Citizens United Exposed

indago

VIP Member
Oct 27, 2007
1,114
109
85
From Salon 16 September 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian this week published 1,500 previously unreleased emails and financial documents leaked from a now-halted investigation into alleged campaign finance violations by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his allies. ...The leaked documents confirm campaign finance reformers’ worst suspicions about political “dark money” and the legal rulings that unleashed it into our elections. And they prove the assumptions underlying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision were incredibly naïve.

That 2010 decision allowed corporate entities to spend unlimited amounts on elections, helping to unleash a tide of “dark money” — election spending by groups that don’t publicly disclose their donors.

In Citizens United, the justices predicted that unlimited corporate spending wouldn’t “corrupt” politicians because it would be totally independent of candidates. But the Wisconsin documents show how many “independent” expenditures are actually controlled behind-the-scenes by candidates’ campaigns.

And, although the court in Citizens United said campaign finance disclosure laws would provide citizens with all the information necessary to “see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests,” these documents demonstrate that citizens are routinely left in the dark about who is bankrolling their representatives, thanks to corporations and wealthy donors secretly funneling their contributions through phony “social welfare” groups which disguise the identities of their funders.

Most importantly these documents show “dark money” is really only “dark” when it comes to the public’s knowledge. The politicians who benefit from undisclosed election spending know exactly where their financial support is coming from.
----------------------------------------------------------

article
 
The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
 
In the dissents written decision, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

It was the very intent of the conservative justices that the fat cats be given the right to buy elections and politicians. Why is it the right-wingers cannot see the many flaws in conservatism, and instead, project these failings on those who oppose the corruption caused by the many Republican/conservative policies?
 
In the dissents written decision, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

It was the very intent of the conservative justices that the fat cats be given the right to buy elections and politicians. Why is it the right-wingers cannot see the many flaws in conservatism, and instead, project these failings on those who oppose the corruption caused by the many Republican/conservative policies?
Corporations were ruled by the SC to be a "person" in the 1840s. The citizen united ruling was a reflection of that. Along with so many others.
Don't be an ignorant hack. That doesn't do anyone any good.
Let me ask you a question, how many times have the democrats attacked CU? ACTUALLY attacked it?
 
Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
 
Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
They have some form of censorship all over the world. Some more extensive, some less but it is censorship. Even in Europe there are subjects one cannot express any opinion about without facing imprisonment. It seems like those places would be suitable for you.
 
Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
They have some form of censorship all over the world. Some more extensive, some less but it is censorship. Even in Europe there are subjects one cannot express any opinion about without facing imprisonment. It seems like those places would be suitable for you.

That makes zero sense.
 
Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
They have some form of censorship all over the world. Some more extensive, some less but it is censorship. Even in Europe there are subjects one cannot express any opinion about without facing imprisonment. It seems like those places would be suitable for you.

That makes zero sense.
If you prefer censorship it does make sense.
 
Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Originally that was all that it was about but the court expanded the scope of the case and decided that the people's government could no longer regulate corporate spending on elections, which it had done for 100 years previous.
 
Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
They have some form of censorship all over the world. Some more extensive, some less but it is censorship. Even in Europe there are subjects one cannot express any opinion about without facing imprisonment. It seems like those places would be suitable for you.

That makes zero sense.
If you prefer censorship it does make sense.
? He specifically stated that he did not agree with censorship.
 
The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.

Except that wasnt illegal...What was illegal was the fine Trump paid for bribing Bondi in Florida to drop his case.
 
Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
They have some form of censorship all over the world. Some more extensive, some less but it is censorship. Even in Europe there are subjects one cannot express any opinion about without facing imprisonment. It seems like those places would be suitable for you.

That makes zero sense.
Opps... my mistake... I could delete the posts but I leave them to show that it was my mistake, Some of us take responsibility for our mistakes.
 
The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.

Except that wasnt illegal...What was illegal was the fine Trump paid for bribing Bondi in Florida to drop his case.

I am not voting for Trump so your silly immature school yard tactic of saying that Crooked Hillary isn't guilty because somebody is also guilty doesn't work.

It is amazing that you Moon Bats don't understand that using a government position to get filthy rich by selling government influence and setting up a scam charity foundation to launder the money is wrong. Very wrong.

Of course you Moon Bats didn't see anything wrong with her lying about Benghazi or compromising national security

No wonder you Moon Bats are going to be idiots and vote for this Crooked Hillary scumbag. You are confused about a great many things.
 
The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.


Republicans have benefited tremendously from this ruling, they wanted it, fought for it and cheered when it went through. Your party built this corruption all by itself over the objections of practically every democrat/liberal out there.
 
From Salon 16 September 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian this week published 1,500 previously unreleased emails and financial documents leaked from a now-halted investigation into alleged campaign finance violations by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his allies. ...The leaked documents confirm campaign finance reformers’ worst suspicions about political “dark money” and the legal rulings that unleashed it into our elections. And they prove the assumptions underlying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision were incredibly naïve.

That 2010 decision allowed corporate entities to spend unlimited amounts on elections, helping to unleash a tide of “dark money” — election spending by groups that don’t publicly disclose their donors.

In Citizens United, the justices predicted that unlimited corporate spending wouldn’t “corrupt” politicians because it would be totally independent of candidates. But the Wisconsin documents show how many “independent” expenditures are actually controlled behind-the-scenes by candidates’ campaigns.

And, although the court in Citizens United said campaign finance disclosure laws would provide citizens with all the information necessary to “see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests,” these documents demonstrate that citizens are routinely left in the dark about who is bankrolling their representatives, thanks to corporations and wealthy donors secretly funneling their contributions through phony “social welfare” groups which disguise the identities of their funders.

Most importantly these documents show “dark money” is really only “dark” when it comes to the public’s knowledge. The politicians who benefit from undisclosed election spending know exactly where their financial support is coming from.
----------------------------------------------------------

article

Did I miss where it says anything illegal happened? Unlike with Hillary:

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors
 
The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.


Republicans have benefited tremendously from this ruling, they wanted it, fought for it and cheered when it went through. Your party built this corruption all by itself over the objections of practically every democrat/liberal out there.

And dems get zero corporate money, right?
 
From Salon 16 September 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian this week published 1,500 previously unreleased emails and financial documents leaked from a now-halted investigation into alleged campaign finance violations by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his allies. ...The leaked documents confirm campaign finance reformers’ worst suspicions about political “dark money” and the legal rulings that unleashed it into our elections. And they prove the assumptions underlying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision were incredibly naïve.

That 2010 decision allowed corporate entities to spend unlimited amounts on elections, helping to unleash a tide of “dark money” — election spending by groups that don’t publicly disclose their donors.

In Citizens United, the justices predicted that unlimited corporate spending wouldn’t “corrupt” politicians because it would be totally independent of candidates. But the Wisconsin documents show how many “independent” expenditures are actually controlled behind-the-scenes by candidates’ campaigns.

And, although the court in Citizens United said campaign finance disclosure laws would provide citizens with all the information necessary to “see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests,” these documents demonstrate that citizens are routinely left in the dark about who is bankrolling their representatives, thanks to corporations and wealthy donors secretly funneling their contributions through phony “social welfare” groups which disguise the identities of their funders.

Most importantly these documents show “dark money” is really only “dark” when it comes to the public’s knowledge. The politicians who benefit from undisclosed election spending know exactly where their financial support is coming from.
----------------------------------------------------------

article

Did I miss where it says anything illegal happened? Unlike with Hillary:

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors
What you missed is the result of making something that is poison for democracy legal.
 

Forum List

Back
Top