Discussion and scratchpad for Citizens United and the Supreme Court decision.
I'd like to see a "Citizens United decision" argument tree.
According to Mediaite's Dan Abrams, the decision has been misrepresented in the media, but I'm dubious.
...so many in the media keep getting the ruling and its impact dead wrong.
Myth 1: The Court invalidated disclosure requirements in political advertising, thereby allowing donors to remain anonymous.
Wrong. The Court ruled just the opposite and upheld, by an 8-1 vote, the McCain-Feingold requirement of identifying donors
Myth 2: That the Court’s ruling in Citizens United opened the door to wealthy individuals like Sheldon Adelson to pour millions of dollars into PACs.
Wrong again. The Citizens United ruling had NOTHING to do with the ability of individuals to spend their money to support candidates. That had been decided back in 1976, when the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment protected the right of individuals to make unlimited independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates for federal office.
He says "The Court...upheld...the McCain-Feingold requirement of identifying donors". But wouldn't this be disingenuous, if it's the case that the "identified donor" is the corporation (or union) and not the individual who is funneling money through that corporation? (And is this the case?)
And is "Myth 2" just a distortion of the same issue, namely, that now individuals can funnel money through a corporation and not themselves be identified? (How would we find out who funneled the half million dollars through the Adam Smith Foundation to try to roll back AB32 in 2010?)
Ahaynes 23:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A 2004 comment
Hmmm.... re anti-Kerry TV ads .. do ya' suppose they own stock in CBS? Just asking! AI