durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,699
- 19,375
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
I would hope this is something people from all political "sides" could get behind.It's a tenuous argument in my view. Speech is speech. Buying politicians isn't really "speech". Citizens United should be overturned, in my view, The Court found that the "state’s interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption" wasn't compelling enough. I think, given the vast corruption we are living under now, it is vastly compelling. The specious argument was that independent expenditures it banned were by definition "not coordinated or prearranged with a candidate or a campaign" and therefore was not a direct quid pro quo, in which votes are exchanged for money.
Although such expenditures could ingratiate a corporation with and lead to greater access to a candidate, “ingratiation and access…are not corruption.” Yeah, sure. Let's avoid that appearance of impropriety altogether and quit pretending corporations are people. People are people and can vote and speak as they like (well, they could, prior to 2020 when censorship was ubiquitous).
But the precision of the liberal / conservative scotus split on this topic makes me wonder. It would be unusual for people from any side to cut against the sentiments of their own bloc in the supreme court.
Upvote
0