Interesting Editorial from F&S magazine

[88man]

I'm a little scared that putting public lands in private hands is the one thing the democrats & republicans will agree upon. Pretty scary.

 

[BrentD]

I'm a little scared that putting public lands in private hands is the one thing the democrats & republicans will agree upon. Pretty scary.

They might.
If the money is right.

 

[shoots-straight]

Turning everything into a R vs D debate doesn’t change anything for the better long term. If we want a robust lobby outdoorsmen should work hard to only advance good candidates in their preferred party. We are strongest when both parties know our votes cannot be taken for granted and when we actively lobby both sides and support only those candidates who take our concerns seriously.

Yep, but trying to convince our rank and file to act upon it is a whole other story in itself. How to unite our brothers and sisters is the big Elephant in the room.

 

[VikingsGuy]

IMO SuperPACs, 501(c)(4)s, the size and complexity of modern government, the flow money from super wealthy individuals into politics more than ever (think Koch and Soros), the politicization of our educational system, the loss of civil discourse, social/cultural fragmentation, inability to deal with drug crisis and resulting prison crisis, a loss of fiscal accountability, no clear plan to address the rise of China, under-funded pensions including state/municipal systems and SocSec, lack of ability to balance the value of immigration with the need to have some orderly framework to manage it, and the use of the least democratic portion of our government framework (the courts) as a primary tool of policy making are bigger threats to our democracy than Citizen United.

 

[Trial153]

IMO SuperPACs, 501(c)(4)s, the size and complexity of modern government, the flow money from super wealthy individuals into politics more than ever (think Koch and Soros), and the use of the least democratic portion of our government framework (the courts) as a primary tool of policy making are bigger threats to our democracy than Citizen United.

while I think all the issues you addressed are very much valid and worthy . I think a point of clarity is need as to what the citizens united ruling did. I cut an pasted this summery below as its concise and in lay terms.


Before Citizens United there were limits on how much money individuals could contribute to PACs, and corporations, unions, and certain types of nonprofits weren’t allowed to give to PACs at all.
Citizens United lifted the limits on how much individuals can contribute to PACs, and allowed corporations, non-profit groups, and unions to give to PACs for the first time (also in unlimited amounts).

The result? A tidal wave of money flooded subsequent elections. For the first time in history, anyone – and any group – could spend unlimited amounts of money promoting a political candidate via super PACs.

It’s important to understand we’re not talking about unlimited campaign contributions here. Citizens United impacted independent political spending only.

A candidate’s official campaign is a whole other animal. PACs are not supposed to coordinate with candidates’ campaigns at all. (In reality, they do all the time, but that’s another story).

 

[BrentD]

The result? A tidal wave of money flooded subsequent elections. For the first time in history, anyone – and any group – could spend unlimited amounts of money promoting a political candidate via super PACs.
.

"Anyone" includes even nonAmericans.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think a point of clarity is need as to what the citizens united ruling did. I cut and pasted this summery below as its concise and in lay terms.

Thank you for your kind condescension in using "lay terms" for my benefit. FWIW - long before being a member on HT, I had read in its entirety the underlying statute, much of its supporting congressional record, the full transcripts of both SCOTUS hearings and both the controlling and dissenting opinions (and followed up on a number of the footnotes I found interesting).

I find your "concise and lay summary" incomplete and devoid of any acknowledgement of the countervailing concerns that led to the result -- a concern that if the US government may pick and choose what type of speech is deemed political, and when and where that speech may occur, then the first and most fundamental liberty of a democracy, free speech and free political association, is at risk. And that history informs us that this risk is greater than the alternative.

I am not saying I like money in politics, but let's face it, it's there without or without particular regulatory frameworks. Taking a broader view, IMO, the US has done a better than average job of rooting out direct corruption and made a decent start at creating some transparency. Both are areas CU still allows government regulation. I would prefer we focus on rooting out residual corruption and creating much more transparency rather than asking government appointees to make decisions about what type of speech we are allowed to hear and when we are able to hear it.

And please don't "inform me" that CU is not about speech, but that it is about money. The actual case was about trying to punish/limit an anti-hillary hack job on the eve of an election, not about money in politics. The govt just tried to use "money" as the way of controlling the dissemination of an opinion - and that was the point to majority in CU found very concerning -- and that the transcript of the govt's position highlighted. Even liberal SCOTUS watchers were dismayed at the govt. testimony at the time.

 

[VikingsGuy]

"Anyone" includes even nonAmericans.

Pretty sure Robert Mueller disagrees.

 

[Trial153]

Thank you for your kind condescension in using "lay terms" for my benefit. FWIW - long before being a member on HT, I had read in its entirety the underlying statute, much of it's supporting congressional record, the full transcripts of both SCOTUS hearings and both the controlling and dissenting opinions (and followed up on a number of the footnotes I found interesting).

I find your "concise and lay summary" incomplete and devoid of any acknowledgement of the countervailing concerns that led to the result -- a concern that if the US government may pick and choose what type of speech is deemed political, and when and where that speech may occur, then the first and most fundamental liberty of a democracy, free speech and free political association, is at risk. And that history informs us that this risk is greater than the alternative.

I am not saying I like money in politics, but let's face it, it's there without or without particular regulatory frameworks. Taking a broader view, IMO, the US has done a better than average job of rooting out direct corruption and made a decent start at creating some transparency. Both are areas CU still allows government regulation. I would prefer we focus on rooting out residual corruption and creating much more transparency rather than asking government appointees to make decisions about what type of speech we are allowed to hear and when we are able to hear it.

And please don't "inform me" that CU is not about speech, but that it is about money. The actual case was about trying to punish/limit an anti-hillary hack job on the eve of an election, not about money in politics. The govt just tried to use "money" as the way of controlling the dissemination of an opinion - and that was the point to majority in CU found very concerning -- and that the transcript of the govt's position highlighted. Even liberal SCOTUS watchers were dismayed at the govt. testimony at the time.

And yet despite all the verbose since the CU ruling unfettered money has poured into our political system at rate unmatched in the history of our republic. And Never has our collective voice as citizens been so drowned out by the political spending of so few individuals and corporations. So much for free speech when you cant afford to partake in it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

And yet despite all the verbose since the CU ruling unfettered money has poured into our political system at rate unmatched in the history of our republic.

I don't fear speech, I don't fear money, I don't feel that Americans are too dumb to sort this out with out the nanny state regulating speech. I think this Nov outcome is exactly the outcome most similar cycles deliver and the money between both sides washed out. I would guess zero cost dialog amongst individuals through friends, family, groups, co-workers, union affiliations, and social media, plus big money spend on get out the vote activities unrelated to CU have a bigger impact on voting patterns than high dollar advertising.

And Never has our collective voice as citizens been so drowned out by the political spending of so few individuals and corporations. So much for free speech when you cant afford to partake in it.

I disagree. Never has the voice of the individual (and the aggregation of those voices) ever been more impactful - one individual's "great take" can reach millions in minutes with out any filtering by the incumbent political party and traditional media power structure. The fragmentation of media from 3 dominant TV stations and 2 dominant newspapers to the Tower of Babel we have today gives the average person far more perspectives and far more ability to speak out.

I would say that never have the political incumbents, power brokers and "ruling elite" ever faced more scrutiny and more voices of the people. The ones who sit in power are the ones who want to regulate speech. They have their funding and organizations all set up. They will preserve that in any attempted regulation. They will use this status to prevent change and quiet dissenting voices - because, as Mel Brooks reminds us, "it's good to be the king".

 

[BuzzH]

Thank you for your kind condescension in using "lay terms" for my benefit. FWIW - long before being a member on HT, I had read in its entirety the underlying statute, much of its supporting congressional record, the full transcripts of both SCOTUS hearings and both the controlling and dissenting opinions (and followed up on a number of the footnotes I found interesting).

I find your "concise and lay summary" incomplete and devoid of any acknowledgement of the countervailing concerns that led to the result -- a concern that if the US government may pick and choose what type of speech is deemed political, and when and where that speech may occur, then the first and most fundamental liberty of a democracy, free speech and free political association, is at risk. And that history informs us that this risk is greater than the alternative.

If you don't believe the Government picks and chooses who may practice free speech, political association, etc....care to explain how the Hatch Act doesn't do just that?

Seems the .gov is more interested in making sure that every corporation in America has a voice and treated as a person, than their own employees.

Yeah, keep preaching about how the Government doesn't pick and choose...what a joke.

 

[Irrelevant]

Republicans have it wrong on the public lands debate IMO, but the
Democrats as a party are wrong on just about everything else.
I think its easier to influence Republicans to do the right thing on one issue(and one thats not particularly important to them)than to try and reform practically everything Democrats are for.
However, one thing we can all agree on is the fact the practice of buying politicians needs to be stopped. Citizens United was a bit scary and for several reasons, but ultimately I believe we would be in a better spot with it rather than without out.

I don't see how having corporations and union treated as individuals is better in any way shape or form. And back on the actual article posted, it's not just one issue that I feel Rs (the party) needs to be swayed on, we have public lands, clear water, clear air, and actual ESA listings (not wolves or grizz, they get those correct). I think Hal clearly points out that the support of corporations over a clean environmental, one that fundamentally we all rely on to survive, is a one mostly sided political stance. I personally think the cause is rooted not in Rs not caring about the environment, but simply if Ds support it, they MUST be against it. Same can be said for guns rights only flipped.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you don't believe the Government picks and chooses who may practice free speech, political association, etc....care to explain how the Hatch Act doesn't do just that?

I don't doubt that they try -- my point throughout this thread was that this is a bad thing and I am glad SCOTUS (with pushing from Kennedy) is starting to push back.

Seems the .gov is more interested in making sure that every corporation in America has a voice and treated as a person, than their own employees.

In my experience both get heard. In the end, .gov is focused on its own funding, power and growth - I think it is agnostic as to where the support for that comes.

Yeah, keep preaching about how the Government doesn't pick and choose...what a joke.

Not sure you are actually reading my posts, I stated that is just the problem I would like to stop. .gov should do less of it and I support SCOTUS attempt to limit it.

 

[BuzzH]

I don't doubt that they try -- my point throughout this thread was that this is a bad thing and I am glad SCOTUS (with pushing from Kennedy) is starting to push back.

They do a lot more than try...they flat do it, no question, not even a debate about "trying".

I would have a better chance of keeping my job if I killed someone at work than sending a political email....FACT.

 

[BuzzH]

Not sure you are actually reading my posts, I stated that is just the problem I would like to stop. .gov should do less of it and I support SCOTUS attempt to limit it.

Maybe they should start by cleaning up their own clear violations of free speech before they worry about corporations being treated as a person...no money in that, though.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Maybe they should start by cleaning up their own clear violations of free speech before they worry about corporations being treated as a person...no money in that, though.

Interested (not being argumentative, actually interested) in recent examples of SCOTUS suppressing free speech.

 

[VikingsGuy]

They do a lot more than try...they flat do it, no question, not even a debate about "trying".

I would have a better chance of keeping my job if I killed someone at work than sending a political email....FACT.

From work (or in some way connecting to your public role) or from home as a private citizen? I have no concern if the first, strong objection if the later. As I am sure you know, the first amendment does not restrict employers from governing speech on the job.

 

[BrentD]

Interested (not being argumentative, actually interested) in recent examples of SCOTUS suppressing free speech.

Now that speech is bought and sold, it's pretty clear that the way to suppress free speech is to bury it. Corporate money is very good at that.

 

[BrentD]

the first amendment does not restrict employers from governing speech on the job.

It does not restrict employers from governing free speech OFF the job either.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It does not restrict employers from governing free speech OFF the job either.

It's trickier in case of govt. employees like BuzzH and there are other legal frameworks that protect some forms of employee related speech, but we are branching way of the topic of CU.