@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
you think that speech is somehow worse for a lot of people supporting it?
No, exactly the opposite: I think that worse speech supported by a very few well-financed people drowns out better speech that lots of people support.
Fun fact: conservative advertising received ~70% as much donations from corporations and LLCs as liberal advertising in the 2016 election. Better speech that lots of people supported was not drowned out due to financing, at least not by any of the groups affected by the Citizens United ruling. I think our biggest problem is the same it's been for years: we need to stop making stupid people famous.
Also, I half agree with @boomzilla here. PACs are inherently groups of individuals who donated their money for politics. That money is still protected speech. What I don't agree with about Citizens United is lumping corporations (i.e. groups of employees making money for shareholders/owners so they can collect their paychecks and keep living) and 501(c) non-profits (i.e. organizations which are not legally required to disclose their donors) in with PACs and saying they're all equally entitled to freedom of speech rights. For-profit corporations are, as their name suggests, for profit, not political advertising. If the shareholders, owners, or employees legitimately want to donate their own money to a political entity, that is all well and good, but allowing a decision-maker at a corporation to directly donate corporate money for political speech is wrong for several reasons.
- This makes it unacceptably easy to mask exactly who is doing the donating, making this essentially another form of dark money.
- Unless it's done with the prior consent of all shareholders/owners, it really isn't even that person's
money being donated.
- Employees are forced to either look for a new job or be associated with this political viewpoint, both of which are unacceptable.
And allowing 501(c) non-profits to use their own money for political advertising is literally dark money. It's ridiculous that people can use this court ruling to mask multi-million-dollar donations and expenditures. We've had laws requiring the disclosure of political donations for almost a century for a reason - corruption. Dark money directly opposes the anti-corruption goals of those laws.