Citizens United

[TNHarley]

I want to discuss "Citizens United"
I am not very familiar with this. I am always hearing people screaming about it sucking so bad..
Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security
Granted, like I said, IDK much about it.
Hoping this will fill me in

It's basically giving corporations more power than they should have in our democracy.

Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable | The Huffington Post

He went to the Washington headquarters of the conservative activist group Citizens United, where Bannon was then based, for a chat.

I understand what it is now. **** Citizens United.

 

[The Original Tree]

I want to discuss "Citizens United"
I am not very familiar with this. I am always hearing people screaming about it sucking so bad..
Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security
Granted, like I said, IDK much about it.
Hoping this will fill me in

Citizens United case was actually started by Michael Moore who made Fahrenheit 911 to slam Bush during the election.

Moore's film was a Violation of Campaign Finance Law, but the court has leaned Middle to Left in the last 20 years, and has been engaging in judicial activism, so instead of adjudicating and ruling properly, they Legislated from The Bench and allowed Corporate Campaign Films to exist despite the fact they are illegal.

So along comes Citizen United a bit later, and they try to make their film based on the Left-Middle leaning court's decision on The Moore Film, and so what does the court do? They try to cover up the fact they ruled incorrectly and in favor of Lefty in the Michael Moore film, and with prejudice applied the original Campaign Finance Law to The Citizen United Film in what amounted to a reversal of their first decision, and disallowed the Citizen United film.

Well, that too was an incorrect ruling, so Citizen's United naturally were going to appeal it on the grounds of the Fahrenheit 911 ruling which was Judicial Activism Flying in the face of Campaign Finance Laws.

Caught with Egg on their face, The Court had to make another Incorrect Ruling and allow the film. And that is why we have Citizen's United. If they had ruled and correctly applied the law in the Moore case in the first place, they would not have had to issue a second incorrect ruling to cover their first incorrect ruling.

And now we have Citizen's United, thanks to Michael Moore.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security

Rofl....They make bribes sound so "unbribey"

 

[Uncensored2008]

I want to discuss "Citizens United"
I am not very familiar with this. I am always hearing people screaming about it sucking so bad..
Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security
Granted, like I said, IDK much about it.
Hoping this will fill me in

It's basically giving corporations more power than they should have in our democracy.

Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable | The Huffington Post

He went to the Washington headquarters of the conservative activist group Citizens United, where Bannon was then based, for a chat.

Ignorant bullshit, and your link is just general demagoguery unrelated to the subject at hand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security

Rofl....They make bribes sound so "unbribey"

What "bribes," racist boi?

 

[TNHarley]

Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security

Rofl....They make bribes sound so "unbribey"

Lol,i cant believe I said that shit.
Fuckin sealybobo and his necrophilia!

 

[sealybobo]

I want to discuss "Citizens United"
I am not very familiar with this. I am always hearing people screaming about it sucking so bad..
Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security
Granted, like I said, IDK much about it.
Hoping this will fill me in

Citizens United case was actually started by Michael Moore who made Fahrenheit 911 to slam Bush during the election.

Moore's film was a Violation of Campaign Finance Law, but the court has leaned Middle to Left in the last 20 years, so instead of adjudicating and ruling properly, they Legislated from The Bench and allowed Corporate Campaign Films to exist despite the fact they are illegal.

So along comes Citizen United, and they try to make their film based on the Left-Middle leaning court's decision on The Moore Film, and so what does the court do? They try to cover up the fact they ruled incorrectly and in favor of Lefty in the Michael Moore film, and with prejudice applied the original Campaign Finance Law to The Citizen United Film in what amounted to a reversal of their first decision.

Well, that too was an incorrect ruling, so Citizen's United naturally were going to appeal it on the grounds of the Fahrenheit 911 ruling which was Judicial Activism Flying in the face of Campaign Finance Laws.

Caught with Egg on their face, The Court had to make another Incorrect Ruling and allow the film. And that is why we have Citizen's United. If they had ruled and correctly applied the law in the Moore case in the first place, they would not have had to issue a second incorrect ruling to cover their first incorrect ruling.

And now we have Citizen's United.

The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.

My family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party.
I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now, I simply concede the point. We expect a return on our investment
Betsy DeVos

 

[The Original Tree]

I want to discuss "Citizens United"
I am not very familiar with this. I am always hearing people screaming about it sucking so bad..
Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security
Granted, like I said, IDK much about it.
Hoping this will fill me in

It's basically giving corporations more power than they should have in our democracy.

Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable | The Huffington Post

He went to the Washington headquarters of the conservative activist group Citizens United, where Bannon was then based, for a chat.

I understand what it is now. **** Citizens United.

You can thank Michael Moore and an Activist Court who has Legislated From The Bench for the last 20 years for The Citizen United Ruling.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security

Rofl....They make bribes sound so "unbribey"

What "bribes," racist boi?

None, because you cant identify what bribes are so nothing is one cry baby

 

[Uncensored2008]

FEC v. Citizens United, what is it?

According to the Soros Army propagandists, Citizens United (CU) made corporations people and let them take over our elections.

Rarely is anything coming from the Soros press true, and this is no exception.

Citizens United is a group of people who pooled together resources to try and let their political voice be heard.This is a Political Action Committee, or PAC. In this case, the PAC made a movie, "Hillary, The Movie" which exposed much of the corruption and criminality of Hillary Clinton. The democratic party brought an injunction to censor the movie based on the McCain - Feingold act, which outlawed political speech by those outside of the press. The party argued that the Movie was direct advocacy by a corporate entity, based on the fact that CU was registered as a 501.3 C corporation. Though not a for profit enterprise, the party argued to the court that the political message must be censored under McCain - Feingold, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).

The lower court sided with the party and banned the movie along with any advertising for the movie. CU appealed, and the Federal Election Commission took over for the party as the plaintiff. CU pointed out that restrictions of speech, and particularly political speech is expressly unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. The FEC acting on behalf of the party argued that the SCOTUS had upheld the constitutionality of outlawing political speech under McConnell v. FEC

McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination

McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination

So the case went to the SCOTUS. CU again argued that the 1st Amendment expressly protects the freedom of speech. The FEC on behalf of the party argued that speech may be outlawed if it interfered with elections by introducing big money. CU pointed out that Michael Moore had released his hit piece of George Bush, "Fahrenheit 9/11" prior to the 2004 presidential election, and that the Movie was essentially the same act.

The court ruled in a 5-4 split, along ideological lines the the 1st Amendment should be preserved and that freedom of speech would remain a legal precedent in America, dealing a sever blow to the FEC and the party.

Oh, Corporations were deemed legal entities (ie people) under Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific back in 1886.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I want to discuss "Citizens United"
I am not very familiar with this. I am always hearing people screaming about it sucking so bad..
Seems to me it is a good thing. For example : dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security
Granted, like I said, IDK much about it.
Hoping this will fill me in

It's basically giving corporations more power than they should have in our democracy.

Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable | The Huffington Post

He went to the Washington headquarters of the conservative activist group Citizens United, where Bannon was then based, for a chat.

I understand what it is now. **** Citizens United.

You can thank Michael Moore and an Activist Court who has Legislated From The Bench for the last 20 years for The Citizen United Ruling.

Moore was not subjected to the same laws as CU, but that would be the fault/crime of the FEC, which was carrying water for the party at that time; not Moore.

 

[sealybobo]

FEC v. Citizens United, what is it?

According to the Soros Army propagandists, Citizens United (CU) made corporations people and let them take over our elections.

Rarely is anything coming from the Soros press true, and this is no exception.

Citizens United is a group of people who pooled together resources to try and let their political voice be heard.This is a Political Action Committee, or PAC. In this case, the PAC made a movie, "Hillary, The Movie" which exposed much of the corruption and criminality of Hillary Clinton. The democratic party brought an injunction to censor the movie based on the McCain - Feingold act, which outlawed political speech by those outside of the press. The party argued that the Movie was direct advocacy by a corporate entity, based on the fact that CU was registered as a 501.3 C corporation. Though not a for profit enterprise, the party argued to the court that the political message must be censored under McCain - Feingold, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).

The lower court sided with the party and banned the movie along with any advertising for the movie. CU appealed, and the Federal Election Commission took over for the party as the plaintiff. CU pointed out that restrictions of speech, and particularly political speech is expressly unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. The FEC acting on behalf of the party argued that the SCOTUS had upheld the constitutionality of outlawing political speech under McConnell v. FEC

McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination

McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination

So the case went to the SCOTUS. CU again argued that the 1st Amendment expressly protects the freedom of speech. The FEC on behalf of the party argued that speech may be outlawed if it interfered with elections by introducing big money. CU pointed out that Michael Moore had released his hit piece of George Bush, "Fahrenheit 9/11" prior to the 2004 presidential election, and that the Movie was essentially the same act.

The court ruled in a 5-4 split, along ideological lines the the 1st Amendment should be preserved and that freedom of speech would remain a legal precedent in America, dealing a sever blow to the FEC and the party.

Oh, Corporations were deemed legal entities (ie people) under Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific back in 1886.

Yea. It's the rich having more influence than they should.

Even most Republican voters admit citizens united sucks. So why don't you? Are you rich or just a lap dog?