[geeks] geeks Digest, Vol 157, Issue 2

[Phil Stracchino]

On 05/15/16 23:00, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>> On May 15, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Phil Stracchino <phils at caerllewys.net> wrote:
>>
>> The issue I see with the rationale for the Citizens United ruling is
>> that when people join together in some body, their individual voices are
>> in no way muted or silenced.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> But when the leaders or controllers of
>> that body are then granted the power to *also* speak on behalf of that
>> body with the voices and resources of everyone else who is a member,
>> whether they joined by choice or not, whether they agree with the
>> individuals speaking on behalf of that body or not, then those original
>> individuals have been granted a second voice in addition to their own
>> personal voice, and that second voice is loud enough to shout down
>> everyone else in the vicinity.
> 
> I invite you to consider the impact of a court decision that was against
> Citizens United - where unions, environmental groups, etc would be similarly
> barred from voicing a collective opinion in the politics of the day.

I don't believe a group should be barred from voicing a collective
opinion.  I simply don't believe that it should he a "he who brings the
most dollars to the table wins" type of argument.  Our system of
government is supposed to be based on 'one man, one vote', not 'one
dollar, one vote'.

> You personally may be in favor of it, as might I, but such a decision by the
> court would eliminate the *possibility* of a collection of individuals
> effectively countering the much louder political 'voice' of a well-heeled
> individual that holds a different position.

It's all but impossible for groups of individuals to counter the deep
pockets now.

>> The Supreme Court *blew* that decision,
>> and the ACLU had the wool pulled over its eyes or simply didn't think it
>> through far enough.
> 
> I can't imagine the real-world fall out from a decision against Citizens
> United.
[...]
> Do you remember what brought about the Citizens United case? A group, called
> Citizens United wanted to show a movie critical of Hillary Clinton shortly
> before an election.

I remember the issue, yes.  And I am in agreement with the initial
cause.  However, I find it difficult to believe that the Supreme Court
*intended* to open the door to effectively unlimited soft money in the
political system ... but that's what happened.

It is not that the original goal was in any way ignoble.  The problem is
that the solution wasn't thought through well enough and has turned out
to be savagely exploitable.  The intent was to do good, but it has also
done massive harm.  The amount of money spent manipulating US politics
is increasing exponentially, and every million dollars spent dilutes the
voices of working-class voters who can maybe afford a single $50
donation to one candidate in one campaign.  By the time all is said and
done, the amount of money spent to influence this upcoming election is
going to exceed the GNP of some *nations*.  That's insane.  And look
where it's gotten us so far:  Odds are we're looking at Donald Trump vs.
Hillary Clinton.  One can't keep his own story straight from one day to
the next, and can hardly open his mouth without putting his foot in it
somehow.  The other is reflexively mendacious, has already done immense
harm to national security, and can hardly open her mouth without a lie
or an evasion coming out.


I'm not arguing that what Citizens United *intended* to do should be
undone.  But I do feel that it needs to be re-examined to try to put a
cap on the things it *was not* intended to do, but did anyway.  The idea
was good.  The implementation desperately needs work.


-- 
  Phil Stracchino
  Babylon Communications
  phils at caerllewys.net
  phil at co.ordinate.org
  Landline: 603.293.8485