(04-05-2016 07:35 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A public sector union is not trying to get more favorable treatment than the average citizen. They are bargaining in mass and in mass there is power.

The lone wolf eats mice. The pack eats venison.

Pubic sector pensions are far and away more generous than private sector ones, period - with far earlier retirement allowances and higher payouts.....and they are bankrupting cities and eventually, states if not brought into fiscal sanity. The union's stance - eff'em - go to the public and just raise their taxes, go get deeper in the citizens pockets. Pay me!!!!

(04-05-2016 07:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  this could lead to a decent discussion.
1st. Owl: Citizens United did decide that money is free speech. I could find 1000's of Scalia quotes stating just that.

No, Citizens United did not decide that. Scalia may have stated that in discussing his reasoning, but that is not the holding in Citizens United. Do you understand how judges write opinions?

I will say that this is a far better discussion. These are the types of discussions we should have though.

Ok owl I'll play your game.

The leading contractor during Bush's war was KBR with 39.5 billion. Who awarded the contracts? The DoD. Who appointed the Secretary of Defense?

http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-...de-1135905

(04-05-2016 07:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok owl I'll play your game.

The leading contractor during Bush's war was KBR with 39.5 billion. Who awarded the contracts? The DoD. Who appointed the Secretary of Defense?

http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-...de-1135905

But the secretary of Defense did not negotiate those contracts. They were negotiated by civil servants.

The final negotiation was his stamp of approval.

On citizens United. Money is a 1st amendment issue.

No. No. Yes. Yes. The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.

Cite this page
APABluebookChicagoMLA
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Apr 5, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205>
Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech

And KBR were no bid contracts. Even worse imo and backs up my argument further.

(04-05-2016 07:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The final negotiation was his stamp of approval.

What would he have done instead?

Who other than KBR could have performed the contracts?

(04-05-2016 07:56 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And KBR were no bid contracts. Even worse imo and backs up my argument further.

Who else besides KBR could have bid on them?

(04-05-2016 07:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  On citizens United. Money is a 1st amendment issue.

No, that's not what this says. What it says is that corporations have the same rights as other fictional persons--unions, PACs, 501© whatever.

Quote:No. No. Yes. Yes. The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.

Cite this page
APABluebookChicagoMLA
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Apr 5, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205>
Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech

We don't know because they were no bid. Then when you consider how we went into the war and the reasons. It's not good for our democracy that's for sure.

(04-05-2016 08:00 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We don't know because they were no bid. Then when you consider how we went into the war and the reasons. It's not good for our democracy that's for sure.

So you don't know anyone else who could have bid on them.

I do know and can answer, by the way, if you would like me to.

By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.


Do I really need to find quotes that money is free speech from Scalia? Seriously?

Could we possibly have went to war because these corporations lobbied for these contracts. What was the Rummy quote? You go to war with the army that you have? Did we go to war with the contractors that had the politicians in their pockets? Scary really. A heck of a lot scarier than public sector unions that's for sure.

No, that's not what this says. What it says is that corporations have the same rights as other fictional persons--unions, PACs, 501 whatever.

That was the concurrent position Owl. I believe you are arguing the second paragraph. Read the second paragraph.

(04-05-2016 08:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.


Do I really need to find quotes that money is free speech from Scalia? Seriously?

Not all dissenting opinions are created equally.

(04-05-2016 08:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.
Do I really need to find quotes that money is free speech from Scalia? Seriously?

No, you need to understand the logic here.

The holding is not based upon either "money is speech" or the other mistaken concept that "corporations are people."

The legal point is that if we are going to permit other fictitious persons--unions, PACs, 501©s--to engage in political speech, then we must level the field by allowing corporations to do the same.

Money is no more or less speech for corporations than for unions or PACs or 501©s. And corporations are no more or less people than those unions and PACs and 501©s.

The left has totally distorted the holding in Citizens United. The left is butthurt because THEIR favorite fictitious persons--unions--were allowed to do it before, and they don't like seeing the field leveled.

Goo back and read what you quoted. You'll see that it totally supports the explanation I have given here--and totally rebuts your claims.

(04-05-2016 08:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No, that's not what this says. What it says is that corporations have the same rights as other fictional persons--unions, PACs, 501 whatever.

That was the concurrent position Owl. I believe you are arguing the second paragraph. Read the second paragraph.

No, I'm ignoring the second paragraph as a matter of fact. I thought about addressing it but decided not to. I am actually interpreting the one sentence you specifically quoted above.

For the record, if I had my way, then none of them--not corporations nor unions nor PACs nor 501©s--would be able to participate. All funding would come strictly from individuals, and all contributions would have to be posted on the Internet within 10 minutes of receipt.

But if you're going to allow some, you have to allow all. That's what Citizens United actually says.