Holy crap, this feels like pretty damn big news. What do you think about this?

---

Z, it is huge news. Some observations and thoughts follow.
First, when Sotomayor and Ginsberg are on the OTHER side of a decision, you know it’s the right decision.
Second, Vegas must be incredibly pissed off. They make huge money on sports book with no competition. For example, the first weekend of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament is the biggest weekend in Vegas. Now there will be other options.
Third, bookies will hate this because the cost of legitimately betting will go down. Whenever you inject competition in to a market, costs decrease.
Fourth, the feds will hate this decision also because with more and more people having a economic interest in the outcome of the game, the more parties there are that would have the economic motivation to fix a game. Remember, the corruption in a sport is generally not on who wins or who loses, but by how many points.
This is big.

---

Citizen's United was the worst decision in decades and Sotomayer and Ginsberg will certainly be seen in history as on the right side of that one. Although this decision won't be as detrimental to our country as a whole it will certainly devastate alot of people.

Gambling addiction is real and there will be thousands if not millions of new addicts born from this bill. I play alot of poker will be Vegas for the world series in a few weeks, and one of the saddest things about going into these places is seeing the zombies plugging away juniors college money into the slot machines. Atleast before you could get yourself banned from entering a casino, or you had to find a bookie which many couldn't/wouldn't do. Now it will be everywhere, and forgive me for having little faith in us providing credible treatment options. Considering how we deal with alcohol/drug addiction I feel for the families who will now have to deal with the fallout.

That's not even addressing how it will affect the integrity of sports....

The Citizens United decision was a GLORIOUS decision. It finally leveled the playing field restoring free speech. It was a sweeping victory against government censorship of free speech especially political speech. It allowed for a lifting of the blanket ban on advocacy groups which had been imposed by McCain Feingold.

It has brought about the defeat of incumbents as their ability to kept their offices through monopolizing the media and the power of incumbency was mitigated. It has leveled the playing field against unions who extort money from their members.

In short it has enabled associational free-speech. Advocacy groups whether conservative or liberal to advertise.

And please don’t hand me the “special interest money will decide elections” BS. Jeb Bush is super PAC raised $86 million, but DJT kicked his low energy ass. Hillary out raised Bernie 93mm to 4mm and she still needed debate questions in advance to win.

But I guess if one believes in the nanny state... that the government should supervise every freaking aspect of our lives...then one will think that both of these supreme court decisions are bad.

---

This seems to be going off track but you couldn't be more wrong about citizens united. The only people it has benefited are corporations and super rich who now can buy their politicians and dictate our politics (and often from the shadows). If you support your politicians being beholden to the voter you want money to have as little effect on them as possible. Its why most other modern countries have strict campaign finance laws and limit advertising, so it doesn't turn into the circus we now have with politicians spending 75% of their time fund raising.

Also every country has restrictions on what should be legal or not, its why we don't let people sell meth out of gas stations or scream fire in a crowded theatre. Sometimes you have to have common sense restrictions for the good of society. Reasonable people can understand that, some can't...

Edit: Check out this video/article and you get what i'm talking about, it shows how much influence we have on politicians making decisions. Unless you are donating money they really don't care...that should concern you.

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think 

My opinions on Citizens United are based upon the first Amendment and freedoms explicitly guaranteed by them, especially including freedom of speech and expression.
Let me explain to you why I disagree with your assertions
1. The only people who benefited from CU are the super rich
- even if true, so what? why should the super rich have their freedom impinged.
- you don't seem to have a problem taxing the shit out of them, so why can't they spend their money to convey their ideas in proportion with how much you tax them
- who are you to say what anyone can spend their money on, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
- who are you to say who is super rich or rich...you should get your nose out of other peoples' bank accounts or tax returns
- groups like Greenpeace, the Audubon society, and the NRA can organize and have a voice.
- Bill Proxmire had no problems winning elections without raising money, but that was his choice...it wasn't mandated.
- Prior to Citizens, anyone could get around these limits via Superpacs anyway. Now they can be more forthright.
2. We don't let people sell meth or yell fire in a crowded theater
- that argument sounds like its from someone on meth. How can someone compare either of these with voicing an opinion on a candidate or issue. If you can't see the difference between freedom of expression and causing direct harm to others, you need to take a step back and smell the coffee.
3. The survey cited is fraught is illogical. If politicians don't listen to voters, then the voters can vote them out. These voters would rather bitch than organize or vote. I have a bigger problem with the fact that over 50% of people don't pay any federal income tax, yet can vote to confiscate wealth from producers in society...the ones who create jobs.
4. I noticed you did not address the abuses and advantages labor union before CU...which have now been rightfully mitigated.
In conclusion....and to repeat....anyone against these decisions is for a big government nanny state.

---

I'd like to skip out on the federal income tax, how the heck do I pull that off?

---

Does the government’s legitimate interest to protecting our democracy justify infringement on the freedom of speech? Also should Corporations be given the same rights as actual citizens? These are the important questions to consider.

Hint: Yes our democracy does need to be protected against undue influence and no corporations should not be treated like people. So by allowing billions to be spent on lobbying legislators they are undermining democracy and defrauding voters out of their chance of legitimate representation. I'd say you probably would be concerned about democracy being undermined but telling from your rant about defending the super rich it seems you prefer a plutocracy (government run by the rich). You may want to read up on what a democracy looks like and who its supposed to work for (all of us, equally).



Candidates like Bill Proxmire (or DJT) are outliers, normally when you are outspent you lose the election. Money is the biggest decider in who wins.

94 percent of biggest House race spenders won
82 percent of biggest Senate race spenders won

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/money-pretty-good-predictor-will-win-elections 



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.09faf9762d7e 



Please specify how the survey is illogical and/or provide information to support that. Forgive me if I don't take you at your word.



For someone who claims not to like illogical comparisons you sure seem to make alot of them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/ 

If I was to hand you a sandwich that was 95% bullshit and 5% ham, would you be prepared to call that a ham sandwich?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Our freedoms are from God, not the government. We, the people, choose to convey certain of those rights, with limitations delineated in the Constitution to the government. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are not conveyed to the Government. The government cannot over step those rights. Also,
1. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic.
2. Corporations are ultimately own by, for the economic benefit of people. Shouldn't the people who own those corporations have the same rights as people who own anything else? You can use your car to pass out fliers for candidate...should the government be able to say to you, Sorry your proportional use of that car is too highly skewed to politics. Why is a rich man'scash any different.
3. My points were mainly to protect individuals and associations who want to exercise their constitutional right of expression.
4. Most of the Founding Fathers were rich, and lost fortunes in the war to provide our freedoms. They exercised their God given right of expression.
5. People and 501c 3's generally give to politicians who agree with their views. The more people agree with their views, the more money they receive AND the more likely they are to get votes. You seem to think the politicians just stick their fingers up in the air and vote for whatever will get them the most money. Most politicians are not straight up whores who get economic benefit from foundations they form then sell out their country....although there are some.
6. Outlier or not, Proxmire and other candidates win, because they take centrist practical views which can be easily defended.
7. There is more spending....so what? Most people are ignorant of issues which affect our constitutional republic. For example, many ill-informed people they we live in a democracy and don't understand neither the foundational logic nor the genius behind the electoral college.
8. You seem great as asking questions and pointing to left wing articles (the Atlantic, Washington Compost and Socialist Public Radio). Go read National Review and get some balance. Perhaps, however, you can contemplate the core ideals behind these questions:
- why should the super rich have their freedoms impinged?
- you don't seem to have a problem taxing the shit out of them, so why can't they spend their money to convey their ideas in proportion with how much you tax them?
- who are you to say what anyone can spend their money on, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?
- who are you to say who is super rich or rich...you should get your nose out of other peoples' bank accounts or tax returns...
- what if an individual feels so strongly on an issue, they want to take a second mortgage and take out ads for or against a candidate or issue....who are you to stop them? what right do you have to stop them?

And back to the point, why should the government prohibit gambling on sports events, especially when it has lotteries and allows casino gambling. Nanny state thinking....we, the government will tell you what you can and can't do with your money

---

I personally detest gambling, but whatever other people want to do with their money is up to them. I have more of an issue with state lotteries. At least be honest with the public, it's gambling.

---