Quote:
Originally Posted by LobsterBoy
Buckley vs. Valeo 1976 Limitations on the amount a campaign can spend (spending limits or caps) are an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech under the first amendment.
Spending money is protected speech.
The same decision holds that donations can be limited to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.
For an opinion that overruled precedents from at least six different decisions, forgive me when I seem surprised that it stopped there.
For those who wish to delve into Citizens United vs. FEC:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf |
Good response.
As such, corporations should be allowed to give directly to candidates, following currently accepted contribution limits.
In any case, the fact that they are NOT currently allowed to do so kinda lends the fail to mookie's argument that they shouldn't be treated equally as citizens. They can't vote. They can't give to campaigns. Citizens can do both.
However, after this ruling they CAN exercise their right to speech, just not in the sense of giving directly to a campaign...
...which means they are now on the same footing as, say, a labor union.
Mookie, please answer this: why do you think it's okay for a union to be able to exercise these rights and not a corporation? Both are merely groups of people...
Please tell me its not just that one side overwhelmingly agrees with your perspective, while the other does not...