The truth about the lefts hate of Citizens United

[Polk]

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.

If you actually think average everyday folk, even when acting together, have anywhere near the influence of bankers, hedge fund managers, and other executive types, you're completely lost in space.

 

[elvis]

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.

If you actually think average everyday folk, even when acting together, have anywhere near the influence of bankers, hedge fund managers, and other executive types, you're completely lost in space.

I wanna be that robot.

 

[clevergirl]

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.

No, but they are specialists in protecting them...and again we get back to the crux of the matter... Public employees are part of unions- unions spend union dues on elections to elect politicians who they then bargain with for their employees/members...the snake eats its own tail while government gouges the tax payer to pay the snake charmer...

 

[Polk]

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.

No, but they are specialists in protecting them...and again we get back to the crux of the matter... Public employees are part of unions- unions spend union dues on elections to elect politicians who they then bargain with for their employees/members...the snake eats its own tail while government gouges the tax payer to pay the snake charmer...

All that shows is that non-union members don't place a high priority of slashing the wages of unionized state employees (otherwise, they wouldn't vote for politicians who are more sympathetic to raising them). Even that, doesn't create the perverse incentive you think it does, as if your logic were actually true, state employees would extremely well-paid. Also, you're still confusing members of the bureaucracy with elected officials.

 

[clevergirl]

Correction, people running agencies attempt to do that. However, agencies don't set their own budgets.

No, but they are specialists in protecting them...and again we get back to the crux of the matter... Public employees are part of unions- unions spend union dues on elections to elect politicians who they then bargain with for their employees/members...the snake eats its own tail while government gouges the tax payer to pay the snake charmer...

All that shows is that non-union members don't place a high priority of slashing the wages of unionized state employees (otherwise, they wouldn't vote for politicians who are more sympathetic to raising them). Even that, doesn't create the perverse incentive you think it does, as if your logic were actually true, state employees would extremely well-paid. Also, you're still confusing members of the bureaucracy with elected officials.

No, what it shows is precisely what I wrote. It is no secret that most government union employees vote along union lines- That other democrats, such as yourself, vote to keep democrats in power further demonstrates a lack of understanding the situation. Either that or a deliberate disregard for the public trust.

It has been shown time and time again that most government jobs pay more then their private sector counterparts- especially when you factor in vacation; sick days; pensions; healthcare etc. How did they get all these goodies? Because their unions poured union dues into the pockets of democrat politicians.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You need to check with Obama, Romney is a ultra right wing conservative.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If you actually think average everyday folk, even when acting together, have anywhere near the influence of bankers, hedge fund managers, and other executive types, you're completely lost in space.

If you actually think they don't, you are the one lost in space.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

No, but they are specialists in protecting them...and again we get back to the crux of the matter... Public employees are part of unions- unions spend union dues on elections to elect politicians who they then bargain with for their employees/members...the snake eats its own tail while government gouges the tax payer to pay the snake charmer...

Two things:
1. Union spending can not provide even 10% of the money that corporations can.
2. Union books are open. They can be, and are, audited by those interested. The $ being spent as a result of citizens united can not be audited. When the bill came up to make it possible to find who is spending what in the pacs allowed by Citizens United, it was voted down by every republican.

Then, consider what most of us believe: Corporations are not people, and money is not speech. I take it that you disagree.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Horsepucky.

Just turn the TV off if you don't want to watch political ads.

Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech just because you find it distasteful.

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?)

I wasn't even in this conversation bitch. So, now that makes you fucking stupid.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

The not-so funny part is that repubs have a recent history of supporting things that come back and bite them. Sure right now the right is collecting a lot of money from rich donors for causes they support. They are certain that those monied interests will always be on their side. When they are not, thats when repubs will see the problem with unlimited money from money men. But just like with the Health Care mandate, Unitary Executive and signing statements...they will be for it until the next guy uses it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Horsepucky.

Just turn the TV off if you don't want to watch political ads.

Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech just because you find it distasteful.

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?)

I wasn't even in this conversation bitch. So, now that makes you fucking stupid.

LOL, I know the truth hurts. Simply put, you and CrusaderFrank are the archetypes of right wing stupidity on this message board. Don't feel too bad, stupidity and willful ignorance are the commonality of the echo chamber of which you are a proud, loud and noxious member.

 

[jillian]

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.

actually, the problem with citizens united is that it obstructs any ability to engage in campaign finance reform.

but feel free to make up what you think those on "the left" think...as if "the left" is some homogeneous thing.

now why don't you admit you don't have the slightest understanding of citizens united but like it because you think it enables the rightwingnuts to buy elections.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

actually, the problem with citizens united is that it obstructs any ability to engage in campaign finance reform.

but feel free to make up what you think those on "the left" think...as if "the left" is some homogeneous thing.

now why don't you admit you don't have the slightest understanding of citizens united but like it because you think it enables the rightwingnuts to buy elections.

He doesnt seem all that sure about what it does but someone told him liberals hate it, so logically *ahem* hes against it. That's for certain

 

[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.

actually, the problem with citizens united is that it obstructs any ability to engage in campaign finance reform.

but feel free to make up what you think those on "the left" think...as if "the left" is some homogeneous thing.

now why don't you admit you don't have the slightest understanding of citizens united but like it because you think it enables the rightwingnuts to buy elections.

He doesnt seem all that sure about what it does but someone told him liberals hate it, so logically *ahem* hes against it. That's for certain

I suspect he has listened to the anti union rhetoric and believes unions had an unfair advantage influencing elections before the CU v. FEC ruling. He doesn't understand, or refuse to understand, that unions contribute overtly - we know who they are and what they represent.

Under CU, we will never learn who puts up the money and what their agenda maybe.

 

[flacaltenn]

How much do any of THESE BILLIONS influence your choice???

If you answer very MUCH -- then this thread means something. If you answer not Much, then the thread is meaningless.

Except that -- when govt assumes the power to pick winners and losers, give out tax money like candy, write legislation to selectively punish whole groups of products and consumers, and blackmail industries into submission -- then --- corporations and special interests have a fiduciary RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to defend themselves. Just like an individual has.

The deal is --- Government shouldn't have that ability to abuse in the first place. If they didn't ever ABUSE it -- it STILL should be limited..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correction, people running agencies attempt to do that. However, agencies don't set their own budgets.

No, but they are specialists in protecting them...and again we get back to the crux of the matter... Public employees are part of unions- unions spend union dues on elections to elect politicians who they then bargain with for their employees/members...the snake eats its own tail while government gouges the tax payer to pay the snake charmer...

Two things:
1. Union spending can not provide even 10% of the money that corporations can.
2. Union books are open. They can be, and are, audited by those interested. The $ being spent as a result of citizens united can not be audited. When the bill came up to make it possible to find who is spending what in the pacs allowed by Citizens United, it was voted down by every republican.

Then, consider what most of us believe: Corporations are not people, and money is not speech. I take it that you disagree.

Two points.

Bull and shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

actually, the problem with citizens united is that it obstructs any ability to engage in campaign finance reform.

but feel free to make up what you think those on "the left" think...as if "the left" is some homogeneous thing.

now why don't you admit you don't have the slightest understanding of citizens united but like it because you think it enables the rightwingnuts to buy elections.

How does it do that?