Corporations are not people brings Saving American Democracy Amendment.

[daveman]

Everyone loves the first amendment...when it is protecting their speech.

But when it's someone else's speech...well...that must be curtailed.

Because it's dangerous...

When it's someone else...

not someone else. something else. that something is money.

Money has speech? Is that the same way guns kill people?

 

[editec]

Yup.

Its going to take a consitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

And for the life of me I can't see how such a constiutional amendment can be worded such that it does not violate the 1st amendment pprinciple of FREE SPEECH.

OR,

if they attempt to prevent corporations from spending money on PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS and creating fake THINK TANKS and so forth, then I do not see how that approach won't be a violation of the 5th Amendment that protects private property rights.

Understand I point this out and I truly HATE the fact that Citizens United case was decided in the way it was.

But I do think I understand why the SCOTUS came down like it did, too.

I'm not sure I could have voted differently, either.

I think what needs be done is to dramatically change the very idea of corporations.

If the people want to overcome the enormous advantages that we have given corporations, we need to change the way we charter them into existence.

They need to be very limited in what they can and cannot do.

For example, they need to not be able to buy other corporations; for example, we might consider limited their charters to one specific activity and NO other.

And I think one doesn't need to have an MBA to see how different the world would be if such limitations were put on the corporations.

I'm not advocating such changes as above mentioned, I'm just telling you that that is what it would take to rein in these legalistic frankensteins.

 

[Intense]

We’re on the verge of a sad anniversary. Two years ago Saturday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people. Bernie thinks the ruling was absurd. He has called it a threat to American democracy.

His answer is to make it crystal clear in the Constitution that corporations are not people, through his Saving American Democracy Amendment.

While corporations already are funneling untold millions in secret cash into Super PACS to sway this year’s elections, real people all across America are speaking out today against this horrendous ruling. They are gathering everywhere from the marble plaza outside the Supreme Court to city halls and statehouses throughout the country.


* Read Bernie’s column in The Guardian
We must stop this corporate takeover of American democracy - Newsroom: Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont

* Read Bernie’s column in U.S. News & World Report
Overturn Citizens United | Debate Club | US News Opinion

* Petition: Show your support for the Saving American Democracy Amendment
Petition - A Petition to Support the Saving American Democracy Amendment : Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont

* What do you think? Was the court right or wrong. Take the poll
Polls: Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont

You obviously do not understand Free Speech or the 1st amendment. You have just as much a right to listen, ignore, or change the channel as anyone else. You want to censor, what you cannot control or refute. That is a sign of weakness. There is Power in Voice, You obviously are troubled by that when it is not yours.

you are defending something that hurts your interests a citizen of this republic. such idiocy is difficult to comprehend.

In your opinion. In my opinion censorship does. No one is obstructing your ability to refute untruths or exaggerations. Why would you want to shoot the messenger to stop him from making a point??? What are you afraid of?

 

[daveman]

You obviously do not understand Free Speech or the 1st amendment. You have just as much a right to listen, ignore, or change the channel as anyone else. You want to censor, what you cannot control or refute. That is a sign of weakness. There is Power in Voice, You obviously are troubled by that when it is not yours.

you are defending something that hurts your interests a citizen of this republic. such idiocy is difficult to comprehend.

In your opinion. In my opinion censorship does. No one is obstructing your ability to refute untruths or exaggerations. Why would you want to shoot the messenger to stop him from making a point??? What are you afraid of?

Donations to GOP candidates.

 

[Dragon]

That's the common answer.

No, the common answer is "Yes, unions too. [shrug]." In fact, except for this one instance, that's the answer you get to that bullshit about unions EVERY TIME.

This time you found a schmuck who fell for your shell game. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[Dragon]

2. They have caused NO damage to our democracy, I challenge you to prove otherwise.

What would constitute "proof" in your view?

3. They have giiven more money to obama than anyone else.

Likely so. That's actually the biggest part of the problem. It's not that these contributions influence the outcome of elections, but that they make whoever wins beholden to the corporate interests. That's why the big shots always give to both sides.

 

[daveman]

That's the common answer.

No, the common answer is "Yes, unions too. [shrug]." In fact, except for this one instance, that's the answer you get to that bullshit about unions EVERY TIME.

This time you found a schmuck who fell for your shell game. Enjoy it while you can.

It's funny the way you think reality is subject to your whim.

Out of all the times I've asked that question, two on the left have agreed that union money and corporate money are the same situation.

Just two.

Every other answer has been "That's different. Somehow. It just is."

 

[Dragon]

Out of all the times I've asked that question, two on the left have agreed that union money and corporate money are the same situation.

Just two.

Every other answer has been "That's different. Somehow. It just is."

Interesting. Perhaps it's an example of unconscious filtering, and you just didn't see the responses that amount to "Yes, we'll ban union money, too." Because I've seen a whole lot more than two, and I'm not even sure you're including me.

The fact is, if we're going to ban contributions by corporations, we have to include any other organization, including unions. The fact is, union contributions compared to those of corporations are a bathtub beside the ocean, so banning them, too, is no real loss. The fact is, no legislation to ban corporate money from politics has EVER been introduced into Congress, or even proposed without being introduced, that would not also ban union contributions. The fact is, anyone who objects to the idea of banning union money, too, has fallen for a shell game.

And finally, the fact is that if we didn't allow corporate contributions, union contributions would quickly come to dominate the process. It's only because of their relatively small volume that they don't now. And corruption of politics by unions, while arguably not as bad as corruption by corporate interests, is still bad and still anti-democratic.

So yes: we should ban union money, too. To say this is not to acknowledge that we have a level playing field now, or that union money is the real problem. It's just being complete and logical.

 

[daveman]

Out of all the times I've asked that question, two on the left have agreed that union money and corporate money are the same situation.

Just two.

Every other answer has been "That's different. Somehow. It just is."

Interesting. Perhaps it's an example of unconscious filtering, and you just didn't see the responses that amount to "Yes, we'll ban union money, too." Because I've seen a whole lot more than two, and I'm not even sure you're including me.

The fact is, if we're going to ban contributions by corporations, we have to include any other organization, including unions. The fact is, union contributions compared to those of corporations are a bathtub beside the ocean, so banning them, too, is no real loss. The fact is, no legislation to ban corporate money from politics has EVER been introduced into Congress, or even proposed without being introduced, that would not also ban union contributions. The fact is, anyone who objects to the idea of banning union money, too, has fallen for a shell game.

And finally, the fact is that if we didn't allow corporate contributions, union contributions would quickly come to dominate the process. It's only because of their relatively small volume that they don't now. And corruption of politics by unions, while arguably not as bad as corruption by corporate interests, is still bad and still anti-democratic.

So yes: we should ban union money, too. To say this is not to acknowledge that we have a level playing field now, or that union money is the real problem. It's just being complete and logical.

Yes, I was counting you.

And given your fantastic talent of self-deception, you'll understand if I don't take your word for anything. In fact, if you said the sun rises in the east, I'd get up early with a compass.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, I was counting you.

Very well. Who's the other one?

 

[daveman]

Yes, I was counting you.

Very well. Who's the other one?

I don't recall.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, I was counting you.

Very well. Who's the other one?

I don't recall.

LOL well, that's convenient.

Every time I've seen the issue of campaign financing come up, which it does quite often, someone (not always you by any means) ALWAYS pipes up with "What about unions?" and someone ALWAYS answers, "Yes, unions too." So you're saying that all of those responses to that question, EVERY TIME it comes up -- including this time -- are the work of just two posters, myself and someone else?

That's just to clarify things for future reference.

 

[tenthertoo]

I say (again) that I believe the right of any American, association, business, whatever to speak, to argue, to support, to oppose any candidate for office or political issue is sacrosanct - as long as who it is that is speaking, arguing, supporting, opposing, is publicly reported before a vote.

 

[daveman]

Very well. Who's the other one?

I don't recall.

LOL well, that's convenient.

Every time I've seen the issue of campaign financing come up, which it does quite often, someone (not always you by any means) ALWAYS pipes up with "What about unions?" and someone ALWAYS answers, "Yes, unions too." So you're saying that all of those responses to that question, EVERY TIME it comes up -- including this time -- are the work of just two posters, myself and someone else?

That's just to clarify things for future reference.

I'm telling you what I've seen. Really don't care if you throw your little tantrum. Reality is not subject to your grand pronouncements, no matter how much you stamp your feet and pout.

I've seen two leftists on this board who oppose union campaign donations. That's all.

If you've seen others, let's see some links.

 

[merrill]

If we are serious about giving ordinary Americans the power to control their political future, we must overturn the Citizens United decision, eliminate super PACSs, and move toward public funding of elections. Our goal must be a government that represents all of the people, and not just those wealthy individuals and corporations who can put millions into political campaigns.

Overturn Citizens United | Debate Club | US News Opinion