'Citizens United' Ruling Opened Floodgates On Groups' Ad Spending

[Darius11 12]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/07/130399554/fresh-air

Quote

In January, the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling lifted restrictions on how much money corporations, unions and individuals could spend on political ads. On today's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross talked with three journalists about the fundraising groups that have taken advantage of the Supreme Court ruling — and how their spending could affect the upcoming midterm elections.

In the first half of the show, Peter Stone, of The Center for Public Integrity, discussed his recent report about the many well-financed, pro-Republican groups that have been created in the wake of the Citizens United ruling. He said (as NPR's Peter Overby has also reported this week) that the new groups don't have to disclose where their money comes from and are allowed to fund political ads. There is a stipulation: the groups have to spend the majority of their budget on non-political activities such as legislative activities and lobbying if they want to keep their tax-exempt status.

But the rules are somewhat ambiguous, said Stone, who pointed to several independent groups — Crossroads GPS, The Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity — that are spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns for Republican Senate and House candidates in Nevada, Colorado and other battleground states.

"(They have been) running these so-called issue ads which tell the viewer that so-and-so is not very good on healthcare issues and (ask viewers) to please call or write Washington with your concerns," Stone said. "That's the line that some of these (groups) have to use to make sure they're sticking with the rules that require a little over half of their spending to go for so-called legislative or lobbying issues."


Stone said that if an ads urges listeners to "write Washington and tell them that (a certain candidate) is doing a bad job," it's not considered to be a campaign ad by these groups.

"Some campaign finance lawyers agree with (the point that it's ambiguous)," Stone told Terry. "I talked to a former head of the tax exempt division at the IRS, Marcus Owens, who pointed out that there's a lot of ambiguity there and that some of these ads are very close to being political ads. ... They criticize sharply a candidate on a particular issue and I think that (whether these are campaign ads) is a murky issue and will be resolved over time. The IRS in the past has issued slightly different interpretations on this and the rules on this are a little murky. There's wiggle room on this for a group that wants to push the envelope."

Earlier this week, some campaign finance watchdogs asked the IRS to investigate whether Crossroads has broken any laws — the organization dismisses that call for an investigation as partisan sour grapes.

In the second half of the show, Terry spoke with Kenneth Vogel of Politico and Lee Fang of the liberal-leaning ThinkProgress about some of the specific groups that have formed since the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United — and about the anonymous donations that have been pouring in ever since.

Vogel has been tracking the donations coming in to American Crossroads, which was created by Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. He said that 75 percent of the $4.2 million ad buy announced this week by American Crossroads was paid for by undisclosed donors and detailed how this massive fundraising has changed Karl Rove's place within the Republican Party.

"If we are to think of these groups as a shadow RNC or a shadow party infrastructure, Karl Rove would be the chairmen of this infrastructure," said Vogel. "There's no doubt that he's very much involved — even as he and Ed Gillespie protest to the contrary — in really shaping the strategy of these new groups, coordinating between these new groups and raising money for these new groups. And if Republicans are successful in the 2010 midterms — if they capture the House (or) the Senate — a lot of credit will go to Karl Rove and some of these groups that he helped form and orchestrate."

Fang discussed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is technically a trade association organized as a non-profit — and has raised over $75 million and paid to have ads run more than 8,000 times on behalf of Republican Senate candidates. On Tuesday, Fang broke a story about foreign contributions to the Chamber of Commerce that are possibly being used to fund political ads.

"What we found were several fundraising documents that the Chamber has been using in places like Bahrain (and) India. The documents say foreign businesses are welcome and ask that these businesses send money to the same campaign account the 501(c)(6) that the Chamber is using to run attack ads," Fang said. "And they're telling these foreign businesses that they can have a voice in American public policy debates."

It's illegal, Fang noted, for foreign companies to spend money in American elections.

"However — because the Chamber doesn't disclose (their funding) and they've killed every effort to force disclosure on these campaign ads, we don't know the extent of this[and] we don't know how these funds are used," he said. "But it's important to note that all of these funds are co-mingled once they go inside this internal campaign account. (The Chamber) say they have internal controls but they've produced no documentation (and) no proof."

I heard this story today. And wanted to share it. The story that got me was the So called non for profit The coalition for senior citizens I believe. That did not exist until just a few months ago. They have adds showing old people who claim they are suffering because of the health care bill. Off course after some research they find out the guy behind it works for an insurance company.

Like we needed any more people who base their opinions on miss information. Thank you Supreme Court for making it worst.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Southern_Man 0]

Limiting free speech does not stop misinformation. It merely directs who gets to be in charge of that misinformation. You or people (organizations, unions, etc) who agree with you are free to combat that misinformation by forming your own organizations, buying ad time, spreading your own message, or even just posting on internet message boards about the inaccuracies contained in their advertisements.

I am happy the limits on campaign spending were declared unconsitutional, they should have been, it is a violation of the constitution at the most basic fundamental levels. The answer to bad speech is more speech, not less.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Darius11 12]

I disagree. I am for free speech however there is a word for deliberately misleading and misinforming people for profit. I believe it is called a con, and last I checked con artists were not what the freedom of speech is about.


I also disagree that a corporation is a person for the simple reason that it is not. Keep in mind no corporation is prohibit from expressing their political view. I have no issue with IBM saying what they believe if they wish to get in to a political discourse. What this ruling did was basically limited the average citizens speech and increase the power of the fat cats.


I would love to see the con artists pay for there crimes. Weather there selling snake oil to the elderly or if there lying to them about health care so they can keep making money.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Southern_Man 0]

Politicians, politcal supporters, and donors have always mislead people. It did not start when corporations became involved. It did not and will not stop if corporate spending is eliminated. Call them all con men if you want, I think that is appropriate.

How did the Citizens United ruling limit the free speech of the average citizen?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

Also, saying you are for free speech is extremely misleading and disingenuous. You are for free speech for some and against it for others. You are explicitly advocating restrictions on the speech of people and corporations (which are really just groups of people bundled together) because you disagree with the content of that speech. This is precisely the kind of censorship that the First Amendment is designed to protect against.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I disagree. I am for free speech however there is a word for deliberately misleading and misinforming people for profit. I believe it is called a con, and last I checked con artists were not what the freedom of speech is about.


I also disagree that a corporation is a person for the simple reason that it is not. Keep in mind no corporation is prohibit from expressing their political view. I have no issue with IBM saying what they believe if they wish to get in to a political discourse. What this ruling did was basically limited the average citizens speech and increase the power of the fat cats.


I would love to see the con artists pay for there crimes. Weather there selling snake oil to the elderly or if there lying to them about health care so they can keep making money.

And money is ALL that politics is today

If you dont like the law, you need to find a way to reverse that one supreme court ruling that addressed this issue so many decade ago

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Politicians, politcal supporters, and donors have always mislead people. It did not start when corporations became involved. It did not and will not stop if corporate spending is eliminated. Call them all con men if you want, I think that is appropriate.

How did the Citizens United ruling limit the free speech of the average citizen?

I think just the scale. I cant see an average citizen have millions of dollars to spend, and money does talk. So you have grass roots Vs Corporate and if money is the measure for success (which seems to be the case) I think the average citizen doesn’t stand a chance. We simply do not have the resources.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Politicians, politcal supporters, and donors have always mislead people. It did not start when corporations became involved. It did not and will not stop if corporate spending is eliminated. Call them all con men if you want, I think that is appropriate.

How did the Citizens United ruling limit the free speech of the average citizen?

I think just the scale. I cant see an average citizen have millions of dollars to spend, and money does talk. So you have grass roots Vs Corporate and if money is the measure for success (which seems to be the case) I think the average citizen doesn’t stand a chance. We simply do not have the resources.

Pooled together, yes there is.

Find a group of people that agree with you and hold a fund raiser.

Proper money management would be the key.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Darius11 12]

I think first we have to acknowledge that I do not view corporations as people. I disagree with any ruling that declares corporations which are NOT people as people.

I have no issue with people expressing thier views.

However I do have an issue with business misleading individuals for profit. Weather that be changing VIN numbers on a cars to make them seem like something it is not, or pretending to be something your not to take advantage of individuals.

Lying for profit should be a crime and I believe in certain instances it is.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think just the scale. I cant see an average citizen have millions of dollars to spend, and money does talk.

You have organizations like the NRA, AARP, unions, all of which were improperly restricted by McCain-Feingold. Those represent millions of people.

you have it backwards - the prior condition favored big money, who can always work around restrictions. People based organizations could not.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Politicians, politcal supporters, and donors have always mislead people. It did not start when corporations became involved. It did not and will not stop if corporate spending is eliminated. Call them all con men if you want, I think that is appropriate.

How did the Citizens United ruling limit the free speech of the average citizen?

I think just the scale. I cant see an average citizen have millions of dollars to spend, and money does talk. So you have grass roots Vs Corporate and if money is the measure for success (which seems to be the case) I think the average citizen doesn’t stand a chance. We simply do not have the resources.

Pooled together, yes there is.

Find a group of people that agree with you and hold a fund raiser.

Proper money management would be the key.

You just made my point. Thank you.

The ruling takes power away from the individual, and gives power to corporations.

As i said before the avrage citizens voice can not be heard while the corporation have got a megaphone.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Politicians, politcal supporters, and donors have always mislead people. It did not start when corporations became involved. It did not and will not stop if corporate spending is eliminated. Call them all con men if you want, I think that is appropriate.

How did the Citizens United ruling limit the free speech of the average citizen?

I think just the scale. I cant see an average citizen have millions of dollars to spend, and money does talk. So you have grass roots Vs Corporate and if money is the measure for success (which seems to be the case) I think the average citizen doesn’t stand a chance. We simply do not have the resources.

Pooled together, yes there is.

Find a group of people that agree with you and hold a fund raiser.

Proper money management would be the key.

You just made my point. Thank you.

The ruling takes power away from the individual, and gives power to corporations.

As i said before the avrage citizens voice can not be heard while the corporation have got a megaphone.

So in your mind, a group of people is a corporation.

Further, by your reasoning, you think it should have been titled "The Million Man March Inc." right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I think first we have to acknowledge that I do not view corporations as people. I disagree with any ruling that declares corporations which are NOT people as people.

I have no issue with people expressing thier views.

However I do have an issue with business misleading individuals for profit. Weather that be changing VIN numbers on a cars to make them seem like something it is not, or pretending to be something your not to take advantage of individuals.

Lying for profit should be a crime and I believe in certain instances it is.

I know you do not consider corporations to be people. They are not people but they are groups of people. USPA is a corporation. Are you against USPA having the right to lobby? Are you against USPA having the right to run ads (not that we have the money, but in theory)? Are you against Greenpeace, the SPCA, and the ARC being able to advertise? If so, then why do you hate skydivers, the environment, puppies and retarded people?

These are all corporations. Some of them have more money and some have less. All of them lobby. I belong to several of those organizations. Would you restrict my rights to speech just because I have banded together with other people of like interests in a common purpose?

Would you ban all lying in politics? One person's lie is another person's political opinion. Who would get to enforce that? You? The founders were very clear that the antidote to incorrect speech was more speech, not more censorship by government entities. That is the way to tyranny!

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Darius11 12]

Quote

So in your mind, a group of people is a corporation.

What?

A corporation is when someone incorporates a company. The reason it is done is for liability reasons. The liability of a corporation stops at the corporation and not actual owners.


Just a group of people is not a corporation unless they go trough the process of making a corporation.

Quote

Further, by your reasoning, you think it should have been titled "The Million Man March Inc." right?

You mentioning “reason” is its own joke, but I am glad to say I don’t even get your point if you have one.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

You mentioning “reason” is its own joke, but I am glad to say I don’t even get your point if you have one.

From the previous thread:

I wrote:

Quote

Pooled together, yes there is.

Find a group of people that agree with you and hold a fund raiser.

Proper money management would be the key.

You responded with:

Quote

You just made my point. Thank you.

The ruling takes power away from the individual, and gives power to corporations.

As i said before the avrage citizens voice can not be heard while the corporation have got a megaphone

The ONLY conclusiopn one can get from your response is that you think a grop of people is a corporation.

It's right there.

If I made your point of "The ruling takes power away from the individual, and gives power to corporations.", then it's pretty obvious that you only have two choices, either you are an individual or you are a corporation.

Your words.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Darius11 12]

Quote

I know you do not consider corporations to be people. They are not people but they are groups of people. USPA is a corporation. Are you against USPA having the right to lobby? Are you against USPA having the right to run ads (not that we have the money, but in theory)? Are you against Greenpeace, the SPCA, and the ARC being able to advertise? If so, then why do you hate skydivers, the environment, puppies and retarded people?

LOL first that was funny.
I don’t think corporations have what’s best for the country in mind.

I think most corporations have one god, one religion and that’s money. To make more of it and increase the profit margin. I don’t have an issue with this I don’t hate money. However I do not think that laws should be made or influenced by a profit motive.

Quote

These are all corporations. Some of them have more money and some have less. All of them lobby. I belong to several of those organizations. Would you restrict my rights to speech just because I have banded together with other people of like interests in a common purpose?

You can speak all you want, however I would not allow you to donate money in an unlimited manner.
My personal idea is to set a maximum allowed contribution, and make it a very small amount. Something like $20.00.

You need to convince people individuals to agree with your ideas and the power comes back to the people, and not the lobbyist.

Quote

Would you ban all lying in politics? One person's lie is another person's political opinion. Who would get to enforce that? You? The founders were very clear that the antidote to incorrect speech was more speech, not more censorship by government entities. That is the way to tyranny!

I think matters of opinion are just that. However I would be for sever punishment for the people who mislead and misinform. I do believe there is a difference. If we do not do this the people with the least morals and ethics will be the people who will succeed. Simply because they will say any thing to get what they want. I don’t want to live in such a world that depravity is viewed as a vehicle for success.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Quote

You just made my point. Thank you.

The ruling takes power away from the individual, and gives power to corporations.

As i said before the avrage citizens voice can not be heard while the corporation have got a megaphone

My point is that as you stated for people to be competitive they need to pool together, have fund rasiers etc.

That was your words right?

So you understand that the individual by him/her self can not stand against corporations, therefore the individual has no power.



Most people have jobs and lives, and you expect them to compete with people whose jobs is to make fund raisers and etc...... You do not see the lack of balance?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

You just made my point. Thank you.

The ruling takes power away from the individual, and gives power to corporations.

As i said before the avrage citizens voice can not be heard while the corporation have got a megaphone

My point is that as you stated for people to be competitive they need to pool together, have fund rasiers etc.

That was your words right?

So you understand that the individual by him/her self can not stand against corporations, therefore the individual has no power.

As long as the group fits the mind and opinion of the individual, it doesn't make a difference.


Most people have jobs and lives, and you expect them to compete with people whose jobs is to make fund raisers and etc...... You do not see the lack of balance?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

LOL first that was funny.
I don’t think corporations have what’s best for the country in mind.

I think most corporations have one god, one religion and that’s money. To make more of it and increase the profit margin. I don’t have an issue with this I don’t hate money. However I do not think that laws should be made or influenced by a profit motive.

Good, I meant it to be funny because I always try to be agreeable, even when we disagree. However, the point remains that those are all corporations which you would restrict the right to provide advertising. I belong to several of those organizations because I believe in them--in their missions of speaking up for skydivers, the environment, puppies, and retarded people. Banning lobbying by corporations would limit my advocacy voice.

Or would you only limit advertising/lobbying by for profit corporations? You realize that for-profit corporations can easily create and/or fund non-profit corporations. It is really a thicket then to make that distinction.

Quote

You can speak all you want, however I would not allow you to donate money in an unlimited manner.
My personal idea is to set a maximum allowed contribution, and make it a very small amount. Something like $20.00.

You need to convince people individuals to agree with your ideas and the power comes back to the people, and not the lobbyist.

I do not donate an unlimited amount of money because, truth be told, my personal funds are very limited. I do donate a considerable amount more than $20 to some of those organizations although most of those donations go to operations not lobbying. Not sure how much total I would donate that would go to lobbying. Anyway, all of those organizations have membership bases full of people who agree with me about the rights and importance of skydivers, the environment, puppies, and retarded people. Not sure why I shouldn't be able to spend my funds to promote the things I agree with. Limiting my contributions is effectively limiting my speech. I do not seek to limit your first amendment rights, please do not seek to limit mine.


***
I think matters of opinion are just that. However I would be for sever punishment for the people who mislead and misinform. I do believe there is a difference. If we do not do this the people with the least morals and ethics will be the people who will succeed. Simply because they will say any thing to get what they want. I don’t want to live in such a world that depravity is viewed as a vehicle for success.

In theory I could agree with you here. I do not particularly like lying either. However as a practical matter it is exceedingly difficult to draw a line between a lie and an opinion in matters of politics and political debate because, often, nobody really knows what the consequences of a piece of legislation is going to be. Saying, for example, that Obama's health plan is going to gut Medicare could certainly be a lie. It might also be the truth. I think the best way to sort that out is through engagement in public discourse in the marketplace of ideas. That can be messy but is far preferable than some bureaucrat with the FEC or a judge deciding whose speech is allowed and whose isn't.

Even after the 'Citizens United' ruling we still have far, far too many restrictions on political speech in this country.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You can speak all you want, however I would not allow you to donate money in an unlimited manner.
My personal idea is to set a maximum allowed contribution, and make it a very small amount. Something like $20.00.

So what it really comes down to is that you actually are a corporate shill, because this sort of asinine policy guts the rights of the people to speech.

As I said, the corporations will have no problem working around the restrictions, as they always have, but the people will have no voice. $20? what a joke.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

there is a word for deliberately misleading and misinforming people for profit.

Close, but carbon offset is two words, not one

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[billvon 3,120]

>Close, but carbon offset is two words, not one

True - but "denier" is indeed one word.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Close, but carbon offset is two words, not one

True - but "denier" is indeed one word.

So is "Warmist" and so is "Truther"
Both very similar in their outlooks.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Keep in mind no corporation is prohibit from expressing their political view. I have no issue with IBM saying what they believe if they wish to get in to a political discourse. What this ruling did was basically limited the average citizens speech and increase the power of the fat cats.

Wrong. In the Citizen's United case, Citizen's United was denied permission by the FCC from airing what they called a documentary that painted Hillary Clinton in a rather bad light. The reason was that they wanted to air it within 60 days of an election.

2 USC section 441(b) prohibited all independent expenditures of a corporation from its general fund for political speech. Such a law suppresses speech. Period.

You don't consider a corporation to be a person. That's fine. How about groups of people? What if my buddies and I pool our resources and pay to run ads against Christine O'Donnell? We are not a "person." We are people. What if we incorporate? Now we aren't people anymore?

Anything that causes a person to say, "Can I be fined or imprisoned for saying this?" is a pretty dangerous thing when freedom of speech is valued.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

there is a word for deliberately misleading and misinforming people for profit. I believe it is called a con,

Yo! Do I pick on you? Bugger off.