Comments about ‘In our opinion: Supreme Court (correctly) rules that campaigns are speech, too’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, April 3 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

Using the logic in this case, how than can you limit the amount of free speech on one candidate? Is that the next free speech/ campaign finance wall to be torn down?

RickH
Blaine, WA

Wow. The DN must have received a new supply of rose-colored glasses. Courtesy of Orrin Hatch?

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

This decision will enhance the already overwhelming power of the tiny group of people who own most of the private wealth in the United States. It spells the end of what's left of participatory democracy by those of modest means. The massive media saturation by the right-wing wealthy (which you often quote) will drown any opposition to them, because it costs a lot of money to win an election. Even a little Utah house race can consume $20,000 easily. Anyone who has run for office (I have) knows that big donors pay for access - and they get it. The little guy can't pay for access - and doesn't get it. So what if the limit for one candidate is $2300. Funds are fluid and the wealthy can orchestrate an array of donations to maximum effect.

I marvel at your position on this matter. You deal with legalisms. I study power and this represents a massive, truly massive, concentration of power.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

I believe that the Citizens United Ruling is terrible for our country. However, I do not disagree that the ruling was correct.

More money in politics is not a good thing.

Mr hatch says "Today’s decision will help ensure the robust political participation and debate that our nation’s Founders envisioned.”

I sincerely doubt that the founders envisioned or would support the amount of corporate, union and lobby money in today's politics.

People argue over Citizens United. It is a done deal. I suggest a grass roots effort by both R and D to push for a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money in politics.

Seriously, who doesn't think that our country would run better if our politicians were not bought off?

Owen
Heber City, UT

Former BYU professor, and one of Utah's wisest men, Quinn McKay, has written and taught much on the law of obligation. Every time a political representative accepts a gift, he is obligated to reciprocate. How can more of this be good for the electoral process? The parallel examples of repugnant free speech offered by Chief Justice Roberts are apt. Voices will be heard - the loudest voices.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

"The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political, philosophical, educational, economic social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God."

=========

Corporations?
The very few, ruling over the masses -- due to their riches?
Unlimited Free Speech because of money and influence?
Babylon?

Isn't this that very definition of Gadianton Robbers?

And the Deseret News supports this?

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Those who lament the SCOTUS's decision don't seem to mind that there is no limits on union donations to Democrats! They seem only concerned about who can donate to the GOP!

10CC
Bountiful, UT

LoveleyDeseret makes a great point: the next domino to drop will be as Judge Thomas suggested - eliminating the limits on single candidates.

In this new world where money = free speech, it's starting to become possible that laws against bribery could be struck down. When you think about it, bribery is just a communication between two parties, an agreement. It's just free speech.

The old adage that "money talks" may no longer be relegated to TV shows about corruption - it may become a legally sanctioned way of doing business in politics.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

So --

The Deseret News by supporting this ruling,
feels that the more money a person has,
the more Free Speech and more say so to the Government you have.

That the "Open Book" policy is actually a CHECK book.

I whole heartedly DISagree with the Deseret News on this.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Senator Hatch said "Today’s decision will help ensure the robust political participation and debate that our nation’s Founders envisioned.”

Joe Blow said "I sincerely doubt that the founders envisioned or would support the amount of corporate, union and lobby money in today's politics."

I think Joe has possibly purposefully stumbled on what many believe is wrong with todays conservatism and that is it negates or denies 250 years of change and tries to interpret the constitution and laws as though the country was still a small, highly segregated, agrarian society.

I not only think the founders would not support corporate, union, and lobby money in campaigns but I firmly believe they could never have imagined what todays society and economy would look like.

Realizing that they created a document with flexibility that has served us well most of the time when the SCOTUS has been wise enough to realize this isn't the 1770's.

With this decision and citizens united the SCOTUS has with it's originalism re-established the societal segregation that took others 200+ years to do away with.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Obviously it's time to get some sensible Big Hitters on board with financing PACS that promote reasonable solutions.

Sure, Right Wingers have the Koch brothers and others who are always willing to advance some ridiculous Right Wing notions through applying a few million dollars here and there, but the obverse is true as well.

It's time for DECENT influential people to start contributing to PACS, people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

A few billion dollar strategically placed could be of tremendous help to this nation by countering the tremendous damage racked up by the Koch brothers and their kind.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Elections can be bought and sold --
via unlimited funding,
from just about any source.

And the Deseret News fully condones and supports this?

Amazing!
I am shocked and stunned beyond all belief!

[It's bad enough that American Billionaires can "donate" to causes without disgression. But, does this newspaper also realize that Billionaires in Communist China and Russia can form a U.S. "Corporation" and bribe and buy our elected officals with total impunity?! No, I didn't think so.]

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

We should appreciate this represents a new and terrible phase in our politics. With this concentration the process of becoming more like Chile and Argentina will accelerate. Think Chile del Norte. Think Pinochet. Think torture and the rest. Remember Chile is the country with the most top heavy distribution of wealth and power. We will close to that.

Those who have so feared loss of freedom under Obama now will face a terrible irony. They will get constraints they have so feared, not primarily through Obama, but instead through the financial oligarchy to which they have paid scant attention.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Those who lament the SCOTUS's decision don't seem to mind that there is no limits on union donations to Democrats! They seem only concerned about who can donate to the GOP!"

I don't see that. In fact I included unions in my post.

I am for getting ALL big money out. That includes donations to either party by any entity. I believe that our political system would run much better if only individuals could make campaign donations, and they should be limited.

Any liberals out there who think that Union contributions are ok, even though they strongly favor the dems? What say you?

How about you Thid? Do you think unlimited corporate, individual or union money helps or hurts the system?

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers."
(Aristotle)

"We can have democracy in this country, or great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
(Louis Brandeis)

tdietsche
St. Paul, MN

You bet, we deserve the best political pawns that money can buy. Certainly a billionaire casino owner should be able to buy any right-wing Presidential candidate who agrees to make online gambling illegal, so that the profits of his casinos are not threatened. What could be more American than such a noble effort to get your own laws by buying the dupes who write them.

And if you believe that, I have a Nigerian bank account that has been willed to you, just send me all your financial details. Come on people, you are being lied to and ripped off by the amoral upper class. They have no higher values than money in any way possible. Do you share those values, or do you have higher ethics than these greedy evil-doers?

viejogeezer
CARLSBAD, CA

250 years only rich white men could vote. Welcome to the eighteenth century.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Next up on the conservative agenda, personhood for money, and 1 vote per dollar of worth.

Esquire
Springville, UT

DesNews, surely you jest. You can't be serious. The only way you could agree with the Court is if you don't believe in a democracy where a well informed public makes decisions in their self-governance. The Court has perverted the notion of free speech, giving power to those with vast resources to control the public dialogue and manipulate the people. The threat to this country and to our freedom is coming like a train from the super rich, as they gain more control of public policy. They pretty much own Washington. They literally buy elections. They are centralizing money and power. Soviet Communism was never the threat to our freedom as this is - not even close. The fact that this newspaper supports the rise of the new Gadianton Robbers suggests that either you have been fooled, or you are part of the scheme. I am not some crazy extremist. I have experience directly in the centers of power, and I am not naive. I have no interest in advancing the interests of partisan interests. Mark this as a warning, Deseret News. This is a threat to all of us.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

If any issue shows the intellectual division between conservative and liberal, this is it. We live in America, where money rules everything. Yet, liberals seem to want government to regulate the money flow to the political arena. And Harry Reid. "The Koch Brothers are buying our democracy." Not George Soros. Not Steven Spielberg. Not Oprah Winfrey. Not George Clooney. Not Bill Gates. Not Warren Buffett. Not JayZ and Beyonce. Not Mark Zuckerberg. Not Teresa and John Kerry. Not the Kennedys. Not Jeffrey Katzenberg. Not David Geffin. Not, Not, Not........ NO, It's those Koch Brothers. What a laugh. When all those liberals agree to give up their billions in donatiions to politics and left wing political causes, then maybe I'll listen. Until then, say it with me, "Don't insult my intelligence Harry."

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments