Talk:Citizens United v. FEC

Removing the link to Hillary: The Movie in the See Also section

It's silly, in my opinion, to have a page link to itself. The Hillary: The Movie link redirects to this article. I think we should either change where it directs or remove the link. ObiBinks (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WRONG!

According to my research if the FEC had originally tried to ban the commercials than it abandoned it after the district court case started and certainly the district court ruled that the commercials themselves (and just them because all they did is advocate the buying the movie were ok.

The court did ban the movie though. And whether the government has the power to ban movies and books and whether the First Amendment means what the bloody hell it says is now up for the SC to decide. Look for yourself

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/citizens_united_memo_opinion_pi.pdf

I will leave it for the author to fix. I am busy right now. --69.37.90.34 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism section?

There are comments pro and con, but why on earth are the quotes on either side from non-credible sources like Limbaugh, Malkin and Olbermann instead of informed advocates. Serious advocates like ACLU and Ctr for Competitive Politics (pro-corporate) and Reclaim Democracy or Program on Corpp Law and Democracy (anti-corp) ought to be the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.177.252 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This decision reached has already been universally derided. Why is that not reflected in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.241.49.131 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You must be taking that quote about being bound up in a nutshell literally. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bit more criticism from various people, although I think John McCain and Olympia Snowe's criticisms still must be added. BillyJack193 (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added some comments by McCain and Snowe as well as a few other notables. Afasmit (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow

I really cannot believe this decision. The US is the most undemocratic country in the developed world. (1) the Supreme Court just strikes down democratically passed legislation with whatever obscure theory of constitutional interpretation it wishes (2) the Senate needs a 60 from 100 majority to pass laws, because of the filibuster (3) elections for governments are at a different time, so the will of the people can produce a president from one party and a Congress held up/controlled by another (4) elections for President depend on states' votes, not people's votes.

But, (1) Marbury v Madison was not a necessary judgment, without any explicit constitutional authority and Congress could overturn it (2) the filibuster only exists as a custom, and could be changed by a Senate majority (3) this probably requires something more, but wouldn't be so bad if (1) and (2) were solved, and (4) needs big change, but the same points about (1) and (2). It all shows, especially with a decision like this allowing the modern corporation to exercise its will as some part of its freedom of speech, that the US constitution was good for creating 18th representative government. But not representative democracy. It's such a pity. Wikidea 13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI this talk page is not a forum or a place to right great wrongs (whatever that may be). This is for discussing how to improve the article, and ignoring the right to peaceably assemble is no improvement. I see from your user page that you're a lawyer in Britain, so perhaps you will find The Federalist Papers helpful in illustrating the ideals that American government are founded upon. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

His point is reasonable. Furthermore, there is substantial opinion that this violates a hundred years of prescendent. A public opinion section is certainly warranted. Manticore55 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If precedent were the final word then Plessy v Ferguson would still be in force. And I think you misplaced your response. At least you've made an attempt to find some balance, though Choate's statement seems sensationalistic. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 20:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I added one of several opinions I found that this finally will allow nonprofit citizen corporations/groups to represent their memberships. In the same article listing various opinions from experts, a couple opined that for-profit corporations were likely to stick to current campaign contributions methods and few (except labor unions) would sponsor their own advertisements. But I'll give others a chance to read the whole article before adding more from it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about the lead...

The sentence about Erwin Chemerinsky seems out of place in the lead. He isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article so should this be removed? Hewinsj (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He's named because he was quoted in the given source.[1] I don't believe that undue weight is being given in this case, just adding context for the quote. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 05:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

But the article lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, not introduce new information. If it doesn't appear in the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. Would there be any problem if I moved it to the criticism section? Hewinsj (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Being that the source in question was published last August (well before the decision), the Background section would be a better fit. The reaction section should be reserved for anything subsequent to the decision. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I have moved this sentence into the Background section. Hewinsj (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Some confusion on what laws outlawed what

I'm adding one quote from Adam Liptak, Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit, New York Times, January 21, 2010. One thing that is a bit confusing is which laws banned what, including whether/which laws banned all corp/union ads or just 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before the general election. Also should the days earlier decisions be mentioned here? (See David D. Kirkpatrick, Courts Roll Back Limits on Election Spending.

It might help to shorten the lead with less details and then give fuller details to make it all clear in the body? Just in case anyone more knowledgeable wants to do it. Not high on my priorities list, but would be nice to straighten out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, corrected it myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Corporate personhood and Tillman Act of 1907

In the "See also" section, there are links to the Corporate personhood debate and the Tillman Act of 1907, but there is no mention of either in the body of the text.

Many commentators mention that a century-old law has been revised, i.e. the Tillman Act, but in our text there is only mention of it overruling 1990 and 2003 decisions as well as the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. Perhaps a knowledgeable person could add if and how this decision overrules the Tillman Act?

With respect to corporate personhood, in the US landmark decisions article the decision currently is even summarized as "limits on corporate and union political expenditures during an election cycle violate the First Amendment; establishes corporate personhood" and the corporate personhood debate article currently ends with a paragraph on this decision. Could the same or another informed person please add a section discussing the impact of the decision on this debate? This article may be a good point to start from. Afasmit (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good questions. The Tillman Act, while being the first U.S. law effecting campaign donations, may not be notable enough for inclusion. The wording of the stub implies that it went out of effect a few years after passage. The corporate personhood debate is a bit trickier. IMO the whole argument against it consists of special pleading of the worst type, yet it seems to be what much of the criticism of this decision is based upon. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 05:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is largely about whether funding == speech...

...is there any way to fit a "money talks" joke in here? --Shay Guy (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Article becoming very biased

It's important to be accurate in this article since some advocacy groups are deceptively inferring this decision allows corporations to contribute all the money they want directly to politicians. Other such biases also are evidencing themselves in the article.

I doubt that the following are really encyclopedic: comments by Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Veterans Today, Keith Olbermann. Also Ralph Nader and Olympia Snow should not be quoted unless they say something substantive and Snowe needs to be referenced. Also the note about wikilinks proving those opining aren't "noteworthy" enough shows a certain bias. Wikilinks of those without articles are meant to encourage the creation of articles, not to discredit the person speaking, even when they have been published in a WP:RS.

I'm expanding the list of those supporting the decision. Also I am changing the categories to: Politicians, Academics and attorneys, Advocacy groups and Journalists to reflect the new material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is commendable that you're working for some balance. But it may be for the best to just get rid of the Reaction section altogether. It seems to be degenerating into a coatrack. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 05:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dred Scott v. Sandford has a rather lengthy reaction section; perhaps the one in this article will mature as the dust settles.   — C M B J   06:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that inclusion of those supporting and opposing this decision are extrelemy academically relevant. Including the reaction of pro and anti slavery groups was certainly relevant to the Dread Scott decision. Waiting a while might be warranted, but the reaction sections are to central to a decision of this magnitude to be left out. Manticore55 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stevens Retirement

That Stevens stumbled thru the oral presentation of the decision, is about to retire, and that the other dissenters deferred to him withholding separate opinions in light of the circumstances of his immanent departure, are noteworthy and sourceable. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please share them. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The first is a fact, the other two are widely speculated in the MSM (the intentions of the dissenters, that they didn't present separate opinions and normally would have by their individual custom in so important a case is a fact). 72.228.150.44 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect speculation really doesn't have a place in this article. Even the subject of a Justice retiring is off topic here. I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith. It's just that reliable sources are required for any remarkable claim. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Who voted for and against

Where does it say which Supreme Court justices vote for it and which ones voted against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.173.3 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the standard ideological split is just assumed. (Adjusted below for indentation) 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's complicated. Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas joined with Kennedy's opinion. Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor voted against overturning the limitation on corporate political advertising. Thomas was the only Justice to dissent with holding up the requirement of naming donors. I hope this helps (and that I got it right). ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is really that complicated. Five appointed by Republican Presidents voted for, four appointed by Democrats voted against. Including who voted is a reasonable reaction. Including Thomas's advocacy for further dissolution of McCain Feingold is also relevant. More is better in this article from all sides. Manticore55 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I think the complicated part is the concurrence in part and dissent in part. While I agree that, at the essence of the vote, it is a 5-4 "Republican-Democrat" split, we can't over-simplify the vote. Marchoi (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There are only 3 justices appointed by Democrats. Get the facts before you try to oversimplify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.143.91 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentations of the decision

I wrote

Many critics of the ruling based their responses on misrepresentations of the ruling. For instance, Jonathan Alter stated that "If Goldman Sachs wants to pay the entire cost of every congressional campaign in the U.S., the law of the land now allows it." However, the ruling only affects the funding of independent advertisements; restrictions on other aspects of campaign financing, such as paying travel expenses, would not affected by the ruling.

How is this a "personal interpretation"? Heqwm2 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)