September 14, 2018

Why politicians and the media lie about the Citizens United decision

Do you dare speak or hear the real truth about the Citizens United decision? Retweet

Today’s Action: Tell your representatives that you know the truth about the Citizens United decision and support what it does for you.

This message also includes a progress report. Keep reading.

The Citizens United decision (hereafter C.U.) is the subject of routine lies. Here’s the truth… 

C.U. was good news for you and bad news for entrenched incumbents and the media. C.U. makes competition easier for challengers. It reduces media control. C.U. didn’t give political campaigns access to unlimited corporate contributions. So…

When Bernie Sanders or Corey Booker claim they won’t “take these huge corporate donations,” they’re being deceptive. No politician can take huge corporate donations. C.U. didn’t change that law.

What C.U. actually did was permit a non-profit, grassroots “corporation” to broadcast a movie about a presidential candidate. Prior to C.U. only the privileged, corporate-owned, mainstream media could collect and spend large, unreported sums to talk about political candidates.

C.U. critics use the word “corporation” with a sneer. But corporations include…

  • mom-and-pop businesses. Sometimes, they need to alert friends and customers about pending regulations.
  • advocacy groups like the NRA and Planned Parenthood. Members band together to be heard in the public square.

Thanks to C.U., these enterprises now have the ability to publish or broadcast information about issues, upcoming legislative votes, or a candidate’s voting record. They can even say “Vote for or against.” But (and this is important) they still canNOT directly coordinate with a candidate’s campaign.

Money spent on elections should NOT scare you. James Madison argued that the best response to free speech you don’t like is your own freedom to speak. More money spent on elections means more information for voters. Plus…

C.U. expands political outreach, and that mostly benefits the unheard side, which is why the incumbents and the media hate it so much.

We explained the “Secret to defeating an incumbent” in a 2013 article. The best way to defeat an incumbent is to have enough money to compel that incumbent to start emptying his warchest. C.U. makes that possible by allowing other people who support a challenger to better fund arguments for his or her election.

But the incumbents and the media are dominating the discussion about C.U. by constantly lying about it. You need to push back. Tell your own incumbents that you’re not fooled by the lies. Take this ACTION…

I know the truth about C.U. and I support it

We recruited 1,491 new subscribers from June 11 to Sept 11, and they’re still with us. The advertising bill was $3.04/each. That cost is close, but still, a tiny bit more than we wanted to invest. That’s why…

We’re seeking new and better methods with each new outreach experiment. Indeed, we’re pausing and “reloading” right now — making site modifications and adding infrastructure for our new marketing efforts. Those changes cost money, and so does advertising. Therefore…

We must raise $4,500 in September. We won’t do that without generous contributions. We need your support.

I’m making a contribution

We also have a goal to expand pledges. Pledgers are special; they permit us to efficiently plan ahead. They help us be more assertive, enabling us to take advantage of opportunities when they arise. We’re seeking 14 new credit card pledgers right now.

I’m starting a monthly pledge

If you start a pledge, we’ll tell everyone the good news in an upcoming Downsizer-Dispatch (if you want to remain private, tell us in the comments section on the form).

Thank you for being an ACTIVE DC Downsizer,

Jim Babka & Perry Willis
Downsize DC

If your comment is off-topic for this post, please email us at


Post a Comment

Notice: Undefined variable: user_ID in /var/www/ on line 89

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

© 2008–2019