Dem CD1 candidates oppose Citizens United

Comments

  1. Michael H Schneider says:

    So, if one person can do this, then several people can pool their money together to do the same thing.
     
    Yep, and if individuals want to pool their money through political advocacy groups, 501(c)(4) organizations, PACs, etc. more power to them. But ordinary corporations are special associations created, and given special right, for special purposes. Whether we want to include political speech in those special purposes or not, people will still have the right to pool their money for political purposes.
     
    Nobody denies that a single person can spend everything he wants on free speech.
     
    Actually, I’m very uncomfortable with that notion. I’m afraid that the very rich speak far more loudly than average people, and that the speech of the average people has been drowned out. I think this has harmed our democracy. If I could figure out a good way to prevent it, I’d support it. I think that public financing of elections is a good start, but perhaps not enough.

  2. Dr. J says:

    pete, wow, I bet that memorial vote and speech made the legislators in DC quake in their boots and rush immediately to draft legislation and pass the law to rid America of this ruling.  When was it passed, maybe I missed it?

  3. Carolyn says:

    FreddyV, your argument might hold water if the owners of ALL the cooperation’s owners came together and agreed to spend the money on political speech. Right now only a small group of executives make the decision about money that belongs to all owners. Stockholders own the company, but they are not part of the decision to spend money for a campaign. 

    Also, how can you defend campaign contributions as free speech when they are given to gain access to increase profits. These contributions have nothing to do with political speech. They are considered government relations expenditures, but the decision to expend the expenditure is based on the Return On Investment of the expenditure. Analyzing an expenditure based on ROI is no about speech. It is about profit. It is a business expense. 

    For profit speech is why DC and Santa Fe are broken. Member of congress cannot afford to live in DC because the money spent for lobbyists. Business do not spend millions of dollars because they have a burning desire to participate in the public discourse. They spend the money for tax breaks, contracts, and anything else that will increase the bottom line.

    Private prisons spend millions of dollars a year to increase prison sentence for crimes,  three strikes and your out laws, fighting the legalization of marijuana, and other pro private prison laws to increase profits.  

  4. petethebook says:

    It’s great to see that Dem. CD-1 candidates want to get rid of Citizens United and take corporate money out of our electoral system. But who actually lobbied, voted, and succeeded to call on Congress for a constitutional change? That would be Sen. Eric Griego. http:// urlin.it/2b8d3

  5. FreddyV says:

    IcarusPhoenix, not superior to, but the same as.

    People have the right to free speech, and that means the right to spend their own money to say what they want to say about an issue, through television or radio spots, in videos, in flyers, or whatever.  They can spend however much they want.

    So, if one person can do this, then several people can pool their money together to do the same thing.  Corporations, unions, political action committees, etc. are all groups of people (key word here) joined together, and they have a right to spend their money how they see fit.  And it is never the government’s job to limit or proscribe or deny this right.

    Nobody denies that a single person can spend everything he wants on free speech.  So if Bill Gates wanted to, he could paper America three inches deep in flyers advocating mandatory PC’s for all.  But if I wanted to do something similar, I couldn’t, because I don’t have the same financial resources as Gates.  So, I then join together with other like-minded people, putting our limited resources together to make a bigger impact, to advocate for my cause.  How can any reasonable person say that the government has any business preventing me from doing that?

    Corporations (as well as unions and political action committees, among others) are just that: a group of like-minded people who use their combined resources to advocate for their particular cause, which is their right to do.

    As I said, it’s as if some people have never read the First Amendment. 

  6. Qui Tam says:

    Ah yes, free speech in New Mexico politics – that gets tricky.

  7. IcarusPhoenix says:

    It’s like they’ve never read the First Amendment.
     
    Yes, because as we all know, the first amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law preventing specific variations of Protestantism the right to infringe upon the religious liberties of all others; or abridging the freedom of corporations to spend as much money as they wish and calling it ‘speech’, or of Fox News to make things up; or of the right of corporations to write laws or demand superior access to the government than is granted to individual citizens.”
     
    Honestly, Freddy, without your enlightened point-of-view, it would have never occurred to me to look at my Constitution and realize that money from corporations was a form of speech superior to words from individuals.

  8. FreddyV says:

    It’s like they’ve never read the First Amendment.

  9. Dr. J says:

    Heath told them:  “The only criterion was that they not engage in personal attacks.”   I guess you meant on each other?  If so, no need to add that, this docile group of party lapdogs would not do that, they have been warned and thus would never say anything negative about their opponents, but during the primary they will freely attack Republicans who they aren’t even running against yet.  I also find their responses very interesting around Citizens United. Griego of course is the most outspoken, and cleaving to the left wing line that it is all about corporate money, ignoring the fact it also allows his union PACs and left wing big money supporters free spending.  It always makes me wonder if he and his ilk are just stupid and don’t know that, or if they hope they can reinstate or somehow avoid unions and the like on the left side being impacted by getting rid of Citizens but only for corporations and right wing groups.  I suspect the latter, as fantasy is part and parcel of the liberal mind.