Why You Can Buy The Next President | Citizens United v. FEC
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 พ.ค. 2017
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Check it out here: amzn.to/45Wzhur
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.us
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
In episode 10 of Supreme Court Briefs, a corporation argues it has the right to spend as much money as it wants on a political campaign because of the First Amendment.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205
Additional sources:
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/...
dailycaller.com/2010/01/29/in-...
truth-out.org/archive/componen...
www.scotusblog.com/case-files/...
Washington, D.C.
2007
A self-described conservative non-profit corporation called Citizens United wants to release a documentary. The film, called Hillary: The Movie, (hey that’s a pretty catchy title) talks a bunch of trash about Hillary Clinton, who just so happens to be running for President. Citizens United wanted to distribute and advertise the film within a month before the Democratic primary elections in January 2008.
However, this would be a violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka BCRA (bikruh), aka the McCain-Feingold Act, the latest law that limited how political campaigns were paid for.
BCRA said corporations or labor unions can’t spend money from their general treasury to broadcast anything through the mass media that specifically brings up a candidate running for federal office within 30 days of a primary.
Anticipating that the Federal Election Commission, or FEC, might try to stop the release of their documentary, Citizens United went ahead and took the FEC to the United States District Court, essentially saying “don’t even think about it, FEC.” Citizens United claimed BCRA didn’t apply to Hillary: The Movie, because the film wasn’t clearly for or against a candidate. It also claimed that the Supreme Court decision FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life justified them releasing the film within 30 days of the Democratic primaries. Not only that, but Citizens United argued that portions of BCRA straight up violated the FIrst Amendment to the Constitution.
On January 15, 2008, the three-judge U.S. District Court said “nope, sorry Citizens United.” You can’t have your injunction, you gotta let the FEC regulate. The court said the film was clearly just meant to get people to not vote for Hillary Clinton, I mean...it was called Hillary: The Movie, for crying out loud. They also said the film was meant to be strategically shown right before the primaries for this purpose, and they cited the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. FEC as justification that the FEC could prevent the showing up this film.
Citizens United was like you know what? I’m appealing to the Supreme Court.
Now, as you know, this can be a long process. What ended up happening was Hillary Clinton did not get the Democratic nomination and Barack Obama ended up being elected President later that year. But that ended up being irrelevant other than the fact that Obama nominated a new justice, Sonia Sotomayor, that agreed with the justice she replaced, David Souter. Throughout 2009, the Supreme Court heard multiple arguments about the case. The Court had remained very divided on the issue. Things got pretty philosophical.
Finally, on January 21, 2010, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, arguing that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting money spent by corporations, labor unions, and other associations, on political campaigns. Specifically, we’re talking about independent political expenditures, or political campaign contributions not directly affiliated with the candidate. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The Court's ruling basically freed corporations and unions to spend as much money as they want to elect or defeat candidates, as long as they didn’t contribute directly to candidates or political parties.
The majority also argued that First Amendment protects ASSOCIATIONS of individuals, not just individual speakers, so you can’t prohibit speech based on the identity of the speaker. So corporations have free speech rights just like you or I.
The idea of Corporate Personhood, or the legal notion that corporations share some of the same legal rights and responsibilities held by individuals, had pretty much been established by the Supreme Court since the 1800s. In this case, the Court definitely ruled that corporations are people man, corporations are people.
Justice John Paul Stevens led the opinion of the dissent.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
I forget who said it, but I love the quote “if corporations are people then they should be able to receive the death penalty”
Didn’t Enron get the death penalty
But if corporations aren’t people, they shouldn’t have to pay taxes
@@jwil4286 But you see. Corporations are not people but are in fact... corporations. And they pay taxes. They did that before and will do forever after the ruling of Citizens United.
Mini produktion they have been considered people for over 150 years. If they can’t be considered people for purpose of constitutional rights, then they can’t be considered people for purpose of taxation.
@@jwil4286 right... So before that they never paid taxes. Ok
And just one more point. If money is considered speech. Then if I pay a prostitut and the cops come and arrest me. Can't I just say that it's considered free speech because I just gave her some money to show how good looking I think she is?
Companies generally incorporation in places like Delaware and Ireland, where they will get favorable tax treatment, regardless of where they actually operate. I would like to declare my residency the same way: in Washington, there is no income tax. In Oregon, there is no sales tax. So, since companies are on the same footing as me, I would like to do the same: pay Washington income taxes and Oregon sales taxes, even though I live in California. Wait, what? I can't just arbitrarily choose my residency for tax purposes? Guess corp's have more rights than people!
Maybe you should hire a lawyer this might me a great case
Corps have different rights than people. Corps pay different tax rates, for example. Corps don't go to the doctor but have various fees that you don't have (I know, I have a corp). This ruling says that corps are on the same footing as you WRT speech, not everything else.
If you move to Washington state and get a job in Oregon, you can do that
Hey you can even have a primary residence in Virginia and become a US Senator from Missouri. I'm looking at you, Josh Hawley.
It was never said corporations are the same as citizens.
Nothing has destroyed my faith in the Democratic process more than citizens United vs fec.
Om Nom Nom nothing reinforces my faith in America than Citizens United. Are you aware the state in Citizens United wanted to ban movies, censor speech, and put people in jail for saying what they think. Perhaps you are in favor of banning movies, censoring speech, and jailing people who, in good faith, disagree with you, but I’m not in favor of such things. The scary part is four leftist Supreme Court justices would allow banning movies, censoring speech, and imprisoning people for expressing a political point of view. Such a view seems more like Nazi Germany than America.
Citizens United made America an oligarchy where big donors control all of politics.
You of little faith. You have to trust that, when you speak the truth, people will listen. Try it yourself. With someone you know and respect, Whisper the truth to them. Then, with a megaphone, scream as loud as you can a lie. See which one your friend believes. Do you truly think just because someone talks with a megaphone they are believed? I think the opposite may be true. The louder you speak, the less likely is is the truth.
smhollanshead yes.
Also. The people have no say in what laws get passed. Congressmen consistently pay much more attention to their donors than their constituancy.
Mr. Beat, Love the way you really get in to describe these cases with just the right amount of comedy and seriousness. As a student in governance almost 5 years ago now, cases like this were always my favorite to debate and discuss in class, eve if the rest of the class wasn't as enthused as i was. When i next see them, you bet you're on my list to suggest to my teachers back home and I think next month i may budget some money for your patreon!
The rest of the class not being enthused is probably because this is not really a topic to be discussed. There is no debate. Citizens United is bad for democracy, bad for politics and legalizes corruption. It puts all the power in the hands of a select few.
There are issues where one side is clearly wrong and those kinds of topics don't tend to raise fun discussions. It's actually depressing to think how democracy has been undermined and destroyed and how little people can do about it.
Damnit, oh well sceond is good with me
Thank you so much for the kind words and for your consideration of support on Patreon. I agree with you- it's amazing to me how not all students get into these more when it greatly affects them. This case is a class example, and yes, also fun to debate, as I really can understand both sides.
My last comment wasn't very helpful I realize now.
If you want to engage young people on the Citizens United case, I believe the most useful angle is to talk about how to fix it. Is an amendment the best course? Is WolfPAC a good idea with the constitutional convention or should we rely on 75% of states coming together? Should we vote for candidates who'll appoint Justices who pledge to overturn Citizens United? Is it a good idea to deny corruption and go the Sanders route? Is it possible to win without taking PAC money?
Those debates have merit. It can involve students on the finer points of the constitution and amendments when the class is already in agreement that Citizens United is bad (which is suggested by the lack of enthusiasm)
I agree entirely, and have implemented similar activities in my classroom with other topics we have covered. I actually currently don't teach government or current events, but when I do I plan on incorporating some of the ideas you suggested.
Thanks for the shoutout!
This episode stressed me out because I get cognitive dissonance thinking about it.
I'd hate to limit speech during the critical final days of an election, but I also hate unlimited dark money in our politics.
Maybe a constitutional amendment is in order, but who honestly believes we can focus people on that or motivate legislators to push it through the states? My political cynicism knows no bounds these days....
You bet! I go back and forth on this one as well. I do favor a Constitutional amendment, albeit one different than John Paul Stevens. I think that individual donations should be limited for campaigns. Obviously this contradicts the First Amendment, so the Constitution must be amended.
How about no amendment. Let people support any candidate they want. Freedom of speech.
Aren't the parties, private organizations?
But you like dark votes? Why call it dark?
Funky Euphemism It does require constituional amendments because of rulings like this one. Without such then the courts are likely to just follow precedent.
There was a reporter who summed up the ruling of this case thus, "... And after today's ruling, corporations need only a few more years of enflaming people before the message suddenly shifts to, 'everything's great.'"
this series is so amazing so far, waiting for the next episode!
Thank you so much for watching :D
I love the supreme court briefs.
very entertainting.
+Gad Yariv Thanks for watching and for the kind words! :D
Giving this some thought, I don't really think Citizens United v. FEC is the root of the problem so much as it is a symptom of a much deeper one. Fundamentally, there's no difference between a corporation using their wealth for political speech and a billionaire doing the same. The real problem is people using wealth (power) to subvert the democratic process. I don't know the right way to go about fixing that, but I don't think overturning this case is the answer.
Political donations should be banned. Simple as that
This case contributes to the problem
@@EthanConstantinescu-nl1nz Undoubtedly. But overturning it is like putting a bandaid on a stab wound. Sure, it's better than nothing, but realistically it doesn't actually solve the problem.
Your videos make me feel like a law student!
Thank you so much for this unbiased video. It really helped me for my class.
Citizens United shouldn't actually be a controversial decision if the court had ruled it under the press clause rather than the free speech clause.
Why do you say that? I personally dont see how it would make a difference.
@@Guy-cb1oh Because people generally understand that "freedom of the press" applies to companies and not just individuals. Newspapers that aren't run by a single individual still have First Amendment protections.
@@Guy-cb1oh Please remember, in the USA - the press is a business, not a community service. Their primary purpose is to make a profit by delivering stories people read. Not only is this why most media outlets are completely polarized into one side of the political field or the other (because, more reliable readers/viewers = more money), but serves as a reminder that money has ALWAYS decided elections. This case was a lightning rod for an existing issue, but politics are decided by popularity - which has been mostly decided by wealth and financing, for pretty much ever. Robber barons, Rockefellers, you get the idea.
Less then 600 subs left till you reach 10,000 subs Mr. Beat!
HECK YEAH. It only took me 7 years.
Mr. Beat
Now you nearly have 40k.
Mr. Beat 200k now
Thank you so much for all your videos:) I love them!!
It's definitely the correct decision according to precedent and the constitution. However, that does not mean it's a healthy decision for the nation.
Consider this: if this documentary had been made by a single individual, he/she could have released it and had 1st Amend. rights to do. But because it was made by a group of people (ie a non-profit advocacy group) it no longer has 1st amend rights?
So Bob has 1st Amend rights. Sally has 1st Amend rights. But if Bob and Sally collaborate on a documentary together, they lose those rights?
Then there were all sorts of other distinctions in the law, like the FCC deciding which organisations constitute 'media organisations', which fall under a different set of rules. In other words, the law decides the legality of speech not on its content, but on who says it.
With all due respect, but what you are saying, is bullshit.
No. As a unit Bob and Sally have NO rights. They only have individual rights.
They can make a movie.... and if they want to SHOW that movie then that's an INDIVIDUAL right of each of them to do so.
However, if they want to show it on a broadcasting network, then this needs to happen in accordance to FEC regulations applying to these networks.
You can agree or disagree with these regulations, which is another discussion. But the whole rights thing is so f*cking clear that I don't understand the SCOTUS.
@@Simon-A.-Tan I am not sure I understand your disagreement. We agree that Bob and Sally have free speech. So how can we regulate what kind of movie they make? It seems kind of arbitrary to say that BOB can make a movie and SALLY can make a movie, but they cannot collectively make a movie?
If that's true, then does the ACLU have free speech? Does the Cato institute have free speech? Does a newspaper have free speech? None of these are individuals.
@@JesseLH88 Sigh.... they CAN make a movie together and show it together, but they will not enjoy that right based on some legal unit, but as individuals.
If it's the medium that you're regulating in terms of the type of content that's allowed during a specific period, that doesn't take away their individual rights to make the movie or show it on their own behalf.
You don't need to give their unit 'personhood' for that. That basically doesn't make any sense.
name checks out
This is a really, really good piece on the specific issue. I like it.
Both sides have a point:
Conservatives would point out that this is a limit on the free speech of a group of people. If your friends formed a group, union, or corporation and made a movie with your own money, why can't you make a movie about politics?
Democrats would point out that individuals have a limit on however much they can donate to a campaign. An already rich person can donate their own money to a candidate and then donate again multiple times through their organizations and companies
The movie wasn't just about politics, it was obviously propaganda intending on slandering Hillary Clinton to minimize her chances.
Part of the biggest issue with this court case is the stems from the original issue of how political campaigns are funded.
Politicians receive millions of dollars to get their campaigns up and running and much of that may come from corporations who have their own agenda.
What pisses me off about politics as a whole is it's not based on scientific reasoning but bullshit philosophy and interpreting 200 year old laws that couldn't possibly predict the changes in today's society. If you could bring Psychology and Sociology into Politics and give these disciplines the rightful respect they deserve, the U.S. would be a very different place.
On top of all that, many of those in positions of power come from wealthy backgrounds, they have zero experience dealing with actually issues that plague the bottom 90% of Americans. The decisions they make "for the American people" don't impact them and they don't have any understanding of our experiences, needs, desires, etc. They're the worst possible candidates to govern over us yet that's who usually gets into power.
But this ruling directly says as long as they don’t contribute to candidates. 3:38
This concerns money spent on independent campaigns.
SuperPACS aren't campaigns. They're for *generating 3rd party media*.
The Democrats are being stupid or dishonest for conflating SuperPACs and campaigns.
Thank you, this was very unbiased for the most part and helpful.
I wish I would have discovered this channel years ago. Great stuff!
Money is not speech, a bribe is a bribe, all donations should be treated as bribes.
Public funding?
@Jack R Yes.
Money is a type of speech. I can buy an ads. I can hire people to fly pamphet or write signs. TH-cam pay people to make videos.
Sound crazy to you?
dumb comment
@@quinaIMF Bribing politicians is free speech. Gotcha.
You should do a video on "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" (the 1886 decision mentioned in this video).
Lochner v. New York? Has anyone asked for it before? (:
+Pewien Autysta Why yes they have
This video helped because you had to dumb it down for some of us THANKS! I'll be watching it like 4 more times until i FULLY understand it! I have a essay due in 4 days yikes
Great video!
+Jett For President Thanks!
Mr. Beat left out the fact that in oral arguments Justice Alito asked the government lawyers whether the government could ban a book that in unfavorable for a politician. The federal government lawyers said, “Yes, it is out opinion that the government can”. That is what this case was about: the first amendment.
Four associate justices voted that the government could censor books as well as movies that insult politicians. Outrageous.
No it was about money in politics because the first amendment only apply to people and corporations are not people
@@getyourgameon1990 I don't like most big corporations either, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a group of people, who under the constitution have the right to speech.
@@lukeh7440 As individuals they are people the corporation it self is not
@@getyourgameon1990 According to the Supreme Court, corporations get the right of free speech. I dunno what else to tell ya bud
A practical question at this point: Are your followers called Beatniks? Anyway, Citizen's United guaranteed that we will get the best governors money can buy.
+Patrick Anthony Pontillo You're the first one to suggest that but it definitely has a nice ring to it.
The Citizens United decision has nothing to do with state elections, i.e. for governors.
@@thedude8605 what? Citizens United ruled that corporations possess freedom of speech.
OMG this video was in my Politics textbook! So cool and validating of TH-cam educational content!
Do you think you could do a video on the FLQ? My history/economics teacher described the heavy handed government response and how it was the last major terrorist-related-event in Canada to date as a result of said action by the government. Would be interesting to get your run-down of the event.
Love the videos - just found them tonight and have watched about 10 of them.
Thanks for your great suggestion! I receive so many requests that for now I only take video suggestions from my patrons on Patreon - if you pledge to on there please let me know on through the site so it’s more streamlined.
The first Amendment says Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. Under the Constitution, it does not matter if the person speaking is a person or a corporation. Congress may not pass laws that prevent speech, including Hillary the movie. By the way, corporations can only speak through people.
Spot on. If the court ruled the other way then the government could regulate group speech which would be bad. I dont think many people recognize this...
Not if it worded its decision in a way that only refers to corporate entities. The movie wasn't banned completely just told to wait after a primary which is completely fair. Furthermore depending on said content Hillary could have sued for defamation of character. You want free elections you need to wait until candidates are chosen before doing exposes. If we are going to consider companies people then we have to ban all private donations to politics
Adam Smith
At least in that scenario the government is still accountable to its citizens
@@Aragon1500 what matters isn't whether the ban was temporary or permanent. A temporary ban on speech is just as much a violation of the first amendment. Either corporations have free speech, or they don't.
Companies aren't people so they don't get the 1st amendment
1:20 I can hear you holding back that laughter Mr. Beat ;)
You know, I am kinda in the middle. I would like arguments for F.E.C.
Why is that so many times when a case involving the legitimacy of a law is brought to court, the state courts, the district courts, and the appeals courts, i.e. the lower courts, almost always render a verdict that benefits or maintains the political or economic health of the country, but when the law is appealed to the Supreme Court, the decisions of the lower courts are almost always overturned and in the years that follow, the country becomes more polarized, or wealth inequality gets worse.
Mr. Beat do the Obergefell v. Hodges
I will definitely do that one at some point :)
Thanks!
i just saw that video in my feed
Awesome channel. I am binge watching. So don't be surprised if you see several messages from me. Your channel is going to be growing quick.
Welcome! And thank you :D Glad you found it.
helpful! thank you!
damn, its been a long and joyful journey
How do you put a corporation in prison for committing a crime?
You don't you slap them with a fine
You imprison those employees you can (those directly responsible) and put a massive fine on the corporation as a whole.
A corporation is comprised of people, so you would find the culpable people and jail them.
Mr. Beat, could you do a video on Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company 118 U.S 394 (1886)
I believe you’d like the significance of the case ;)
It is in the Super Pac Money mostly used right now in the Lincoln Project.
In terms of whether or not a corporation is a person I think it's simple. Free speech should only apply to people, not a body of people united by a common goal of making money. People and corporations can (and do) go to court but the punishment isn't the same. People can go to jail, corporations cannot. We (as society) say corporations are people but I think this is false. It's a bit like if I kill someone, get my day in court I tell the judge and jury, "oh no, that wasn't _me_ who killed that person, I'm just the CEO of my body." To me this means a corporation is not a person. If a corporation is a person then we need to stop giving out fines to large corporations and just put CEO's and Board of directors in jail.
The consequences of fining corporations do nothing....
Corporations will just find more creative ways of avoiding fines or restructuring their organization to minimize losses...
Disbanding the corporation and taking ahold of its assets would be more equitable imo. Fuck the shareholders right in the ass so then perhaps they can be more particular about the corporations they invest into, same for Trustee boards especially.
That's one weak analogy.
Nope corporations are NOT people.
I’m honestly not sure how I feel about this case, I’m also pretty divided when it comes to it!
This is a very tough one still...People can still make public donations, however how do we define a person? Are corporations people? And if not, does that mean PACs, Unions, and others are not people? If so should they have no influences? If we wanted to figure out how to separate corporations from the others i mentioned above, how can we? I dont see any physical difference other than one sells a product while the other two sell an agenda. But even then you 'could' call agendas a 'product' as although it is not a tangible item, it can still be 'consumed' in a sense (such as insurance). What do you think Mr. Beat?
I mean, in terms of existing law and the constitution it seems pretty legal. If you don't want this to be happening, the most logical move is an amendment because I don't see how it conflicts with the constitution
The issue is that it would limit free speech of independent parties (not in the political sense). Lets say a group makes 2 films before the election, one is against one candidate and the other film the other candidate, should they be allowed to release their films? Its an issue of limiting who can say what for what reason. It becomes this slippery slope.
Mr Beat, your Bernie love is showing.
hmm yes, the well known "association of citizens" known as corporations. If anything, corporations (and I assume labor unions as well) being "entities" in the law shows that they aren't, simply, "association of citizens" (as compared to say, the local PTA or some non-profit org)
If money = speech, then more money = more speech, and that fundamentally breaks the system.
President during this time: Barack Obama
Chief Justice: John Roberts
Argued March 24, 2009
Reargued September 9, 2009
Decided January 21, 2010
Case Duration: 303 Days
Decision: 5-4 in favor of CU
You should have a series on presidential scandals!
Excellent idea!
Can you do one on DC v. Heller?
I get a lot of requests for that one, but the Patreon supporters get first dibs.
Mr. Beat Gotcha
How has American political discourse been impacted by the ruling in Citizens United, if at all?
I'd like to have you go over more of what Citizens U. has done. Didn't they try to usurp the word person, (?) something like that.
Decided on my second birthday, that's crazy
So if corporations are people then those that mean Disney will become the future president of the USA?
They're not actually people. They just possess freedom of speech.
I agree, only for independent action, and domestic. this means a BP cannot politically advertise, because it is not American nor an American citizen.
Wait, how do Super PACS help elect a candidate?
AppleClassicGamer unlimited amounts of soft money can be donated to a superpac, and the superpac can use the money to make ads for a candidate they support
Can corporations "die"? And why do they get taxed differently if they are "people"?
this video really makes me want to buy a Nike shoe for some reason now. :)
I'd like to see some globally recognized symbol be used for a corporation that doesn't represent any Corporation at all.
Gotta get that ad revenue. :p
You just made my head hurt. lol I am so confused
Corporations itself isn't a person so to say, but it is run by people who is protected by our civil rights. So really, the people who run the corporations does have rights and are free to express it even through their corporations. Although I'll admit it's annoying to think it that way
What editing software do you use?
looks to me like he just records animated power point slides and reads a script over them
What Presidential elections do you think were the most interesting and which ones do you think were the least interesting.
Great question, Lindsay. I will answer it in the 10,000 sub video :)
Thanks!😃
For me it’s no I don’t think corporations are people but I also don’t agree with banning a movie/documentary simply on the basis that it could compromise an election. If it’s salacious or libelous or just plainly deceitful it should be sued but something about the government prohibiting a simply hit piece doesn’t sit right with me either. Idk if you can reconcile between the two tho and I do recognize the problems that come out of this ruling more broadly. Idk…this is one of those big court decisions that I personally can’t figure out where I stand
*Michael Bloomberg joined the chat*
So... Can someone explain that thing of corporations being people? Because in civil law corporations do have personhood, but not the same as an individual , the corporation is called personalidad moral in spanish and the individual is personalidad física, both legal but way diferent ins rights and obligations. So tell me, please how is in America?
I hope nobody freaking agrees with it because but I'm not going to look because like I said I'm trying to clean up the language this is serious stuff. I think I've had all the learning my brain can handle for the day. I've watched at least 60 of your videos so yeah my head starting to hurt
I can see some pretty shady shit happening there...
Mr Beat Can you do Snyder v Phelps next please - Blockmaster6567
I have a few lined up already to the Patreon supporters, but it is definitely one I'd love to explore
You use iMovie, right?
Final Cut Pro
I don't agree with this decision but if there's no way to overturn it I think corporations should pay more taxes then they're currently paying that is the waste that can happen they should also keep more jobs here in the USA.
get mr beat to 10000
Almost there!
10,000? That's a bit high
The people - oops - corporations, should be taxed as people without those special loopholes. Can’t have it both ways. (Like the death penalty. )
i can't judge on the legal arguments. but politically, this is one of the most damaging cases.
but of course justices are meant to decide on legal merit, so it's a tough one
As I've said for years, 'Democracy. The best system money can buy!'
Constitutional republic of democratic ideals in my opinion is better. I’m still somewhat skeptical of direct democracy.
if its run by people, it is people
Did this create superpacs?
I am so confused, this was about freedom of speech how did it become relevant to campaign contributions?
They definitely need to over turn this. America is a representative democracy. Not an oligarchy
So restricting group political speech is a good thing? BCRA limited group political speech it basically said you couldn't spend money on anything to support a candidate if you did so as a group. How does that make any sense? So Bob and Marry individually have free speech but they can't team up together to support a candidate? Imagine if this was applied to TH-cam, it basically says TH-cam can't have ANY political content 80 days before an election outside the established media. Is that fair to all the small channels who don't have the "media exception clause" that rags like CNN and NYTs do? After all if you are a full time youtuber you have to file taxes as a business! Sorry but the court ruled correctly in this case, if they went the other way the government could block any group speech theoretically since all speech other than speaking involves spending money on something at some point
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv I think your missing the point. Bob and Mary aren’t gods. They can’t just distribute their opinions to the masses indefinitely. They can only do that if they have enough money to do so. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the population does not have the resources to do it. Appealing to constituents with the resources to support or destroy you suddenly becomes much more important than anything else. If each campaign has finances based on their last election results and cease to be dependent on those who can finance them, then they will focus on getting their message across more than anything. There will be no side effects. Now, Bob and Sally may cease to be able to distribute propaganda for a candidate, but nobody bars them from expressing their opinion. If you believe publishing partisan propaganda to the masses constitutes free speech, then think of it this way: barely anyone has the money to do this. Therefore, the existence of any income inequality is a violation of free speech because it limite the free speech of the vast majority of the population. The logical conclusion would be that all currency must be abolished, by your logic. With equal financing the voices of the masses and the forces on which the candidates depend are not groups of individuals lucky enough to be able to make a campaign dependent on them, they are the masses in the ballot box. Those voices are shut when the priorities of politicians are to appeal to those with money, and they are many more voices.
The8th Gemmer barely anyone had a newspaper either.
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv get money out of politics
A constitutional amendment or some kind of legislation would be necessary. Overturning citizens United would go against the 1st amendment.
I Support: Indecisive
Corporations are formed by groups of people, so when you restrict corporations, you restrict people. If corporate personhood doesn't exist, then at what point can the freedom of peaceful assembly be regulated?
this isn’t getting overturned any time soon, especially with the justices rn 💀
My dyslexic brain read Mr.Beast
Well, he was right about roe v wade being discussed many years to come.
Funny that unions aren’t mention
Unions were mentioned
Unions are often corporations, I believe.
this has got to be up there with dred scott.
- "The government can't ban people from releasing a movie"
- "People can literally be property."
How are you so braindead as to think that comparison is reasonable?
can u plz cover buckley v valeo that one nuked campaign finance so hard it makes citizens united look like a coughing baby
No, they shouldn’t be able to give money to politics then take it off theirs taxes. This is part of the problem in America.
this guy totally sounds like adam scott
Wow
John Paul Stevens saw the future literately. The parties have been become glorified. We can just put in a president that nobody wants just because we can fuck this ruling!
Why I am a disenfranchised USA citizen ! If I had known what I now know , I would have saved up in my 20s to leave this monarchy
You still can. I barely got 3k from ride-sharing and bailed to Germany on my 25th bday. I've never felt so free. My blood pressure has drastically dropped
People should be able to spend money to promote candidates they like.
Flame Fusion I agree, PEOPLE should be able to, not corporations. If the head CEO of bank of America wants to reach in his pocket and donate to a compaign that's fine, but a corporate entity should not be able to.
Why can't corporations do it?
because corporations are not "the people" mentioned in our constitution. Us individual citizens are the people. It wasn't corporations that the founding fathers spoke for when they stated "We the people," It was the ordinary man.
Universe's Explosion because corporations don't get a vote anyway.
Corporations are composed of people with said rights.
#7 on your ten amendments list.
This case is probably the worst supreme court decision since plessy v ferguson
Endless amounts of corporate money in politics, what could go wrong? Why didn't we do this a long time ago? This law allows those companies into our elections, and into the pockets of our politicians. The Republican Party works for corporate America, sell the working man out 10/10 times for more corporate profits. Just ask middle class Unions, right to work states, the Minimum wage for those hurting the most and the working mans SS & Medicare. The Republican party always has the working man paying the price for Republican party policy and always in the favor of corporate America. This has to end, vote BLUE.
Sorry to tell you but every party, even third parties like the Libertarian party are corrupt and retarded.
I do not agree with Citizens United. Simply put, I don't think there can be unlimited spending in our elections.
That's not issue Citizens United decided. It decided that a movie could not be banned even though it mentioned a candidate. It was a good ruling!
@@MrVedude The ruling result is corruption and money in our politics.
Imagine they make a grocery store for billionare companies, and in a rack, they have prices for each candidate. Like $20 bil to get Hillary elected, $15 for trump
This isn't something for the courts to decide. The court was right in this instance. To make a change to this decision is something that needs to be passed by Congress with a new amendment same with abortion.
Easily one of the worst decisions ever made
l agree with this Supreme Court ruling.
Damn...why...?