Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Velveteen Ocelot

(121,902 posts)
11. They didn't have a very good reason for overturning Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce,
Wed Feb 7, 2018, 08:23 PM
Feb 2018

which is what happened in Citizens United, but they did it anyhow. Austin addressed the question of corruption or the appearance of corruption as the result of unrestricted campaign contributions, but the CU court said that the government shouldn't have to decide whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction. Obviously that's bullshit.

The Supreme Court is quite capable of making disingenuous arguments to arrive at a result it wants. Bush v. Gore is a perfect example of that.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Iowa»****IA Senate bill to ban...»Reply #11