Citizens United

[midcan5]

Robert's Court - Citizens United

Did the Citizens United decision accord with the American Constitution? If yes, how, if no, how?

Do you think Citizens United poses any threat to our democratic system?

Do you think it will ever be reversed and why?

What do you think are the ramifications of this decision?


(On the 4th anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United vs. FEC )

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, because it upheld the 1st Amendment. You remember the 1st Amendment, don't you?

Is free speech a threat to the government? Always, why do you think tyrants always eliminate it first?

Why would anyone want it reversed? Oh, that s right, tyranny.

it prevents tyranny, which is good.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. CHECKS on Corporations and Personhood
If any COLLECTIVE entity, whether a business corporation, church/religious group, Political Party, nonprofit or even pseduo-governmental nonprofit such as Housing Authorities or Public Schools/Boards,

claims rights under CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

They should also be held to the same checks and balances, and Bill of Rights as govt is required to follow, including providing a system of due process to redress grievances
from individuals. Otherwise, these Corporations having personhood as individuals
have no natural check; but end up with more power collectively than an individual.

We have the Bill of Rights to prevent Govt from abusing collective power, authority and resources. The same or similar should be required of Corporations when applying for licenses to register and operate through the state, especially if they cross state lines. They should be held to equal Constitutional standards to prevent abuses.

2. CONFLICTS of interest in elections or legislation
Regardless which groups or people give or get money for what elections,
ALL LAWS should be based on consent and representation of the people.

NOT based on majority rule that favors partisan or private interests.
if we had conflict resolution and consensus required on all such contested policies,
where a conflict of interest is objected to,
we could prevent t his from being a problem.
it would also deter this practice of trying to pay politicians by
funding elections or campaigns or lobbying.

All decisions being made by consensus would require
proper judgment, agreement and well crafted writing
that reflects good working policies so all people and parties support them.
Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously
by Congress in 1980. http://www.ethics-commission.net
why aren't all laws written this well and passed by consensus so there is no conflict of interest or partisan bias?

 

[simo5656]

I hope so

 

[simo5656]

There is a great book on this called the Gangs Of America.

 

[simo5656]

I strongly recommend it.

 

[midcan5]

Yes, because it upheld the 1st Amendment. You remember the 1st Amendment, don't you?

Is free speech a threat to the government? Always, why do you think tyrants always eliminate it first....

So then we can put corporations in jail should they step outside the bounds of our laws? Sure thing. LOL It shows the naivete of the right wing corporate puppets that assume government bad and corporations as fighters of tyranny. One has to wonder how corporations fight tyranny when profit is the primary motive and goal. But wingnuts believe all sort of nonsense as eighty years of propaganda has addled their minds.

"But if the poor are dependent on the state, so, too, are America’s rich. The extraordinary accumulation of wealth enjoyed by the socioeconomic elite — in 2007, the richest 1 percent of Americans accounted for about 24 percent of all income — simply wouldn’t be possible if the United States weren’t organized as it is. Just about every aspect of America’s economic and legal infrastructure — the laissez-faire governance of the markets; a convoluted tax structure that has hedge fund managers paying less than their office cleaners; the promise of state intervention when banks go belly-up; the legal protections afforded to corporations as if they were people; the enormous subsidies given to corporations (in total, about 50 percent more than social services spending); electoral funding practices that allow the wealthy to buy influence in government — allows the rich to stay rich and get richer. In primitive societies, people can accumulate only as much stuff as they can physically gather and hold on to. It’s only in “advanced” societies that the state provides the means to socioeconomic domination by a tiny minority. “The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other,” the writer John Berger said about the 20th century, though he might equally have said it of this one: “It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich."" Amia Srinivasan
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/dependents-of-the-state/


"Corporate executives contend that they are forced to relocate their operations to low-wage havens to remain competitive. In other words, their domestic workers earn too much. Never mind that manufacturing wages are lower in the United Stares than in a dozen other developed countries.

Thanks to the rules, many of which are written by corporations, a company can pull up stakes and use cheap foreign labor to make the same product it once did in America. It no longer has to meet environmental standards. It no longer has to abide by U.S. labor laws. It no longer has to pay a decent wage. Then the company can ship the product back to the United States where, courtesy of the rules, it will pay little if any duty. How can American workers hope to compete against that? They can't." Quote from p24 'Assault on the Middle Class' in 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' authors, Barlett and Steele.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, because it upheld the 1st Amendment. You remember the 1st Amendment, don't you?

Is free speech a threat to the government? Always, why do you think tyrants always eliminate it first....

So then we can put corporations in jail should they step outside the bounds of our laws? Sure thing. LOL It shows the naivete of the right wing corporate puppets that assume government bad and corporations as fighters of tyranny. One has to wonder how corporations fight tyranny when profit is the primary motive and goal. But wingnuts believe all sort of nonsense as eighty years of propaganda has addled their minds. [/quote]

This is what happens when you try to post without copy and pasting something from someone else, you show how stupid you are.

First, there is a long history of holding corporations criminally liable for breaking the law.

Second, there isn't a lawyer in this country, and that includes the asshole in the White House, that doesn't think corporations have Constitutional rights, up to, and including, freedom of speech. If they didn't the New York Times wouldn't exist.

Third, tyranny doesn't come from speaking up against the government, it comes from the government suppressing speech.

As usual, everything you actually copy and paste has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make, so I will ignore it.