The topic of #CitizensUnited came up, and since I pulled up this quote, I'll share it here.
There has been SO MUCH misinformation about what CU actually said, so I always encourage people to read it directly, especially since Kennedy writes with a certain artistry.
Here's one quote that I always find to capture the essence of its reasoning, showing that it's all based on individuals associating, not so much corporations:
"[The rich always have access] yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate [or union] form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.
"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep558/usrep558310/usrep558310.pdf
@volkris
Thanks for this. I hadn't understood this subtlety of #CitizensUnited or why the logic is so flawed.
The argument that gov regulation of speech (eg certain political messages at certain times in certain forums) is fundamentally blocking that speech entirely is just wrong. To then extend this fallacy to thought control, shows just how partisan the logic was.
The CU premise that any non-human entity has the right to completely unrestricted 1A freedom of speech is abhorrent.
You've misunderstood the argument, as it is not what you've framed and then criticized here.
You're fighting a strawman.
@volkris
Please clarify. What did I miss?
Your quote was "...certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate [or union] form—are penalized...". From that I simplified that certain nonhuman entities have certain restrictions in certain scenarios.
@volkris
You then quote "“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful"
From this, I simplified to those limited restrictions being a ban on that info...and thought control.
Admittedly, I simplified. But what did I mischaracterize?
You mischaracterized regulation of sources as regulation of ideas. They are not the same thing at all.
If the administration removes your, personal, ability to express yourself or my ability to listen to you, I would say that in itself is a problem, and that is what the ruling was ruling against.
The government may not censor you, it may not prevent you from speaking because of who you are.
The ruling was a very very clear that government can regulate campaigning in other ways. It just cannot censor based on identity of the speaker, choosing who is and isn't allowed to present their perspectives.
Defending CU a defense of the the indefensible.
... leading further down the road of oligarchy - government by the few.
Excessive power given to the already powerful - who will undermine our planet and our democracy for personal profit.
So that's pretty much what I was talking about.
As Kennedy wrote in the CU opinion, a huge motivation for him was taking power away from the already powerful, leveling the playing field.
Again, yes I know there has been so much backwards reporting about the opinion, but if you actually go read the opinion you'll see just how backwards the reporting has been, and that CU explicitly recognized your concern and was emphatically all about taking down the already powerful.
Whether you think leveling the playing field is good or bad is a separate issue.
@volkris @lymphomation @TCatInReality A garbage opinion by a language-abusing elitist doesn't undo the harm done by the ruling.
@MaierAmsden @lymphomation @TCatInReality
What specific language abuse did Kennedy commit?
@volkris @lymphomation @TCatInReality He's portraying the wealthy elite as victims of discrimination, ignoring that they have an outsized advantage that campaign finance laws are trying to *correct - as though not allowing moneyed interests to drown out the will of voters with a firehose of campaign cash is unfair - calling the *correction of a two-tiered system "discrimination." It's elitist DARPO, and it's been rejected by 85% of voters.
@MaierAmsden @lymphomation @TCatInReality
That's the opposite of what he wrote in the opinion, as he said the rest of us need to be able to fight against the wealthy.
@volkris @lymphomation @TCatInReality Talk is cheap - especially when it's contradicted by action.
@volkris @MaierAmsden @lymphomation
Arguing that we fight wealth by *removing* financial limits - and using that as a justification to strike down an actual Act of Congress - is a stunningly brazen bad faith argument.