[geeks] geeks Digest, Vol 157, Issue 2

[Lionel Peterson]

> On May 15, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Phil Stracchino <phils at caerllewys.net> wrote:
>
> The issue I see with the rationale for the Citizens United ruling is
> that when people join together in some body, their individual voices are
> in no way muted or silenced.

Agreed.

> But when the leaders or controllers of
> that body are then granted the power to *also* speak on behalf of that
> body with the voices and resources of everyone else who is a member,
> whether they joined by choice or not, whether they agree with the
> individuals speaking on behalf of that body or not, then those original
> individuals have been granted a second voice in addition to their own
> personal voice, and that second voice is loud enough to shout down
> everyone else in the vicinity.

I invite you to consider the impact of a court decision that was against
Citizens United - where unions, environmental groups, etc would be similarly
barred from voicing a collective opinion in the politics of the day.

You personally may be in favor of it, as might I, but such a decision by the
court would eliminate the *possibility* of a collection of individuals
effectively countering the much louder political 'voice' of a well-heeled
individual that holds a different position.

> The Supreme Court *blew* that decision,
> and the ACLU had the wool pulled over its eyes or simply didn't think it
> through far enough.

I can't imagine the real-world fall out from a decision against Citizens
United.

> (In my opinion, of course.)

And you are 100% entitled to it.

Do you remember what brought about the Citizens United case? A group, called
Citizens United wanted to show a movie critical of Hillary Clinton shortly
before an election.

A movie.

If the thin-skinned Democrats would have let the movie slide, let them show
their little movie and not 'made a federal case out of it (literally)' there
would be no Citizens United decision to be upset about.

But, that is my opinion.

Take care Phil,

Lionel