The truth about the lefts hate of Citizens United

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.

CU gave the advantage to corporations. The unions cannot generate the amount of money for donations that corporations can.

Again, the question is: Do you want a society where the people whose salaries you pay make more than those who pay them?

The Democrats will do anything the government unions ask, because (1) It's not their money they're spending, it's the taxpayers'; and (2) Government unions reciprocate by making sure the Democrats keep getting re-elected.

Public Unions are highly self interested. The politicians that are beholden to them are corrupt- If that means the private sector has an advantage over that kind of monopoly-good! But I digress, the outcome of CU is that it limits donations to speech. Democrats have the advantage of a highly biased media- which again is about speech.

The fact of the matter is, that at the end of the day, both sides have no problem financing and or getting their message out.
 
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?

No, in the sense that without taxpayers there wouldn't be a public sector. That's a pretty nonsensical standard though.




except in the private sector aka capitalism there is competition. in the public sector not so,, teachers should be paid and advanced based on merit. not on tenure.
 
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.

As usual, you certainly prove to be blind to reality....


The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com


And, that doesn't even count the dollar value of the union members who man the phones, do the mailing, and gather petitions.

Tell the truth.

Congratulations. You've found that a union is the biggest spender. Of course, that doesn't contradict his point that corporations have an outsized influence. Saying "well, a union is the top spender, so unions are doing fine" is like saying the Giants are great hitting team (they aren't, 10th of 16) because Melky Cabrera has the highest batting average in the National League. Unions spend 97 million on the 2010 election. Corporations spent 1,367 million.
 
without the taxpayer could public unions exist? yes or no?

No, in the sense that without taxpayers there wouldn't be a public sector. That's a pretty nonsensical standard though.


except in the private sector aka capitalism there is competition. in the public sector not so,, teachers should be paid and advanced based on merit. not on tenure.

Competition isn't super-relevant here, because the same factors are at play (businesses have an incentive to make labor costs as low as possible to boost profits; government has an incentive to make labor costs as low as possible to hold down spending/avoid increasing taxes).
 
No, in the sense that without taxpayers there wouldn't be a public sector. That's a pretty nonsensical standard though.


except in the private sector aka capitalism there is competition. in the public sector not so,, teachers should be paid and advanced based on merit. not on tenure.

Competition isn't super-relevant here, because the same factors are at play (businesses have an incentive to make labor costs as low as possible to boost profits; government has an incentive to make labor costs as low as possible to hold down spending/avoid increasing taxes).

Wrong! Government attempts to always make their individual department look as necessary as possible so it does not get cut.

With regards to public union money electing specific politicians, you have self interest run amok.
 
Last edited:
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.


And as usual, the dupes are totally FULL OF SHYTTE. Pub dupes...Wiki

A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens[27] was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. To emphasize his unhappiness with the majority, Stevens took the relatively rare step of reading part of his 90 page dissent from the bench.[28]

Bullshytte and stupid insults from the worst voters in the worl...

Thank you for demonstrating why Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

The actual decisions is here, along with links to the 6 concurring opinions, including Stevens.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n - 08-205 (2010) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The law was struck down my a 7 judge majority, end of conversation.
 
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.

You fail to understand the reality of the situation. Unions do not have nearly as much funds to spend as corporations do.

You fail to understand it, unions have as much, or more, to spend than most corporations. Add in the fact that there are plenty of corporations that will spend their money supporting union positions, and the split still comes down in favor of the Democrats on most issues.
 
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.

As usual, you certainly prove to be blind to reality....


The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com


And, that doesn't even count the dollar value of the union members who man the phones, do the mailing, and gather petitions.

Tell the truth.

Congratulations. You've found that a union is the biggest spender. Of course, that doesn't contradict his point that corporations have an outsized influence. Saying "well, a union is the top spender, so unions are doing fine" is like saying the Giants are great hitting team (they aren't, 10th of 16) because Melky Cabrera has the highest batting average in the National League. Unions spend 97 million on the 2010 election. Corporations spent 1,367 million.


What an insipid post....

"... that corporations have an outsized influence."

Unions have an 'outsized' influence.

As I have shown...

You...nothing at all.
Seems to be a fact that, for the Left, feeling passes for knowing.

This is gonna blow your skirt up………

“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, they're inclined to push for bringing the Employee Free Choice Act up for a vote early next year, believing they have a narrow window to get it passed.”
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com



See what happens when you don’t send that e-mail chain letter to seven people?
I await your data which, to this moment, is nonexistent.
 
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 don't agree. If you did, you wouldn't be trying as hard as you can to maximize the influence of corporations. Also, if regulations were really so beneficial to corporations, it seems pretty bizarre that spend tens of millions a dollar per year opposing them.

Lets get something straight here, I am not trying to maximize the influence of corporations, I am trying to minimize it. Limiting the donations that individuals can make to candidates means that corporations can hire lobbyists to make their case to elected officials. Telling individuals they cannot pool their money and advocate for, or against, a candidate means that corporations can spend money on lobbyists to influence elected officials. Every thing you stand for gives corporations more power to write the laws they like. If you did not have your head so far up the collective ass of the incumbents in power you would see that. Unfortunately, your ears are clogged with shit, so all I can do is point out how wrong you are so others won't fall into the same trap.
 
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.

"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."

Emphasis added. Note, he doesn't say it reduces their spending.

I missed that, but he is still wrong. Unions have plenty of power in elections, take a look at what happened in Wisconsin if you don't believe me. The only real problem unions had was that Walker was right, and the things he did actually accomplished what he said they would.
 
Think of Citizens United as the TSA. You guys wanted the TSA, you fought for it. You wanted to be all gung ho about protecting against terrorists and shit.

And then you realized it's a totally shitty proposition.

Well, don't expect much pity when the tides turn and you're suddenly royally fucked in the ass by Citizens United.
 
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.

CU gave the advantage to corporations. The unions cannot generate the amount of money for donations that corporations can.

You are wrong. Unions have just as much power to collect money as any corporation, and they have the advantage of collecting union dues, a regular and sustainable source of funds, to spend in any fashion they want. The problem is not that unions cannot raise the money, the problem is that their membership is realizing they do not actually represent them, and are demanding change. The free market actually works, imagine that.
 
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.

My opposition to CU v. FEC is it is anti-democratic. It matters not if Unions or Industry or foreign nations make and enforce our laws. What CU does is puts more power (influence is power) in the hands of powerful self intersts and reduces the power of the individual.

you didn't mind when the unnions had unfettered power though did you?

How do you spell non sequitur?
 
My opposition to CU v. FEC is it is anti-democratic. It matters not if Unions or Industry or foreign nations make and enforce our laws. What CU does is puts more power (influence is power) in the hands of powerful self intersts and reduces the power of the individual.

you didn't mind when the unnions had unfettered power though did you?

How do you spell non sequitur?

Apparently (Wry Catcher)
 
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.

My opposition to CU v. FEC is it is anti-democratic. It matters not if Unions or Industry or foreign nations make and enforce our laws. What CU does is puts more power (influence is power) in the hands of powerful self intersts and reduces the power of the individual.

Nonsense. You do not understand the tremendous power behind the freedom of association is one of the things that makes our country great. You have the freedom to give your money to an organization which will amplify your voice for you.

This is to be celebrated, not stamped out!



If, among a people who are imperfectly accustomed to the exercise of freedom, or are exposed to violent political passions, by the side of the majority which makes the laws is placed a minority which only deliberates and gets laws ready for adoption, I cannot but believe that public tranquillity would there incur very great risks. There is doubtless a wide difference between proving that one law is in itself better than another and proving that the former ought to be substituted for the latter. But the imagination of the multitude is very apt to overlook this difference, which is so apparent to the minds of thinking men. It sometimes happens that a nation is divided into two nearly equal parties, each of which affects to represent the majority. If, near the directing power, another power is established which exercises almost as much moral authority as the former, we are not to believe that it will long be content to speak without acting; or that it will always be restrained by the abstract consideration that associations are meant to direct opinions, but not to enforce them, to suggest but not to make the laws.


In America the liberty of association for political purposes is unlimited.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 12

Nice, but not on point to mine. Think for a moment how communicatons were conveyed in the time of Alexis De Tocqueville vis a vis today. The funds to buy TV, Radio and print ads has become unlimited and anonymous - that should bother even the dumbest of the readers here.
 
Republicans did not want Romney and yet his billionaires bought the nomination for him.

So Citizens United bit Republicans in the butt.
 
Republicans did not want Romney and yet his billionaires bought the nomination for him.

So Citizens United bit Republicans in the butt.

Sunni man says you like it in the butt.
 
Republicans did not want Romney and yet his billionaires bought the nomination for him.

So Citizens United bit Republicans in the butt.

Republican did not want Romney? Why was he the presumptive nominee for the last 2 fracking years if Republicans did not want him? Why were they all going crazy worrying that Bachmann, Perry, or Santorum might actually win the nomination of they did not want him? Citizens United actually kept Gingrich in the running long after he should have dropped out, but it helped Romney buy the election.

What fracking universe does your brain live in?
 
except in the private sector aka capitalism there is competition. in the public sector not so,, teachers should be paid and advanced based on merit. not on tenure.

Competition isn't super-relevant here, because the same factors are at play (businesses have an incentive to make labor costs as low as possible to boost profits; government has an incentive to make labor costs as low as possible to hold down spending/avoid increasing taxes).

Wrong! Government attempts to always make their individual department look as necessary as possible so it does not get cut.

With regards to public union money electing specific politicians, you have self interest run amok.

Correction, people running agencies attempt to do that. However, agencies don't set their own budgets.
 
Republicans did not want Romney and yet his billionaires bought the nomination for him.

So Citizens United bit Republicans in the butt.

Republican did not want Romney? Why was he the presumptive nominee for the last 2 fracking years if Republicans did not want him? Why were they all going crazy worrying that Bachmann, Perry, or Santorum might actually win the nomination of they did not want him? Citizens United actually kept Gingrich in the running long after he should have dropped out, but it helped Romney buy the election.

What fracking universe does your brain live in?

Republicans wanted a Mass. liberal?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top