Unions will be allowed to donate, businesses won't?

[renard_ruse]

Assuming Hillary becomes President, appoints 2 or 3 new Supreme Court judges, and the Citizens United ruling thingie liberals always rant about gets overturned, how exactly is this going to work?

Will unions and liberal pressure groups still be allowed to donate to candidates but businesses will be prohibited from doing the same to advance what they consider to be their interests? Considering business and union interests often conflict, how exactly is it democratic to allow one to participate in the political process but not the other?

 

[renard_ruse]

It may be good on some issues like immigration to keep businesses out of the process, but its still wrong to allow some groups to participate and not others.

 

[albertaboy]

Assuming Hillary becomes President, appoints 2 or 3 new Supreme Court judges, and the Citizens United ruling thingie liberals always rant about gets overturned, how exactly is this going to work?

Will unions and liberal pressure groups still be allowed to donate to candidates but businesses will be prohibited from doing the same to advance what they consider to be their interests? Considering business and union interests often conflict, how exactly is it democratic to allow one to participate in the political process but not the other?

you mean like in Canada, most specifically Ontario.

 

[OldJourno]

You start taking away rights for certain groups and pretty soon it's a slippery slope. Denying people in corporations the right to participate is a step in the wrong direction.
If Clinton is elected, and I think she will be, she'll probably continue the practice of having the IRS block conservative non-profits and, like her husband, she'll have the IRS busy auditing non-profits and other "enemies" that already exist.
Trump's position on this is unknown to me, but I'd worry about what he'd do, too.

 

[phrodeau]

Need a good reason to finally agree to reform campaign finance? That would be it.

 

[eyerlives]

Modern "conservatives"/Republicans/RINOs need federal government to restrict abnormality.

Modern "liberals"/Democrats/PPsOSS need federal government to approve abnormality.

American Patriots simply order federal government no position in either at all.

And the lemmings all sang...

Bye, bye, American Patriots die...

 

[BotanyBoy]

Assuming Hillary becomes President, appoints 2 or 3 new Supreme Court judges

Then it's going to be all about (D) all the time.

A bunch of Phrodeaus and SR71Plt's will be running the show.

1A??? Will largely be destroyed, you'll still be able to say some things as long as nobody's feelings get hurt though.

2A??? GONE!! bigger than all shit, guns will be effectively outlawed in the country.

Every last shred of free commerce left? GONE!!

In 8 years the USA will make current California look like a libertarians paradise.

And I'm going laugh the whole way.

 

[Sean]

Denying people in corporations the right to participate is a step in the wrong direction.

Name one right that people in corporations would lose if Citizens United is struck down?

 

[underguy1]

Equating unions with corporations is specious.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Modern "conservatives"/Republicans/RINOs need federal government to restrict abnormality.

Modern "liberals"/Democrats/PPsOSS need federal government to approve abnormality.

American Patriots simply order federal government no position in either at all.

And the lemmings all sang...

Bye, bye, American Patriots die...

Webster defines "govern" as "to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in"

If in your vacuous mind the government has no legitimate role in "restricting the abnormality" routinely addressed in the body of duly legislated civil and criminal LAW, what, pray tell, does it MEAN in your world to "govern."

[Now for those of you watching at home, play close attention. No way in hell is Eye-Liar going to answer this question directly. He never does. He was merely trolling for responses in order to insult posters and insert his silly laughing gif. He has no interest in actually discussing the very issues HE raises. It's just his 4 pm jack-off time.]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Name one right that people in corporations would lose if Citizens United is struck down?

Had you read the opinion, the Court would have answered this question for you.

Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment's meaning and purpose. Citizens United did not waive this challenge to Austin when it stipulated to dismissing the facial challenge below, since (1) even if such a challenge could be waived, this Court may reconsider Austin and §441b's facial validity here because the District Court "passed upon" the issue, Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 379; (2) throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that the FEC has violated its right to free speech; and (3) the parties cannot enter into a stipulation that prevents the Court from considering remedies necessary to resolve a claim that has been preserved. Because Citizen United's narrower arguments are not sustainable, this Court must, in an exercise of its judicial responsibility, consider §441b's facial validity. Any other course would prolong the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused by §441b's corporate expenditure ban. This conclusion is further supported by the following: (1) the uncertainty caused by the Government's litigating position; (2) substantial time would be required to clarify §441b's application on the points raised by the Government's position in order to avoid any chilling effect caused by an improper interpretation; and (3) because speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, any speech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled. The regulatory scheme at issue may not be a prior restraint in the strict sense. However, given its complexity and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus function as the equivalent of a prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit. The ongoing chill on speech makes it necessary to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute that chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated.

In short, if Citizens United was overturned, corporate citizens would lose a First Amendment right an earlier Supreme Court majority ruled it had. Now that could certainly happen. The Supreme Court has reversed itself on numerous occasions.

But that's the blatantly obvious answer to your question that even you could have easily found.

 

[eyerlives]

He has no interest in actually discussing the very issues HE raises.

You're a fucking babykiller RINO; you champion the rule of man over the rule of Law; you're one of the GB's most boisterous big federal government pimps; you are nothing but cold-blooded legally, without an ounce of the Spirit of America in your veins...

...and yet you even begin to assume I'd actually even begin to think of "discussing" anything of consequence at all with a pposs like you, instead of simply digitally spitting on you for the perfect response you actually merit?

That's friggin' funny...

...get your wannabe ass back in the hand-out line, Butthurt.

Newflash, bozo: your progressive "discussion/debate" fantasies are old fucking news - as you can tell, the only other bozos who chose to so do are only your fellow pposs.

Keep dreaming about anyone not a pposs ever even wanting to practically discuss or debate, let alone compromise in any way, shape, or form with a pposs like you again, wannabe...

...the real, sifting, seismographic division in America only grows more great against you.



Now...

...back in your natural lemming stance so you can keep begging me from your knees to "discuss" anything with you.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

 

[BotanyBoy]

Y
...the real, sifting, seismographic division in America only grows more great against you.

HAHAHAHA THAT is funny!!

 

[phrodeau]

Then it's going to be all about (D) all the time.

A bunch of Phrodeaus and SR71Plt's will be running the show.

1A??? Will largely be destroyed, you'll still be able to say some things as long as nobody's feelings get hurt though.

2A??? GONE!! bigger than all shit, guns will be effectively outlawed in the country.

Every last shred of free commerce left? GONE!!

In 8 years the USA will make current California look like a libertarians paradise.

And I'm going laugh the whole way.

Do you know one single thing about the amendment process of the US Constitution?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You're a fucking babykiller RINO; you champion the rule of man over the rule of Law; you're one of the GB's most boisterous big federal government pimps; you are nothing but cold-blooded legally, without an ounce of the Spirit of America in your veins...

...and yet you even begin to assume I'd actually even begin to think of "discussing" anything of consequence at all with a pposs like you, instead of simply digitally spitting on you for the perfect response you actually merit?

That's friggin' funny...

...get your wannabe ass back in the hand-out line, Butthurt.

Newflash, bozo: your progressive "discussion/debate" fantasies are old fucking news - as you can tell, the only other bozos who chose to so do are only your fellow pposs.

Keep dreaming about anyone not a pposs ever even wanting to practically discuss or debate, let alone compromise in any way, shape, or form with a pposs like you again, wannabe...

...the real, sifting, seismographic division in America only grows more great against you.



Now...

...back in your natural lemming stance so you can keep begging me from your knees to "discuss" anything with you.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

Called it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Left absolutely hates free speech.

When they say that we need the Fairness Doctrine back and we need to get money out of politics, they are using those issues as proxies in order for them to suppress political speech and ensure that only their viewpoints are expressed. Another one of the proxies that you see bubbling in the name of censorship is "hate-" speech. Then we have the microaggression and the safe zone. How many more examples can we think of where censorship is employed in order to protect "free speech?"

I know a good one, a specialty of that idiot from New Zealand, you just call everyone and everything you disagree with stupid, with the assurance of the Left's a priori knowledge...

 

[Sean]

Had you read the opinion, the Court would have answered this question for you.



In short, if Citizens United was overturned, corporate citizens would lose a First Amendment right an earlier Supreme Court majority ruled it had. Now that could certainly happen. The Supreme Court has reversed itself on numerous occasions.

But that's the blatantly obvious answer to your question that even you could have easily found.

I'll believe corporations are citizens when Texas executes one.

Robert Reich