Vermont becomes first state to call for a Citizens United Resolution

[AntiParty]

This post should be proof to everyone that political parties create bias behaviors.

Ending Citizens United should be a no brainer, it's as complicated as 1+1=2.

Yet, if you introduce party/media bias to it, you will see an onslaught of pushover bias Americans justifying it. And look at the stance they take, mostly insults and no subject at all.

THIS is why I am anti-party.

 

[Avatar4321]

We did not, SCOTUS overturned the will of the people as passed in Congress.

That's kind of the Supreme Court's job when the will of the People violates that little contract Congress is supposed to abide by (aka the Constitution). Want to amend the Constitution, be my guest, but it means something, at least to some of us.

I agree with the principle. SCOTUS got it wrong. Soon enough justices will overturn it for good.

So why did they get it wrong when they struck down a law that outlawed speech criticizing a politician 60 days before an election?

 

[RKMBrown]

This post should be proof to everyone that political parties create bias behaviors.

Ending Citizens United should be a no brainer, it's as complicated as 1+1=2.

Yet, if you introduce party/media bias to it, you will see an onslaught of pushover bias Americans justifying it. And look at the stance they take, mostly insults and no subject at all.

THIS is why I am anti-party.

Well to be fair the lib/rino version of the Constitution has no liberty other than the liberty to put boots on everyone's necks in the name of security and entitlements.

 

[Avatar4321]

This post should be proof to everyone that political parties create bias behaviors.

Ending Citizens United should be a no brainer, it's as complicated as 1+1=2.

Yet, if you introduce party/media bias to it, you will see an onslaught of pushover bias Americans justifying it. And look at the stance they take, mostly insults and no subject at all.

THIS is why I am anti-party.

Well, if it's a no brainer, that's probably why those of us who actually read the decision and thought about it disagree with what someone with no brain would do.

 

[Care4all]

The Dissent:

Justice Stevens penned a forceful dissent:
“Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” (6)
“The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” (37)
“At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” (90)

 

[RKMBrown]

The Dissent:

Justice Stevens penned a forceful dissent:
“Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” (6)
“The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” (37)
“At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” (90)

Iow the dissent feels you have no rights as an individual after you join a group of individuals. Sounds asinine if you ask me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quote this in your tweet.

Corporations are not people. Corporations are a business ran by a group of people who generally aren't all in one party. Generally the focus of this group is profit, not politics. It's illegal to force someone to vote against their will. The owner of a Corporation is not allowed by law to force it's employee's to contribute or vote for a specific party.

Is that a no?



You believe that people in groups have no rights, but want to use the theory of collective rights to deny rights to individuals. You are right, that is simple, even if it proves that you are a ******* idiot.

But if you don't agree with me then you haven't done enough research to see that groups of people are manipulating the system for profit. <----This should be Politics 101 ever since the great depression. Clearly the lesson wasn't learned because we are doing the exact same scenario all over again.

Let me see if I understand your position.

Since the great depression government has stuck its fingers into everything, increasing its power at the expense of liberty, and you think the solution to this is to give the government more power.

Makes sense, if you have no brains.

It's like talking to a 4 year old....

Show me one Corporation that is a group of people who all align with the way they vote. Is Verison all Democratic? Every employee? Is GE all Republican? Is Boeing all Tea Party? Every single employee?

Either these Corporations are forcing their employee's to vote/donate a certain way, against the law, or they are using their corporate funding so that the most profitable PERSON, the owner, can donate to a party.

I'm curious why this is complicated for you to comprehend.

CITIZENS UNITED is an attack on the Constitution. Not the fight against it!

Sigh, it is like talking to a stupid ******* asshole that is afraid of his shadow.

Citizens United was a small group of friends that wanted to make a movie about Hillary Clinton. In order to do this they were required to form a corporation by federal law. They all had the same political goals, and all voted against Hillary.

Want to tell me again how smart and well informed you are?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This post should be proof to everyone that political parties create bias behaviors.

Ending Citizens United should be a no brainer, it's as complicated as 1+1=2.

Yet, if you introduce party/media bias to it, you will see an onslaught of pushover bias Americans justifying it. And look at the stance they take, mostly insults and no subject at all.

THIS is why I am anti-party.

All that post proves is that anti party is a stupid ******* asshole who is afraid of freedom.

 

[Care4all]

The Dissent:

Justice Stevens penned a forceful dissent:
&#8220;Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.&#8221; (6)
&#8220;The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.&#8221; (37)
&#8220;At bottom, the Court&#8217;s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.&#8221; (90)

Iow the dissent feels you have no rights as an individual after you join a group of individuals. Sounds asinine if you ask me.

so these 5 justices changed the Constitution all on their own and added Corporations to be included in the wording of the first amendment, and you are ok with that....? I'm not....it's a piss poor precedent that they have set....our founders and other great presidents are turning in their graves on this discussion, guaranteed!!!!!

 

[Silhouette]

Does that whole "getting money out of politics" thing apply to all money going to money going to politicians, or just big business? Do Unions, Soros & Bloomberg, and Hollywood fundraisers all get shut down, or does this apply solely to the Koch Brothers?

People can give money, but make it limited and 100% visible. Citizen's United is not only unfair, it opens a backdoor to terrorists interfering with the core internal affairs of this country: the vote. Now, with Citizen's United, a terrorist cell with oil money can infiltrate using their stockholding in major US companies and have unlimited influence upon citizens [real ones] unawares of their nefarious ties.

They become not just de facto citizens without naturalization or taking the Oath, they become Supercitizens whose influence cannot be challenged.

The founding fathers would put every supreme court justice who voted for this on the gallows pole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Dissent:

Justice Stevens penned a forceful dissent:
“Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” (6)
“The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” (37)
“At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” (90)

Iow the dissent feels you have no rights as an individual after you join a group of individuals. Sounds asinine if you ask me.

Chuckle. Write something makes sense, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"CITIZENS UNITED is an attack on the Constitution. Not the fight against it!"

Quantam writes, "Sigh, it is like talking to a stupid ******* asshole that is afraid of his shadow.

Citizens United was a small group of friends that wanted to make a movie about Hillary Clinton. In order to do this they were required to form a corporation by federal law. They all had the same political goals, and all voted against Hillary.

Want to tell me again how smart and well informed you are?

QWB describes himself well, and the case was to overbalance the voting process in the favor of big money and corporatism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does that whole "getting money out of politics" thing apply to all money going to money going to politicians, or just big business? Do Unions, Soros & Bloomberg, and Hollywood fundraisers all get shut down, or does this apply solely to the Koch Brothers?

People can give money, but make it limited and 100% visible. Citizen's United is not only unfair, it opens a backdoor to terrorists interfering with the core internal affairs of this country: the vote. Now, with Citizen's United, a terrorist cell with oil money can infiltrate using their stockholding in major US companies and have unlimited influence upon citizens [real ones] unawares of their nefarious ties.

They become not just de facto citizens without naturalization or taking the Oath, they become Supercitizens whose influence cannot be challenged.

The founding fathers would put every supreme court justice who voted for this on the gallows pole.

The East India Tea Company's influence on the British Government is exactly the type of super citizenry that Citizen endorses.

 

[Steven_R]

Why is it perfectly okay to lobby and bribe public officials, I mean contribute to their reelection campaigns, so long as the "contributor" is a non-profit or labor union or individual, but it's just plain unethical if the money comes from a corporation?

If you want to get money out of elections, I'll all for it, but until then what's good for the goose is good for the gander and at least with Citizens United the money is above board.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is it perfectly okay to lobby and bribe public officials, I mean contribute to their reelection campaigns, so long as the "contributor" is a non-profit or labor union or individual, but it's just plain unethical if the money comes from a corporation?

If you want to get money out of elections, I'll all for it, but until then what's good for the goose is good for the gander and at least with Citizens United the money is above board.

No, it is not. The law allows all the others to do it as well. That's the problem.

 

[Steven_R]

But that's the point. It's perfectly okay for everyone except corporations to buy the politicians because they are non-profits, but if a corporation does it, we're doomed.

Either the law says everyone can get the best politics and laws money can buy, or the law has to say no one can write a check. Half measures and saying it's okay for this group but not for that group just doesn't fly.

 

[Silhouette]

Why is it perfectly okay to lobby and bribe public officials, I mean contribute to their reelection campaigns, so long as the "contributor" is a non-profit or labor union or individual, but it's just plain unethical if the money comes from a corporation?

If you want to get money out of elections, I'll all for it, but until then what's good for the goose is good for the gander and at least with Citizens United the money is above board.

I'm all for limits across the board.

My main problem with Citizen's United is the backdoor to foreign influence in US internal affairs [the vote]. Influence over the vote is more powerful than the individual vote itself. Ergo, ONLY US citizens may participate in the influence over voting.

Abetting any other set of conditions allowing foreigners to influence US political affairs is treason, plain and simple.

People can contribute but not "corporate people" in an unlimited way. And it is precisely because of foreign stockholding; some of which is major, from islamic extremist groups and their funders [Saudi Arabia].

So:

1. Limited campaign contributions, allowing poorer folk to compete with rich corporations.

2. Complete transparency on who is contributing to the ads.

And yes, I'd love to make anyone caught lobbying/bribing an elected official have to pay fines and do jail time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But that's the point. It's perfectly okay for everyone except corporations to buy the politicians because they are non-profits, but if a corporation does it, we're doomed.

Either the law says everyone can get the best politics and laws money can buy, or the law has to say no one can write a check. Half measures and saying it's okay for this group but not for that group just doesn't fly.

Stop that nonsense right now. NO ONE is saying it is right for everyone else should do it except Big Business. No one should be doing. Your analysis does not fly.

 

[Yurt]

Does that whole "getting money out of politics" thing apply to all money going to money going to politicians, or just big business? Do Unions, Soros & Bloomberg, and Hollywood fundraisers all get shut down, or does this apply solely to the Koch Brothers?

People can give money, but make it limited and 100% visible. Citizen's United is not only unfair, it opens a backdoor to terrorists interfering with the core internal affairs of this country: the vote. Now, with Citizen's United, a terrorist cell with oil money can infiltrate using their stockholding in major US companies and have unlimited influence upon citizens [real ones] unawares of their nefarious ties.

They become not just de facto citizens without naturalization or taking the Oath, they become Supercitizens whose influence cannot be challenged.

The founding fathers would put every supreme court justice who voted for this on the gallows pole.

The East India Tea Company's influence on the British Government is exactly the type of super citizenry that Citizen endorses.

false. it keeps contribution limits intact you retard.

 

[longknife]

You'd better be careful. You might just get what you're asking for.

Taking away the rights of individuals, either alone or in groups, to contribute to support candidates of their choice.

Think about it.