263
‘Logical conclusion’ of Citizens United as Delaware judge lets corporations vote in local elections
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
263 points (99.6% liked)
politics
31043 readers
2154 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If apple is fruit why can't you make applesauce with orange?
Good point. Let's go again. If money is speech, then why isn't the US Federal Reserve considered to be the most prolific writer/speaker of all time? And if money is legal tender, does that mean that some kinds of speech have within them the obligation of others to listen?
I mean I totally agree that money isn't speech and that's a bullshit ruling.
Just pointing out that A→B ≠ B→A. That's a very fundamental point of logic upon which nearly all formal logic rests.
Edit: wow whoever downvoted this needs to go back to school.
Yes absolutely.
It is however not always clear-cut that "A is B" maps to A–>B as opposed to A<–>B. We do say "the square root of nine is three", "a widow is a woman whose husband died" and "the current prime minister of Canada is Mark Carney".
It is clear-cut though, and that's why there's a separate construct for A←→B. It's the logical reduction of "A→B U B→A".
If those were the same thing then it wouldn't need a separate construct.
The reason "affirming the consequent" and "negating the antecedent" are formal fallacies is precisely because A→B does not imply B→A.
If the premise is A←→B, then those fallacies don't apply because they're biconditionals; either A or B can be the consequent or the antecedent.
"All apples are fruits" is a different kind of statement than "All widows have lost a husband." Because "Apple → Fruit" but "Widow ←→ Lost a husband."
And honestly that's a bad example, because truly a man could lose his husband and he would be a widower, so honestly that one's not even a biconditional. But most cases of equivalence and definitions are biconditionals, unless it's merely mentioning a category or precondition that is not exclusive to the thing in question.
Formal logic is quite thorough about this kind of stuff, so if there's ever a valid and sound deductive argument, it always holds true in every case. If it doesn't, then by definition it's either invalid, unsound, or not a deductive argument. Because a deductive argument that is both valid and sound always holds true.