The desire to overturn 'Citizens United' decision in US

[wonkishere]

I don't know how much is known about it in the United Kingdom, but one of the things that happened recently in the United States is that the Supreme Court made a decision that equated to saying that money is free speech, and whoever wanted to spend money in an election could. For the most part, there is no need even to identify who is paying for ads more in any real way. Though there is some attempt to identify them, if disclosure isn't made it can take years for legal challenges to go through to determine who donated money, and by then the election is over.

Unfortunately, money has always been a huge factor in elections, and each Presidential election in recent memory has gotten more and more expensive. The recent decision has unleashed a flood of corporate money that threatens to drown out, in my opinion, the voices of the poor.

In 2008, more than 5.3 billion dollars was spent on those elections. It is anticipated that 2012 will easily break that record.

Here's a link with some more hard data. The data I'm including comes from politico as well.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...tial-elections

Yesterday 1,959,063 signatures were sent in by concerned individuals calling for overturning Citizens United and related cases by amending the Constitution. The petitions were delivered in connection with hearings held by the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine the impact of Citizens United, Speech Now and related cases and the need for constitutional remedies to restore the democratic promise of America.

Wolf PAC, a group I'm a member of, started the drive but a lot of other people gathered signatures.

Unfortunately, it is incredibly difficult to do anything about the decision once the Supreme Court has ruled, and the one we have is the most conservative court in almost 100 years. Amending the constitution requires a massive effort, and in all likelihood we will not be able to do it, but we'll have to see.

I'm actually curious as to the extent that people in Europe follow this sort of thing. As much as money has been a driver in politics in the past, it will be even more so in the future.

[Bowler1]

There has been a small amount of discussion in the UK about advertising being restricted in elections but with very little being done about it. There is good disclosure and limits on party donations in the UK so to the best of my knowledge it’s all fairly open and above board. That being said we don’t hold elections for the most powerful political post in the world! I can see why the court made its decision and there is a good logic to it. As long as there is free elections with one vote per person, then the poor as a voting block have as much power as the next voting block. They only have to take responsibility and vote.

Your main point is that money through advertising defines and shapes public opinion. People are never that stupid, and I’ll mention the on-going Arab spring (ignoring all flaws in this process of course) as proof that people won’t be bought off forever. The power of big industry is a problem and money talks, but I doubt if it carries the day.

[Parson]

You are right that overturning a Supreme Court decision is difficult in the extreme. It has seldom been done, and then usually piecemeal as other aspects of the case are seen in the light of further decisions.

I have a friend who did some of the original research into American elections and how voters were swayed. Unfortunately it is not good news for you. The first finding was that few voters are swayed by discussion of issues or political stands. The only thing that swayed voters by a statistically significant amount was 30 second commercials.

Judging by the way the commercials are written and played (and here in Iowa we have had them very steadily for a year now. Yuck!) the kind of commercial that gets the biggest response is one that is called in the advertising industry a "mood piece." [Think the Coke commercial: "I Want to Teach the World to Sing..."]. Or possibly the "attack ad." Which both parties seems to have honed to an impossibly fine edge.

All of this to say that money does make a difference. When something around 1% of the voters determine the winner in a presidential election in recent years even small shifts are huge.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by Bowler1

There has been a small amount of discussion in the UK about advertising being restricted in elections but with very little being done about it. There is good disclosure and limits on party donations in the UK so to the best of my knowledge it’s all fairly open and above board. That being said we don’t hold elections for the most powerful political post in the world! I can see why the court made its decision and there is a good logic to it. As long as there is free elections with one vote per person, then the poor as a voting block have as much power as the next voting block. They only have to take responsibility and vote.

Your main point is that money through advertising defines and shapes public opinion. People are never that stupid, and I’ll mention the on-going Arab spring (ignoring all flaws in this process of course) as proof that people won’t be bought off forever. The power of big industry is a problem and money talks, but I doubt if it carries the day.

The Arab Spring was dealing with something different (and generally worse) than what I'm talking about, which is massive oppression and civil rights abuse. The situation in the US is different. It has to do with the ability of money, advertising, and disinformation to sway the opinion of people who are basically satisfied.

And frankly, your conclusions are not born out by the statistics that I see. Advertisers do not spend billions of dollars without doing market research; they spend that money because it works. It has worked amazingly well. In the US, a large portion of the public can be counted on to vote against its own interests because of opinions formed after decades of research.

The poorest people in the country, routinely and consistently vote for the very people who intend to reduce their benefits, threaten their very ability to vote, and represent the interests of corporations. And when they vote that way, and their representative then does those things, they frequently act surprised, even though their representative essentially stated when he ran for office he was going to do those things.

We are a very stupid species. We dose off during factual presentations, but we love 30-second spots and attack ads. That's just how we are.

[j. d. worthington]

I don't know as we're a stupid species (though I think a strong argument may be made in that direction), but we are certainly irrational, whatever we like to think to the contrary.

Most people are swayed by their emotions, or core beliefs, not by any form of deliberation or rational discussion. The ones who are are distinctly in the minority, yet it is often those who push us toward the steps necessary to improve our lot... and not infrequently get the crap kicked out of them for doing so.

Again, education (and particularly education in critical thinking skills and how to recognize such things as confirmation bias, etc.) would make at least some difference; but, to be honest, the more I see the less I think it would make enough difference... at least for some generations.

About this particular decision: As I understand it, there has been some indication that even several of the justices who went with it have been questioning whether or not this was a wise decision, but it is going to take a great deal to overturn such a decision, I'm afraid. Most likely the best we can hope for is for enough of the harm to become blatantly evident to push even a goodly number of conservatives into realizing something must be done before the bulk of voters become effectually disenfranchised....

[Bowler1]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

We are a very stupid species. We dose off during factual presentations, but we love 30-second spots and attack ads. That's just how we are.

I'm not disputing most people don't make rational decisions and money would not be spent unless there was some sort of return.

Or, is money being spent just to keep up. One side spends the cash, so the other side has to as well. There are only three main parties in the USA from what I can see, are they spending money just to keep pace with each other? I don't know, you guys can tell me the answer to that question.

I still think the days of TV ads being the main medium of dictating public oponion as old hat. These days the internet may have a greater say. All these Arab springs are individual people rising up against armed forces, and they have based these life changing decisions on what they learned from the internet. In these countrys, the literacy rate is low as is access to computers. Are you all really saying that with near full access to the internet and I'm sure a very high literacy rate, TV still rules?

Are people really ruled by the box in corner? Ten years ago I'd say yes to that. Are you telling me no-one in the USA is not questioning, demanding or even just grumbling about how things are? I don't expect armed revolt in a stable democracy, but people must be complaining about politics when getting their morning coffee. Are they?

[Shane Enochs]

As far as the United States is concerned, I think each presidential candidate should be allowed to spend no more than five million dollars. In Senate races, no more than 3 million, and in House races, no more than 1 million.

[Gordian Knot]

The CU decision, unfortunately can not be rescinded. Once the Supreme Court has ruled, it is the law of the land, like it or not. But that does not mean that the rule can't be fixed.

Congress is the body that can change the decision by writing new legislation. The Congress must then pass, and it must be signed into law by the President. If this new legislation disallows unlimited free spending anonymously, then that trumps the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United, which then becomes essentially outdated law.

This is how the Founding Fathers perceived the balance of powers between the branches of government.

Unfortunately as we all know the Congress is broken. They cannot agree to anything much beyond recessing for coffee and donuts. Without a truly radical change in Congress, Citizen's United isn't going to be rescinded any time soon.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by Bowler1

I'm not disputing most people don't make rational decisions and money would not be spent unless there was some sort of return.

Or, is money being spent just to keep up. One side spends the cash, so the other side has to as well. There are only three main parties in the USA from what I can see, are they spending money just to keep pace with each other? I don't know, you guys can tell me the answer to that question.

I still think the days of TV ads being the main medium of dictating public oponion as old hat. These days the internet may have a greater say. All these Arab springs are individual people rising up against armed forces, and they have based these life changing decisions on what they learned from the internet. In these countrys, the literacy rate is low as is access to computers. Are you all really saying that with near full access to the internet and I'm sure a very high literacy rate, TV still rules?

Are people really ruled by the box in corner? Ten years ago I'd say yes to that. Are you telling me no-one in the USA is not questioning, demanding or even just grumbling about how things are? I don't expect armed revolt in a stable democracy, but people must be complaining about politics when getting their morning coffee. Are they?

Your living in a fantasy world.

Polling tells us very clearly that most of the people who vote don't know the fine details of what's going on, and they don't even know what the candidates positions are, for the most part. In fact, those things are so irrelevant, that Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, doesn't even both to give interviews to most of the major media outlets, he only gives them to a few outlets which are obviously Republican. Reporters have been trying to get an interview with Mitt Romney for more than a year and failing, which is a fairly recent development. People who know about it refer to it as the "Mittens Protection Program." They protect him from saying anything stupid by making it impossible to ask him tough questions.

Many people here do not have access to the internet, and many who do have access to the internet, do not use it to go find out what all the political figures are thinking. It's hard to have an intelligent conversation about issues because the average american literally just doens't know what's going on with the candidates.

Right now, we are seeing a resurgence of Jim Crow laws. Even though voter fraud is unknown, hundreds of thousands of people have had their voter registrations thrown out, in theory because Republicans suspect voter fraud, but there is virtually no fraud going on. They are going after minorities and the poor and weeding them out, because they know that they usually vote democrat. It's likely to cause several states to go Republican that otherwise would have voted for Obama.

We do not have three main parties, we have two. Democrats and Republicans. The Tea Party has taken over the Republican party completely at this point.

There is an explosion of spending more than ever before, so its hard to see how far it will go. A small group of billionaires are throwing in more money behind their own candidates then virtually everyone else. Candidates get a huge disadvantage when they have more money. The attempt to overturn the Governor of Wisconsin was foiled when out of state contributions were thrown in, and the governor had ten times the war chest to outspend his opponents. He retained his office because of it.

People complain about Politics, but they don't really understand what they complain about for the most part.

[Nerds_feather]

As I understand it, the only way to "overturn" a Supreme Court decision is with a Constitutional Amendment. Those are very, very hard to pass.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot

The CU decision, unfortunately can not be rescinded. Once the Supreme Court has ruled, it is the law of the land, like it or not. But that does not mean that the rule can't be fixed.

Congress is the body that can change the decision by writing new legislation. The Congress must then pass, and it must be signed into law by the President. If this new legislation disallows unlimited free spending anonymously, then that trumps the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United, which then becomes essentially outdated law.

This is how the Founding Fathers perceived the balance of powers between the branches of government.

Unfortunately as we all know the Congress is broken. They cannot agree to anything much beyond recessing for coffee and donuts. Without a truly radical change in Congress, Citizen's United isn't going to be rescinded any time soon.

You are not correct about how the Supreme Court works. The only way to overturn a Supreme Court Ruling completely is to pass a Constitutional amendment, and those are next to impossible to pass even if they have a substantial majority of the population in favor of them. (see the failed battle to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.) It is possible for the Supreme Court to reverse itself (very, very, very unusual) and it is also possible to change the decision in a piecemeal kind of way (happens only rarely).

The "Founding Fathers" did institute a system of checks and balances, but remember that they were essentially what we would call elitists today. They wanted to be sure that the "betters" had power more than their numbers would indicate. That's why we have the Electoral College, which actually elects the President, and slaves were counted as 3/5's of a person. (idiotic beyond words, but politically savvy for that day), and to some degree why we have a Senate.

[Gordian Knot]

Parson, I believe you have your information wrong. Passing a Constitutional amendment is not how Supreme Court rulings are overturned.

As I said above, the Congress has the power to alter the Supreme Court's ruling by passing new legislation that negates the previous law. See the following:

No single entity - not the President, Senate, House of Representatives, state Governors, nor anyone else - has the power to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court decisions cannot be nullified by other parts of government. However, if the Supreme Court strikes down a federal law, Congress can always modify the law until it is such that the Supreme Court does not consider it to violate the Constitution, then pass it again.

The important part of that to note is that Congress can only change it if it is a Federal law.

p.s. Agree with you completely as to why the Founding Fathers set up the checks and balances. They did want the ultimate control to stay with the elite. Remember at the time, women couldn't vote either. And (again if I am remembering correctly) men that owned land were the only ones eligible to vote, at least on the Federal level.

[Nerds_feather]

Yeah that's true, but how would Congress modify the law to bypass the objections in the CU ruling?

But then again, that's not "overturning" the law either, per se. Parsons is right that if you want to reverse a ruling, in the sense of deeming constitutional something deemed unconstitutional by the court, you do need an amendment.

[Shane Enochs]

Why on earth would Congress need to amend the constitution? A simple, new law would do it. Actually, at this point (even though it's not technically constitutional), an executive order might do it as well.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

Why on earth would Congress need to amend the constitution? A simple, new law would do it. Actually, at this point (even though it's not technically constitutional), an executive order might do it as well.

.... are you a U.S. Citizen? Do you have no clue what's going on?

A law was actually on the books limiting spending and the Court overturned it. As it stands now, it is not possible to limit money spent on an election.

The Citizens United decision indicates that as they choose to interpret it, money is equal to free speech and anyone may spend money on these things.

That's why the explosion of PAC money now. That's why all of that is happening. Do you not even know about that?

Yes Shane, it does need a constitutional amendment. Welcome to the conversation. It's not exactly a secret that unlimited money is flowing no. There were some laws limiting things before but they no longer have any force.