Citizens United should be overturned

Editorials

Discussion

COMMENTING ON STORIES:

Welcome to our story comments feature. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including the unpopular ones. We only ask that you keep your conversations clean, civil and on the topic of the story you are commenting on.

Coinciding with our websites redesign, we launched our new story comments feature through Disqus.

Disqus gives users the ability to log into our story comments feature so that they may be able to track their conversations, receive emails when their comments get a reply or to even have your comments update onto your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

For the time being, our story comments feature will continue to have the ability to post comments anonymously. We reserve the right to require registration in the future using your name and verified email address.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified at the newspaper’s discretion for a number of different reasons. Please follow our Online Rules of Conduct at all times.

RULES OF CONDUCT:

We reserve the right to remove comments that are unacceptable, to wit:

1. False and inacurate statements.
2. Personal attacks. Explicit name-calling.
3. Harassing, harmful, vulgar, obscene and defamatory language.
4. Threatening statements or statements that suggest violence.
5. Hate speech of any kind.
6. Intolerant comments on religion, race, age, gender, sexual preference or disabilities.
7. Accusations of criminal activity.
8. Content that is harmful to children and minors in any way.
9. References to any type of sexual activity and other private matters.
10. Random and inflammatory statements that are off topic.
11. Advertising of any kind.
12. Typing in all caps.

WE ENCOURAGE REASONABLE AND COURTEOUS COMMENTS THAT:

1. Create conversation on issues of interest and concern to fellow readers and local community members.
2. Express opinions and contrarian views.
3. Stimulate debate with respectful language.
4. Stay within the boundaries of these rules.

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR TERMINATE ACCESS FOR:

1. Violating any of these Online Rules of Conduct.
2. Deliberately disrupting discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or spam.
3. Misrepresentation of identity or impersonating another user.

WE WELCOME:

1. Flagging violations of these rules that you observe to our attention.

MONITORING:

We monitor comments regularly Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Approval of comments outside of this time (including weekends) will be sporadic.

comments powered by Disqus

May 30, 2012

Citizens United should be overturned

Anonymous Daily Star The Daily Star Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:43 PM EDT

Twenty-two states -- led by New York -- and the District of Columbia are pushing for the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2010 Citizens United decision.

The 2010 ruling struck down much of the 2002 campaign-finance reform law, essentially lifting a federal ban on corporate campaign spending. It allowed each corporation to claim its "personhood" and the right to spend untold sums as part of First Amendment guarantees.

We have seen the results of the court's decision. It has turned our federal election system into a free-for-all for nameless, faceless corporate spending and the eruption of super political action committees disguised as independent entities.

And this is not just a Republican spending frenzy, as some may think, though a majority of the money spent by these super PACs has gone to the causes of GOP candidates. According to a story by The Associated Press, in May alone pro-President Barack Obama PAC Priorities USA Action -- run by former Obama White House aides -- spent $2.4 million on advertisements condemning GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The group had received $10 million by the end of March, the AP story said.

For the Romney camp, $4.3 million was spent for ads in May by Restore Our Future -- run by former Romney advisers. It has amassed at least $51 million since its creation.

These figures show the blatant disregard by corporations for the ability of independent voters to act and contribute for themselves as American citizens.

It does not seem enough for these super PACS and corporations that the candidates raise millions in more-conventional campaigning, such as fundraisers and donations from actual free-thinking people who want a stake in their future.

It is good to see states take up the fight against the Supreme Court's ruling. While they are hinging their arguments on keeping state campaign spending laws intact -- specifically in a Montana state court ruling on corporate expenditures -- the states' concerns offer the court an opportunity to reconsider its federal decision.

In the high court's defense, the justices have indicated they will consider whether the Montana ruling against state corporate campaign spending conflicts directly with the Citizens United decision or if state spending should be deemed separate from federal campaign contribution law. And if that means a re-examination and clarification of their decision, the justices are moving in the right direction.

Peter Schurman, spokesman for a group called Free Speech For People, correctly summed up the need for action in an AP story: "There is a growing bipartisan consensus that Citizens United needs to be overturned, and Montana is leading the way. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to revisit Citizens United here. That is important because there is evidence everywhere that unlimited spending in our elections creates both corruption and the appearance for corruption."