Rep Edwards: We Cannot Go Into 2012 Without Fixing Citizens United

[Rusty5329]

Run time: 02:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1JrbdxuTq4   Posted on YouTube: November 02, 2010 By YouTube Member: SumOfChange Views on YouTube: 5   Posted on DU: November 02, 2010 By DU Member: Rusty5329 Views on DU: 2288

 
For more, visit http://www.SumofChange.com

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

1. Thom Hartmann just had the asshat who brought that lawsuit on his show

He's apparently proud of the fact that corporations are buying this election. What an asshole.

[timefortherevolution]

2. Brilliant. How ya' going to do that with a Repub House?

[thereismore]

3. The maximum we can get would be some sort of disclosure of who paid for what, but even that is too

much to hope for. :cry:

[jonthebru]

5. Well,if thats the case,

our democracy is in trouble and you better join the theocracy.

[mzmolly]

31. Lame duck session?

http://washingtonindependent.com/98649/despite-disclose-act-disappointment-campaign-finance-advocates-soldier-on

[stevenelijah]

4. I don't understand?

If Citizen's United is so bad why has the Democratic Party been able to out spend the GOP in house races?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/us/politics/02donate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


Is Citizen's United really the problem?

[11 Bravo]

6. The DCC has out-raised the Repugs. That's part of it. But that money is transparent.

Unions representing millions of working Americans have also supported the Democrats. Likewise, we know the source of that money. Where the Repugs have an advantage is in the anonymous donations allowed by Citizens United. No one has any fucking idea where all that money is coming from, just as Roberts envisioned when he perjured himself before the Judiciary Committee.
But thanks for playing.

[stevenelijah]

7. I still do not understand???

The NY Times article suggests that more money has been spent supporting Democratic candidates and opposing GOP causes.

Is this not what the NY Times is saying?

You say we do not know the sources of the money? Who cares about the source as long as the Democratic party is spending more money.

Correct me if I am wrong?

Citizen's United is likely only a straw man. No public option...no end to wars...no back bone...I can think of greater problems that CU. Saying that the Democratic party is being out spent is just a smoke screen for the real problem.

[SemperEadem]

8. your link

refers to spending.

What has spending got to do with taking in silent money?

the Dems have been having a boat load of cash since the 2008 election.

Remember that dust up over that RNC donor list that got leaked? The thugs weren't able to raise squat until CU came down.

Then their coffers began filling up because they've got cowards funding them.

[skepticscott]

9. Up to now

people criticizing CU on this site have complained that Republicans were being supported by "Rich bastards", and that the huge spending from corporations on behalf of the GOP would drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. But now, when it turns out that Democrats are outspending Republicans anyway (by getting barrels of money from their own "rich bastards"), it's become about the fact that the spending for Repubs is "anonymous", not how much is being spent. Funny, that.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Yep.

Most people I talk to about it, don't realize it applies to unions too.

[Qutzupalotl]

11. Unions =/= rich bastards.

Yes, anonymity matters. How do you correct the record when you don't know who you're talking to? And please don't tell me you support the Citizens decision.

[skepticscott]

13. Uh, you correct the record

with facts and arguments of your own. Apparently that's a foreign concept to you. And I support the First Amendment principle that Congress should not be permitted to restrict political speech. Please don't tell me you don't.

[Qutzupalotl]

14. Who do you say it to when you can't tell who's lying?

And what if it amounts to slander or libel? Who do you sue?

[skepticscott]

15. Uh, you say it to the people

who you thought might be influenced by what you consider lies, through the same channels. It's not like you're going to change the minds of the people putting the message out in the first place, right?

And what exactly amount to slander or libel against a public figure running for political office? Would you see the same suits brought against DU members who post something libelous about Republican candidates (as happens every day)?

You really are new at this free speech thing, aren't you?

[Qutzupalotl]

16. The trouble is, airtime isn't free.

What do you do in the above scenario when you're being outspent 10 to 1?

You're new at the campaign finance reform thing, aren't you?

[skepticscott]

18. Except that the Democrats

aren't being outspent 10-1, now are they?

And funny, I can't seem to find the section in my copy of the Constitution where it says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except when one side is having a lot more success getting its message out than the other, in which case Congress and the Supreme Court shall step in and level the playing field" Maybe that's in yours.

As I said...very new to these ideas, and it shows in the shallowness of your posts and the thought behind them. But keep trying.

[Qutzupalotl]

19. So you support the Citizens United decision?

And I noticed you didn't answer my question. It's hypothetical, so be careful and don't stress your brain too much.

[janewin]

20. i think hes trying to say

that its an irrelevant point. Dems are out raising the repubs even with CU, Koch bros and fox news combined

[Qutzupalotl]

21. I hope he isn't. That isn't a valid point.

It doesn't matter who is outraising who, it matters that we only know who is speaking on one side.

[skepticscott]

22. The decision is in line

with the First Amendment. If you'd care to dispute that, have at it. And yes, I support decisions that comport with the Constitution. Do you? That the decision may have (as yet undemonstrated) negative consequences is irrelevant, though I doubt you grasp that nuance.

[Qutzupalotl]

23. Putting personal attacks in every post just makes you look petty.

The flood of negative and mostly false ads this cycle demonstrate the negative consequences of this decision. That you are willing to ignore them in favor of strict constructionism speaks volumes. I support the right of Congress to address these grievances in the next cycle.

[skepticscott]

24. Gee...negative and false ads..

in a political campaign? We'd certainly never heard that one before Citizens United. No doubt the Republic is about to fall on that account, after over 200 years of the same. But what really speaks volumes is your willingness to overturn the rule of law out of fear. Didn't we hear the same thing for 7 years of the Bush administration...that we had to suspend the Constitution in order to protect our country and our way of life from those who would destroy it? That adhering strictly to the Constitution was foolish and dangerous? Did you agree with that too? No doubt you also hate Miranda and Mapp and Gideon because of their (proven) negative consequences.

Do keep trying...I'm enjoying this.

[Qutzupalotl]

25. So you think Congress passing a law is overturning the rule of law.

Got it.

[skepticscott]

26. If the law is violative

of the Constitution, yes...duh. That's that "Supreme Law of the Land" thingie. You've heard of that, right? In a battle between the Constitution and a plain old ordinary law passed by Congress, the Constitution wins.

You really have nothing here, do you? Maybe you should just stop flailing while you still have some dignity left.

[Qutzupalotl]

28. Restricting money does not necessarily restrict speech.

I don't think restricting money in campaigns is such a terrible thing. Money does not equal speech, regardless of the court's current opinion on that. On the other hand, money does allow access to speech. It is conceivable that one could buy up all broadcast airtime, and thus use money to restrict an opponent's political speech. Should a scenario like that happen, I believe congress can act to level the playing field, such as with public financing. If they can do it in a way that passes constitutional muster, great. The difference in our points of view is that I think it's possible for them to do so, and you don't. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[skepticscott]

29. Show me please

where I said that campaign financing could not be structured in a way that would pass constitutional muster. I said or implied no such thing. I simply said that the specific rules struck down by Citizen's United were properly struck down, as they did not conform with the First Amendment. And nowhere have I said that our system is not in need of fixing. But we can choose to fix it within the strictures of the Constitution, or we can decide that it's OK to skirt First Amendment protections in this case. I choose the former, but you seemed to be fine with the latter (or at best, to have little idea of what the First Amendment does and doesn't restrict).

And please, stop with the same old "Money isn't speech!" meme. It's a bogus strawman, and I'm getting tired of explaining why. Do you need it again?

[Qutzupalotl]

30. So you're saying I misstated your position

and argued against that instead of what you said? Good thing you never do that.

Jesus. And you complain about strawmen.

[skepticscott]

32. Here's what you said

"I believe congress can act to level the playing field, such as with public financing. If they can do it in a way that passes constitutional muster, great. The difference in our points of view is that I think it's possible for them to do so, and you don't."

I challenged you to show me where I said that campaign financing could not be structured in a way that would pass constitutional muster. Are you going to answer that question, or do more dodging and diverting? if you can't answer the question, then yes, you DID deliberately misstate my position.

[skepticscott]

33. Apparently you aren't able to answer my question

and don't have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that you deliberately misstated my position. So tell me again why anyone should take anything you say seriously?

[skepticscott]

38. And still crickets...

What a shock.

[Qutzupalotl]

46. I was referring to this exchange:

I said: "I support the right of Congress to address these grievances in the next cycle."

To which you replied: "But what really speaks volumes is your willingness to overturn the rule of law out of fear."

Now that's an odd response. I say Congress can pass a law, you say I want to overturn the rule of law. I point out the strangeness of your reply in my next post, but rather than correct my perception of your meaning, you presumed that this hypothetical law passed by Congress — that you knew nothing about — would violate the Constitution. You left no room for the idea that it might be deemed constitutional, and instead berated my intelligence for suggesting such a course, even though that's how things work. The only reasonable conclusion was that you were opposed on free speech grounds to any kind of campaign finance reform.

If I missed your meaning, it was not by intent. You are wrong to assume it was deliberate on my part, just as you are wrong to assume I want to skirt constitutional protections.

I've seen a number of your posts elsewhere, and almost every one of them contains a deliberate mischaracterization of your opponent's position followed by an insult to the intelligence of someone who could believe such an outlandish falsehood. Set up strawman, knock him down. Over and over. That's why your complaint about me misconstruing your meaning is so laughable: you do it on purpose. Seriously, look in a mirror.

[Jim Sagle]

34. Corporations aren't people. And corporate money is not political speech.

That's Demmocracy 1A.

[skepticscott]

35. Why do people keep making the silly argument

that the Citizens United decision has anything to do with corporate personhood? It just simply doesn't. The First Amendment protects political speech from restriction by Congress. Period. Nowhere does it limit that protection to speech by individuals.

And if the right and ability to raise and spend money is not inexorably tied to the right and ability to disseminate political messages (to the extent that a restriction on the former amounts to a restriction on the latter), then why are you so concerned about the Citizens United decision in the first place?

[Jim Sagle]

36. It's not a silly argument. It's the plain truth and everybody goddamn well knows it.

[skepticscott]

37. Everyone knows it? Plain truth?

Then you should have no trouble showing me where in the Supreme Court's decision they discuss corporate personhood and its relevance to their reasoning, right? You'll be able to show me where the Court felt it necessary to find that corporations are people in order to justify their decision, right? Or where in the First Amendment the right of free speech is specifically limited to individuals?

Have at it...but save the bluster. Hot-air arguments don't impress me.

[Jim Sagle]

39. Persistent disinformation impresses no one.

In a

Jenner & Block Litigation Client Advisory

publication dated

February 8, 2010

and entitled

Proceed with Caution: A Guide to Citizens United

by Paul M. Smith, Martina E. Vandenberg and Daniel I. Weiner

appears the following passage:

In dissent, Justice Stevens (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor) sharply disagreed with the majority’s core reasoning and conclusions. The dissenters accused the majority of ignoring the long history in American law of distinguishing between corporations and natural persons for many regulatory purposes. (My bolding.)

While the magic phrase "corporation personhood" does not appear verbatim, the bolded passage quite clearly refers to the same concept.

[skepticscott]

40. Irrelevant BS

The majority (whose opinion and reasoning is what the decision is based on) properly ignored "the long history in American law of distinguishing between corporations and natural persons for many regulatory purposes" because this is not an issue involving "regulatory purposes". The issue is the First Amendment right to freedom of political speech. The opinion of the minority is not the basis for anything, in any event.

Congratulations. You've managed to answer all but three of my three challenges. Want to try again?

Show me where in the Supreme Court's decision (that would be the MAJORITY opinion, btw) they discuss corporate personhood and its relevance to their reasoning.

Show me where the Court felt it necessary to find that corporations are people in order to justify their decision.

Show me where in the First Amendment the right of free speech is specifically limited to individuals.

[Jim Sagle]

41. The only irrelevant BS was posted by you.

And I don't have to show you shit.

And this is not a debate.

And your "points", being Republican boilerplate, ain't nuthin' BUT shit.

And the founders who wrote the constitution HATED corporations. They would DESPISE any judge who made such an abominable ruling as well as any private citizen who would waste his energy and other people's time on such garbage.

[skepticscott]

42. "I don't have to show you shit"??

Yeah, I guess the request that you back up your claims with actual evidence is pretty unrealistic. If y'all just knows stuff in your gut, then it must be true.

[Jim Sagle]

43. I showed you evidence and you dismissed it - without counter-evidence.

I'm not going to play that game again.

[skepticscott]

44. More BS

You didn't even try to answer all three of my questions. You responded to one, and I showed you in the first paragraph of post #40 why your response was inadequate.

Here are the questions AGAIN:

Show me where in the Supreme Court's decision (that would be the MAJORITY opinion, btw) they discuss corporate personhood and its relevance to their reasoning.

Show me where the Court felt it necessary to find that corporations are people in order to justify their decision.

Show me where in the First Amendment the right of free speech is specifically limited to individuals.

All you need to answer them are direct quotes from the majority opinion in Citizens United and the First Amendment, both of which I'm sure you're very familiar with, so that should be no trouble. Either answer these, admit that you can't, or go away.

[Jim Sagle]

45. I've been here since 2001. So I suspect I won't be going away any time soon.

As for your "points", they're not worth any more than the last time you stated them. And no, you won't win this one by persistence, either.

[Qutzupalotl]

12. The trouble is if the donors are anonymous,

how do you correct the record when they spread lies about you?

[GOTV]

27. There's a lot of money spent that doesn't come directly from the parties ...

... is there still parity when all political ad spending is considered?

[janewin]

17. what a disappointment

I opened the page hoping, praying that the headline Read - Without Fixing healthcare reform. If healthcare reform and dems will not lose another national election in 1 generation