Perhaps it is I who do not understand why those who support Citizens United ruling are in favor of the First Amendment. Many who are quite astute ramble on about Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Either I have misunderstood or perhaps you have misunderstood. Learning is difficult, so be prepared to be open minded as I am.
I recently engaged in a legal conversation and presented what I believed to be the results of the court ruling of Kelo V. City of New Long and Citizens United. The brief was quite detailed. To spare you the time consuming task of reading all of it, I’ll rewrite one very relevant paragraph.
“Kelo V. City of New Long, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor “argued that this decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that ‘Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” With the ruling of Citizens United, the government has essentially allowed large corporations to have complete power over ‘eminent domain” through excessive lobbying/bribery of government officials. In addition, the lack of enforcement in the internal Revenue Service and other agencies concerning non-profit corporations and their excessive lobbying abilities, extends the “corporate grab” of the power of For-Profit and Non-Profit Corporations. For Profit Corporations, Non-Profit Corporations, and Government entities are able to “property grab” or deny property and natural rights through laws/regulations. Non-profits, many times owned by For-profit corporations or vice versa, are used to lobby government officials, and receive large amounts of tax deductible dollars from individuals and Corporations through IRS incentives for “special interest” purposes giving an unfair advantage, civil rights and due process violations, to individuals and small entities which restricts their freedom of speech by the very ruling of the supreme court, Citizens United vs FEC, that was won on the grounds of Free Speech, a civil rights violation against the poor and politically powerless. Those special interest groups are usually non-profit, own and operate many businesses including using the stock market, receive business from individuals as first choice because that business is able to receive “tax deductible” donations, and form multiple PACs who are many times non-profit groups who receive tax deductible money for specific social welfare purposes (not legislation) which are invited to government meetings to form laws/regulations through Executive Agencies, as seen by the Office of Management and Budget meeting in April 2012 for the USDA “retail pet store” regulation which directly affected the natural born citizen Ms. Kraemer, in which the poor and political powerless must defend themselves against without a raft in a yacht race including very little to no Pro Bono Legal Service. Pro Bono Services are given to immigrants who are not citizens and non-profit organization for litigation purposes when natural born citizens who have paid taxes to receive such benefits have to protect themselves against Tyrannical Laws and Regulations that turn them into paupers. They are then refused pro bono services that they paid taxes to receive in which are given to illegal immigrants before tax paying citizens. Those regulations are, many times, going unnoticed by any government officials, violate the Constitution, and in turn violates the rights of man classes of people including the poor of which almost 16%( questionable lowball statistic) of all United States Citizens are included…..”
While I admit that the prior paragraph could have been written a little more clear and in less words, you’ll have to forgive the ramble as I had written at least 15 briefs within 20 days with very little sleep.
Would someone please point out where Citizens United actually helped the “politically powerless” in regards to free speech?
Thank you for any input whether it be negative or positive.