Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission
Posted on November 24th, 2009 by admin
The so-called Citizens United case offers the Supreme Court a chance to severely curtail the free speech abuses of the Federal Election Commission. John Samples, Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Representative Government, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson and George Mason University law professor Allison Hayward weigh in.
This video was produced by Austin Bragg ( http://www.twitter.com/habragg ) and Caleb Brown ( http://www.twitter.com/cobrown ).
Duration : 0:5:48
[youtube PeGlzEavpTM]
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Corporations should …
Corporations should not have unalienable (human) rights, because they are not human. They are legal fictions created by a charter which is issued by (surprise!) the government. Therefore they do not deserve and were never intended to deserve, the protections of the first amendment. The FEC is only trying to prevent our government from being further overwhelmed by corporate power. There is nothing to be affraid of! However if the CATO institute has it’s way, you can kiss our country goodbye
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
And your point is?? …
And your point is????
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
these comments are …
these comments are on first page people see w/the vid and are out of order out of context. Rearrangingin our speech is WRONG!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Right! Like the way …
Right! Like the way our comments are rearranged on here! When I come back here your comment does not appear with mine. Thats odd.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
HALELUJAH! GREAT …
HALELUJAH! GREAT Whaleywudup glad FINALLY to see someone that GETS IT! PLEASE! Give speeches! Write Books!
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Brilliant!
Brilliant!
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
can you give me the …
can you give me the case cite?
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
PLEASE! Give …
PLEASE! Give speeches! Write books! You get it!
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
HALELUJAH!!!! …
HALELUJAH!!!! Finally! Someone that GETS IT! OK I am racing to your channel to subscribe! Have a super duper day!:)
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
The court needs to …
The court needs to return to the fundamentals. Is the Movie the functional equal of ‘falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater”? Does the film present a “grave and immediate danger” to the larger society? Nay! But the law bites at the most fundamental of our preferred freedoms. Why was it relevant to the FEC that the film was to run through “cable”. One can watch almost anything on cable– even porn! So how then can the gov abdicate our right to choose?
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Exactly! Why are …
Exactly! Why are the justices asking the FEC what they think is allowed. It is supposed to be about what the Constitution and the several justices believe is allowed. (South Carolina USMC Vet history student)
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
This case is of …
This case is of grave importance. I have read the briefs and listened to the oral arguements. As I see certain BCRA provisions area a starting point from which the Gov will seek to take even more of our constitutional liberties. Our future hinges on this case. What is the test to decide how much of free speech can be restricted? CU passes Schenk and Gitlow. There is no “grave” danger to society, except that BCRA free speech abridgments are a danger to We the People.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
The content or …
The content or character of the film is to me not related. In my opinion the film takes on a special constitutional status because of the nature of the creator– a group with a long standing tradition of highly critical films. The FEC prohibition of the film to run on VOD amounts to prior restraint by other media. If indeed CU was worng in their portrait of H. Clinton, then she has recourse under the law to seek redress.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Recasting the …
Recasting the corporation as anything-but-an-individual may seem an impossibly radical do-over of the American way of life, but you may have noticed that we’ve made a so-called radical changes recently. Are we capable of changing our political structures and process, if the status quo is a mortal poison to real liberty, justice and equality?
BTW this video is a disingenuous, hysterical canard, ie nonsense. The problem is too much money in politics. The money is the problem, not the speech.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Try to grasp the …
Try to grasp the concept: Making a protected individual of a corporation, under the color of law, creates an extra person. This person can’t get a voter’s registration, but because it is a created individual it claims free speech and any other convenient rights of individuals. In the instant of its creation as in extra individual the corporation obtains an unfair and unreasonable advantage at every level of decision making in the democratic republic into which it wades.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Truth: The unit of …
Truth: The unit of a democracy, even a democratic republic, is the citizen. Not the corporation. A corporation is not an individual, with the constitutionally protected rights of an individual. Yet our polity pretend that this is so, and pretend that the founding fathers so intended. In the current case, justices raised this issue almost as a philosophical aside, plainly avoiding the real question. The FEC failed to address the core question as well.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
The reason this …
The reason this issue is not resolved, the reason the conservative majority on the court is wrong, the resaon their nonsensical and shoddy favoritism of big business, whiner barons and deep pocket campaign contributors of all stripes is deeply offensive, the reason is that…
We treat corporations as individuals.
This fundamental yet stupid concept is at the root of our inability to recapture the political process from the oligarchs who own it.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Let us not pretend …
Let us not pretend that this movie was not made by a special interest group to influence the election. They should be glad that this was not allowed to air because it would have only made Hillary richer when she succeeded in suing them. No one has the right to DEFAME anyone.
Money has always been used to exercise undue influence on the electorate.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
So, it turns out …
So, it turns out that one of the ideas embedded in the 1st amendment (that a free and fair public debate insures that government stays responsive to public demands) is a very complicated thing. You can’t just say “any statute that regulates political speech is a violation.” Oh, if only things were that simple. As anyone knows, power and money can skew a debate. More resources give one voice a built-in advantage. Do we really want to live in a world where power begets power begets power?
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
FCC is a fascist …
FCC is a fascist part of the government. I hate FCC.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
checks and balance …
checks and balance system is ALL out of balance! Theye do not know who is in control anymore that a judge has to ask what is allowed when it is the judge who’s position was to JUDGE what violates the constituion using stare decisis and precedent of law of past. The judges should tell them in their opinions if the FEC is able to do what not any other way!
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
You are right! I …
You are right! I didn’t articulate my point very well but my first language isn’t English so i hope you can kind of read between the lines and see where I’m going with this.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I thought this was …
I thought this was the one the Hillary camp was trying to get out before the election about how Obama’s thugs basically screwed her out of her chances for the nomination. The name escapes me but it was put together by some really ANGRY Hillary people (PUMA maybe?) w/a ton of behind the scenes stuff that supposedly showed Obama’s supporters breaking election rules of some kind. On this one, it’s great to see we can allow assassination movies about Bush but not this one. Free speech indeed.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I’m curious whose …
I’m curious whose one side this film is advocating? I’m guessing you are a Hilary supporter or Democrat and you assume that this is a film by Republicans. If you know anything about the Cato Institute you know that they are definitely conservative but are not afraid to criticize either of the controlling parties. If it is ons sided it’s on the side of the people. Finance reform laws are really just incumbent protection laws.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Perhaps if you …
Perhaps if you could write and form a comprehensive sentence, we all could frame a response