This is bullshit. The poll asked people whether Citizens United would lead to corruption. It did not ask whether Citizens United was incorrectly decided. But Thinkprogress somehow infers that the poll indicates widespread agreement that the judges' reasoning was "bizarre". It indicates nothing of the sort.

It's true that the majority opinion says that the ruling will not lead to corruption, and they're probably wrong about this (or working with a highly constrained notion of corruption). But this is an incidental statement. They make it explicit that the ruling does not hinge on this: "Limits on independent expenditures... have a chilling effect extending well beyond the Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech here in question."

So Milhiser is completely wrong when he suggests that disagreement with the justices on this point entails disagreement with the ruling. It is entirely possible to believe that the ruling will in fact make the system more corrupt while still believing that it is the correct ruling on purely legal grounds. That's my position, and the position of a number of other people on the left.

Also, note that only 69% of people polled agreed with the claim about increased corruption. That means 31% either disagreed with the claim or were not sure about it. Somehow this shows that the ruling is less popular than witchcraft. That Thinkprogress blog post is ridiculous.

Also, here's a much better TYT segment on the issue:

http://videosift.com/video/Glenn-Greenwald-Vs-Prof-Lessig-On-Citizens-United

A debate between thoughtful people who actually know what they're talking about, as opposed to the silly demagoguery in this video.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

This is bullshit. The poll asked people whether Citizens United would lead to corruption. It did not ask whether Citizens United was incorrectly decided. But Thinkprogress somehow infers that the poll indicates widespread agreement that the judges' reasoning was "bizarre". It indicates nothing of the sort.
It is entirely possible to believe that the ruling will in fact make the system more corrupt while still believing that it is the correct ruling on purely legal grounds. That's my position, and the position of a number of other people on the left.
Also, note that only 69% of people polled agreed with the claim about increased corruption. That means 31% either disagreed with the claim or were not sure about it. Somehow this shows that the ruling is less popular than witchcraft. That Thinkprogress blog post is ridiculous.


Your voce is not very sotto.

But, seriously, I can't defend TYT on this point.

Well no, their point is quite clear.

The US government is three to represent the people of it's nation.

Why should multinational corporations be able to buy the their politicians.
Every politician that takes campaign money from unidentified contributors should possibly be tried for treason.

The US government is now run by the multinational oil companies and have been for some time.


But I guess on the point of Witchcraft vs Citizens United, they are not comparing apples with oranges as far as the overriding question goes. I do agree that there are more people that stand behind, trust and support witchcraft and wicca than people that stand behind and support Citizens United.