They're not confused about it. Most critics of Citizens United are partisan Democrats. They don't like the case, because the result is bad for them, and result-oriented jurisprudence largely defines their judicial philosophy. (It does for many on the Right too but less so.) If it had affirmed the restrictions on corporations but struck them down with respect to labor unions, they would have had no problem with the case. In fact, they would have thought it was great.
My issue with the case is much broader and frankly, more principled. Yes, that makes me sound sanctimonious, but it's the truth. Keep in mind that my position is against my interests as a conservative, and I sometimes follow that pattern on judicial matters, because if I was sitting as a judge, my duty would be to the written law, not to my political philosophy. That's not how the liberal judicial philosophy works.
First, Deezestan is the hypothetical nation in which I am the benevolent dictator. It would be as close to heaven on earth as you can get and not at all repressive. Trust me, you would enjoy living there. lol
Second, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion from what I'm saying. The rights of the 10 are no less than the rights of the individuals. Those 10 have every right to speak and to donate money and as much as they want. Like I said, Bill Gates should be allowed to give a candidate $100M if he wants to. If you're concerned with non-elites, if you're a school bus driver who wants to cobble together $20K and give it to a candidate, he has the right to do that too.
Furthermore, the corporation has every right to declare a dividend to its shareholders or to pay its officers whatever money it wants to, and those shareholders and officers may donate as much or all of that to the candidates of their choice or to spend it in any other way to speak or to amplify the strength of or otherwise broadcast their speech.
The breakdown is when the corporation itself wants to assert the rights of the shareholders when its reason for existence is separation. The whole purpose of a corporation is to keep the shareholders and the business separate for liability reasons and sometimes for tax reasons. You should not be able to say, "you can't sue me. My business is what cheated you" and then say, "I am my business, and it gets to speak just as freely as I do." You shouldn't get to pick and choose based on when commingling of rights and responsibilities suit you.
Also, keep in mind that campaign finance reform is a ******** issue. Always be suspicious of a politician who talks about it, because it exists mostly to distract stupid people. The reality is that money has always been present in politics and always will be. Virtually every so-called "reform" has done nothing but enable politicians to obscure the sources of the money they raise. It's actually counterproductive.
Instead of having corporations, labor unions, PACs, Super PACs, etc. throwing money around, we should just let individuals donate money as they see fit and then require the candidates to disclose who gave them money and how much. That way, we'll know if you're Bob Perry's *****, Mark Zuckerberg's *****, Tom Steyer's *****, George Soros' *****, The Koch Brothers' *****. Etc. That's easier than having to figure out and follow what shell entities these guys set up (and often with deceptive names) to make them look like they're not as big of players as they actually are. It's also far more respecting of the rights of minority shareholders and union members. What if you're a Facebook shareholder and don't want your money going to a bunch of liberal politicians? You shouldn't have to do that.
Click to expand...