Xo Clarence Thomas was right about faggots in citizens united
| 180 Incel | 04/05/14 | | Domesticated Khaki Boistinker Chapel | 04/05/21 | | tripping hospital karate | 04/05/14 | | aromatic coral range | 04/05/14 | | buff racy associate | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | 180 Incel | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | 180 Incel | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | burgundy kitchen | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | burgundy kitchen | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | 180 Incel | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | 180 Incel | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | 180 Incel | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | 180 Incel | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | 180 Incel | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | 180 Incel | 04/05/14 | | Insane azure cruise ship | 04/05/14 | | burgundy kitchen | 04/05/14 | | tripping hospital karate | 04/05/14 | | burgundy kitchen | 04/05/14 | | Purple Theater Haunted Graveyard | 12/11/18 | | Jade Spot | 12/11/18 | | Purple Theater Haunted Graveyard | 06/26/19 | | Exciting Rehab | 06/26/19 | | Purple Theater Haunted Graveyard | 06/29/20 | | Purple Theater Haunted Graveyard | 06/29/20 | | drab office | 06/29/20 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 5th, 2014 12:47 PM Author: 180 Incel
Which brings us back to Citizens United. It is known as a 5-4 decision, and most of it was, but one part of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion--upholding a provision requiring disclosure of political contributions--was for an 8-1 majority, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting alone.
Thomas's argument rested heavily on the facts of the Proposition 8 campaign, and it's worth quoting at length (we're omitting legal citations and shortening and adding links to news-media ones):
Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. They cited these incidents in a complaint they filed after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California's mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: "Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter," or, "we have plans for you and your friends." Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the measure's supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Two religious organizations supporting Proposition 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance.
Those accounts are consistent with media reports describing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because opponents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. [John Lott and Bradley Smith, The Wall Street Journal] And a woman who had managed her popular, family-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resign after she gave $100, because "throngs of [angry] protesters" repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and "shout[ed] 'shame on you' at customers." [Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times]. The police even had to "arriv[e] in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob" at the restaurant. Ibid. Some supporters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 "received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company's name if he didn't also donate to the 'Yes on 8' campaign."
The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a "newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." Its leader, "who described his effort as 'going for the jugular,' " detailed the group's plan to send a "warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." [New York Times news story]
These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici [friends of the court] present evidence of yet another reason to do so--the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici's submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California. For example, a candidate challenging an incumbent state attorney general [in West Virginia] reported that some members of the State's business community feared donating to his campaign because they did not want to cross the incumbent; in his words, " 'I go to so many people and hear the same thing: "I sure hope you beat [the incumbent], but I can't afford to have my name on your records. He might come after me next." ' " [Kim Strassel, The Wall Street Journal]
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2536146&forum_id=2#25328404)
|
|
|