View Mobile Site

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos


Time to overturn Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision

Posted: June 25, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: June 25, 2014 2:00 a.m.

I just wanted to point out the need to overturn the Citizens United decision of the United States Supreme Court in 2010.

That decision held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, associations or labor unions.

In essence, it allows those entities to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns as long as it is not a direct contribution to the candidate.

The power and corrupting influence of money in political campaigns is well known. Generally, those with the most money have the most influence.

That type of power dilutes the “one man, one vote” tradition of democracy.

In the last election cycle, political campaign records have been broken, thanks to Political Action Committees and “super PACs.”

This is a timely topic, as the United States Senate is now considering a vote to amend the Constitution with S.J. RES.19, which will restore Congress’ and states’ authority to limit campaign spending.

In my opinion, this action is sorely needed.

Limiting campaign contributions should be the goal in order to level the playing field for all Americans, particularly the vast majority who do not have the money to compete with major corporations and unions trying to influence public opinion and governmental policy.

I believe this to be in the interests of all Americans regardless of political affiliation and would recommend that we all support this legislation by calling our senators.



BrianBaker: Posted: June 25, 2014 9:08 a.m.

"Overturn" the decision?

How? By whom?

A constitutional amendment?

Yeah, right. Good luck on that.

Funny how none of these leftists were squawking when it was George Soros pouring money into politics.

chico: Posted: June 25, 2014 9:26 a.m.

We should be able to give whatever we want, with transparency. Simple.

Your 'senator' might appreciate that sentiment too, there's been so much good stuff they've had to turn away.

ricketzz: Posted: June 25, 2014 9:31 a.m.

George Soros didn't give as much as the usual cast of Righties, and he has stopped. What matters is what has happened since 2010.

The Move to Amend campaign is alive and gaining steam. First you mock, then you fear, then we win.

"Money doesn't talk, it swears" -Bob Dylan

BrianBaker: Posted: June 25, 2014 9:41 a.m.

Your double-standard is showing, ricketzz.

"George Soros didn't give as much as the usual cast of Righties, and he has stopped. What matters is what has happened since 2010."


And there you have it! It was all okay while Soros was doing it, but now that some CONSERVATIVE is doing it, the country's in danger.

What absurd hypocrisy.

philellis: Posted: June 25, 2014 11:13 a.m.

What matters is what has happened since 2010.

When did Bush leave office?

projalice11: Posted: June 25, 2014 11:50 a.m.

BINGO,BINGO Wayne Smith-----

tech: Posted: June 25, 2014 12:36 p.m.

The LTE author would do well to review the ACLU's position on Citizens United.

"Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment."

tech: Posted: June 25, 2014 12:40 p.m.

Related to Citizens United and government regulation of political speech:

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Political Speech

The Supreme Court will decide whether a lawsuit challenging Ohio’s ban on false speech in political campaigns can proceed, even though the plaintiff has not been charged with violating the measure.

therightstuff: Posted: June 25, 2014 2:06 p.m.

It would be interesting to see the email exchanges between Lois Lerner and other government departments related to the Citizens United ruling and their targeting of conservative groups.

Unfortunately, that evidence was destroyed in an mysterious computer crash during that time exact time frame.

Not a smidgeon of corruption Mr. Obama? Not everyone is as gullible as your supporters.

ricketzz: Posted: June 26, 2014 9:27 a.m.

Issa has not turned up anyone but Lois Lerner and has already stated it probably starts and ends with her. Gee, maybe Obama stated what he believed to be true.

The ACLU is viewing Citizens United in a vacuum; in a world where the public airwaves are turned against the people and confusion raises profits, we need all the help we can get. Our political campaigns are a national disgrace and serve no one but ad agencies and failing broadcasters. The money would be better spent teaching history and civics and critical thinking.

BrianBaker: Posted: June 26, 2014 10:56 a.m.

Ricketzz, you should try to catch up on the news more often than once a quarter. Maybe then you'd learn something. Like maybe about the thousands of "lost" emails.

"Gee, maybe Obama stated what he believed to be true."

Yeah, right. And he "learns" about all these scandals from the morning newspapers, like everybody else.

That guy's the MOST pathetic liar in history. Either that, or the most inept President ever. What kind of "executive" has no idea -- or responsibility for -- what his subordinates are doing? Ever?

BTW, ricketzz, I'm still selling that bridge in the middle of the Gobi desert.

Interested? It's going for cheap...

ricketzz: Posted: June 27, 2014 10:18 a.m.

BB, I watch Fox News as much as I watch anything. I know the party line. I have not seen what it is that Issa is trying to prove. If Ms. Lerner exceeded her authority charge her, threaten her with a long sentence and see if she rolls over on anybody. Otherwise drop this stuff. It is all for show, IMHO.

BrianBaker: Posted: June 27, 2014 10:44 a.m.

"If Ms. Lerner exceeded her authority charge her, threaten her with a long sentence and see if she rolls over on anybody."

Before you charge someone, you have to have the facts to make a case stick. THAT is what these investigations are all about. Don't you get that? Or are you such a Kool-Aid drinker that you can't even see that?

And while the whole House should be trying to actually do that -- like they did with Nixon and Watergate -- the Dems are obstructing the entire process, letting their blatant partisanship stand in the way of the process being completed.

What I'm seeing is stonewalling, contempt of Congress, and destruction of evidence. If you don't, take another gulp of your Kool-Aid, then sit back and enjoy the show.

tech: Posted: June 27, 2014 12:16 p.m.

It's beyond Lerner, ricketzz. As I mentioned in another thread:

"Disparate treatment before the law, unauthorized disclosure of tax information, spoliation of evidence subject to subpoena and failure to report data loss to the U.S. Archivist, ricketzz."

Unauthorized disclosure of confidential tax information is a felony offense that can result in five years in prison. The IRS has already admitted wrongdoing in one case and there are other open lines of inquiry.

As Brian noted, you're *not* keeping up.

Indy: Posted: June 29, 2014 11:25 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Overturn" the decision?

How? By whom?


I see that Vermont was the first state to get the resolution approved for a constitution convention followed by CA last week . . .

So anyone interested, check out and sign up for Wolf-Pac!

tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 11:51 p.m.

"So anyone interested, check out and sign up for Wolf-Pac! " - Indy

Heh, heh. Good luck with that. The wisdom of the Founders is profound indeed.

tech: Posted: June 30, 2014 11:57 p.m.

By the way, Indy, have you noted this administration and politicized DOJ have suffered 13 SCOTUS 9-0 defeats since 2012? The Hobby Lobby and Illinois union cases were 5-4 decisions but the trend and defective legal premises are obvious.

Ideology, arrogance and incompetence are hallmarks of this administration.

ricketzz: Posted: July 1, 2014 10:28 a.m.

I "keep up" enough. Those charges are not worth the money spent. None of the so called "conservative" groups was denied tax exempt status. A "liberal" group was. Liberal groups got increased scrutiny as well. The problem was a marked increase in applications and short staffing. They cooked up some filtering criteria based on the name of the organization, trying to find applicants who were most likely political advocacy groups and not charities, as is required for TE status under 401[c][4]. If Lerner and her inner circle trashed their computers get the National Archivist to throw the book at them.

ricketzz: Posted: July 1, 2014 10:34 a.m.

Tech: We lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 in a hundred days. Before the internet.

tech: Posted: July 1, 2014 8:11 p.m.

A Constitutional Amendment to limit political speech won't pass in a hundred days, nor a thousand plus.

Federal judges are now involved in IRS cases with hearings scheduled for the 10th & 11th.

ricketzz: Posted: July 2, 2014 10:11 a.m.

Ooh. Federal judges. Lookout. Immunize Lerner. Let the chips fall where they might. Only Issa can't immunize Lerner because he's afraid if he does and she turns out to be the alpha and the omega he'll have no one to put on trial.

ricketzz: Posted: July 2, 2014 10:19 a.m.

The Amendment proposed says only natural persons have civil rights and that money is property, nothing more.

Of course "closely held" corporations are people and would be exempt, as would be trade organizations, PACs, etc. Publicly traded corporations are a different warm kettle of old fish. They are are an all consuming force for evil; dehumanizing entire civilizations in pursuit of profits, despoiling nature every step of the way. They need to be broken like a wild horse and be taught to once again serve as a public (as well as private) asset.

tech: Posted: July 3, 2014 1:54 a.m.

People don't lose rights when they form a corporation. Take a breath and stop the hysterics.

ricketzz: Posted: July 3, 2014 11:06 a.m.

When a corporation goes public they should lose any civil rights a closely held corporation enjoys. BNP Paribus just paid a 20 billion dollar fine for using dollars to trade with Iran (Treason? No they aren't American). Not one principal is going to jail. Banks are already operating in a different world than you or I. Reagan put hundreds of bankers in jail. We got Bernie Madoff.

Tech sides with the machines!

tech: Posted: July 3, 2014 4:14 p.m.

Burn your straw man, please.

I'm as opposed to crony corporatist government as you profess to be. For you, it's only words, however.

Note that the Federal government you're so fond of ceding power to for your favorite pet environmental and single payer medical usurpations is more than happy to accept payoffs from financial felons.

I side with freedom. The rest can get stuffed.

ricketzz: Posted: July 4, 2014 11:17 a.m.

The only power the federal government is legitimately allowed is that derived from the consent of the governed. Currently we have middle-men (middle-men everywhere, actually) called elected representatives and senators who disregard the will of the people and govern entirely for the benefit of a few dozen well connected families. The USA is an oligarchy. Exactly like Russia.

I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when the institutions of government worked for everyone. We established this one to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves...a more perfect union...wubba wubba wubba.

tech: Posted: July 4, 2014 7:44 p.m.

"The only power the federal government is legitimately allowed is that derived from the consent of the governed." - ricketzz

Not if it exceeds Constitutional limits without an attending amendment.

I remember when government was more accountable as well. Now we're increasingly ruled by an administrative state of unelected bureaucrats. The only way to reverse it is to shrink the power and scope of central government, devolving it back to the local level. The Feds are operating way beyond their Constitutional enumerated powers.

Here's an example of the nonsense:

HHS releases 1,296 pages of regulations ahead of holiday weekend --edited.

ricketzz: Posted: July 7, 2014 9:18 a.m.

Ahh. They finally admit they want the government shrunk because it's too complicated for them to understand. Still, the real answer is that The Corporation makes more money in a less regulated environment because The Corporation, like an elephant, happily leaves a trail of waste everywhere it plods. We the People get the privilege of absorbing the elephant dung into our national debt.

tech: Posted: July 7, 2014 9:45 p.m.

Thanks for the commentary from Bizarro World, ricketzz.

I'm out.

You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail The content posted from readers of does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.


Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...