It’s clear that opinions on Citizens United are pretty hardened, but if you don’t agree with my take, perhaps you’ll listen to Glenn Greenwald, whose post on the subject is definitive.
Mark of New Jersey
Mark is a Founding Editor of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, the predecessor of Ordinary Times.
We have been experiencing some system resource issues. We believe the problem may be resolved, but if it is not please bear with us.
on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024I am not inclined to be very sympathetic to people like her. These are people who talk about the gre… on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024The fear was that she was going to give a speech that would be 15 minutes of "From the River to the…
on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024What should the school do when they think the Valedictorian is going to give a speech that amounts t… on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024Her current Instagram links to a website that states “Zionism is a racist settler-colonial ideology… on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024White hats are totally good and Black hats are totally evil. on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024Poor Refugees who have no where else to go and know it. on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024Where we should be trying to go to is color blind. If there are problems focusing on qualifications… on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024Some of the more darkly comedic comments is when you get a Western Pro-Palestinian activist saying s…
on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024You know, I was going to have some wine tomorrow but maybe I'll have it tonight: Iranian Foreign Min… on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024You've already admitted to being a Reagan voter, Chip.
April 18, 2024
April 17, 2024
April 16, 2024
April 15, 2024
on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024
What I found odd about Glenn’s piece is that he starts out saying he’s “deeply ambivalent” about the ruling, but then goes on with seeming relish to (in his mind I guess), utterly demolish both the legal case — including the arguments that money isn’t speech, and the question of the relevance of corporate personhood — and the practical case for the ruling, saying that he doesn’t think things could get worse (though he at least allows he may be failing to think of ways it might). What’s he ambivalent about?Report
He thinks there are weaknesses in the Court’s decision as a matter of law dealing with the decision to pursue the broad holding over the narrow holding. I think he’s right in this respect. He’s also sympathetic to the issue of corporations holding too much political power, as am I. But that’s different from saying that the decision is going to be apocalyptic (it’s not) and from saying that the free speech legal arguments underlying the decision are wrong (he thinks they’re right). Since most of the attacks on the decision have focused on the latter two points, he explains why those attacks are misguided.Report
Ah, the activism. Good point, he does mention that. Doesn’t make a very big deal about it, though. If he was truly deeply ambivalent about that aspect of it you’d think he’d dwell on it a bit more. But yeah, it’s a pretty convincing piece on the law.Report
Well, actually on second look, he undermines that reservation as well:
Report
He’s not talking about the stare decisis issue when he’s referencing his reservations about the decision, but rather the general judicial principle that courts should render their decisions on the narrowest grounds possible. In essence, he’s saying that stare decisis is not a very good reason to oppose a decision when the original precedent was wrong to begin with, but that a court’s choice of broad grounds over narrow grounds is a definite problem.Report
Fair enough. I didn’t see where he said that or gave it enough emphasis to convince us he’s really troubled, but I’ll take your word for it.Report
It’s nice to know that there are still liberals who believe in stuff other than temporary partisan advantage.Report
It just occurred to me now but part of the reason I dislike campaign restrictions is because they’re really, really bad at their job.
Penalties exacted upon the candidates hold the candidate accountable for behavior they may or may not be responsible for and create incentives for sabotage from the opposition. The flip side of unfairly punitive measures are measures that leave few incentives to break them.
When campaigns and donors get fined for violations it isn’t much better. If you’re sufficiently wealthy it might be cheaper for you to simply break the rules and pay the fine than to follow the rule in the first place. Most importantly, however, is the problem that you can’t take back an offense. If one breaks the law by promoting a candidate at a polling place, you can’t go back in time and remove the endorsement, you can only punish the violator after the fact. All in all it creates a system whereby the wealthy and powerful are either insufficiently deterred or are but at the cost of crippling the less wealthy and powerful. Moreover, if you break the rules there’s a very good chance that you’ll actually benefit from doing so assuming your competitor doesn’t and its sufficiently close to the election (or far enough away) not to have traction going into the election.Report