Free Speech? Citizens United v FEC Revisited
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2024
- Courtesy of the Political Theory Project: www.brown.edu/Departments/Poli...
Friday, September 17, 2010 - 4:00pm - 6:00pm
Salomon 101
Speakers: Lawrence Lessig and Bradley Smith
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that corporations are protected in funding independent political broadcasts under the First Amendment. The case, which struck down a provision of the McCain Feingold Act, overrules two precedents and presents a major doctrinal shift in the realm of campaign finance. Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School and Bradley Smith, former Chairman of the F.E.C., will discuss whether Citizens was rightly decided and what implications it will have for our nation's political discourse.
The question is: do corporations influence government? It is prima facie that it does. If corporations did not benefit from engaging in political arena, they wouldn’t do it. The next question is this influence in the best interest of the People. The fact that congressional approval rating is at 13% pretty much answers that question.
@Dr. Dr. Floyd (PsyD, PhD) orrououououououououououououououououo
PROF LESSIG'S PRESENTATION AND RESPONSE ARE ENLIGHTING - CLEARLY HE PREPARED WELL FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT AND IT HAD GREAT VALUE.
He seems to beat the same drum over and over and over.
A great debate which had me leaning one way then the next then back again....I don't think it can be resolved. I will be sending this to my Politics students in the UK to watch.
I'm astonished at the framing of this issue is simply about free speech.
Our society has all sorts of reasonable constraints on free speech.
The book analogy is just a slippery slope fallacy. It is embarrassing that
the SCOTUS would be baffled by such a slight of hand, like second-graders
being mesmerized by a shell game.
The realistic idea here is more about undemocratic influence.
In the age of media influence being controlled by monied interests,
and media influence distorts. Lessig's argument about dependency is correct.
Mr. Smith raises the boogy man of government, ignoring the fact that the government is people, our people, who are elected and have accountability. In totality, Smith digs a hole for himself, and the lucid audience questions expose the honest dishonesty of his arguments.
The argument "the government IS the people", therefore fundamental rights are not a protection against government, but a tool to justify government action against voluntary groups of citizens who are considered "unpatriotic" or "against the common interest of the people defined by the government", sounds EXACTLY like the justification of communist regimes like the "German Democratic Republic" ( a "peoples democracy" how those regimes called themeselve.
I finally figured out the main difference between libertarian and conservative thinking and "liberal" thinking:
For libertarians and conservatives most individual rights include the right to join together to use them as a voluntary association (in a "collective manner" if you want so). There are - of course - exceptions, like the right against self-incriminations or the right to keep and beer arms (which is not a constitutional right to build a private army or militia). But freedom of religion, speech, the press, a trail by jury - all those are rights that can be enjoyed in association of others.
There are differences between conservatives and libertarians - large differences - about the scope of those rights and what might justify restrictions of those rights. And conservative consider marriage (whether named as such or not) to be a privilege that need government approval. But in most cases they speak one language in regard to the topic at hand. We just have different opinions.
"Liberals" on the other hands don't want to be something between the individual - alone, without association - and the government. All associations between individuals, all actions by 3 or more individuals in concert need the approval of the majority/government. Of course liberals are the good guys, the moral and intelectual superior ones and as such shall be granted the right to associate - but anyone else, anyone who is against "progress" as defined by "liberal progressives" should be denied those rights or at last be regulated to behave in accordance with liberal ideals.
Another difference is the use of language. Whatever libertarians or conservative say, there choice of word is always "wrong". You can't use words that can't be reinterpreted by liberal, intellectual academics - with the use of rhetoric tricks - to support liberal ideas. It is intellectual dishonesty, but it works.
Liberal meant a moderate libertarian position in the beginning. It changed its meaning.
When conservatives talk about marriage they mean traditional marriage - but there word used to formulate their principals is reinterpreted by liberals: You believe marriage is a basis for society? So why are you against gay marriage? Of course conservatives mean marriage in the traditional meaning and not it's new meaning.
In California existed the concept of a civil union. It was equal to traditional marriage in the eyes of the law. But this was not enough: liberals have to reinterpret the word marriage to include unions for life between people of the same gender (polygamy by the way is not a knew meaning to the word marriage).
I think libertarian should fight for the equal status before the law, but they should not help to reinterpret words. It harmed moderate libertarians (=classical liberals), too. It's not juist harm to conservative world views. By all differences between libertarians and conservatives - conservative try to use language which meaning you can understand. And you know: Most likely it will mean the same in 10 years. You don't know if this is the case with liberal principals. You can argue with conservatives. You can't argue if you speak two different languages.
Slander is a constraint on speech, but that is separate from the political speech protected by this ruling. I can speak on politics, but I just can't go into my neighbor's house and speak about politics or the nearest office or factory.
That being said, I'm not sure what your point is. Government is a threat to our liberties. It's why we have a Bill of Rights that places limits on our government. A corporation, on the other hand, can't force a dime out of my pocket. That requires force of law which is to say a government.
@@techniknoergler To Quote George Carlin: "Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.'"
Oh, and the rest of your diatribe? Pure unadulterated brainfart.
It’s more than a little interesting and telling that in a debate on distorted US electoral campaign financing and independent spending by corporations on candidate promotion neither participant speaks or acknowledges of the broader underlying situation of extreme economic inequality in the us. In that corporations that spend the most on campaign finance and candidates are doing so at the behest of the economic and social interests of the wealthiest 1% (or 0.1%) of the nation (largest shareholders, executive and board elites etc) . These being often aligned against the interests of the majority of the population and society as a whole. Have they simply given up on any hope of redressing this injustice ?
My weight issue right now has been diagnosed by a endocrinologist as being caused by years of slow weight gain from the use of atypical antipsychotic prescription drugs. I have had prolactemia and had to stop taking them. I now am slowly loosing weight and dieting.
Podrian traducir los subtitulos a español?? Habilito la opción de que se traduscan al español y no pasa... que puedo hacer????
Ty
My professor expects me to take 1 hr and 45 mins out of my day to watch this ??
I know huh
High fructose corn syrup is in everything and I have been aware of eliminating it and I now read labels prior to purchasing groceries. Even ketchup has it in it but I found Annie’s Organic Ketchup without it! They dump it in soda!
If money doesn't affect policy, why do you even care if there is a limit?
Very interesting
could at least link to the brown paper that denoted the political efficacy association with citizens united... i mean we all know 85% of murica thinks corporations have too much political power
I only received one check for $250 and two in kind donations of palm cards and posters in campaign donations in the 2016 election.
The sugar vs HFCS rebuttal based on what’s bad for teeth is awful though. The foundation of the concurring argument is enough to support it. Trying to support it further with bad arguments is foolish.
Someone like the Vatican Secret Police is placing music on top of my reels on Instagram. I think the Snake works for them.
I was trying to save lives.
The people would like the money back you fight against the people we lost our democracy years ago thanks to you
Eleven years later the union still flourishes.
Barely. You have the fascist Reich Wing / MAGA party already attempting a violent coup on Jan 6, and wealth inequality at its highest levels in the history of the USA (higher than in the Gilded Age!).
John McCain was right about you, Brad.
What’s that?
USA is 44th on the World Press Freedom Index for a reason. The US is not a Free Press country like the top scoring countries on the Democracy Index are.
Norway is ranked first, despite the fact that their constitution permits punishing speech when it exhibits “contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone.”
Norway doesn’t appear to have exceptionally liberal protections in place for the press (or for expression full stop).
Madison answered this question long ago.
Factions should not be suppressed. They should be encouraged, and in fact, are built into our constitution.
When the government seeks to ban political speech, even if it comes from the rich, there is a problem.
Where are factions built into the US Constitution? Please cite. Also, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington, Monroe, AND Madison all were against political parties and hated them.
And the issues is that 'the rich' are essentially the only ones who are allowed political speech: they own the corporations (the economic upper 10% owns over 90% of all US stocks), and they own the members of the US Congress thanks to legalized bribes, thanks in part to Citizens United.
@@rsr789
In federalist 10, Madison wonders what to do about the problem of factions, and realizes they are a part of human nature. To attempt to remove them would be at the cost of liberty. Instead, he argues that factions should be encouraged. The more the better, so as to prevent consolidation of power.
Madison says that "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition".
This theme is touched upon again in federalist 51. Madison stresses the importance of division of power being built into the system. That because power resides in such a divided state, opposing factions are forced to adapt through compromise or through gaining political influence. The greater the faction becomes, the harder it will be to maintain such a focused goal. By providing a system that segregates power (our constitution), you ensure that no faction becomes tyrannical.
Citizens United is a perfect example of this concept in action, and actually helps to safeguard our freedom!
Ambition must be set against Ambition. CU allows anyone to speak freely. Political fundraising happens, as it always has, based upon FACTIONS and those who WILLFULLY JOIN those factions..
In the case of CU, a documentary was made that was meant to disparage a political candidate (Hillary). The government was attempting to shut down that free speech. However, 4 years earlier, another politically charged documentary was in theaters across the nation. Fahrenheit 9/11 dragged George W Bush with no resistance.
Do you want the government controlling which political opinions you are allowed to hear? Or do you agree with the decision in CU? Or is it that you only abhore and wish to diminish the speech that you disagree with?
Washington certainly had no problem with money in politics. He used his wealth and connections to win a place in the house of burgesses. Franklin ran a press, and used his considerable wealth to aid in his political ambitions. THEY ALL DID. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Our founders understood that influence and politics were inseparable by their very nature. As federalist 51 states
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself."
Our constitution was designed to prevent tyranny through division. If you are looking for the article where "factions" are mentioned, you won't find it. But if you read the Federalist Papers, you can't miss it.
@rsr789
Deleted the post. But I was asked to "cite" where the constitution supports factions. rsr789 then said something about how the founders hated political parties (though they all joined them and were major players in political parties of the day, save Washington *sort of). Then complained about how unfair CU was and that only the rich (yawn) control freedom of speech or politics or whatever.
Looks like rsr789 should read more founding documents and less bumper stickers.
Not saying which side of the argument is right or wrong, but Smith's arguments were terrible. His analogies didn't even make sense and he was very smug for someone who clearly barely knew what he was even talking about.
NO CONTEST - THE 2ND SPEAKER CAN'T COMMUNICATE CLEARLY, MISSES THE POINT, INFLUENCED NO ONE. POSING THE QUESTION "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE" IS NOT THE SAME AS PRESENTING EVIDENCE OR EVEN A THEORY.
Bradley Smith is a fascist: lying is as basic to them as breathing.
Great lecture. I’ll say it again. SCOTUS has a very specific role given to it by the United States Constitution. Fitting that this was a lecture given in observance of Constitution Day. The high court MUST execute it’s duty in choosing & deciding cases of greatest importance to the people based on their constitutional merit first & historical legal precedent second. Throughout history, EVERY time the court has deviated from that enforcement duty & ventured into what can only be described as a legislative backstop, the rights of Americans have eventually suffered. Plessy was perhaps the most AWFUL decision & very weak at its core. Same with Roe. Even RBG disagreed with the foundation that a woman right to choose was built upon. The Judicial Branch can not be a backstop for the corruption & failings of congress. The precedents will not and should not stand the test of time. Citizens is not the problem just because the topic itself is the root of this institutional failure. If the people are aware this issue exists, why are we perpetuating such failure amongst our representation. The whole thing fails if we don’t see a serious resurgence in our cultures sense of civic duty. If you fall asleep at the wheel, you can’t blame the engine, brakes, or suspension when you crash. It’s all a reflection of cultural apathy, privilege, greed, & arrogance. Shocking right?
You ask “if the people are aware that this failure exists, why don’t they remedy it?”
Im paraphrasing but i think i got the essence of your question down.
The answer to this is that the united states is not a functioning democracy. Many issues that americans agree upon (like marijuana being legal) are skipped im DC. They don’t pass laws that people want. The legalized corruption that citizens united allows pretty much put the last nail in that coffin.
@@exi8550 The federal prohibition on marijuana doesn’t at all drive home your point that democracy in America is broken. Marijuana’s Schedule I status is enforced exceedingly rarely. Why? Because it’s unpopular. It’s therefore a democratic policy.
@@-dash That is a ridiculous statement. if what you said is true, no one would be going to prison for having weed on them in any state, but IT STILL HAPPENS. as little as 1 ounce can land you in prison for a longer period of time than even child molesters get.
@@exi8550 Sure, it can land you in state prison, but it’s unlikely to land you in federal prison. Your original point was regarding the federal policy, no?
@@-dash that's tangential. my original point was that democracy here doesnt always function properly. In the case of marijuana, many of these states' populations want marijuana legalized, but the state legislators vehemently oppose decriminalization of any kind.
The whys are a bit complex but i can sum it up in 1 phrase: ppl focus too hard on culture war nonsense
What is absolutely disgusting to me is that all this fluff being discussed on the surface drawing parallels between individual rights and corporate right is largely a smoke and mirrors discussion. The core of this issue is whether these "Corporations" should be 501 c 4. Is it really a social welfare non profit? The definition of social welfare is helping people that are in serious trouble. Hungry, diseased, etc.
2024 will decide if Americans want to be a Fascist Autocratic Republic of Corporate (or Christian) elite which are their own F.A.R.C.E. even though they look alike.
The republicans arguements are full of fallacies and strawmen
What exactly was a strawman?
@@lawong8165
Exactly La Wong. King Hassy aint got anything to say LMAO
John F Kennedy Jr is alive! Vote Kennedy!