How the hell is being against Citizens United against free speech? Free speech is given to HUMANS by the first amendment, not corporations....and money is not speech.
That's the crux of it. The Supreme Court ruled spending money is a form of free speech. You're seeing corporations an artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. But the ruling says they are. All those corporations, all run by people who have the right of free speech to spend their corporations money as they see fit.
Corporations are legally a person, afforded all rights thereof. Legal definition: "a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law." That corporation is one person who has the same rights as anyone else (except voting and some other limitations of course). It doesn't matter how big the corporation either.
"The Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government."
If they hadn't done that, yes, the NRA could be limited in their spending. But at the same time, so could Planned Parenthood. And then you've opened the door to Government deciding who or what has the right to free speech. Once that happens, they can move that threshhold. The threshold they tried for was already too far.
Again, you're thinking large NRA type corporations. But this would also ban small corporations from doing it as well. Picture a veterinarian who owns a few clinics and has incorporated for tax reasons. Suppose there was a law being proposed that would force all pit bulls in a town to be euthanized instead of being adopted out. (like they really did in Montreal) It would be illegal for him spend money in political support of anyone who could get that law shut down.
That law also mentions unions. So unions have no right to place any ads or spend any money on any political views or in support of any political party. Imagine a small union of hotel housekeeping workers wanting to place an ad in support of a candidate who promises to push for better working environments for hotel workers. Well, that law would have prevented them from doing that. Why is that not free speech? Every member of that union is hard working individuals who collectively voted to try to influence the political arena to help themselves. Don't they have that right?
Once you say the NRA doesn't have that right, you also deny it to laundry cleaners at your local Drury Inn, and the vet who takes care of your dog.
That law also prevented even a non-profit group from distributing a film or even a book that criticized a candidate. That was actually brought up about Hillary Clinton during her run for presidency in 2008. Yeah, that idiotic law gave the government direct power to ban films and books.
Any constitutional amendment that limits free speech should be opposed, no matter what form. Hillary flat out saying she'd get that ruling overturned so the government then has to power to decide who has the right of free speech is an affront to the constitution. That's one of the issues over which I'm ecstatic she lost. She tried to twist it around so it looked like just the big evil corporations would be stopped from spending billions to influence all us simple minded folk and get their bad ways in place. But no, it was a direct power grab designed to strip away constitutional rights from everyday citizens and give more power to the government.
F THAT! When the ACLU is even against a liberal democrat trying to do something you know it's messed up.
