Skip to main content

View Diary: Watch heckler inside Supreme Court shout money is not speech (237 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  SCOTUS is hearing a new case expanding CU (5+ / 0-)

    It has broad implications that will further corrupt political campaigns and increase the volume of unregulated, secret political donations. The case is discussed at the diary link.

    And yes, Citizens United can and should be overturned. Its very doable, but to say so within the DC bubble is forbidden.

    It will likely become an issue in 2016 campaigns. Its very unpopular with voters.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:30:32 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Betty - what case is that? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ccyd, Adam B

      If you are thinking of McCutcheon v FEC you have absolutely no understanding of the case. If you would like to educate yourself to the actual issues in the case I would recommend this article "In Plain English" at the award winning scotusblog.com.

      http://www.scotusblog.com/...

      I have been hoping that Adam would write a diary on McCutcheon but he hasn't and has encouraged me to. I might because all of the diaries on this case published to date have been so full of misinformation that I have no idea where the authors are sourcing their material. It's certainly not from the case documents or the briefs filed.

      Citizens Untied can be overturned when a few conservative judges retire and are replaced by Democratic nominees. It cannot be overturned legislatively. I think the fear is that too much time will pass and that it will be established precedent before that happens. And there is not universal condemnation of CU by liberals and their allies, the majority opinion had support in briefs by both the AFL-CIO and ACLU.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:10:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, but no thanks (0+ / 0-)

        IANAL, the information is at the diary link. I prefer to get my information from a variety of legal sources.

        I dont waste time reading the spin of those who pretend to oppose CU, but actually want to keep it in place to maintain the corporate gravy train and struggle to keep an ironclad grip on the Democratic Party. Thats why we  hear nothing from DC neolibs about CU, except occasional whining about how they can't change it. They're self serving, impotent and dishonest when it comes to campaign finance and lobbying reform.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:56:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  scotusblog.com has no left or right bias (0+ / 0-)

          The information there in non-partisan. There is lots of information at Scotusblog for lawyers, but more importantly they have analysis, including their award winning "In Plain English" columns that are designed to help lay readers understand the legal issues at hand from the perspective of both parties in the case. The articles at Scotusblog aren't trying to move anyone to a particular position or to favor one side over the other. Their goal is just to inform. It's a great resource for all cases before the SCOTUS.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:11:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Betty - in your comment to me you state (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ccyd, Adam B

          "SCOTUS is hearing a new case expanding CU."

          Nothing could be further from the truth. The cases could not be more unrelated. McCutcheon is exclusively about individuals making personal, disclosed, campaign contributions. It is not about corporations or independent expenditures.

          "will increase the volume of unregulated, secret political donations."

          That statement is false. McCutcheon is asking to make more regulated, disclosed, open, and transparent, campaign contributions.

          You really should take the few minutes it would take to educate yourself on this case.

          http://www.scotusblog.com/...

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:27:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The diary, the protestor and I disagree (0+ / 0-)

            Their information about the case is in the diary and at the link.

            Have a nice day.

            Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

            by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:36:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Betty - the issues at hand in McCutcheon (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ccyd, Villanova Rhodes

              are not a matter of opinion, that are a matter of facts. We may all disagree with how the Court should rule, but the basic issues are stated in every document filed with the Court by parties on both sides and others who support them. There is actually no debate on the issues, but much debate on the resolution.

              The statement in the diary, and at the link, regarding McCutheon, is accurate "If the Court eliminates the cap on aggregate donations by an individual in an election cycle". That is true, the case is about individuals, making disclosed campaign contributions. What is false are the statements in your original comment to me.  

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:51:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please stop stalking me (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Grabber by the Heel, Tonedevil

                I'm not going to debate this issue with you because I favor acutally overturning CU, real campaign finance and lobbying reform and filling federal court vacancies with experienced jurists, not corporate attorneys.

                We're from completely different worlds on this issue. Today's campaign finance system is corrupt.

                Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

                by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:15:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Jurists instead of corporate lawyers! You dream (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Betty Pinson, Tonedevil

                  beautiful dreams Betty.

                •  Betty - I have absolutely no issue with your view (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  nextstep, ccyd, Adam B, Villanova Rhodes

                  on campaign finance, respect your view on Citizens United and the outcome you hope for on McCutcheon. However, when you write about specific cases, please be accurate. It's not that difficult to check your facts.

                  We have had a mountain of misinformation written here about both Citiizens United and McCutcheon and what is written here is echoed through the internet.

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:22:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have repeatedly referred you to the diary (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tonedevil

                    and the links therein.  If you have a problem, take it up with the diarist and the activists at the link.

                    I'm warning you one last time to stop stalking me.

                    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

                    by Betty Pinson on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:34:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Extending a civil debate is stalking? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Villanova Rhodes, VClib, nextstep

                    After reading this exchange, this is my summary:

                    Her:  [repeating some erroneous information]

                    You:  Here is a great resource that would help you understand the case.

                    Her:  I prefer to get my information from other people who are ignorant of the facts.

                    You:  No, really.  You should inform yourself if you are going to be posting stuff here.

                    Her:  I disagree, therefore you are stalking me.

                    It was a good try, VClib, but you can't win them all over.  As for that stalking thing, ignoring you was apparently not an option for her.

                    Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

                    by ccyd on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 03:55:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ccyd - My understanding is that stalking requires (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Villanova Rhodes, ccyd

                      that you follow people from one diary into another, or several more. As you note I was just trying to have her read a one page summary so the next time she writes about McCutheon she would at least understand the facts of the case. She kept referring back to the diary author who actually had an accurate description of a key element of the case, which she had contradicted in her initial comment to me. I thought it was the Republicans who had the view "don't bother me with the facts".

                      I know that campaign finance is very complex and wonky but we publish a large amount of misinformation here on the topic. I certainly understand why people want to get big money out of politics and that's great. But instead of staying focused on the big picture they start writing about specific cases and regulations, and that's when many run off the tracks.  

                      Thank you for your kind words and support.

                      "let's talk about that"

                      by VClib on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:16:06 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not just campaign finance (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        VClib, Villanova Rhodes

                        I have found that many, many legal issues get distorted here.  I guess it comes from people being passionate, not understanding how the courts work, and wishing the law was something other than it is.  There is one person here who posts every time a judge makes a ruling he/she doesn't like that the judge is corrupt.  I made a challenge that he/she produce some evidence, and that resulted in repeated ad hominem attacks.

                        Keep up the good fight.  It is arduous, but sometimes you can peel back the veneer of ignorance.

                        Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

                        by ccyd on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 10:32:11 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ccyd - well stated (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Villanova Rhodes

                          You are right it's not just campaign finance law, it's legal issues more broadly, although the campaign laws are very wonky. I know its endemic on the Internet but I am always disappointed to read so much legal misinformation published here.

                          There was a diary published in the last day or so that had a long segment from Cenk Uygar discussing the Supreme Court protester, Citizens United, and McCutcheon. He had at least five profound errors of fact in his monologue, so it's no wonder people here are misinformed.

                          "let's talk about that"

                          by VClib on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 12:31:09 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I see that you follow Adam B (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Villanova Rhodes

                          He is a gem, and my favorite author here too.

                          "let's talk about that"

                          by VClib on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 12:33:10 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

      •  I wish you would write that diary. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        I seldom check my diary stream, but I'm going to follow you and try to remember to check it more often. Feel free to kosmail me if you do post it, to increase the chances I'll see it. But don't stalk me or anything ;-)

    •  McCutcheon has to do with disclosed contributions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Villanova Rhodes, VClib

      They will remain regulated, limited, and publicly disclosed.  The only question is as to who can make them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site