task0778
Diamond Member
Because corporations have more money than unions and unions have more people (votes) than corporations, what Citizens United did was shift the balance of power toward the corporations.Okay, you raised 3 different issues in your post:
1. I see no reason why corps can't have freedom of speech (which includes political donations) just like citizens and unions do. A corporation actually represents a group of people just like a union does. Employees, customers, suppliers, etc. And they pay taxes too, so IMHO it's a hard sell to say they can't have a voice in our governance. Which doesn't mean carte blanche, there oughta be total transparency over who contributes money to who. But I think the impact of CvU is greatly over-rated, big corps give big money to both sides; it ain't like campaign spending has tilted to the right since that ruling.
2. Why do you think Gorsuch is for corporatizing America? Show me some evidence and reasoning behind that opinion.
3. I'm okay with more political parties. However, I wouldn't bet the rent that a 3rd or more parties is the answer to our political difficulties. People are still people.
Do I think Citizens v United is good for the USA? I don't see a big difference one way or the other, it's been neither good nor bad IMHO.
By giving corporations the same rights of people, you are giving the PEOPLE who own and manage these corporations, twice the rights of the people who don't own or manage these corporations. The owners and managers already have a vote and a say, and a right to donate to political campaigns. By giving these people a similar right when acting on behalf of their corporations, you are doubling their rights and their influence. That, in and of itself, is in opposition to everything that you supposedly hold dear.
I think that Citizens United is VERY bad for the USA, if you have any interest in returning your government to a situation where it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Your government and the constant need for politicians to raise money, has corrupted your government utterly. Citizens United is part of that corruption.
So I guess unions have twice the right too? And every organization other than a business one, they can donate as individuals and as a group. Why discriminate against the big corps, you do realize they donate to both sides right? IMHO you are correct that our gov't (what, it's not yours too?) and the pols who run it are corrupt, but Citizens v United didn't change that or enhance it one little bit.
Citizens United helped Unions the same as companys
.
Same question: How so? I always thought Citizens changed very little for unions.
Since Corps have always supported both sides, I don't see the practical difference. Do you have any data that shows Corps supporting one party over the other in a pronounced way since Citizens? If not, then in reality there's no reason to believe Citizens changed much of anything.