Citizens United was the correct decision. The alternative is our government deciding who gets to engage in politics. Without Citizens United politics would be even more restricted to a much smaller set of even wealthier people and established politicians who have access to the governemnt approved outlets of political speech.
Indeed. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, which in clear language protects free speech for corporations. That includes the right to engage in political advocacy, which is what Citizens United v. FEC was about.
A lot of people have a, let's say filtered understanding of the decision, which has become a sort of shibboleth rather than a direct reference to the Supreme Court's ruling.
False dichotomy. Prior to CU, individuals could contribute to any candidate of their choosing (up to an annual contribution limit). Companies are compased of individuals. CU was twisted logic to reach a preconceived, corrupt outcome.
You are misunderstanding what the Citizens United vs. FEC determined. Candidate contributions are still limited, even after CU. What's not limited is independent expenditures.
I can understand how the "up to an annual contribution limit" part of my comment could be confusing. I added that in an attempt to not be misleading / to circumvent spurious disagreement. I've moved it inside of parenthesis to de-emphasise it.
If you read my comment as a response to the parent, I believe it will make more sense.
---
CU opened the floodgates of anonymous, unlimited political contributions to "independent", but not really independent, organizations which can campaign on behalf of candidates.
The goal was/is to replace our democratic republic with an oligarchy. And we're now in the end game.
Wrong, if the candidates are directing or otherwise leading ostensibly-independent donations this is illegal. Independent donations are exactly that: independent of a candidate's campaign. If they're carried out on behalf of a candidate, they're not independent donations.
You can put up billboards saying, "X candidate's record is the best on climate change, tax policy, etc.". Your spending in this manner is not subject to limits. If the candidate calls you up and says "It'd be really good if you put up billboards saying X, Y, and Z" then that's breaking election laws.
Citizens United is not even remotely close to replacing our republic with an oligarchy. You can't buy elections, no matter how much people try to say so. Clintion received about twice as many donations as Trump in 2016, but still lost the election.
It all assumes the candidate is the queen bee. They are now the worker bee. The superpac sets the rules, the candidate follow to get elected. That is the example in thw article, well actually more meta: it was a flex by crypto to show them they are a new mafia. They get many for the price of one.
Donations to political campaigns are still limited. Even after Citizens United.
What's not limited is independent expenditures. You can, for example, organize rallies or put up billboards advocating more serious efforts to combat climate change without limit.
Oh no! Established politicians! They know how the government works, and could possibly be effective. We can't let them get reelected!
I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.
The nightmare scenario is that the money is not handed out equally to all candidates.
If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
But what you are proposing is a different government, one in which leaders could operate without the primary accountability that they face now: that anyone can organize a campaign against them.
The barriers you cite already exist. There are plenty of rules ablout what must do to get on the ballot, yet somehow new politicians still get into politics.
Many modern, developed democracies do exactly that, and are quite more democratic than 2 parties running the state. As well as not making elections a show might help democracy instead of the best showman.
I will be waiting for the American exceptionalism arguments on why a thing that well functioning democracies/countries do wouldn't work in the USA.
Works in Europe and established politicians get voted out regularly.
You can also establish campaign spending limits without it being funded by taxes. In other words anyone can raise money for their campaign but only up to X amount (and no PACs).
Assuming that what you say is the outcome of a proposal like mine (which, btw, it isn't): I would rather have the government (which is beholden to the constitution) than the wealthy (who aren't beholden to the constitution) be the gatekeeper.
In fact, this money would be available to anyone who met whatever threshold was legally enshrined, a far better alternative than having to kiss the ring of an oligarch, as you propose.
The government should set sensible limits on campaign contributions that avoid a system of legalised bribery, aka. SuperPACs, such that actual people get to choose their representatives, not a handful of ultra-rich with the means to steer politics.
The only candidate in American politics that lives up to your idealised, independent politician of the people, is Bernie Sanders. And guess what? He strongly opposes billionaires buying themselves a government.
That might have been the “hopeful” argument for Citizens United but the the reality has been the opposite. There is so much more money going into politics by large companies and the wealthy than ever before. It’s a poison on democracy and one of the absolute worst SC decisions ever.
> Without Citizens United politics would be even more restricted to a much smaller set of even wealthier people
Really? Because there are many countries with far stricter regulations on campaign financing than the US had pre-Citizens United, that also have much more working class representation in their politics than the US.[0]
