Slog
News & ArtsMonday, January 25, 2010
Politics The Citizens United Case, in Brief: Long, Ominous, Mind-Bending
Posted by Slog Senior Legal Analysts Bob Fikso and Matt Smith on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:35 PM
Last Thursday's United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission has brought forth a torrent of questions, anguish, and anger. Citizens United is one of those every-so-often decisions that reminds us of the importance and unique power of the non-elected judicial branch.
Your Slog Senior Legal Analysts made our debut on this august forum Friday with a knee-jerk negative response to Citizens United. Because we are lawyers and lawyers are fair, we told you we’d be back after reading the opinion of the Court, as well as the accompanying concurrences and dissents. At that point, presumably, we’d have something intelligent to say. Because we are lawyers and lawyers keep their commitments, we (well, one of us) slogged (get it?) through the opinion—183 pages long—over the weekend, and are now completely informed and on top of it. And amazed, but not in a good way.
We're going to point out some interesting things about the opinion over the coming week. We’ll comment on the remarkable and cranky dialogue between the majority opinion (written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, with his chorus of concurring cheerleaders Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas) and the lengthy dissent (by Justice John Paul Stevens). And we’ll unearth the ominous tidings that lurk not very far below the surface of the concurring opinions—well, ominous if you care about the issues of our time, such as the future of Roe v. Wade.
If you want to download and read Citizens United for yourself, go for it. These pages—like many Supreme Court decisions—are tough sledding. Citizens United is a thicket of long sentences, mind-bending abstraction, and words used in ways you've not seen before. Not to mention the endless citations and footnotes everywhere. (Anyone who has read more than a few Supreme Court opinions knows that all the fun is in the footnotes.) Still, taking on Citizens United is not the worst thing you could do. It is possible to feel upset and moved while reading this case. And there’s a special poignancy in Justice Stevens’s dissent, a sense that this near-lion is not just irked but, somewhere very near the end of his long run, deeply disappointed and dismayed by his conservative colleagues and the direction this Court has taken.
1
I'm not angry, I'm just prelocating the materials for the sequel of V that is located at the Supreme Court ....
(grin)
jk
(grin)
jk
2
So corporations can buy ads in the last few weeks of an election. And? I have yet to see why this is a big deal at all. There are so many ads and spending at this point that more will hardly make a difference. This has already been legal in Washington and its not like our state is any more or less 'bought'.
Plus it has to be disclosed and honestly a big ad campaign supporting you from some corporation is not exactly the kid of thing that looks good.
People flipping the fuck out over nothing.
Plus it has to be disclosed and honestly a big ad campaign supporting you from some corporation is not exactly the kid of thing that looks good.
People flipping the fuck out over nothing.
3
I'm impressed that Stevens managed to write that long of a response without using the words "retarded", "moronic", and "shitheads".
4
I almost certainly won't make it through the whole thing, but the opening lines of Steven's dissent about how Citizens United could have spent it's PAC money in any way it wanted to made me wonder how much of a difference the new rules will make. Surely money is already such a central part of the American political system that this new source won't make it much worse. Might there be a saturation point for political ads, where more money doesn't translate into more votes?
That said, I'm super-excited for your commentary. Hurray for wonk-ery!
That said, I'm super-excited for your commentary. Hurray for wonk-ery!
6
@2 and @4, you have got to be kidding. It's like saying that Fox News wouldn't have an impact because the news already had sunk to such a low level. Guess what? Fifteen years later all three branches of government are now politicized and not operating according to their Constitutional requirements. Repeating the same mindless shit and drowning our any discussion of the issues works. It completely and totally works, even if you have one of the most thought out systems ever.
It really is one of the most intellectually dishonest decisions possible. Corporations are legal fictions. They have the rights that we give them. There is no way the founding fathers considered them to have rights like people. The idea that a group of black-letter-law, strict constructionists decided to write that into the Constitution is mind-blowing. Completely and totally mind-blowing.
It really is one of the most intellectually dishonest decisions possible. Corporations are legal fictions. They have the rights that we give them. There is no way the founding fathers considered them to have rights like people. The idea that a group of black-letter-law, strict constructionists decided to write that into the Constitution is mind-blowing. Completely and totally mind-blowing.
7
@6 You kind of made my point. They are already doing this, just more obliquely. Being able to buy ads directly is not going to somehow imperil our democracy especially given the massive amounts of money already out there on both sides. This decision is not going to change anything. Though I really don't think you can all our problems on foxnews. They are a symptom.
And I agree, the decision is some shoddy law. Corporate personhood is important economically. They need to be able to sign contracts, file lawsuits, etc. But there is no reason that should extend to having civil rights.
And I agree, the decision is some shoddy law. Corporate personhood is important economically. They need to be able to sign contracts, file lawsuits, etc. But there is no reason that should extend to having civil rights.
8
Go ahead.
Slog through all 183 pages.
Then you may not see what's coming next.
Oh yeah- Roe.
And then, Prop 8 (thanks, Ted!)
It's a chess game.
It takes patience.
Years.
The two-year olds on the Left pitch tantrums and eat their crayons and piss in their Huggies.
Short attention spans...
It's almost checkmate.
Slog through all 183 pages.
Then you may not see what's coming next.
Oh yeah- Roe.
And then, Prop 8 (thanks, Ted!)
It's a chess game.
It takes patience.
Years.
The two-year olds on the Left pitch tantrums and eat their crayons and piss in their Huggies.
Short attention spans...
It's almost checkmate.
9
Justice Roberts hilariously argues that a corporation is an "association of citizens." Well, I guess when my in-laws come over it does feel like a meeting of the Enron Board of Directors.
10
So, this post is an advertisement for your forthcoming commentary on the decision? Not very tantalizing, as this amounts to a recycling of what everyone else has already said.
11
Funny-
When Blackmun pulled a Constitutional Right to Abortion out of his ASS the Left didn't seem to mind...
When Blackmun pulled a Constitutional Right to Abortion out of his ASS the Left didn't seem to mind...
12
@6 "Corporations are legal fictions. They have the rights that we give them." True, but "citizens" and "rights" are legal fictions as well, so I'm not sure how that makes corporations any different.
As for Fox News...Is it really that difficult to imagine that people might disagree with you for reasons other than being brainwashed?
As for Fox News...Is it really that difficult to imagine that people might disagree with you for reasons other than being brainwashed?
13
@11 that was our American right to Privacy, Dumas.
If you don't like it, go volunteer to die in Afghanistan.
If you don't like it, go volunteer to die in Afghanistan.
14
"Might there be a saturation point for political ads, where more money doesn't translate into more votes?"
No.
No.
15
@14 Really? You think people actually watch and pay attention to political ads when they are every other commercial?
I guess the law of diminishing returns is suspended when elections are involved!
I guess the law of diminishing returns is suspended when elections are involved!
16
KK @ 9: Really? You honestly believe that it is falicious to the point of hilarity to argue that a corporation is an association of persons? How to you think corporations form? Do they fall from the sky?
It's perfectly fine to believe that the effects of this decision are bad. It's perfectly factual to point out that it is at odds with long precedent. There were Steven's main points in his dissent. But even he did not claim that there was no logic to the majority position.
The ACLU's base is mostly leftish, but they are also admirably dedicated to the first amendment. So despite the fact that it made many donors unhappy, they argued that the law was unconstitutional. Kudos to them for not being so blinded by politics as to pretend not to see a clear case of government censorship. Can you be as grown up and principled?
It's perfectly fine to believe that the effects of this decision are bad. It's perfectly factual to point out that it is at odds with long precedent. There were Steven's main points in his dissent. But even he did not claim that there was no logic to the majority position.
The ACLU's base is mostly leftish, but they are also admirably dedicated to the first amendment. So despite the fact that it made many donors unhappy, they argued that the law was unconstitutional. Kudos to them for not being so blinded by politics as to pretend not to see a clear case of government censorship. Can you be as grown up and principled?
17
Look folks.
It's very simple.
Our tradition of the first amendment is so strong, of course conservatives are going to use it with dupes like ACLU to pretend money is speech, etc., which is the real problem here, not tht corps have the right of free speech.
So here's what we do.
We make sure our side, the Democrats are NOT corporate whores....
and we point out the OTHER side, the GOP, ALONE, is all corporate whores.....
and we explain to people why they are corrupt and evil and we are not.
And we stop hoping for a fairer system by which WE CAN TAKE corporate money too and coddle banks and insurers, woo hoo, because look how far that's getting us anyway.
There are times when you don't get a fair fight you gotta fucking slug it out and all this moaning and bitching and whining and cavailing boo hoo boo bhoo boo hoo the court unfaiiiir boo hoo well fuck when in fuck are you going to wake up this court is so unfair they fucking stole and election what the hell did you expect them to do in this case?
Fucking go fight and win anyfuckingway.
It's very simple.
Our tradition of the first amendment is so strong, of course conservatives are going to use it with dupes like ACLU to pretend money is speech, etc., which is the real problem here, not tht corps have the right of free speech.
So here's what we do.
We make sure our side, the Democrats are NOT corporate whores....
and we point out the OTHER side, the GOP, ALONE, is all corporate whores.....
and we explain to people why they are corrupt and evil and we are not.
And we stop hoping for a fairer system by which WE CAN TAKE corporate money too and coddle banks and insurers, woo hoo, because look how far that's getting us anyway.
There are times when you don't get a fair fight you gotta fucking slug it out and all this moaning and bitching and whining and cavailing boo hoo boo bhoo boo hoo the court unfaiiiir boo hoo well fuck when in fuck are you going to wake up this court is so unfair they fucking stole and election what the hell did you expect them to do in this case?
Fucking go fight and win anyfuckingway.
18
Fuck you for the teaser. And thank you for any useful information you will provide me for free, I appreciate that.
We're done. I found myself writing a history text of the end of the US this afternoon, my mind kept drifting into the short, short scenario. And thinking about Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, with the nubbins of a US government amid a sea of franchises, including a thriving mafia pizza chain. Or that Heinlein future history with the weak US president grateful for any place at a discussion table.
My community college class compared the way the British lost their empire at the start of the 20th century with the way the US... gave away, verschenkt, its hegemony at the start of the 21st. The British broke their own necks with the Boer war, but we were so cool we decided to take on Afghanistan AND Iraq. The British had a relatively decent political system for their time but lacked the economic power to sustain their empire, furthermore. We have a powerful economy but have neglected the political reforms that will keep us viable.
What bothers me more than our own losses--we're used to living unpleasantly and not up to our full potential--is the fact that our vast military makes us dangerous for the rest of the world. We are a knife aimed at the world's throat. The next religious cheerleading cowboy idiot scion will try to look tough by using it, and you and I, taxpayer, will have hurt the world.
We're done. I found myself writing a history text of the end of the US this afternoon, my mind kept drifting into the short, short scenario. And thinking about Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, with the nubbins of a US government amid a sea of franchises, including a thriving mafia pizza chain. Or that Heinlein future history with the weak US president grateful for any place at a discussion table.
My community college class compared the way the British lost their empire at the start of the 20th century with the way the US... gave away, verschenkt, its hegemony at the start of the 21st. The British broke their own necks with the Boer war, but we were so cool we decided to take on Afghanistan AND Iraq. The British had a relatively decent political system for their time but lacked the economic power to sustain their empire, furthermore. We have a powerful economy but have neglected the political reforms that will keep us viable.
What bothers me more than our own losses--we're used to living unpleasantly and not up to our full potential--is the fact that our vast military makes us dangerous for the rest of the world. We are a knife aimed at the world's throat. The next religious cheerleading cowboy idiot scion will try to look tough by using it, and you and I, taxpayer, will have hurt the world.
19
When I ask myself how we got into this mess, all I need to do is read the posts of lazy thinkers like giffy & cg, and realize they represent most of Americans. The people who are aghast at this ruling are people who have imagination. So the fact that you can't see how allowing corporations to interfere in elections w/o restraint doesn't mean that the decision is good for America. Some people in 2003 couldn't understand how invading a sovereign nation on false evidence w/ no plan for securing the country after it fell would ever be a bad thing for America.
Seriously, arguing that since corporations already influence elections, removing all regulations on them isn't much of a difference is so disingenuous and shallow, I'm surprised anyone takes you seriously. I mean, in spite of all our laws, rape continues to occur, so why not just make it legal? That's your argument. Wow, what a brainiac you are.
Listen, if you feel you must respond, please answer me this: Why do you think it is in the public good for my rights as an individual be equal to the rights of an entity that has a budget that equals a small country?
You see, the SCOTUS has essentially ruled that America will return to the days of Aristocracy & Privilege. Except instead of Divine Right, it is the Privilege of the Corporation, who will decide what kind of food you eat, what you will watch, what you will listen to, and what your children will learn. What are you going to do about it? Cry your case to a judge that they elected?
Seriously, arguing that since corporations already influence elections, removing all regulations on them isn't much of a difference is so disingenuous and shallow, I'm surprised anyone takes you seriously. I mean, in spite of all our laws, rape continues to occur, so why not just make it legal? That's your argument. Wow, what a brainiac you are.
Listen, if you feel you must respond, please answer me this: Why do you think it is in the public good for my rights as an individual be equal to the rights of an entity that has a budget that equals a small country?
You see, the SCOTUS has essentially ruled that America will return to the days of Aristocracy & Privilege. Except instead of Divine Right, it is the Privilege of the Corporation, who will decide what kind of food you eat, what you will watch, what you will listen to, and what your children will learn. What are you going to do about it? Cry your case to a judge that they elected?
20
Anybody who thinks this changes nothing is sorely mistaken. Our descent into corporate fascism could jolt into breakneck speed now. Foreign business interests can now easily shape our politics. As Greg Palast says:
"Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. If the Supreme Court votes as expected, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names.""
@17: YES, that is what the dems should do. But I'm afraid there is the danger now, that an avalanche of lies from corporate contributors will brainwash this country into believing that they actually are shills for some boogie man or corporate interest. Lots more potential for massively imbalanced propaganda wars and progressives, or even populist conservatives, would be hopeless in countering these lies against multi-billion dollar-backed shills for transnational business interests. Then once our government is filled with wave after wave of transnational-corporate shills, they and their appointees are probably going to pull every lever they can to guarantee that we get squeezed out of our political process, permanently. Then the corporatist-globalist coup is complete, and untouchable. If all decent candidates get steamrolled in these next few election cycles, that's probably where we are going to be. That is where this is taking us. The likes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich alike could have no chance whatsoever. Idiocracy here we come
www.savedemocracy.net
More...
"Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. If the Supreme Court votes as expected, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names.""
@17: YES, that is what the dems should do. But I'm afraid there is the danger now, that an avalanche of lies from corporate contributors will brainwash this country into believing that they actually are shills for some boogie man or corporate interest. Lots more potential for massively imbalanced propaganda wars and progressives, or even populist conservatives, would be hopeless in countering these lies against multi-billion dollar-backed shills for transnational business interests. Then once our government is filled with wave after wave of transnational-corporate shills, they and their appointees are probably going to pull every lever they can to guarantee that we get squeezed out of our political process, permanently. Then the corporatist-globalist coup is complete, and untouchable. If all decent candidates get steamrolled in these next few election cycles, that's probably where we are going to be. That is where this is taking us. The likes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich alike could have no chance whatsoever. Idiocracy here we come
www.savedemocracy.net
21
@19 It did not remove all regulations only the one limiting independent expenditures with in the last 30 or 60 days depending of an election. This includes non-profit corporations like the ACLU as well. And remember, they still cannot give directly to candidates.
And taken together individuals have much more resources than corporations, especially when you consider that most corps do not hoard cash, and are pretty unlikely to spend much of it on politics since the return is not that great. How many ads recently have you seen by health care companies? There have been a few, but I've seen more supporting reform.
I also don't think political spending is all that effective in swaying elections anymore. People tune them out and are a far to jaded to really believe them.
@20 You really think removing a recently enacted ban on spending by corporations in the last 30 or 60 days of an election is going to do all that? Personally if I were running for office I would love it if CNOOC started running ads for my opponent. That's a great controversy right there!
I think those of us on the left have a hard time understanding how people we disagree with win elections so we go to easy answers like money, when the truth of the matter is that there are a lot of people out there that simply disagree with us on all kinds of things.
The likes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich alike could have no chance whatsoever
And that is a bad thing?
And taken together individuals have much more resources than corporations, especially when you consider that most corps do not hoard cash, and are pretty unlikely to spend much of it on politics since the return is not that great. How many ads recently have you seen by health care companies? There have been a few, but I've seen more supporting reform.
I also don't think political spending is all that effective in swaying elections anymore. People tune them out and are a far to jaded to really believe them.
@20 You really think removing a recently enacted ban on spending by corporations in the last 30 or 60 days of an election is going to do all that? Personally if I were running for office I would love it if CNOOC started running ads for my opponent. That's a great controversy right there!
I think those of us on the left have a hard time understanding how people we disagree with win elections so we go to easy answers like money, when the truth of the matter is that there are a lot of people out there that simply disagree with us on all kinds of things.
The likes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich alike could have no chance whatsoever
And that is a bad thing?
22
Corporations are not people.
Money isn't speech.
To say they are is the LITERAL definition of fascism.
Money isn't speech.
To say they are is the LITERAL definition of fascism.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (22) RSS