Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reason Roundup

Senate Democrats Back Constitutional Amendment to Undo Citizens United

Plus: Marijuana banking, suing Facebook, and more...

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 8.9.2019 9:45 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
zumaamericastwentyfour733228 | Senate Democrats/ZUMA Press/Newscom
(Senate Democrats/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Democrats are trying to amend the constitution to undo a Supreme Court decision. The ruling they take issue with is 2010's Citizens United v. FEC, which lets corporations engage in political speech without facing extreme regulation.

Last week, the entire Senate Democratic Caucus introduced a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United. In 2014 "we reported this amendment to the floor," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) during a July 30 press conference. "What happened to it? A McConnell filibuster happened to it….With a new leader by the name of Schumer in the Senate, we can be sure that it won't be a filibuster stopping us."

Yesterday, one of those senators put the spotlight on the crusade. "Citizens United has damaged our democracy and allowed corporate money to flood our politics," claimed the California senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris on Twitter. (Harris herself has received lots of corporate cash, though she's recently been going back and forth on whether she'll keep taking it.) "We can't allow this to continue—which is why my colleagues and I introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn this terrible Supreme Court decision," she added.

Harris and company are continuing Hillary Clinton's crusade. Back in 2016, Clinton suggested "that the real problem with that decision is that it did not permit the legal barring of a documentary critical of her," as Reason's Brian Doherty wrote. Clinton complained the critical film should have been banned around election time (under a 2002 law disallowing corporations and labor unions from making "electioneering communication" in the days or months leading up to an election) "because the legal entity behind it was organized as a corporation."

That gets to a crucial point about "corporations": They're not all massive behemoths or big money spenders. Small and sometimes single-person businesses, nonprofit groups, activist organizations, trade associations, labor unions, and all sorts of entities that liberals like are organized as corporations, and as such benefit from the right to be public about political matters without powerful elites shutting them down.

Democrats pretend that ending Citizens United is about restoring transparency and fairness to political speech. But what sort of transparency and fairness prohibits vast swaths of its organized advocacy and community groups from talking about candidates and campaign issues at the very time when they're most important? Behind the rhetoric about "dark money" and "corporate influence," what this "reform" would do is to strip speech rights from all sorts of citizens—and let politicians hoard power over political narratives themselves. (See also: "Our Presidential Cycle Shows Why Citizens United Was Decided Rightly" and "The Citizens United Backlash Threatens Basic Rights.")


FREE MINDS

BREAKING: Today a court ruled that Facebook users in Illinois can sue over the company's use of face recognition technology without user consent. This decision is a major win for privacy rights, and recognizes the dangers posed by the increased use of face recognition technology.

— ACLU (@ACLU) August 8, 2019


FREE MARKETS

Marijuana-business banking bill hits a snag. Sen. Mike Crapo (R–Idaho), who heads up the Senate's banking committee, says he's down with overhauling certain rules so that marijuana businesses can bank. But Crapo rejects the existing bill being supported by a bipartisan, bi-chamber congressional crew. The Secure and Fair Enforcement Act is "being cosponsored by nearly a third of the body," reports Marijuana Moment. However, "Crapo floated the idea that his chamber might instead pursue separate legislation or even seek an administrative fix for the issue rather than pass a bill."


QUICK HITS

  • Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) says she has "a lot of common ground with many libertarian viewpoints."
  • The latest scapegoat for mass shootings is reefer madness:

https://twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/1159559380108554245

  • While claiming it doesn't investigate ideologies, only actions, the FBI targeted what it calls "black identity extremists" with a program called IRON FIST:

FBI docs leaked to me reveal that in 2018, the Bureau targeted "Black Identity Extremists" under a program codenamed "IRON FIST", planning to use undercover agents to infiltrate the group which it considered a top counterterrorism priority.

For @tyt: https://t.co/q9hI2zQLQn pic.twitter.com/KRaLyUGxzX

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) August 8, 2019

  • The "intellectual dark web" publication Quillette has retracted an anti–Democratic Socialists of America piece allegedly written by an alienated blue-collar member of the group. The piece was a hoax and the purported author did not exist.
  • The founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer has been ordered by a federal judge to pay $14 million in damages in a harassment lawsuit.
  • ICE agents tried to raid a Brooklyn homeless shelter without a warrant.
  • Checking in on Ferguson:

Five years after #Ferguson, here's my look at DOJ's police reform efforts. A huge chunk of the Civil Rights Division's police practice group is gone, and the Trump administration shrunk the size of the unit. https://t.co/M7I69ZDcpe

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 9, 2019

  • 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren said yes when asked if she thought President Donald Trump is a white supremacist. "He has given aid and comfort to white supremacists. He's done the wink and a nod," said Warren. "He has talked about white supremacists as fine people. He's done everything he can to stir up racial conflict and hatred in this country."
  • Minneapolis might ban drive-through restaurants.

This is the most perfect response to surveillance tech that has ever existed. https://t.co/tu3rNIlKXQ

— Nishita Jha (@NishSwish) August 9, 2019

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The U.S. Shouldn't Play Endless Whac-A-Mole in Syria

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Reason RoundupCitizens UnitedFirst AmendmentFree SpeechPoliticsPrivacyCampaign FinanceKamala HarrisConstitutionSupreme Court
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (169)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Bee Tagger   6 years ago

    While claiming it doesn't investigate ideologies, only actions, the FBI targeted what it calls "black identity extremists" with a program called IRON FIST:

    i don't see what piling up firsts on morning roundups has to do black identity extremists

    1. Leo Kovalensky II   6 years ago

      Mrs. Fist is complaining that he's a little rusty.

      1. Ray McKigney   6 years ago

        But hard as ever.

        1. TrickyVic (old school)   6 years ago

          Morning fist?

      2. Chipper Morning Wood   6 years ago

        I thought that's what Fist said to Mrs. Fist, after she failed to inform him of certain calendrical events.

    2. Rufus The Monocled   6 years ago

      Hello.

      Democrats are awful.

    3. Deconstructed Potato   6 years ago

      So Danny Rand has been captured and reprogrammed by HYDRA?

      1. Hit and Run   6 years ago

        Power Man will save him.

        1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

          Maybe an opportunity for Shang-Chi to make a guest appearance for a team up?

    4. Fist of Etiquette   6 years ago

      I don't like being maligned on my day off.

      1. Freddy the Jerk   6 years ago

        Reason gives you days off?

        1. Fist of Etiquette   6 years ago

          Such men dare take what they want.

  2. Longtobefree   6 years ago

    So why don't senate democrats bring an amendment to repeal the second? It is the only legal and finally effective to achieve 'gun control'.

    1. Rich   6 years ago

      Sheesh, L -- there's no need to "amend" a Living Constitution!

      1. I, Woodchipper   6 years ago

        haha thread winner here.

      2. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

        ^^^This!

    2. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

      I favor a constitutional amendment to ban democrats from doing democrat stuff. Like treason. Which is primarily what democrats do.

  3. Bee Tagger   6 years ago

    Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) says she has "a lot of common ground with many libertarian viewpoints."

    however, she just keeps asking "are you allowed to plant that?"

  4. JesseAz   6 years ago

    Shouldn't warren say hes done it with a whistle only her and Democrats can hear? Or is she claiming white supremacists and Democrats are the same?

    1. MotörSteve   6 years ago

      Remember: pretending to be Native American for 30 years to advance one's career is not racist, but saying mean things is. Because politics.

  5. Rich   6 years ago

    "Pot is proven to trigger mental illness in the young or genetically susceptible. Mental illness among young Americans is sharply on the rise as pot is decriminalised and use increases. Most mass shooters are mentally ill. Join the dots."

    "Shit is brown, and you are brown, therefore you are shit."

    1. Ray McKigney   6 years ago

      Join the dots.

      "Connect" is the word she wants there. Connect the dots. If you join dots, all you have is one big dot.

      1. Deconstructed Potato   6 years ago

        BIG DOT 2020

        1. Chipper Morning Wood   6 years ago

          problematic

      2. Hit and Run   6 years ago

        Not at all like "join the Navy"

        1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

          Or the Royal Nay-Vee.........

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1qI9XSWQbkE

    2. Chipper Morning Wood   6 years ago

      She should hook up with Congressman Crapo.

      1. Rich   6 years ago

        Now, Chipper ....

    3. NOYB2   6 years ago

      It’s not the color you are, it’s the color you identify with that matters.

      For example, AOC is white, but she identifies as brown.

  6. JesseAz   6 years ago

    How did roundup miss the two precious gaffes from our national treasure Biden? He proved he doesnt thinks facts are truthful and that he is racist.

    1. damikesc   6 years ago

      He isn't racist. He just thinks the only poor people are dark skinned folks. Totes different.

    2. creech   6 years ago

      To be honest, if you've ever given speeches you know you made a few flubs, tangled syntax, mispronounced words, or stuttered.
      Do you really think Gerald Ford didn't know about the Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe or Obama believed there were 57 states?
      So cut Joe and Donald and the rest of them a break. They say quite enough asinine stuff without roasting them for their gaffes.

      1. JesseAz   6 years ago

        I give customer presentations often. Dont reach even close to the level of misstatements of Uncle Joe.

        But at least we found the Biden fan.

        1. creech   6 years ago

          No Biden fan, but have made enough gaffes of my own running for office or making presentations to appreciate how sometimes are
          less than silver-tongued orators.

          1. JesseAz   6 years ago

            Did they all trend in one direction? Biden has made a lot of racist sounding gaffes in his day.

            1. TrickyVic (old school)   6 years ago

              If black people don't vote for Biden it probably has more to do with his crime bill in the 90s than any gaffe.

  7. Bee Tagger   6 years ago

    He's done the wink and a nod,

    what about the rub the side of your nose with your index finger indicating that you're about to fleece a 1930s chicago gangster who, by the way, is white.

    1. JesseAz   6 years ago

      Italians were the original brown skins.

      1. Deconstructed Potato   6 years ago

        Fuckin' guineas

        1. Deconstructed Potato   6 years ago

          PS - I'm half "fuckin' mick" so there's that

          1. JesseAz   6 years ago

            We guessed from the potato.

            1. Chipper Morning Wood   6 years ago

              But he is only 50% potato.

              1. Hit and Run   6 years ago

                Just like Pringles

          2. darkflame   6 years ago

            how do you half fuck a mick? You either fuck or ya don't, there's no inbetween

    2. Rich   6 years ago

      Or the tickle and slap.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   6 years ago

        Michael Avenatti is on the search for that tape.

    3. NOYB2   6 years ago

      Italians are often darker than many Americans who identify as “African American” or “colored”.

  8. Sevo   6 years ago

    We have a strong contender in both the "Empty Lefty Gesture" and "Lame Grandstanding" competitions:

    "Newsletter: This Bay Area city will keep flags at half-staff until Congress passes gun control legislation "
    [...]
    "...But 12 days ago, a gunman opened fire, with a military-style semiautomatic rifle that is illegal to own in California, at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, killing three people 100 miles southwest of his city. And then came El Paso. And then Dayton.
    Like many Americans, Phillips felt frustrated and hamstrung to make change. “I see Congress right now doing nothing,” he said over the phone. “So finally, I just got fed up with it.”
    At Monday’s City Council meeting, Phillips declared that the Marin County city would be keeping its flags at half-staff until Congress takes significant action on gun control...."
    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-09/san-rafael-flags-half-staff-gun-control-congress

    Oh, how 'Marin' of him!

    1. Rich   6 years ago

      Nice!

      1. Chipper Morning Wood   6 years ago

        I will also remain at half mast until something is done.

        1. Sevo   6 years ago

          We have a new contestant!

    2. Deconstructed Potato   6 years ago

      I bet all those congress critters are absolutely outraged at the current flag hoisting situation in Marin County, and will immediately cave to the pressure applied by deployment of improperly hoisted flags by unanimously passing strict new unconstitutional firearms legislation.

      1. Sevo   6 years ago

        I'll bet every congress-creature has heard from many constituents about the continuing crisis of those flags at half-staff!

    3. Ska   6 years ago

      So the characters in Big Little Lies are based on real people...

    4. Hit and Run   6 years ago

      What is concerning... Hyping 'body armor' or the last shooter and non-shooter. I expect it will be the next item on the banned list. Only terrorists would need body armor...

  9. Rich   6 years ago

    The founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer has been ordered by a federal judge to pay $14 million in damages in a harassment lawsuit.

    Not $6 million for symbolic reasons?

    1. Chinny Chin Chin   6 years ago

      Steve Austin was a Nazi??

      I guess that explains how he could beat up Bigfoot.

      1. Deconstructed Potato   6 years ago

        STEVE SMITH NOT BEAT

        STEVE SMITH 3:16 SAY STEVE SMITH WIN FAIR AND SQUARE AGAINST STONE COLD HUMAN

    2. Sevo   6 years ago

      Misek:
      That's not true!

      1. Unicorn Abattoir   6 years ago

        +1

    3. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

      Harassment...1st Amendment

      What's the difference as long as people with wrong think are destroyed.

      1. NOYB2   6 years ago

        I wish they would at least apply this consistently. But corporate media seem to be strangely exempted from this kind of liability, because if you’re a multi-billion dollar corporation, you should be able to destroy lives at will!

  10. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

    "Senate Democrats Back Constitutional Amendment to Undo Citizens United"

    Must be an election year.

    The Democrats' open hostility to free speech is duly noted.

    I generally avoid voting when I can, but the Democrats openly advocating socialism by way of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All already made not voting really hard to do. If the Democrats go all-in against freedom of speech, that might make it impossible.

    In the wake of a mass shooting, the Republicans (in Congress) have been pretty good on gun control.

    Yes, the Democrats could be pursuing things that are even worse, but just judging by what they're doing, rather than what they haven't done--do the Democrats have any redeeming qualities at all?

    Being willing to throw free speech under the bus to score points in an election year makes them even more revolting. I'm so glad my fellow libertarians wouldn't throw their principles away in the pursuit of some short sighted goal to score a few political points.

    1. Rich   6 years ago

      do the Democrats have any redeeming qualities at all?

      Excellent debate question.

      "Firstly, we feel that we are compassionate and helpful."

    2. Atlas_Shrugged   6 years ago

      Ken...I think you and I know this goes nowhere. Too many process hoops here.

      Two-thirds vote in the House
      Two-thirds vote in the Senate
      Ratification by 38 states

      This is not going to happen for repealing Citizens United. It just isn't.

      1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

        It's all signaling, but to the extent that signalling matters, what are they signaling--that they're openly hostile to free speech when it serves their purposes? That isn't a good reason to vote for them.

        1. Ska   6 years ago

          Do LLCs and partnerships pass the "corporate speech bad" test? Delaware statutory trusts?

          1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

            I've been the sole owner of a corporation. I've been a stockholder in a corporation. I've been the director of a corporation. I've been a manager in a corporation. I've been an employee of a corporation. I've been a vendor of a corporation. I've been a customer of a corporation. And at no time, in any of those roles, did I ever stop being the proud owner of First Amendment rights.

            Yes, the people who own, manage, work for and with corporations are all people with free speech rights. Why do you imagine otherwise?

            Is your hatred of the corporation boogeyman such that you'd deny these individuals their right to free speech? People wouldn't lose their rights just because you hate them, but, especially in this case, people don't lose their right to criticize the politicians who regulate their activity or support the politicians they like--certainly not just because the Democrats want to implement socialism.

            1. Ska   6 years ago

              I was being facetious, joking about how people who think CU is a bad decision tend to say corporate speech can be regulated because it's not an individual, by asking if other limited liability entities are allowed to speak freely. "Corporations aren't people!" Well, yes, they are associations of people. If the movie they wanted to put out was produced and distributed by a sole proprietorship it would be fine, but because the movie was produced by a corporate entity it should be regulated - that line of thought is a mockery.

              No, I don't think you lose the right to speak freely because you choose to do so through a corporate entity, a partnership, a trust, or any other organization, whether having liability limited to your equity interest (another highly misunderstood concept) or not, or whether it's three dicks on a corner drinking beers or the CEO of Globex Corp.

              1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

                It's become so standard on the left to justify rolling over people's rights with arguments that dehumanize them, I'm starting to criticize the tactic--never mind the cause.

                Before they get people to accept depriving homophobes, racists, and xenophobes of their First Amendment and Second Amendment rights, first they need to get people to accept the position that homobphobes, racists, and xenophobes aren't really people.

                It's always easier to get the people on board with violating someone's rights once you've convinced them that the people whose rights you want to violate aren't really people. Early to mid-20th Century war propaganda is all about that--for better or worse. I'm glad we won World War II, and I'd have supported dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for other reasons. But war propaganda was all about dehumanizing our enemies. We're not really dropping bombs on people. We're dropping them on rats!

                https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Alaska_Death_Trap.jpg

                That's why the socialists are always telling us that corporations aren't people. It's because they want us to go along with violating those people's rights.

                1. TripK2   6 years ago

                  I wonder which platforms they'll use to disseminate such propaganda and suppress opposing ideas. I wonder which platforms will be used to suppress the undesirable's speech and erase them from the public landscape.

                  1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

                    Any idea that's so stupid it can't survive without the government's help should be ignored and forgotten.

                    1. TripK2   6 years ago


                      Any idea that’s so stupid it can’t survive without the government’s help should be ignored and forgotten.

                      Great blanket statement. It takes the thought right out of everything. You know what? Fuck having telephone and internet service in rural areas. High speed ag tech that has helped boost crop yields? Fuck that. Need 911? Those fuckers can just die if they need to call 911. Just ignore and forget 'em. After all, "any idea that's so stupid it cant survive without the government's help should be ignored and forgotten." Its the Ken Shultz philosophy.

            2. TripK2   6 years ago

              This way, we can make it so the more money you have, the more speech you have.

              1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

                Yeah, what's the point of government if not to ensure equality of outcome?

                Why don't you go be a progressive already?

                1. TripK2   6 years ago


                  Why don’t you go be a progressive already?

                  Oh noooooooooooooooo. So horrible, you called me the bad word!

                  Pathetic.

                  1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

                    Oh, it's not about calling you names!

                    If you think it's not fair that other people get to exercise their rights--because they have more money than you--then you might as well be a progressive.

                    If you think other people shouldn't be free to do (or say) things unless it's in the best interests of you and the rest of society, then you might as well be a progressive.

                    1. TripK2   6 years ago

                      If you think it’s not fair that other people get to exercise their rights–because they have more money than you–then you might as well be a progressive.

                      You say that like its an insult. But the progressives have a point on this stuff. Shit, just look at the Do So! campaign.

                      Free and fair elections are already over, and it is the result of Facebook, Google and Twitter. Progressives happen to have a more realistic view of the world in this one particular area when compared to libertarians. Your response so far has been blanket statements and philosophical theory - which work on an individual level, but tend not to work on a macro level. This "do nothing la la la there is no problem" response is just not cutting it with anyone, and it never will. There's going to be legislation on this, and you and people that think like you will either have a proposal or you won't.

                    2. JesseAz   6 years ago

                      The solution to free and fair elections is not to allow some entity to limit information or speech but to encourage more speech. Full stop.

                    3. DesigNate   6 years ago

                      People spending a shit ton of money on elections has worked so well, Hillary Clinton is President. I can list more if you'd like.

                      Fuck off with that "they have a point" bullshit.

                  2. NOYB2   6 years ago

                    It’s your authoritarian beliefs that make you bad, not the label that identifies them.

              2. RabbitHead   6 years ago

                "We" don't make it that way.

                Having more money makes it that way.

                Money is the enabler for all sorts of freedoms. And That's a good thing

                1. TripK2   6 years ago

                  I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said here, but it seems to me that you've forgotten the cost part of your cost-benefit analysis.

              3. NOYB2   6 years ago

                More precisely, the more money people voluntarily contribute to an organization to speak on their behalf, the more money that organization has to speak on their behalf.

                For some reason, you seem to have a problem with that.

        2. Jerryskids   6 years ago

          Jesus, Ken, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. How can you not help but celebrate the fact that the Democrats are seeking to overturn Citizens United by way of a Constitutional amendment? At least they're willing to admit that the Constitution and the Supreme Court and the laws of the United States still have some small relevance to government. They could just make it part of their party platform - next Democratic President issues an executive order overturning Citizens United and that's that.

      2. NashTiger   6 years ago

        Now do Gay Marriage and Campaign Finance “Reform” and smoking bans on private property and regulating farm ponds as navigable waterways and Health Insurance Mandates and everything else that was supposed to be difficult and time consuming to change laws and constitutional amendments and elections.
        All it takes is a pen and a phone and an extra judge

  11. Rufus The Monocled   6 years ago

    AOC can straight off go fuck herself.

    Illiberal, ignorant, illiterate twat.

    1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

      She's an authoritarian socialist, and she's intellectually dishonest.

      I can't think of any politician who is more opposed to libertarianism.

      1. damikesc   6 years ago

        Ilhan Omar?

  12. Idle Hands   6 years ago

    https://twitter.com/JoeStGeorge/status/1158879067279519744

    Reason should do a story on this fucking debacle. this story makes me blind with rage.

    1. Ray McKigney   6 years ago

      I seem to recall that that story did pop up in one of ENB's roundups not too long ago.

      1. Idle Hands   6 years ago

        Who actually bothers to read the links? I want a cover story and I want it now. Wht has happened to muh reason!

        1. Sometimes a Great Notion   6 years ago

          So a Britches article isn't good enough? Poor Britches.

        2. Hit and Run   6 years ago

          https://reason.com/2019/08/01/neighborhood-activists-would-rather-preserve-toms-diner-than-let-its-owner-retire-in-peace/

    2. TrickyVic (old school)   6 years ago

      I check out some of the comments on that twitter post.

      One moron said this is why private property should not be allowed. Another said private property is theft.

      1. TripK2   6 years ago

        Someone should ask him for the password to his account. After all, private property is theft.

        1. TrickyVic (old school)   6 years ago

          I was thinking taking his guitar if he has one, or any other cherished possession.

    3. Chipper Morning Wood   6 years ago

      Perhaps an accidental fire will take care of this poor guy's problems.

    4. Rufus The Monocled   6 years ago

      Wow. A classic example of self-absorbed smugness that woman.

      I can't believe it. Pony up the money then if you like the damn building so much.

    5. Freddy the Jerk   6 years ago

      I used to eat there ages ago -- high school Friday nights 🙂 Sad it's closing, but yeah, the story makes me sick. Here's hoping the building's soon the victim of a grease fire.

  13. wearingit   6 years ago

    Yeah....money is not free speech Reason. What a bunch of baloney. You're still free to advocate for whatever you want- just can't donate tons of dark money to do so.

    Citizens United is one of the worst scotus decisions in recent memory and proves itself every single election.

    1. JesseAz   6 years ago

      Yeah! Why allow an amplification of ones voice! Lwts end the internet, government run television, no individual printers! Hell yeah! You will speak only where you are told to speak!

    2. Mickey Rat   6 years ago

      If you think the Citizens United decision was wrong then you believe that polirtical speech can be regulated as money donation.

      Secondly, saying that you have a right without being able to spend resources to use it means the right is restricted.

      1. NashTiger   6 years ago

        You have the right to keep and bear arms, you just can’t spend money on ammo....

        You have the right to peaceably assemble and vote, you just can’t buy gas or use public streets to do so

    3. Sevo   6 years ago

      wearingit
      August.9.2019 at 10:19 am
      "Yeah….money is not free speech Reason. What a bunch of baloney...."

      Claims from lefty imbeciles =/= facts or even arguments.

    4. DRM   6 years ago

      Yeah, we're not controlling what anybody can say, just the use of money. The New York Times Co., a corporation, can publish all the anti-Donald Trump articles they like, on the web and on paper, as long as they don't spend any money in the process.

      Similarly, since money isn't abortion, we're not outlawing abortion, we're just banning any corporation, Planned Parenthood included, from spending any money on providing abortions.

    5. Unicorn Abattoir   6 years ago

      "Citizens United is one of the worst scotus decisions in recent memory "

      Worse than Kelo?

      1. TrickyVic (old school)   6 years ago

        Worse than upholding the penaltax?

        1. Rat on a train   6 years ago

          Those two were wins for the progs.

        2. Hit and Run   6 years ago

          Worse than Wickard v Filburn?

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    6. damikesc   6 years ago

      The only ones who DESERVE unfettered speech are the media, who have proven themselves to be responsible, sober, and fair to all...

    7. Chipper Jones   6 years ago

      The plaintiff in Citizens United was banned from showing a movie critical of Hillary Clinton so no, under your proposal you are not "free to advocate for whatever you want."

    8. Get To Da Chippah   6 years ago

      Nobody's saying money is speech, idiot. Money enables speech. How much money did you or someone else have to spend to be able to post your moronic opinion on this forum? I guarantee you that number is greater than zero, so that means your ability to say what you want should also be curtailed.

      Dullard.

  14. Ray McKigney   6 years ago

    The "intellectual dark web" publication Quillette has retracted an anti–Democratic Socialists of America piece allegedly written by an alienated blue-collar member of the group. The piece was a hoax and the purported author did not exist.

    I started to read that story and bailed after the first couple of paragraphs. It oozed "phony."

    1. JesseAz   6 years ago

      Who needs fake stories about DSA when they posted their own conference videos for us to mock?

    2. Ska   6 years ago

      But were the videos real?

  15. Mickey Rat   6 years ago

    Can we please finally put to bed the notion that the Democrats are at least good on civil liberties?

    1. Chipper Morning Wood   6 years ago

      Sure, right after you put to bed the theory that Republicans are gonna cut spending.

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

      Democrats, like Republicans, are a mixed bag on civil liberties.

      Republicans tend to be better in supporting Second Amendment rights, Democrats tend to be better in supporting Eighth Amendment rights.

      On the others, it's kind of a meh. Well, except the Third.

      1. JesseAz   6 years ago

        Only Democrats are trying to amend the constitution to attack the 1st. But both sides right?

        1. Leo Kovalensky II   6 years ago

          Republicans have often offered up flag burning ban amendments. So... yeah. Both sides.

      2. DWB   6 years ago

        Hey, who stole Jeff's account? -- Made an actual excellent point!

  16. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   6 years ago

    "Senate Democrats Back Constitutional Amendment to Undo Citizens United"

    This is one of the very few issues on which Democrats are wrong. And not surprisingly, their analysis is flawed because they're still operating under the old "Republicans are the party of the corporations and the rich" paradigm.

    In fact, wealthy and powerful interests — including billionaires — are on the right side of history more often than not. For example the Koch Brothers use their money to fund open borders advocacy. And Tom Steyer is an important voice calling for Orange Hitler's impeachment.

    #BillionairesKnowBest
    #KeepBigMoneyInPolitics

    1. Chipper Morning Wood   6 years ago

      Progressives are now getting angry about billionaire philanthropy and saying it's a bad thing. I think it is because they believe billionaires should not exist, and the amount of philanthropy that billionaires are able to put into effect proves them obviously wrong.

      1. RabbitHead   6 years ago

        Also it undermines faith in government almighty.

    2. NashTiger   6 years ago

      How can Citizens United achieve SUPER-PRECEDNT status in your expert opinion?

  17. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

    Like a lot of other heterosexual guys, when I see Scarlett Johansson playing Black Widow in a Marvel flick, I hardly notice she has hands--much less what gun she's carrying. In the wake of a couple of mass shootings, however, I just saw part of the original Avengers movie, again, and I couldn't help but notice that she appeared to be taking out an alien invasion army with a Glock subcompact.

    https://www.range365.com/guns-avengers-age-ultron-2015/

    The ability to shoot a Glock 26 appears to be her only superpower--and it's devastating. Plenty of people will tell you that a subcompact is insufficient for use as a home defense gun, and it's not just because they want you to put a light on it so you can see who you're shooting. They also want more rounds in a home defense gun. Black Widow doesn't need more rounds. She can take out an alien invasion army with her subcompact pistol--because it's semi-automatic!

    I don't know if this scene was a reflection of people's misconceptions about semiautomatic pistols or whether it's a source of people's misconceptions about semiautomatic pistols. It's probably some of both. If she'd had a AR-15, she might have been able to take out one of their freakazoid bio-mechanical warships, but then I'm guessing that, in Hollywood, AR-15s are only for the bad guys.

    1. Idle Hands   6 years ago

      Anyone who can pay attention to what Scarjo is saying or holding can't well call themselves heterosexual.

      1. Hit and Run   6 years ago

        I tried to listen to her on Jimmy Kimmel once. Had to mute the tv. She's is not smart.

  18. Sevo   6 years ago

    I'll repeat:
    There is no reason for much concern over Google's favorites algorithm.
    As an example, I'm getting flooded with personal appeals from that scumbag Steyer for donations.
    This morning, I almost did, but I'd already thrown the dog-shit in the garbage.

    1. Sevo   6 years ago

      Oh, and I see the sin in the top image: "Get Big Money Out Of Politics", and yet no mention of Steyer.

      1. NashTiger   6 years ago

        Or Soros.

        Or all the old charitable foundations that have been corrupted and taken over and fund 98% of lefty causes

    2. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

      My girlfriend's friend was having a lot of problems with her computer. Turns out, the thing was locking up with pop-up windows. I've never seen a system so paralyzed with spyware, malware, etc. It was ridiculous. I isolate the programs that are causing the problem, and get rid of them. Clean her system up. Things are good.

      A few days later, she's having the same problem again. I go to look, and she's got the same malware programs loaded again. I tell her that we need to back her data up and reformat her hard drive. When she asked why, I explained that these two programs were the cause of the problem, and when I finally got rid of them, they just came back.

      That's when she told me that she'd reinstalled them. She liked those programs because without them, she doesn't get any of the "offers". Turns out, she wanted the spam. She wanted the pop up windows. She just didn't want them to slow her computer down. The reason there are spammers in the world is because there are people who like, want, and are susceptible to spam.

      Targeted advertising works on enough of us, but I'd love to see a study of IQ levels and the susceptibility to advertising like that.

      I reset the advertising ID on my Roku device regularly. Right after doing that, I had a girlfriend over who was using my computer for shopping at a department store. I guess she was looking to update my wardrobe? Suddenly, all the ads I see via streaming are for gay rights causes, make up for men, and ads for clothes that look like they're from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The poker buddies come over, see these ads, and were all over it with, "What the fuck have you been watching?" "Is there something you want to tell us?"

      1. Sevo   6 years ago

        "That’s when she told me that she’d reinstalled them. She liked those programs because without them, she doesn’t get any of the “offers”."

        Ken, every time some one suggests the installation of some 'free' app, I mention that those things never have a list price, you have to figure out what they cost later.
        And I just read that the 'flashlight' 'free' phone app (typically used in dark restaurants) reports your location when used.
        Clever, but no thanks. I use a cigar lighter...

        1. damikesc   6 years ago

          I just go with "So, you're the product. And you go for free."

        2. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

          It was amazing that, on one hand, she was aware of spam. On the other hand, there was good spam and bad spam, and she was willing to suffer the bad spam in order to get the good stuff. Now, can you fix my computer so that the malware I enjoy so much won't slow my computer to a stand-still?

          I'm sure her computer was being used as a spam server.

          If she represents one out of every hundred people, then there are millions of people like that in this country alone.

      2. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

        Thanks for sharing Ken. Hilarious!

        We have multiple user accounts for our AppleTv, so when other people visit and watch things, it does not mess up our algorithm picks.

    3. Chipper Jones   6 years ago

      I donated a buck to Steyer. He's now qualified in three polls and the longer we can keep the clown show running the better.

      1. Chipper Jones   6 years ago

        Don't get me wrong: Steyer is awful and Hellman & Friedman is an absolute nightmare of an organization to work for, but it's just a buck.

        1. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

          I am coming around to y'alls strategy to keep certain Dems in the clown car. Especially for $1.

          I have never given politicians money but I think this strategy is funny as all Hell.

  19. I'm Not Sure   6 years ago

    ""Citizens United has damaged our democracy and allowed corporate money to flood our politics," claimed the California senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris on Twitter."

    Spending lots of money is bad, then? Or is it just when it doesn't benefit you, sweetheart?

    1. NashTiger   6 years ago

      Corporate money became a lot less bad in 2008, 2012, and 2016.

      It reared it’s ugly head again in 2010 tho, but wasn’t a problem again by 2014 (Steyer’s wasted billions) or in 2018

  20. I'm Not Sure   6 years ago

    "He's done everything he can to stir up racial conflict and hatred in this country."

    And if there's anybody who should know about stirring up racial conflict and hatred, it's a Democrat.

  21. Longtobefree   6 years ago

    If the democrats were truly concerned about the impact of (republican) money on US politics, they would just outlaw campaign contributions.
    The old theory was that it took a lot of money to get your message out, and contributions were a necessary evil. Now the web can literally reach the world for pennies, and no contributions are actually necessary. Just set up a tax funded web site on government servers and give each candidate an amount of space, perhaps more space for higher offices, perhaps not. What we get as voters is the candidates having to actually articulate a specific political philosophy, and not able to say different things to different constituents. What the politicians get is freedom from fund-raising, and the ability to actually focus on their job. (once elected).
    People can still freely exercise their first amendment rights, but subject to the same restrictions of truth and libel as every other speech. Of course, they will still have to have a free speech permit issued under 'common sense' restrictions to prevent hate.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

      If the democrats were truly concerned about the impact of (republican) money on US politics, they would just outlaw campaign contributions.

      Some of them do, actually.

      https://theintercept.com/2018/12/02/public-campaign-finance-hr1/

    2. Chipper Jones   6 years ago

      The problem is that incumbency is a huge built-in advantage, and it's the challenger who needs to raise the money to overcome that. Big restrictions on campaign finance are just cleverly disguised ways to keep incumbents in power.

      1. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

        If everyone just was on a ballot alphabetically and people researched the candidates on their own and then voted, I am not sure that incumbents would have a major advantage.

        A caveat would be that incumbents dont get an (i) next to their names.

        Taxpayers pay for a simple web page for each office and then each new candidates gets a web page for 6 months before the election.

  22. AlbertP   6 years ago

    The proposed constitutional amendment contains the following:
    '‘‘SECTION2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections."'

    So, the congress would be empowered to decide which corporations, etc. (and perhaps individuals) were "unsavory," including, of course, newspapers, websites, PTA newsletters, etc.

    Then, the authors have the audacity to write:

    "‘SECTION3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’'

    Which, of course, they would give Congress the power to do.
    Keep your powder dry, Mates.

    MOFA

    1. I'm Not Sure   6 years ago

      "and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law"

      Artificial entities like unions? I won't be holding my breath.

      1. AlbertP   6 years ago

        And, if I were a lawyer, I could easily point out, according to the text, that individuals could also be "tagged" as not-free-speech-worthy,

    2. MiloMinderbinder   6 years ago

      “‘SECTION3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’’

      By omission they are implying that this amendment gives them to power to regulate speech, peacefully assembly and the redress of grievances.

      1. AlbertP   6 years ago

        Does look that way, don't it. They will not doubt have a new federal agency to which they will delegate those powers. Let's see.... the Ministry of Truth, perhaps?

        MOFA

      2. Kevin Smith   6 years ago

        I think they are implying that "freedom of the press" refers not to the individual right to publish printed matter, but protects a right held exclusively by the cadre of professional publishing companies colloquially referred to as "the press"

        Which an all too common misunderstanding of the first amendment

        1. AlbertP   6 years ago

          And that makes perfect sense, of course, in "their" world. It's much easier to control an "industry" than individuals. But then, Congress (both sides) do that to a certain extent now. I am pretty sure that press credentials from, say, the Universal Life Church, would never get one into an important press conference.

    3. Sevo   6 years ago

      “‘SECTION3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’’
      Which, of course, they would give Congress the power to do."

      Self-awareness is hard!

      1. Mickey Rat   6 years ago

        The intention is to put into the hands of government the power to decide what organizations constitute the press and therefore have their rights protected.

    4. NashTiger   6 years ago

      Stephen Colbert’s monologue would not be problematic, just certain ads that might be run during his program with a differing view

  23. LeonSpaulding   6 years ago

    Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple job. Its a simple and easy job to try to to and its earnings ar far better than regular workplace job. everyone will currently get additional greenbacks on-line by simply open this link and follow directions to urge started...........
    ➴➴➴➴ OPEN THIS WEBSITE ➴➴➴➴www.self.cash61.com

  24. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

    China is going all in on pinning the unrest in Hong Kong on American intelligence services.

    "Beijing-backed media outlets in mainland China and Hong Kong circulated a photo of Julie Eadeh, political unit chief of the U.S. consulate general in Hong Kong, meeting in a hotel lobby with several prominent members of the opposition, including 22-year-old Joshua Wong, a key figure in protests that rocked Hong Kong five years ago.

    The reports, in China Daily and other mainland outlets, pointed to the meeting as evidence that a U.S. “black hand” was behind the protests. Some of the outlets also revealed details of Ms. Eadeh’s work history and publicized the names of her children.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-claims-u-s-black-hand-is-behind-hong-kong-protests-11565356245?

    The Chinese government reports go on to detail American involvement in various "color" revolutions and say that the unrest in Hong Kong has all the markings of a color revolution.

    IF IF IF U.S. intelligence services are taking advantage of a situation China created by trying to introduce a bill to extradite political activists and try them under different laws outside of Hong Kong, then they're only taking advantage of a situation that China created. It wasn't the U.S. that used criminal gangs to beat up protesters.

    To the extent that the U.S. is assisting people in Hong Kong who are peacefully protesting in defense of their rights, I'm not sure that's an awful thing--even from a libertarian perspective. If we're not arming them, paying them to be violent, or using force in the region, then what are we talking about? Are we offering them advice on organizing a peaceful protest? How aggressive is that?

    1. damikesc   6 years ago

      I wish we WERE more involved.

      The Democrats' obsession over Russia has been covering, for years, just how much China fucks with our elections. Fucks with the companies that controls access to info.

      Russia is a nothingburger. China is the foe.

      1. NashTiger   6 years ago

        Still waiting on the Special Counsel to look into how the 1996 election was bought/hacked

  25. Sevo   6 years ago

    BTW, isn't this a national day of celebration in Japan, memorializing the millions of Japanese lives saved by the nuclear weapons?
    No?
    Shame on them.

  26. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

    Huh. Trump really is a magician.

    1. Sevo   6 years ago

      Yeah, that 'you can keep your....'
      Oh, wait a minute!

  27. Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless   6 years ago

    ---"ICE agents tried to raid a Brooklyn homeless shelter without a warrant." ---

    That's because Deez Iz A Nazion Of Lawz. ICE told us that after making that fapping spectacle for white supremacists in Mississippi.

  28. Moderation4ever   6 years ago

    I would be more accepting of outsider campaign spending if it was not so nasty and negative. Sadly these negative ads work. Not but informing us but by disgusting us so much we choose not to vote. If it take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the crap then I am for that amendment.

    1. I'm Not Sure   6 years ago

      I suppose asking politicians to not be so disgusting as to discourage people from voting is out of the question, then?

    2. RabbitHead   6 years ago

      Free speech means tolerating the kind of speech I don't mind

  29. lap83   6 years ago

    "money out, voters in"

    The guy holding that sign must've thought he was at an open borders rally

    1. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

      +100

  30. drisco304   6 years ago

    I've never seen Democrats protesting the gobs of union money injected into political campaigns for their benefit. So the only principle they have is allowed for us, forbidden for those who oppose us.

    1. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

      As designed.

  31. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

    BLACK FRIDAY UK power cut plunges Britain into darkness as National Grid outage sparks travel chaos with trains, tubes and traffic lights paralysed

    Haha. Garbage Island would rather ridicule Trump and ban knives then make sure their power grid works correctly.

  32. Mike Laursen   6 years ago

    Minneapolis might ban drive-through restaurants.

    That’s just un-American.

  33. garry   6 years ago

    this is not right.
    Chase bank

  34. JesseAz   6 years ago

    Sure it is. Both sides!!!

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Have Presidents Grown Too Powerful To Be Removed From Office?

Gene Healy | 6.14.2025 8:00 AM

Some Federal Agencies Are Actually Getting More Efficient

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 6.14.2025 7:00 AM

Trad Wives and Tallow Fries: How the Wellness Wars Flipped Health and Food Politics Upside Down

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | From the July 2025 issue

The Trump Administration Just Created Hundreds of Thousands of Illegal Immigrants

Autumn Billings | 6.13.2025 4:15 PM

Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' Military Parade Is a Big, Ugly Waste of Millions of Dollars

Billy Binion | 6.13.2025 3:53 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!