PeachPie 🍑Fifty Years Ago, the Supreme Court Said Money Is Speech
submitted by
jacobin.com/2026/02/citizens-united-campaign-fi…
Last week was the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision enshrining the idea that money in politics is not corruption, but constitutionally protected speech. States and cities across the US are battling the rotten legacy of that decision.
49 Comments
Comments from other communities
FoniWhen one man, one vote became one dollar, one vote. Capitalism bought democracy.
Fun fact, that quote is two years younger than this decision.
His words are timeless.
The powers of corruption (with the largest and most infamous being GOP) do not care about people. They just want to live the new American dream of shitting themselves in the oval office while laying seige to American cities.
jesus would the US just write some new legislation and stop with the pseudo-philosophical supreme court bullshit
one of the worst decisions ever made. corporations aren’t human.ms with inalienable rights
Human.ms sounds like a bare bones early attempt at AI from Microsoft 🤔
lolololol my fat thumbs
This and Citizens United gave the rich and Russia all they needed to destroy democracy.
Fuck now we got trump crypto openly taking money as corrupt as possible from countries all over the world, especially Saudi Arabi.
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
And women used to have federally protected rights over their own bodies.
Things can change.
Expand the SC and revert this dipshit decision.
US laws: money is speech
People: OK, we’ll just choose to not spend money with those we dislike
US laws: that’s illegal
(Anti BDS laws)
had to look that one up. TIL
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
The Supreme Court is illegitimate
At this point most of the government is illegitimate. It has been co-opted by billionaires and their cronies. Pick a branch of government and follow the money right to the corruption.
And this is why we can “officially” be incorrupt, the very act of bribery is endorsed by the State!
Every time you see the word “donations” or “contributions” just swap it with “bribes”.
Amazon and friends aren’t “donating” millions of dollars out of charity.
Citizens United and Super PACs were the final nails in the coffin, today we are seeing the results of 50 years of unbridled bribery by corporations and robber barons.
And that’s why minimum wage is seven bucks an hour and no universal healthcare and on and on and on and on.
They do allow us to argue about abortion and gay marriage though, as long as it doesn’t affect the bottom line, so that’s nice.
Even though I think it’s a huge problem to consider pacs or donations speech, there are some legitimately thorny issues here. How do we define speech in a way that allows us to clamp down corruption but does not interfere with the free press? And if we do find a ruling or law that walks this line, do the rich simply find another avenue to exert influence?
Not that these fights don’t matter–shifting the balance of power towards the people and away from the rich is a good thing. But I have come to believe that extreme wealth is simply incompatible with democracy. When you have enough time and money you can always find a way to subvert the rule of law, and it’s usually in your interests to do so. But of course this leaves us with the question of how to destroy the political power of the wealthy in a political system that is now heavily rigged against us. I know what some people will say but I still haven’t seen a really good answer to this question.
Maybe syndicalism, but labor tactics have been heavily restricted by federal and some state laws. So this would require more willingness on the part of unions to break the law, and a much clearer and more radical vision for our political system. Right now I don’t see this has much popular support. And the time to build this support is limited as fascism tightens its hold and automation and AI threaten to undermine the bargaining power workers hold today.
Easy step we can do. No contributions to individuals running for an office. Any money goes to a common fund that is distributed amongst the candidates. Equally. With a maximum amount per person correlated to the number of parties involved in the election.
Example: mayoral race with 2 parties and a fund of $500,000. Each person receives 250,000 for their campaign.
Same race but with $1,000,000 in the fund? That’s right. Each member gets 300,000 to use.
3 parties involved with that 1M fund? 333,000 per person but goes to 500,000 when the funds available allow for it
Catch: all donations go to this fund and all money used from this fund must be accounted for. Anyone found to be using their own money or any donations that did not come from the fund constitutes an automatic forfeiture of their campaign and any unspent money of their allotted amount gets returned to the funds.
Said returned funds do not get distributed to the other campaigns.
Any unused money of the fund at the end of the election is used by civil services budgets.
So equal funds for all parties, even those with minimal support? Interesting idea, I’d like to see how it works in practice.
However, this won’t solve the PAC issue.
the issue i see with being concerned that low supported groups would get more money then they would otherwise…is the point. the main reason other parties don’t have a presence is because they do not have the money to honestly present themselves. and we are talking reach here, if they are given equal reach, and what they say is agreed to by more people, then it turns out that they didn’t have minimal support, they were being quashed by special interests
Well, lack of money and also FPTP
A group designed to raise money for a candidate is not allowed. Anyone who uses that money forfeits their campaign.
I thought I covered that
The best a PAC could do would be to flood the common coffer. Which means every candidate benefits up to the maximum allowable.
The numbers I gave were purely for example sake. I’m thinking total maximum as a function of the place to be governed overs median salary or gdp. Idk. Something tied to the areas economic and social health to incentivise improving the average person’s lot in life instead of the richest few
PACs don’t always give money to candidates. They often just express their opinions in a way that aligns with a candidate’s reelection. I think drawing a line here that doesn’t infringe on ordinary political commentary is a bit challenging.
Maybe I’m oversimplifying it, but “Money is Speech” is less of a problem than “Corporations are People” from Citizens United. Because the latter takes rights that this country historically reserves for humans and gives them to organizations (that are themselves composed of humans).
Simply reverse that, and you can restore limits on these organizations. Billionaires can still spend money how they are fit, but unless the billionaire does it all himself, at some point he will need an organization to do it, and that organization can have constraints.
Yes, there is a direct line from “Money is Speech” to “Corporations are People”, but it’s that second one that does more harm.
Both decisions need to be overturned. But yeah, “Corporations are People” is extremely damaging. Abstract concepts cannot have rights and for us to pretend otherwise is as dangerous as it is stupid.
This is a popular opinion but corporate personhood has a lot of implications beyond political activities which need to be considered.
For example, if corporations are not people, how does the first amendment apply to news outlets?
Freedom of the press is explicitly called out in the first ammendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-1/ALDE_00000395/
Its All There, black and white. Clear As Crystal
A plan - if it’s not too late
https://represent.us/
A video about it-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k
Personally, I think that if UBI and wealth caps are implemented, that people should be able to use money to support political speech…up to a limit. Say, a $1,000 limit per individual, each year. Corporations can’t use money for speech, just citizens. Anyone caught selling their speech for favors, lose their citizenship.
By setting a visible and clear amount of ‘maxing’ a person can do, it sets a goal. A fair number of people would work towards filling that political bucket of money, since they know the goal is achievable, and that their speech actually matters. A billionaire can’t put their finger on the scales, if their billions didn’t exist in the first place. This is helpful for preventing a feeling of not mattering within the ordinary person.
When it comes down to it, many of society’s ills come from the wealthy. Not just because of the influence they exert, but also because they demoralize people who otherwise would participate in democracy.
How are you going to prevent billionaires from giving money under the table? Seems simpler to me to just not have billionaires.
Well, I DID mention wealth caps. Part of this is to limit how much income an individual can earn each year - anything beyond the cap should be fully taxed. Also, an maximum amount of money that a person can have in total savings and assets.
So where’s my free money?
And this is the point where everything went to shit.
Thanks, guys!
Grrr
Yes, but did the Court pay money to turn the words of its decision into legally-significant speech?
Because otherwise, it seems a bit self-refuting.
And then BOOM!
Four to five years later America was introduced to something known as The Great Depression
Edit: Just a bumbling idiot here, don’t mind me lmao
Did you mean 46 years earlier instead of 4 to 5 years later?
I need to get more sleep; my brain is not mathing and I’m getting my facts crossed.
There are few things we can do to immediately improve our health in the short term, and add years to our life in the long term, as getting a better nights sleep.
More difficult for me these days unfortunately, just like anyone else. But yes absolutely, phenomenal advice for anyone and everyone 🙏
The Great Depression that happened almost 100 years ago? That definitely must have been caused by a court decision that happened half a century later
50 years ago?
They are talking about an earlier case, Buckley v. Valeo, that they say laid the foundation for Citizens United.
The case was 50 years ago. Citizens united was 2010.
I’m a free money maximalist.
We need a wealth cap
Nobody should be able to have a networth over 1 million dollars. NOBODY.
You go over the 1 million? All over 1M goes 100% to taxes. All income goes to taxes until your below again.
It’s a simple rule that will change the world for the better.