Bipartisan Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Introduced

[DougBH]

The Amendment applies to companies.
Google is a company.
Therefore…

[TheDoctorIsIn]

So you’re asking if the amendment would prevent search engines and social media companies from directly funding independent expenditure campaigns?

Then the answer is yes.

But I have a feeling that’s not what Smyrna was asking.

[WuWei]

I agree. So we’re upset of a month and two. Not that corporations suddenly became people.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

I agree. So we’re upset of a month and two. Not that corporations suddenly became people.

Well, it is more complicated than that.

Prior to McCain-Feingold, it was already illegal for corporations to directly advocate for or against candidates in elections - but it was defined using “magic words” - the ads couldn’t say “support”, or “vote for” or “vote against”, etc - but they could make ads saying things like “Call Candidate X and tell them to vote against this bill…” or something like that.

The point of Section II of McCain-Feingold was to close the sham Issue advocacy loophole. As I said before, CU overturned parts of both McCain-Feingold and FECA, which was the prior existing law.

Prior to CU, there had been only one SCOTUS case that addressed the question of whether corporations had first amendment rights at all.

[WuWei]

Mmmm, interesting. So why did the ACLU support it, even after referring it to committee for further study?

Didn’t Roberts vote for it?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

Mmmm, interesting. So why did the ACLU support it, even after referring it to committee for further study?

Didn’t Roberts vote for it?

You’d have to ask the ACLU for their rationale. And yes, Roberts joined the majority decision, as well as wrote a concurring opinion.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

You’d have to ask the ACLU for their rationale. And yes, Roberts joined the majority decision, as well as wrote a concurring opinion.

I did, waiting to hear back.

Huh, imagine that.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

The story of Roberts and Citizen’s United is actually somewhat interesting. The question initially presented to the court was simple - could Citizen’s United air a film critical of Hillary Clinton within the previously defined time period?

The vote was 5-4, and Roberts wrote the opinion, saying yes to only that narrow question. Kennedy wrote a concurrence suggesting the final, much wider ruling, which was taken up by the majority, with Roberts retroactively taking up this wider question presented sua sponte.

Souter announced his resignation while writing the dissent, and aired a lot of the court’s dirty laundry in it - he essentially suggested that Roberts manipulated the court’s process to create such a wide precedent.

[ComfortablyNumb]

@DougBH

@ComfortablyNumb

What would be applied to search engines or social media sites? This seems like a random sentence generator.

Perhaps “it” refers to the Constitutional amendment which is the subject of this thread and to which his post was made in reference?
This (meaning comprehension) shouldn’t be that hard.

Fascinating. Lol

[Jezcoe]

@TommyLucchese

@WuWei

I read the CU decision yesterday. I don’t think any one else here has.

I have. Perhaps you could explain to me why I as an American citizen was not a beneficiary of this ruling but corporations and nonprofits and PACs were. I’m still covered by the McCain-Feingold law.

In fact, they specifically said they would revisit it to apply to actual people instead of our corporate overlords and it’s been almost seven years aaaaand

That’s the million dollar question now isn’t it.