Citizens United (Worst bill in American History?)

[TakeAStepBack]

Buy elections...


The ruling is in regard to electioneering advertisements, not on being able to "buy elections". Why do liberals insist on misrepresenting what the ruling actually is? Oh, that's right, they can't help it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Buy elections...


The ruling is in regard to electioneering advertisements, not on being able to "buy elections". Why do liberals insist on misrepresenting what the ruling actually is? Oh, that's right, they can't help it.

Takeastep is trying really hard to pretend that once they spend a ton of money then nothing happens after that. He hopes that his laughing smileys wont give away his lack of looking ahead at possible outcomes.

 

[RKMBrown]

Buy elections...


The ruling is in regard to electioneering advertisements, not on being able to "buy elections". Why do liberals insist on misrepresenting what the ruling actually is? Oh, that's right, they can't help it.

Takeastep is trying really hard to pretend that once they spend a ton of money then nothing happens after that. He hopes that his laughing smileys wont give away his lack of looking ahead at possible outcomes.

That's right CC. If we let anyone live they might affect an election. Ok fine, kill everyone that will ensure that no one is allowed to affect an election.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Buy elections...


The ruling is in regard to electioneering advertisements, not on being able to "buy elections". Why do liberals insist on misrepresenting what the ruling actually is? Oh, that's right, they can't help it.

Takeastep is trying really hard to pretend that once they spend a ton of money then nothing happens after that. He hopes that his laughing smileys wont give away his lack of looking ahead at possible outcomes.

I do not have to try really hard. You fuckin' dolts were crying that republican donors were going to buy elections after this ruling then Obama got elected twice. You're fuckin' stupid. You just refuse to admit it because that would make you intellectually honest and destroy your retarded liberal view. So you must continue to play repeater instead of facing reality.

 

[g5000]

Buy elections...


The ruling is in regard to electioneering advertisements, not on being able to "buy elections". Why do liberals insist on misrepresenting what the ruling actually is? Oh, that's right, they can't help it.

Takeastep is trying really hard to pretend that once they spend a ton of money then nothing happens after that. He hopes that his laughing smileys wont give away his lack of looking ahead at possible outcomes.

You are obviously implying that something DOES happen after a labor union or conservative PAC spends a lot of money on ads. What would that be?

Could it be that what happens is that a gazillion gullible rubes fall for everything they hear in those ads which confirm their own personal biases and that they don't fact check the claims in those ads?

Do you think you can make a law which would prevent rubes from drinking the piss of their masters?

Think carefully. Look how many piss drinkers there are just on this forum alone. What law would you write to make them stop being so fucking stupid?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Buy elections...


The ruling is in regard to electioneering advertisements, not on being able to "buy elections". Why do liberals insist on misrepresenting what the ruling actually is? Oh, that's right, they can't help it.

Takeastep is trying really hard to pretend that once they spend a ton of money then nothing happens after that. He hopes that his laughing smileys wont give away his lack of looking ahead at possible outcomes.

That's right CC. If we let anyone live they might affect an election. Ok fine, kill everyone that will ensure that no one is allowed to affect an election.

Thats what I'm saying Bro! Kill everyone THEN have an election

 

[ClosedCaption]

Buy elections...


The ruling is in regard to electioneering advertisements, not on being able to "buy elections". Why do liberals insist on misrepresenting what the ruling actually is? Oh, that's right, they can't help it.

Takeastep is trying really hard to pretend that once they spend a ton of money then nothing happens after that. He hopes that his laughing smileys wont give away his lack of looking ahead at possible outcomes.

I do not have to try really hard. You fuckin' dolts were crying that republican donors were going to buy elections after this ruling then Obama got elected twice. You're fuckin' stupid. You just refuse to admit it because that would make you intellectually honest and destroy your retarded liberal view. So you must continue to play repeater instead of facing reality.

And obviously that means that elections cant be bought because someone said something once and it didnt happen. Thats the way I find out the truth about things. I listen to people on message boards and make weird logical leaps that I cannot explain

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people.

Nope. It doesn't. That is a meme invented by ignorant liberals.

Here's a crazy idea. Read the decision for yourself!

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

Why don't you read the law for yourself?


§ 1-201. General Definitions. | UCC - Uniform Commercial Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

Also, have you contemplated your post in the Occupy Wall Street thread?

 

[RKMBrown]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

It wasn't a "bill".

It was a court decision.

It may "sound' trivial but it's not.

It REVERSES nearly 100 years of legislation crafted carefully to make sure that money does not have a corrupting influence on politics.

In other words, this is legislation from a part of the government that isn't supposed to be involved in legislation.

These are justices and they are "supposed" to be blind to partisan politics.

This decision (and a few others) blew that notion away.

Oh..and it was a profoundly bad decision.

ROFL 100years of legislation. Try again. Clue: you are orders of magnitude off.

 

[RKMBrown]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Corporations in and of themselves are nothing more than a contract, a piece of paper, a group of individuals.

What other types of groups do you want to ban from the right to free speech? Family groups? Should I be banned from free speech if I have a family? Or only banned from free speech if I am associated with a corporation? What about other types of groups? Unions? Committees? What types of groups do you want to ban from free speech?

Owners of corporations are allowed to spend their money, yes or no?

Free speech is one thing.

Corrupting the political process is another thing entirely.

Money is not speech.

Speech is corrupting the political process? ROFL Spending money to exercise one's first amendment rights, such as by buying advertising was made illegal by the bill thrown out by CU. Clearly this was a violation of the first amendment. The first amendment does not state you have the right to some limited amount of speech based on fairness to the folks that don't have money to buy advertising. The SCOTUS was correct.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Buy elections...


The ruling is in regard to electioneering advertisements, not on being able to "buy elections". Why do liberals insist on misrepresenting what the ruling actually is? Oh, that's right, they can't help it.

Takeastep is trying really hard to pretend that once they spend a ton of money then nothing happens after that. He hopes that his laughing smileys wont give away his lack of looking ahead at possible outcomes.

You are obviously implying that something DOES happen after a labor union or conservative PAC spends a lot of money on ads. What would that be?

Influencing the masses and solidifying a favor or two

Could it be that what happens is that a gazillion gullible rubes fall for everything they hear in those ads which confirm their own personal biases and that they don't fact check the claims in those ads?

Yep and the aforementioned favors

Do you think you can make a law which would prevent rubes from drinking the piss of their masters?

No, piss drinkers drink piss. I want the amount of piss to be lessened. So they can sip the piss instead of do keg stands of piss

Think carefully. Look how many piss drinkers there are just on this forum alone. What law would you write to make them stop being so fucking stupid?

None...they will always be stupid. I dont want corporations to be able to have more quote unquote "freedom" than the masses. When money equals freedom then a lot of money must mean (Pick one 1. more or 2. Less) Freedom and less money must mean (Pick one 1. more or 2. less) freedom

 

[g5000]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people.

Nope. It doesn't. That is a meme invented by ignorant liberals.

Here's a crazy idea. Read the decision for yourself!

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

Why don't you read the law for yourself?

I will speak slowly.

Read. Citizens...United...v...FEC.

Then come back here with a quote from that decision which says "Corporations are people".

Thanks.

 

[g5000]

I dont want corporations to be able to have more quote unquote "freedom" than the masses.

I would like to know what is preventing you from joining Greenpeace or the NRA or whatever powerful lobby you prefer.

Serious question. Who is keeping you from exercising your freedom of association so your voice can be amplified like everyone else's?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I dont want corporations to be able to have more quote unquote "freedom" than the masses.

I would like to know what is preventing you from joining Greenpeace or the NRA or whatever powerful lobby you prefer.

Serious question. Who is keeping you from exercising your freedom of association so your voice can be amplified like everyone else's?

Associating? No one I can hang with who I want. I'm talking about money influencing politics.

Whats preventing me from influencing politics? Bags and bags of money for starters

 

[g5000]

Takeastep is trying really hard to pretend that once they spend a ton of money then nothing happens after that. He hopes that his laughing smileys wont give away his lack of looking ahead at possible outcomes.

I do not have to try really hard. You fuckin' dolts were crying that republican donors were going to buy elections after this ruling then Obama got elected twice. You're fuckin' stupid. You just refuse to admit it because that would make you intellectually honest and destroy your retarded liberal view. So you must continue to play repeater instead of facing reality.

And obviously that means that elections cant be bought because someone said something once and it didnt happen. Thats the way I find out the truth about things. I listen to people on message boards and make weird logical leaps that I cannot explain

You seem to be under the impression that all the rules that were in place before Citizens United were having some beneficial effect which has since disappeared.

That is an interesting fantasy considering the re-election rates of federal incumbents has been unchanged since at least the 1970s (that's as far back as I can find records for), despite all the "reforms" and court decisions enacted over that period of time.

Before Citizens United, a Representative had a 98 percent chance of re-election if they decided to run again. So what horrible effect on that re-election rate has Citizens United had?

 

[RKMBrown]

Takeastep is trying really hard to pretend that once they spend a ton of money then nothing happens after that. He hopes that his laughing smileys wont give away his lack of looking ahead at possible outcomes.

I do not have to try really hard. You fuckin' dolts were crying that republican donors were going to buy elections after this ruling then Obama got elected twice. You're fuckin' stupid. You just refuse to admit it because that would make you intellectually honest and destroy your retarded liberal view. So you must continue to play repeater instead of facing reality.

And obviously that means that elections cant be bought because someone said something once and it didnt happen. Thats the way I find out the truth about things. I listen to people on message boards and make weird logical leaps that I cannot explain

Of course elections can be bought. For example, offering to force the evil rich to pay for food, gas, utilities, rent, and health care for 50 million Americans so those people don't ever have to work for such things another day in their life.

 

[g5000]

https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

Senate races still overwhelmingly favor the incumbent, but not by as reliable a margin as House races. Big swings in the national mood can sometimes topple long time office-holders, as happened with the Reagan revolution in 1980. Even so, years like that are an exception.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I do not have to try really hard. You fuckin' dolts were crying that republican donors were going to buy elections after this ruling then Obama got elected twice. You're fuckin' stupid. You just refuse to admit it because that would make you intellectually honest and destroy your retarded liberal view. So you must continue to play repeater instead of facing reality.

And obviously that means that elections cant be bought because someone said something once and it didnt happen. Thats the way I find out the truth about things. I listen to people on message boards and make weird logical leaps that I cannot explain

You seem to be under the impression that all the rules that were in place before Citizens United were having some beneficial effect which has since disappeared.

No, I'm pretty clear. More money in politics the worst for the Citizens. I mean its a pretty simple idea.

That is an interesting fantasy considering the re-election rates of federal incumbents has been unchanged since at least the 1970s (that's as far back as I can find records for), despite all the "reforms" and court decisions enacted over that period of time.

That would be an interesting fantasy if I ever thought that to be true. I dont.

Before Citizens United, a Representative had a 98 percent chance of re-election if they decided to run again. So what horrible effect on that re-election rate has Citizens United had?

Oh I get you. Because something is bad then adding more bad onto it shouldnt be viewed as "more bad". Its like Spray painting a wrecked car. The spray paint doesnt unwreck the car so its all good.

Except its not....you're still spray painting the car

 

[g5000]

As you can see from my previous post, Citizens United will have no effect on election outcomes. All it will accomplish is drive up the cost of political ads, making it a boon to those who sell air time.

You know what would actually reform elections?

1) Doing something about the outrageous gerrymandering of Congressional districts.

2) Ban all tax expenditures. If a Congresscritter is not allowed to put a carve-out in the tax laws for his buddies, they will have no incentive to give him campaign cash for doing so.

3) Restore states rights. Congress has too much power over regulations. It is a lot easier for a special interest to capture one federal legislature than it is to capture 50 state legislatures. We should also repeal the 17th amendment. To understand why, read your federal laws. You will be amazed how many federal pre-emptions of state laws there are in them. Do you think if a Senator was elected by his state's legislature he would dare put a federal pre-emption in any laws he sponsored? Hell no!

 

[OKTexas]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

yep. It allows them to buy elections BUT not go to jail when caught committing fraud on a massive scale. They simply get a slap on the wrist (paltry fine) Thanks Repubs

Would an example of that be the mulatto messiah raising nearly a billion dollars telling people if you like your policy or doctor you can keep them? That kind of massive fraud? Thanks commies.