Do I put you down as thinking white privilege and income do not inequality exist?
Telling their truth.
The SCOTUS ruled correctly in Citizens.
1 Like
Weāve had that conversation before, I know that you believe they ruled correctly.
It is majority privilege and a fact of life.
āIncome inequalityā is the stupidest thing ever typed. You are not guaranteed an outcome.
1 Like
Of course they did. They couldnāt have ruled any other way. The 1st Amendment is clear.
Iām not talking about whether Citizens United was decided correctly or not.
Iām saying that if you accept Citizens United as correct, it follows that any significant attempts to ban or restrict lobbying are just as unconstitutional.
And I disagree. Where was the quo for Citizens?
If thereās no quid pro quo in corporations financing a politicians campaign, thereās definitely no quid pro quo in modern lobbying.
Thatās ridiculous. Lobbying is quid pro quo.
As a general rule, do lobbyists lobby candidates or incumbents?
Itās quite illegal for any gifts or money to change hands.
Both. Although when lobbying a candidate, its called donating, and money usually does change hands.
Stop dude.
Lobbying, not donating. Which did Citizens United do?
Is the FEC Constitutionally allowed to bar the press from negatively reporting on a candidate so many days before an election? Or are we going to pretend CNN isnāt a corporation?
1 Like
No. Stop trying to deflect to arguing Citizens United.
We are arguing Citizens. Youāre trying to make it lobbying.
No, weāre not.
You are arguing Citizens United by yourself. The posts you responded to are about lobbying.
have a nice evening.
Iām arguing it.
Yes. From the beginning of this conversation, I have been discussing how Citizens United is relevant to lobbying.
I donāt know why youāre having such a hard time following.
Because itās not relevant to lobbying. They were not lobbying.
Is the topic of the thread Citizens United?
Legally, it is very relevant to lobbying, for the reasons Iāve mentioned.
