Political Book Summaries, Reviews and Opinions

Political Book Summaries, Reviews and Opinions

This is the Topic Page for the Citizens United Decision


Primary Argument

Last year the Conservative wing of the Supreme Court overturned decades of precident and awarded non-citizens the legal right to interfere with US elections. In that past year unknown hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent helping elect various politicians. We don’t know where the money is coming from.

Primary Argument: Impeach Chief Justice Roberts!

The Citizens United Decision was one of the worst Supreme Court Decisions of the past several decades removing laws that prevent and limit corruption. I have covered this story for a while and this page contains a link to every post I wrote on the issue. The best place to start is here. Otherwise, go through the posts on this page at your discretion.

Original Arguments

Founding arguments and important precidents are here:

  1. Corporations are not equal people under the constitution.
  2. Actions that are legal can become illegal if money is involved.
  3. The Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed the abridgement of Free Speech.
  4. Political speech is protected above all other forms of speech.
  5. Money is not speech. In deciding politics, it’s corruption.
  6. Corporations are controlled by foreign interests.
  7. The Freedom to Listen

 

General Information:  

Get involved:  

 Assorted: (Newest on top)

Advertisements

6 responses to “This is the Topic Page for the Citizens United Decision

  1. David Elmore February 10, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Chris, your position is unprincipled. Freedom of speech is absolute, unless one is committing fraud or coercing another. Corporations are entities owned and operated by individuals — in other words, they are the property of individuals. Governments have absolutely no authority to regulated or monitor businesses for any reason.
    The Supreme Court decision was bad only in that it didn’t go far enough. All entities owned by humans can do as they please with their money.
    The main problem with America is not political giving; it is political power that attracts giving. Get rid of that with a liberty constitution, and then you don’t have to worry about donations anymore.

  2. writerdood February 10, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Love the robes. They should be forced to wear them like that so it’s known exactly who did this.

    Governments should regulate businesses because businesses regulate people and control peoples lives in ways that people have no control over. Within the law, your options are limited. Yes, you can quit, but you may not always have another option. People can easily be trapped in situations where they have no power. Who stands up for them in these cases? If it is not the government, then it is no one. I don’t count unions as a good alternative, although I’m sure some people would.

    • The BookGuy February 10, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      David Elmore,
      “Freedom of speech is absolute.”

      Sorry friend, that is factually false.
      http://politicalbooks.us/2010/02/10/the-freedom-to-listen/

      “Corporations are entities owned and operated by individuals — in other words, they are the property of individuals. Governments have absolutely no authority to regulated or monitor businesses for any reason.”

      Again, factually false.
      US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
      Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. The founding fathers had intended for regulation, they just had wanted most of it to occur at the state level.

      “All entities owned by humans can do as they please with their money.”

      Are you against non-discrimination laws? All food Safety laws? All car safety laws? All labor laws? Senator Al Franken has recently been fighting for a new regulation on business well-named the “anti-rape” amendment. This regulation of business says the US government won’t do business with any company that doesn’t let their employees go to a judge if they’re raped while at work. Are you against that regulation?

      There is a story I’d like to offer, it’s from a favorite author of mine, Abe Lincoln.

      “That reminds me of the man who was attacked by a farmer’s dog, which he killed with a pitchfork,” commented Lincoln.

      “‘What made you kill my dog?’ demanded the farmer.

      “‘What made him try to bite me?’ retorted the offender.

      “‘But why didn’t you go at him with the other end of your pitchfork?’ persisted the farmer.

      “‘Well, why didn’t he come at me with his other end?’ was the retort.”

      The Dog is business, the farmer is stockholders. America is the man and the pitchfork is a democratic government. If stockholders don’t keep their businesses on a short leash, and those businesses injure Americans, either by hiding rape, or discriminating on hiring, or selling poisonous medicine or bad car brakes or ocean dumping or contaminated food, Americans are allowed to fight back with democracy. And when those business complain, the retort will be, “well why didn’t you come at us with his other end?”

      “Get rid of that with a liberty constitution, and then you don’t have to worry about donations anymore.”

      Can you clarify “liberty constitution”?

      Writerdood,
      Love the robes. They should be forced to wear them like that so it’s known exactly who did this.
      Lol. That’d be nice. Nicer would be making Congressmen where the logos like NASCAR drivers do so we know who is funding our leaders and who their pay masters are. 😛

  3. dancingczars February 17, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    I don’t happen to agree with your position. As it was the McCain Feingold bill was extremely flawed, major bundling occurred, labor unions donated tons of cash. This levels the playing field for big business. Haven’t read your site, to know yet what side of the fence you are on.
    Taxes destroy, profits employ. It’s about that simple, I’m Jim

  4. The BookGuy February 18, 2010 at 12:29 am

    “As it was the McCain Feingold bill was extremely flawed,”

    The bill may or may not have been flawed. Limiting Corporations from interfering with elections (when they are not citizens) is not a constitutional matter for the Supreme Court to be deciding.

    “This levels the playing field for big business”
    lol

    “Taxes destroy, profits employ.”
    I like that. This article isn’t about taxation. It’s about giving non-citizens the right to affect our elections.

  5. mywebloge April 12, 2010 at 4:17 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: