Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm aware that corporations are now people; that doesn't make quid-pro-quo legal.

If I'm a politician, and we're in a room together, and I say, "if you donate a million dollars to my campaign I'll vote in your favor," and you do, and I do, and the conversation was recorded - that's a reasonably prosecutable quid-pro-quo case, isn't it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because Republicans consider it simple expression. So donations totally just saying you support the person and definitely not legal bribery

As Kennedy wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Hm. Quid pro quo is definitely illegal, and prosecutable. You're saying that because I say "I promise to give you X if you pay me Y" while I'm campaigning, that I'm protected from prosecution? Do I have to be actively campaigning? Does it have to be before a crowd? Can I -- as a politician -- sit in a room and promise to hand something to a "donor" simply by wrapping the conversation in some campaign-ish wording? Is "I was campaigning for office when I took the bribe" a catch-all defense?