters and spending secret.

Put another way, you can make the argument that Citizens United has been good for gay rights. “Even Justice Scalia supports donor disclosure,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/disclosure-may-be-real-legacy-of-citizens-united-case.html

[wilt the stilt]

1. sounds nice

butt the amount of people who pay attention to who is funding this is far and few. Also even though some may pay attention we masses are still powerless.

[alfredo]

2. We need to expose the Plutocrats, and the disclosure rules

is a good tool.

[bobthedrummer]

3. An informed citizen is a requirement of democracy, the Fourth Estate has been sold to the top bidder

n/t

[SoapBox]

4. Ditto!

[Arctic Dave]

5. So they set up a shell company and give the money away? nt

[AndyTiedye]

6. What Disclosure?

The "super-PACs" don't disclose their donors, and some even seem to be accepting foreign money.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Citizens United does far more damage than good.

Equating money to speech and giving mega-phones to those with the most financial resources, and thus making it easier for them to drown out the less affluent voices of the people.

This decision serves to drown freedom of speech in a sea of money.

Thanks for the thread, alp.

[bemildred]

8. If these "persons" were not ALLOWED to interfere in politics with their shareholders money,

"disclosure" would not be necessary.

[patrick t. cakes]

9. so they give an inch

and we're supposed to take a mile?

[Demit]

14. what does that mean

[patrick t. cakes]

15. Transparency would be the inch given

And Citizens United is the mile of shit we're supposed to take.

I don't know, it was off the cuff. :shrug:

[MilesColtrane]

10. We (generally) know who will be throwing money at Perry or Romney.

It's no secret that almost every giant corporation wants one of them elected instead of a Democrat.

Getting screwed doesn't feel any better just because you know who's doing the screwing, and this knowledge doesn't necessarily offer up any means to stop it.

[Javaman]

11. Wait a second...

wasn't that million dollars given to romney via a secret donor? Doesn't that fall under citizens united? or am I wrong?

[cprise]

12. Indeed. I saw the headline, saw "NYT" and

knew it wouldn't be worth clicking on.

[valerief]

13. +1000