Citizens United outcry

[Quantum Windbag]

Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?

Can you point out what is bad about it? Almost every state already allows corporations to spend unlimited cash on elections, yet they rarely do. Could that be because they realize that the return on that investment is minimal? I would also like to point out that corporations, ultimately, are simply groups of people come together for a common purpose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you spend much time interacting with people on the right, you'll find that there isn't a lot of intelligence there. They are motivated by god, not intelligence. They delude themselves into believing that they actually know what the constitution is about.

Another idiot that thinks he is more intelligent than a group of people simply because he has different ideas. Believe it or not, the one true sign of intelligence is realizing that everything you believe might be wrong. If you ever reach that plateau feel free to come back and we will discuss the world and many other interesting things. Until then, you are better off keeping your mouth shut than opening it and proving you are a fool.

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson

It doesn't take much intelligence to recognize that when you designate corporations as people, real people are going to lose.

It apparently takes more intelligence than you have to realize that corporations, though not people themselves, are actually composed of people. Believe it or not, people do not give up their rights just because they join a group.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Money is not speech. Money has no mouth nor is it a citizen.

MOney is an unequalizer when it is called/used as free speech.
The ones with the most money can "talk" the loudest.

It causes the buying of our government.

You know, I used to think that money and speech were separate issues. I did some thinking, a bit of research, and I noticed something.

Politicians make all these laws about restricting the spending of money on elections, yet they themselves get to spend as much money as they can lay their grubby little hands on. that means that they get to speak louder than anyone else, and they even found a way to keep people from coming together so that they would have a chance of speaking up. Citizen's United was not a major corporation, it was a group of people that were trying to run a commercial about Hillary Clinton.

Ever wonder why both sides of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who argue about everything else, managed to come together on this? because it keeps them in power, and makes them rich. This debate is not about stopping corporations, it is about keeping politicians in power, and the right of people to come together to speak up against them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The constitution does not cover money as pseech.
That is just another court decision. Of which many court decisions you tend to call unconstitutional if it suits your political purposes.

It doesn't cover privacy either, are you trying to say we do not have a right to privacy?

 

[daveman]

Corporations are not people.

The people who run them can vote already IF they are citizens.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.

The people in them already have rights.

The US was not designed to give corporations control over the government was it?

Then you similarly oppose 527s like MoveOn.org, correct?

 

[daveman]

As I said, in the old days liberals wanted more free speech. Whatever happened to thsoe people??

In the old days, liberals supported individual liberties, too.

 

[daveman]

I would also like to point out that corporations, ultimately, are simply groups of people come together for a common purpose.

Not according to leftists. They think corporations...or rather "KKKorporations"...are entities independent of human control, able to act autonomously. Like guns.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After reading how they fear advertising I'm hopeful that it may be possible through advertising to turn Progressives back into decent people and real Americans through a few TV ads and billboards

 

[whitehall]

How many times do you have to remind the left that corporations are not the enemy. Barry feels the love since the November election. He probably has his arm around the CEO of G.E. as we speak. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that "money = speech" and the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. The Sierra Club is a corporation. Most of George Soros' left wing think tanks are incorporated. Anyone can form an LLC. Spell it out socialists, it isn't corporations you hate it's capitalism.

 

[loosecannon]

Public Citizen Press Room


One Year Later, Movement Is Growing to Overturn Citizens United

Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen

The theory and practice of the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission are incompatible with a well-functioning democracy.

One year and one election after the decision, we know that Citizens United remade the electoral landscape. Not only did it enable corporations to write large checks to affect who would and would not be elected, but it also established that Wild West rules would prevail for campaign 2010. The 2010 campaign and the 2010 election results were influenced quite considerably by Citizens United.

Citizens United has cast a shadow over all policymaking, because elected officials now know that if they cross powerful corporate interests, they face the prospect of an unaccountable, outside campaign to defeat them in the next election.

beyond the uber stupid argument about whether corporations are people........

I wonder if the DOJ will or can make this stick. You know J Roberts is not gonna cave unless he has to.

Is the Obama admin daring enough to take on the SC? That is a mighty risky proposition even if they win. and who would adjudicate this if they do? The congress? The senate?

In either case the conflict of interest in the case of Thomas seems undeniable. But even if he was recused the decision is hung.

 

[newpolitics]

Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?

That considers that there is still a democracy in America .. which is open to question.

This country is now fully in the hands of the corporate will. We are a plutocracy. They even own and control American elections. The winner is determined by software .. that they own .. and no on else in America can even look at or examine. There is more integrity in the elections in Kenya then the US.

Corporations are in full control and the right thinks that's a good thing. They applaud a shrinking democracy and lay out the red carpet for the corporate takeover of America.

Democrats are too damn weak to stop them, so they joined them and are now just as corporate owned as republicans.

Our demise is set in motion and we deserve it.

America is Republic, not a democracy... as in "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands......."

Then, why does everybody, mostly republicans, talk about democracy more than anybody? "People are trying to steal our democracy, our free speech, our rights..." bla bla bla....Yeah, maybe, technically we are a republic, but the operative word in the rhetoric floating around is democracy, so it really doesn't matter what we technically are. I bet most people don't even know what a republic is.

 

[newpolitics]

After reading how they fear advertising I'm hopeful that it may be possible through advertising to turn Progressives back into decent people and real Americans through a few TV ads and billboards

I believe that are wholly delusional if you believe that republicans are any better than democrats.

 

[newpolitics]

How many times do you have to remind the left that corporations are not the enemy. Barry feels the love since the November election. He probably has his arm around the CEO of G.E. as we speak. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that "money = speech" and the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. The Sierra Club is a corporation. Most of George Soros' left wing think tanks are incorporated. Anyone can form an LLC. Spell it out socialists, it isn't corporations you hate it's capitalism.

You must be a CEO of a corporation, or you are largely ignorant to what corporations have done and are doing in the name of corporate greed. Corporations allow the leveraging of human greed on a stage larger than there has ever been, including behind the scenes legislation in Washington, with people heading the FDA and USDA, for instance, who were once the heads of major food corporations (Monsanto, for instance) and are doing backroom deals to ensure their success and dominance, in order to increase their power and decrease the ability of people to speak up about it. Did you know that it is ILLEGAL to speak badly about the farming or food industry, namely, Monsanto. Do you have any idea the things that are going on right now with Monsanto and genetically modified soybeans, and the strangehold they have on farmers and our food that we buy? How about the merciless slaughter of animals for efficiency at these mass factory farms, that can only be likened to the holocast, and no one knows about it, because they keep it secret. How about the behavior of Halliburton and KBR in Iraq, possibily the two most treasonous corporations who supplied our soldiers with faulty equipment that lead to their deaths and taxed US taxpayers to do it, all in the supposed name of 'nationalism,' when Cheney, who supplied the no-bid contracts to these firms, used to be the CEO of Halliburton, and you think there is no foulplay? Please, corporations, and their greed, are the only reason anything is bad anymore. Corporations are destroying this world, and should never be considered friendly.

If you honestly believe that corporations are the equivalent of capitalism, then you have a lot to learn. You are an ignorant fucking person if you think that corporations aren't bad. Educate yourself, please, for the sake of humanity.

 

[newpolitics]

The interplay between the higher ups of corporations and those in Washington is allowing these corporations to by-pass regulation, perpetrate the most evil atrocities against people, animals, and the earth, and people stick up for them, in the name of capitalism. I simply don't understand this mentality. is this about sticking up for America? Is this a nationalistic thing? Is it fear of socialism or something, that you blindly give faith to idea of corporations, simply because they give you the products that you desire? These corps are leveraging more power than they realize, even against the consumer. We, the consumers have money. They want it. Namely, those at the top. They will do anything to get it. They have sold our our won democracy/republic to get the money in our pockets, and to keep us from knowing that, and to make it harder and harder to change. In fact, they have convinced you that they are good, because they supply you with things. At what cost?

You, who talk about democracy, should consider the fact that corporations are the biggest threat to this. This already is not a democracy, and it is because of corporations. Fuck them. Human greed is astounding. It always has been.

I already know those like Daveman, Crusader Frank, and others are going to try to debase me by saying I'm this or that... all I can say is pre-emptively, provide me with evidence that corporations haven't been subversive against citizens of this country, the world, animals, the enviroment, and I will believe you. Until then, the evidence is overwhelming. So, keep the insults to yourself until you have someting to back it up, please, otherwise you just make yourselves look partisan for the sake of being partisan.

 

[MikeK]

Back in the old days Liberals applauded every expansion of free speech. Citizens ought to have been one of those moments.
Now liberals are for free speech, as long as it is theirs. Anything contrary to that is labeled "corporatism" and "hate speech."
The truth is United Citizens did nothing that the OP alleges. Corporations are still forbidden to contribute to candidates' elections. This fact seems to get lost conveniently, in libs' talking points.

Money is not speech. Money is property.

Your attempt to obscure the nature of what in fact is a euphemistically labeled means of facilitating bribery is weakly veiled. The so-called "Citizens United" ruling is nothing more or less than a plainly corrupted Supreme Court's sanctioning of the transfer of unrestricted amounts of property from corporate entities and other affluent sources to our legislators. It is nothing more or less than legitimized bribery and any rhetorical effort to color it as something other than that is ambitious bullshit.

It is too bad that someone with your inteligence has chosen to ignore the damage that such an insidious ruling will have on the future of America.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Nowhere in the constitution does it give government the right to determine how corporations spend their money.

Nowhere in the constitution does it give government the right to tell campaigns where their money can come from.

It's up to individual voters to make informed decisions based on what they believe. It's not the government's job to make sure stupid people don't vote based on corporate advertising.

"Campaign finance reform" is unconstitutional. Period.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Public Citizen Press Room


One Year Later, Movement Is Growing to Overturn Citizens United

Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen

The theory and practice of the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission are incompatible with a well-functioning democracy.

One year and one election after the decision, we know that Citizens United remade the electoral landscape. Not only did it enable corporations to write large checks to affect who would and would not be elected, but it also established that Wild West rules would prevail for campaign 2010. The 2010 campaign and the 2010 election results were influenced quite considerably by Citizens United.

Citizens United has cast a shadow over all policymaking, because elected officials now know that if they cross powerful corporate interests, they face the prospect of an unaccountable, outside campaign to defeat them in the next election.

"....we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Great job, there, 'Baggers.​

 

[uptownlivin90]

Back in the old days Liberals applauded every expansion of free speech. Citizens ought to have been one of those moments.
Now liberals are for free speech, as long as it is theirs. Anything contrary to that is labeled "corporatism" and "hate speech."
The truth is United Citizens did nothing that the OP alleges. Corporations are still forbidden to contribute to candidates' elections. This fact seems to get lost conveniently, in libs' talking points.

Money is not speech. Money is property.

Your attempt to obscure the nature of what in fact is a euphemistically labeled means of facilitating bribery is weakly veiled. The so-called "Citizens United" ruling is nothing more or less than a plainly corrupted Supreme Court's sanctioning of the transfer of unrestricted amounts of property from corporate entities and other affluent sources to our legislators. It is nothing more or less than legitimized bribery and any rhetorical effort to color it as something other than that is ambitious bullshit.

It is too bad that someone with your inteligence has chosen to ignore the damage that such an insidious ruling will have on the future of America.

Since when is it the government's right to limit or restrict the transfer of private property, and when dd campaign donations become "bribery". Oh wait, it's only "bribery" when corporations do it right?

Seriously do you people hear yourselves? The constitution never allowed for the courts to restrict the transfer of private property. This court acted properly.

Corporations don't vote. They can't steal elections. The problem is not corporate advertisement, it's the idiots that vote based on corporate advertisement. Some seem to believe that the American people aren't smart enough to vote without being "protected" from ads paid by big business. That may be so... but the courts have NO LEGAL RIGHT to "protect" stupid people from their own stupidity.

 

[shintao]

As I said, in the old days liberals wanted more free speech. Whatever happened to thsoe people??

In the old days, liberals supported individual liberties, too.

Is that a whine?

 

[shintao]

Since when is it the government's right to limit or restrict the transfer of private property, and when did campaign donations become "bribery."

What private property are you concerned about, that the government "limit or restrict the transfer" of?

And campaign donations have been regulated for a long time, though I am not sure when that started.