Watch the new and improved Citizens United v. F.E.C. video here! • AP Gov | Citizens Unit... Check out the AP Gov Ultimate Review Packet: www.ultimatere... Tik Tok @ LaMoneyProductions
I feel like every supreme court ruling like these are just them saying "i mean yeah i guess technicallyyyyyyy" "yeah that sounds about right" "Well if we use the definition of ____ it technically means hes all good" "i mean fair enoughhhhhh"
Thank you for all these videos! I'm doing last-minute studying and binge-watching everything. My ap test is 4 days and I'm feeling a little better about the court cases so thank you so much!
There's an important turning point that this video doesn't mention: At oral arguments, the government's attorney stepped in front of the Supreme Court and said that the government could ban the publication of political books. That was the turning point in this case. It caused a backlash among conservatives on the Court, which in turn led to the conservatives wanting to strike down BCRA. It caused the case to be re-argued the following year, and it concluded with big parts of BCRA struck down.
That's true. He was responding directly to a question from a Justice, though. It was an tactical question and the attorney took the bait and walked right into the trap.
@@CareyLaManna There is a saying: You can't win a case at oral arguments, but you can always lose one. The Deputy Solicitor General certainly lost Citizens United that day.
You can connect it to other speech or campaign finance cases. A few famous campaign finance cases: Buckley v Valeo, McCutheon v. FEC, McConnell v. FEC are just three that immediately come to mind
You're actually simple enough to fall for the D v R trap. LMAO You probably support a party. hahahahahaha No such thing as a smart republican or a smart democrat supporter!
The court ruled right in this case. Come on guys if they ruled the other way the government could limit group political speech and do you really want that? Yes it has the negative side effect of corps being considered groups of people and thus they have free speech rights (ie the ability to spend money on ads) but is the other way any better? That the government can limit a groups right to free speech? That's sounds awful and something nations like China does. Remember this ruling doesn't just apply to corps it applies to ALL groups such as Labor Unions and Joe and Jane's campaign association. Sorry for the rant I just HATE how this ruling is viewed as "corps are people hurr durr" and people don't look at the broader question being asked
I feel like every supreme court ruling like these are just them saying "i mean yeah i guess technicallyyyyyyy" "yeah that sounds about right" "Well if we use the definition of ____ it technically means hes all good" "i mean fair enoughhhhhh"
Thank you for all these videos! I'm doing last-minute studying and binge-watching everything. My ap test is 4 days and I'm feeling a little better about the court cases so thank you so much!
same lmao,, gl on the test!!
@@vecvecvec Thanks, you too!
There's an important turning point that this video doesn't mention:
At oral arguments, the government's attorney stepped in front of the Supreme Court and said that the government could ban the publication of political books. That was the turning point in this case. It caused a backlash among conservatives on the Court, which in turn led to the conservatives wanting to strike down BCRA. It caused the case to be re-argued the following year, and it concluded with big parts of BCRA struck down.
That's true. He was responding directly to a question from a Justice, though. It was an tactical question and the attorney took the bait and walked right into the trap.
@@CareyLaManna There is a saying: You can't win a case at oral arguments, but you can always lose one. The Deputy Solicitor General certainly lost Citizens United that day.
i have an exam on this tmr so thank you!
I got you, ms jackson, wooooo!
@Saisidharth Seyyadri aw hey sai
did you pass?
Learning more everyday!
Never really knew fully about this case, but it’s really interesting! thank you !
Got the AP exam tomorrow, I'm binging all your document/court case videos rn!!
what'd u get?
@@helenavila8656 a 5! These videos are extremely helpful definitely reccomend
Saying it's "not about free speech" doesn't make it "not about free speech."
Look forward to these!
2:20 damn thats some foreshadowing
This was on my yt suggested page what’s up lamoney
Ayy what up kid. Load management forever
So helpful!!
Best form of review no doubt
Great Video Lamoney!
liking your new beard!
post notifications stay on 🙏
such a helpful video to review content quickly
Another amazing video like usual
well explained
Quality Content!
great video!
Ok now this is epic
thank you!!
I peep the lost series in the bottom right :)
yassssss
Free Yak
nice
BCRA time
Yo LaMonney would you say this applies or connects to any other cases??
You can connect it to other speech or campaign finance cases. A few famous campaign finance cases: Buckley v Valeo, McCutheon v. FEC, McConnell v. FEC are just three that immediately come to mind
godly content
Love the review content
👍
Movies condemning Republicans good. Movies condemning Democrats bad.
You're actually simple enough to fall for the D v R trap. LMAO
You probably support a party. hahahahahaha
No such thing as a smart republican or a smart democrat supporter!
Individual film maker vs corporation
This isn’t about who is being criticized, it’s about who is doing the criticism
epic
Citizens United 1 - 0 Hillary Clinton
The court ruled right in this case. Come on guys if they ruled the other way the government could limit group political speech and do you really want that? Yes it has the negative side effect of corps being considered groups of people and thus they have free speech rights (ie the ability to spend money on ads) but is the other way any better? That the government can limit a groups right to free speech? That's sounds awful and something nations like China does. Remember this ruling doesn't just apply to corps it applies to ALL groups such as Labor Unions and Joe and Jane's campaign association. Sorry for the rant I just HATE how this ruling is viewed as "corps are people hurr durr" and people don't look at the broader question being asked
awesome video !