Both are wrong

[Gdjjr]

Obama was right, Alito was wrong: Citizens United has corrupted American politics

Ten years ago this week, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court overturned a century of campaign finance law, giving wealthy donors and corporations nearly unlimited ability to influence our elections. In his State of the Union address a week later, President Barack Obama said the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito famously shook his head, mouthing “not true.”

A decade later, it’s clear that President Obama was right and Justice Alito was wrong. With its decision, the court threw out restrictions on corporate and union election spending, narrowed the legal definition of “corruption” and set the stage for an influx of undisclosed dark money spending on our elections.

Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

 

[MisterBeale]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights. This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption. Folks that are against judicial activism should not pick and choose.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights.

They are by definition a collection of citizens, exercising individual rights collectively.

 

[Gdjjr]

This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption.

No the underlying problem and the root of corruption is;

Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.

 

[MisterBeale]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights.

They are by definition a collection of citizens, exercising individual rights collectively.

Never thought I would see the day when you would be defending the nefarious actions of those who work in the dark, under the name of "collectivism."



nice.

Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.

We need to know who they are, what they do, and have their names publicized. Each. And. Every. One.

This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption.

No the underlying problem and the root of corruption is;

Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.

Foreign nations don't give a shit. They will be purposely "morally bankrupt."

Under this decision, you can hide the origin of the contribution.

Your understanding of this decision really needs work man.

Go back to university.

Hell. . . Billy thinks it was an Amendment, not a SCOTUS ruling? wtf?! Do you folks even know what you are talking about?


This decision benefited Obama, Clinton and the swamp.

". . . .However, a single individual or group can create both types of entity and combine their powers, making it difficult to trace the original source of funds.[32][33] ProPublica explains: "Say some like-minded people form both a Super-PAC and a nonprofit 501(c)(4). Corporations and individuals could then donate as much as they want to the nonprofit, which isn't required to publicly disclose funders. The nonprofit could then donate as much as it wanted to the Super-PAC, which lists the nonprofit's donation but not the original contributors."[32] In at least one high-profile case, a donor to a super PAC kept his name hidden by using an LLC formed for the purpose of hiding their personal name.[34] One super PAC, that originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that no one could find, led to a subsequent filing where the previously "secret donors" were revealed.[35]

During the 2016 election cycle, "dark money" contributions via shell LLCs became increasingly common.[36] The Associated Press, Center for Public Integrity, and Sunlight Foundation all "flagged dozens of donations of anywhere from $50,000 to $1 million routed through non-disclosing LLCs to super PACs" backing various presidential candidates, including Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Carly Fiorina.[36]. . . . "
Dark money - Wikipedia

 

[MisterBeale]

These judges are globalists.

If you support their rulings, it is the same as when they rule shit like, "oh, we don't need to know anything about you for you to vote. We don't need to know if you are a citizen, nor do we need to know your age. . . that would be discriminatory. Just come on in and vote!"

 

[CWayne]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights. This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption. Folks that are against judicial activism should not pick and choose.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Why?

Without the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, corporations become nothing more than banks for the political to buy votes.

 

[CWayne]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights.

They are by definition a collection of citizens, exercising individual rights collectively.

Never thought I would see the day when you would be defending the nefarious actions of those who work in the dark, under the name of "collectivism."



nice.

Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.

We need to know who they are, what they do, and have their names publicized. Each. And. Every. One.

This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption.

No the underlying problem and the root of corruption is;

Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.

Foreign nations don't give a shit. They will be purposely "morally bankrupt."

Under this decision, you can hide the origin of the contribution.

Your understanding of this decision really needs work man.

Go back to university.

Hell. . . Billy thinks it was an Amendment, not a SCOTUS ruling? wtf?! Do you folks even know what you are talking about?


This decision benefited Obama, Clinton and the swamp.

". . . .However, a single individual or group can create both types of entity and combine their powers, making it difficult to trace the original source of funds.[32][33] ProPublica explains: "Say some like-minded people form both a Super-PAC and a nonprofit 501(c)(4). Corporations and individuals could then donate as much as they want to the nonprofit, which isn't required to publicly disclose funders. The nonprofit could then donate as much as it wanted to the Super-PAC, which lists the nonprofit's donation but not the original contributors."[32] In at least one high-profile case, a donor to a super PAC kept his name hidden by using an LLC formed for the purpose of hiding their personal name.[34] One super PAC, that originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that no one could find, led to a subsequent filing where the previously "secret donors" were revealed.[35]

During the 2016 election cycle, "dark money" contributions via shell LLCs became increasingly common.[36] The Associated Press, Center for Public Integrity, and Sunlight Foundation all "flagged dozens of donations of anywhere from $50,000 to $1 million routed through non-disclosing LLCs to super PACs" backing various presidential candidates, including Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Carly Fiorina.[36]. . . . "
Dark money - Wikipedia

The only purpose of bringing contributions to light is for the purpose of personal destruction. It is the politics of reputation destructions.

You want to know who they are, not because you think they have some nefarious purpose, but so that you can slander and smear them with half-truths, political innuendo, and outright reputation destruction.

That has been for the past 40 years, the tenor and effort of the left and perfected by those who studied Saul Alinsky.

 

[sparky]

Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.

the age of mammon....

~S~

 

[sparky]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights. This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption. Folks that are against judicial activism should not pick and choose.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Why?

Without the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, corporations become nothing more than banks for the political to buy votes.

or >>>

~S~

 

[sparky]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights.

They are by definition a collection of citizens, exercising individual rights collectively.

Never thought I would see the day when you would be defending the nefarious actions of those who work in the dark, under the name of "collectivism."



nice.

Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.

We need to know who they are, what they do, and have their names publicized. Each. And. Every. One.

This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption.

No the underlying problem and the root of corruption is;

Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.

Foreign nations don't give a shit. They will be purposely "morally bankrupt."

Under this decision, you can hide the origin of the contribution.

Your understanding of this decision really needs work man.

Go back to university.

Hell. . . Billy thinks it was an Amendment, not a SCOTUS ruling? wtf?! Do you folks even know what you are talking about?


This decision benefited Obama, Clinton and the swamp.

". . . .However, a single individual or group can create both types of entity and combine their powers, making it difficult to trace the original source of funds.[32][33] ProPublica explains: "Say some like-minded people form both a Super-PAC and a nonprofit 501(c)(4). Corporations and individuals could then donate as much as they want to the nonprofit, which isn't required to publicly disclose funders. The nonprofit could then donate as much as it wanted to the Super-PAC, which lists the nonprofit's donation but not the original contributors."[32] In at least one high-profile case, a donor to a super PAC kept his name hidden by using an LLC formed for the purpose of hiding their personal name.[34] One super PAC, that originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that no one could find, led to a subsequent filing where the previously "secret donors" were revealed.[35]

During the 2016 election cycle, "dark money" contributions via shell LLCs became increasingly common.[36] The Associated Press, Center for Public Integrity, and Sunlight Foundation all "flagged dozens of donations of anywhere from $50,000 to $1 million routed through non-disclosing LLCs to super PACs" backing various presidential candidates, including Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Carly Fiorina.[36]. . . . "
Dark money - Wikipedia

dark $$$

wow....
~S~

 

[CWayne]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights. This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption. Folks that are against judicial activism should not pick and choose.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Why?

Without the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, corporations become nothing more than banks for the political to buy votes.

or >>>

~S~

True. Congress, and by extension, the entirety of Government, is the one percent. The problem is, they have the power to make the rules that benefit, guess who? Themselves.

In order to even manage to get your case heard, you need to get their attention.

This isn't a problem of Citizens United, but one of electing corrupt people whose only interest is retaining their power and wealth.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.

That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.

Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.

True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights.

They are by definition a collection of citizens, exercising individual rights collectively.

Never thought I would see the day when you would be defending the nefarious actions of those who work in the dark, under the name of "collectivism."



nice.

Rights is rights. They apply to all.

Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.

Agreed, but if you fuck with their rights as sovereign citizens to act collectively, you invite others to fuck with your rights.

 

[Gdjjr]

Agreed, but if you fuck with their rights as sovereign citizens to act collectively, you invite others to fuck with your rights.

That's true enough and it applies to every action demanded from voters- not just one but every.

 

[pknopp]

There are negative aspects of every single Constitutionally protected right. That is not a justification for ending them.

 

[daveman]

Remember, kids, corporations -- groups of people organized for a common purpose -- donating money to politics is wrong and evil and bad and smells like Satan's toe jam.

But unions -- groups of people organized for a common purpose -- donating money to politics is good and righteous and holy and smells like cinnamon rolls.

 

[candycorn]

The guy who contributes one dollar gets the same access that the guy who contributes hundreds of thousands does?

If the answer is no, Obama was right. As usual.

 

[pknopp]

The guy who contributes one dollar gets the same access that the guy who contributes hundreds of thousands does?

If the answer is no, Obama was right. As usual.

On election day they are equal. If you don't like who a candidate takes money from (none can take hundreds of thousands from anyone) don't vote for him.

Did it bother you at all how much Obama took from Wall Street?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The guy who contributes one dollar gets the same access that the guy who contributes hundreds of thousands does?

If the answer is no, Obama was right. As usual.

"You get what you pay for." That has been true throughout recorded history.