Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Whe will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections.
No it doesn't. It actually increases the amount of money unions are allowed to spend on elections.
Yes, in the same way removing the salary cap in football would allow the Jets and the Jaguars to spend more...
I'm convinced. You're as partisan as most of the right wingers and as stupid as Willow Tree [didn't know your posts carry that much influence, huh?)
This is not a 'partisan' matter.
It absolutely is. Your party is slavishly wed to corporate interests, and you're promoting a policy that creates even more corporate corruption in the political system.
Equal footing? That's a laugh. Even pre-Citizens United, corporations had a huge edge.
Please provide proof of your claimed facts.
It's not a "claimed" fact, it's simply a fact.
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets
When through the first 100 on the list, and corporate/industry group donations over the period equal 1.242 billion. Unions are 0.667 billion.
Unethical corporations??
Guess that means Unions are unethical as well.
Oh wait. They only give to Dems. Never mind. No way they could be called unethical. Just the "evil" corporations that give to both parties are unethical.
Got it.
Influence isn't what's unethical. It's the level of influence that's unethical. The problem is that the government sees itself as needing to represent the interest of corporations anyway. It doesn't feel that way about workers.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
Why is Union Money limited? They need to do a better job of selling their value to increase/drive membership and stop forcing public employees and taxpayers to fund them so they can fund Democrats. Between public service unions and ACORN-derived organizations, where and how in God's name did The Democrat Party feel they are entitled to taxpayer funds for their election efforts.
BTW, Democrats did a good job of getting Corporate Money in 2008.
Taxpayers don't fund unions, but nice try.
The Democrats did a good job at getting corporate money in 2008 because it was certainty they'd win the election.
No it doesn't. It actually increases the amount of money unions are allowed to spend on elections.
You missed a word or two in that sentence. The truth is that Citizen's United increases the amount of money unions can legally and openly spend on elections. The truth is they have lost a serious portion of their spending advantage being that their opponents are no longer constrained and they don't like it.
You realize you don't actually didn't undermine his point, right? He didn't say unions can't spend as much, he said their power is removed because they are buried under a wave of corporate cash.
When will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections. Now the upper hand is being shifted to the right.
Even Rachel maddow appeared to admit that though she probably didn't mean to.
After all they had now problem when Obama outspent McCain and have no problem with unions pouring money into elections.
When will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections. Now the upper hand is being shifted to the right.
Even Rachel maddow appeared to admit that though she probably didn't mean to.
After all they had now problem when Obama outspent McCain and have no problem with unions pouring money into elections.
The GOP loves citizen's united because the GOP is the party of the Rich and money is what wins elections.
This is not a 'partisan' matter.
It absolutely is. Your party is slavishly wed to corporate interests, and you're promoting a policy that creates even more corporate corruption in the political system.
It is only partisan in the minds of small minded idiots, which is why the Supreme Court overturned the law with a non partisan 7-2 majority.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
I see you don't understand the ruling. It allows unions to spend as much money as well. This is the part that the left always ignores.
where do public unions get their money from?
The membership of the union. And I know your argument is going to be that since those members are paid via taxes, that means taxpayers are funding the union. Of course, if you apply that reason across the board, you're funding every union, because private-sector unions are also funded by members, who get their paychecks from companies that pay them out of the money used purchasing their goods. There's also that pesky thing about how union members have to earmark their money to be used for political purposes (election spending out of the union's general fund is illegal).
without the taxpayer could public unions exist? yes or no?
Unethical corporations??
Guess that means Unions are unethical as well.
Oh wait. They only give to Dems. Never mind. No way they could be called unethical. Just the "evil" corporations that give to both parties are unethical.
Got it.
Influence isn't what's unethical. It's the level of influence that's unethical. The problem is that the government sees itself as needing to represent the interest of corporations anyway. It doesn't feel that way about workers.
That does not even make sense. If influence is ethical the level of it will not change its ethics. What might make it unethical is if you use that influence for something wrong, but that can happen even if all you can do is annoy someone.
I do agree that the government should not represent the interest of corporations though, which is why I want to get rid of all those regulations that you are stupid enough to believe are designed to protect you from corporations.
Have you ever noticed that the more regulations we get the bigger corporations get? Have you ever wondered why that happens?
You missed a word or two in that sentence. The truth is that Citizen's United increases the amount of money unions can legally and openly spend on elections. The truth is they have lost a serious portion of their spending advantage being that their opponents are no longer constrained and they don't like it.
You realize you don't actually didn't undermine his point, right? He didn't say unions can't spend as much, he said their power is removed because they are buried under a wave of corporate cash.
That is not what he said, but thanks for putting words into his mouth.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
Why is Union Money limited? They need to do a better job of selling their value to increase/drive membership and stop forcing public employees and taxpayers to fund them so they can fund Democrats. Between public service unions and ACORN-derived organizations, where and how in God's name did The Democrat Party feel they are entitled to taxpayer funds for their election efforts.
BTW, Democrats did a good job of getting Corporate Money in 2008.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
Public sector unions have been handicapped after WI laws took effect (people voluntarily left).
Citizens United merely gave Corporations and Unions equal footing in elections. Your objections are understandable- but highly hypocritical.
It is true that business interests motivate them to support candidates that are friendly to them- which usually translates to conservative politicians as opposed to liberal ones. But do also note that corporate donations are limited to speech.
That said, it is not like Obama is not well connected in corporate America-he is. Why he is out on the campaign fund raising trail blazing away~ He is doing so at the expense of the tax payer in the most blatant manner. I hope this behavior is not so blatantly repeated when it is Romney's turn to run for his second term- but I also hope if he does, you remember your support of Obama's doing so.
Corporations, the greedy rich were outspending unions, the good rich, and conservation groups, etc., 30-50 times on campaigns and LOBBYISTS (who are doing the real damage) before Citizens. Now the greedy rich/greedy, polluting corps can go nuts on campaigns too. The greedy rich etc get a lot more for their money from Pubs, unless you worry about the good of the country....
Pub dupes! Dumbest voters in the world...
Apparently you dont read your own posts.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
Some of you act like it is rocket science as to why some support unions giving money to political campaigns.
Unions tend to take on the concerns of working people. Giving to politicians with the same concerns.
Corporations tend to be concerned with the very rich and the corporation itself.
