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.
A Beef: No, Joe Biden Is Not Going To Take Away Your Burgers
April 26, 2021
Anti-Capitalism Never Made Much Sense
April 19, 2021
Letter to a Young Conservative
May 5, 2021
Democrats Have a Problem, But It’s Not the One You Think
April 28, 2021
Adam Toledo Shooting: Watch It For Yourself
April 16, 2021
Verdict: Derek Chauvin Guilty on All Three Counts
April 20, 2021
All should be well. Please report any problems you might see.
on Team Pillbillies, FTWOne more joke for you: People from West Virginia resent incest jokes. People from [fill in state here] resembl…
on O Inflation, Where Art Thou?As citizens in a democracy we should be keeping our eye on anything we think the government may be mismanaging…
on Mississippi Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Marijuana Initiative: Read It For YourselfBut its also true that the court isn't bound to such literal interpretations. This decision was a choice they…
on Weekend Plans Post: Not Dreaming, Right?My 2 weeks elapsed yesterday. Sitting down in a restaurant and dining this evening with my in-laws. Wish the r…
on Mississippi Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Marijuana Initiative: Read It For YourselfExactly. It's the legislature's job to fix this, which they can. There's a misperception out there that every…
on Mississippi Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Marijuana Initiative: Read It For YourselfAs recently as 1930 (within living memory of the time the law was created), Mississippi had 8 districts. In 19…
on Mississippi Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Marijuana Initiative: Read It For YourselfPerhaps my time as a legislative staffer biases me, but it is not the courts' job to correct bad drafting. And…
on O Inflation, Where Art Thou?I kind of go the opposite direction here from the same starting place, at least regarding your mention of savi…
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