State's rights?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I'm reading a couple of threads applauding Montana's anti-corporate personhood measures being upheld by their supreme court and Washington state joinging several other states in adopting full civil rights for gays seeking to marry. These measures are being adopted because the federal government has disappointed the people of these states so the states are acting of their own accord. Ditto medical marijuana states and safe haven states.

Now, I reject that the current crop of state's rights advocates want to return to race-based slavery (why would they when "illegal" immigration permits them to keep humans who are hiding from the law as abject chattel?) but obviously those on the right want to restrict women's access to health services and take immigration enforcement into their own hands as well as put any regulation they disapprove of on the chopping block.

I'm genuinely conflicted.

Gays do deserve their full civil rights and the federal government -- their government -- betrayed them with DOMA but then again Citizen's United was formulated as a civil rights issue, i.e. people have a right to express political opinions without risking personal liability. Yes, it opened floodgates for corporations seeking to outright buy politicians, I get that, but I also understand there is a rationale about peoples' rights. That rationale allows people who operate concerns such as MMFA and MoveOn.org to do what they do without fear of harrassing lawsuits seeking to destroy them presonally. To throw out the bathwater of Goldman Sachs is to risk disposing of the baby of sincerely motivated political participation.

How do we draw the line between a necessary flexing of state's rights and the more maliciously-minded sort? Is that even possible?

[MADem]

1. It's a question of "public opinion" I guess.

If you have a critical mass at a national level in support of an effort that empowers people, well, that's good. If you have a small cadre of die-hards trying to put people down, well, that's bad.

It's a delicate dance between federal and state; we've been at it for centuries, now!

[Uncle Joe]

2. Personally I fail to see the Civil Rights aspect of Citizens United.

Corporations aren't people and money isn't speech.

Thanks for the thread, Nuclear Unicorn.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Money may not BE speech but it definitely BUYS speech, i.e. newspaper/radio/TV ads

Office equipment, printing, websites, researcher salaries, office leases, etc.

People should have the right to advocate issues. The people who run political advocacy groups should have a right to the sorts of protections afforded corporations, i.e. your personal finances should not be civilly liable just because you put out an ad some member of the opposition takes offense to. The only way to protect you is to allow you to declare X portion of your finances invested in a politics-based corporation, that way you are liable for X amount and no more.

Now, mind you, that is a far cry from the sort of corporatism that is ruining this (every?) nation. When companies bribe or threaten the withholding of campaign contributions in order to secure favorable legislation or obtain regulation to hurt competitors then we obviously have a serious, serious, SERIOUS problem and I'm pretty sure that's how Goldman Sachs etc have dodged serious investigations.

But here we are with Montana seeking it's own state-level remedy. Should we bless them and tell them, "Godspeed" or do we bring them to heel as we would a state seeking to circumvent federal minimum wage laws? As much as we make take umbrage with what CU hath wrought it is nonetheless couched as a Bill of Rights issue. Certainly no state is allowed to trump the Bill of Rights no matter how much we disapprove of a given interpretation. If that were the case states could trump a woman's right to privately consult with her health care providers just because some states disapprove of the interpretations found within Roe v Wade.

[Uncle Joe]

6. The problem with the money buys speech equation is in allowing the mega-wealthy do drown

everyone else's voice out with their mega-phones.

If you don't have the financial resources, your voice isn't heard, on both the micro personal lobbying effort and macro advertising speaking to the masses level. This has changed a little for the better with the Internet but it still holds true.

The Citizens United decision was a judicial scam to neutrailize the growing power of the people's voices via the Internet by removing any logical constraint on spending by the uber rich and major corporations in brainwashing the people during the runup to elections using mass media. They turned a needed narrow decision into an overreaching broad one eliminating a near century's duration of precedent.

One can make an argument that the Second Amendment allows for personal possession of firearms, but no one, not even the most ardent gun rights adovcate believes this gives the right for the people to have their own nuclear weapons. There are logical restrictions on the Bill of Rights.

With the Citizens United Decision, if Congress is regulating television, radio or the Internet and then allowing money to be the only determinent in regards to has free speech, they are De Facto prohibiting the exercise of free speech, by limiting it only to those people or corporations wilth great financial resources. With 1% of the population controlling 40+% of the nation's wealth, the math is easy, they are handing the equivalent of free speech nuclear weapons to a select few.

In regards to your second paragraph concern, which I share, this decision opens the floodgates to do exactly that, just under a different form. All they need do is make promises or threats to use issue advocacy to benefit or harm said candidate. I believe one such issue organziation spent twice as much money benefitting Romney than the Romeny Campaign spent promoting him in Iowa, it's all the same whether you call it six or half a dozen.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Well, I honestly can't see a litmus or means test for

how much someone is allowed to spend on a given issue. Lots of solid progressive causes are supported by philanthropists who also happen to be wealthy. Even more so when the less-than-uber-rich pool their resources.

The idea isn't to destroy wealth or prevent its use but to punish corruption. Yes, wealth greatly facilitates corruption, just like wealth facilitates taking a vacation but we must still maintain a society that holds sacred a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

Personally, the idea of publically funded campaigns grows on me by the minute. The top X number of candidates get equal amount of Y money for Z campaign period.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. It is a tough issue.

The balancing act between local rule and centralized rule is one that is nearly impossible to accomplish with 100 percent accuracy.

[mmonk]

4. Usually states's rights advocates tend to be hypocritical

when the argument is used for something they don't support (case in point: single payer).

[Odin2005]

8. States do not have "rights", they have powers. Only individuals have rights.

When somebody rants on about "States Rights" I assume they are racist assholes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. I hope I am spared those assumptions.

It's mostly a vernacular thing in my mind. The same as referring to the US as a democracy when technically it is a federal republic.