Reconsidering Citizens United v. FEC

Allen Asch (aka “LiberalViewer”) presents a very cogent counter-argument to the widely held perception that the recent SCOTUS decision fundamentally corrupts democracy.

I’m still not entirely convinced that the SCOTUS decision isn’t a perniciously harmful one — only time will tell on that score, I guess. But what’s more troubling are the questions that it failed to address when it comes to the distinctions between political free speech the influence of money on the democratic process.

Update: Murray Hill Inc. — The Best Democracy Money Can Buy!

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Legal Issues, SCOTUS

5 responses to “Reconsidering Citizens United v. FEC

  1. That’s hilarious. I love satirical candidates.

    “designated human”… LOL

  2. Ti-Guy

    But what’s more troubling are the questions that it failed to address when it comes to the distinctions between political free speech the influence of money on the democratic process.

    That was the point I was making the other day. The US has to deal with different types of speech and their consequences in other ways, whereas we’re used to a jurisprudence that always addresses those issues in decisions that seek to balance different rights.

    The was the argument Greenwald was making. The First Amendment doesn’t say anything about types of speech, their consequences or anything about corporations or people.

    Since I’m not an expert on the American constitution or its jurisprudence, I can’t do anything but note that its free speech traditions lead to the same or worse outcomes over and over again (mostly in the form of the public being manipulated by sophisticated propaganda) and that there is rarely any agreement about the type of speech that undermine liberal democracies.

  3. Thanks for putting a finer point on my concerns about the different kinds of political free speech.

  4. Ian

    Watched Bill Moyers last night. He had a good segment on this issue that is worth a look.

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01292010/watch.html

    One of the more insightful points was that this decision creates an inherent `threat` that is likely to cause a significant chilling effect on what issues politicians are willing to stand up and be counted on.
    Ian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s