Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If Obama was right and Alito was wrong, then how is it that Clinton and the Democrats managed to raise much more money in 2016 than Trump and the Republicans?Obama was right, Alito was wrong: Citizens United has corrupted American politics
Ten years ago this week, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court overturned a century of campaign finance law, giving wealthy donors and corporations nearly unlimited ability to influence our elections. In his State of the Union address a week later, President Barack Obama said the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito famously shook his head, mouthing “not true.”
A decade later, it’s clear that President Obama was right and Justice Alito was wrong. With its decision, the court threw out restrictions on corporate and union election spending, narrowed the legal definition of “corruption” and set the stage for an influx of undisclosed dark money spending on our elections.
Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.
Rights is rights. They apply to all.
Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.
Agreed, but if you fuck with their rights as sovereign citizens to act collectively, you invite others to fuck with your rights.
It was a neo-Con court decision...terrible.Rights is rights. They apply to all.
Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.
Agreed, but if you fuck with their rights as sovereign citizens to act collectively, you invite others to fuck with your rights.
The Bill of Rights says nothing about applying rights to organizations.
It says nothing about applying person-hood to corporate entities or collective entities. The rights are secured for those who are individuals with natural rights endowed by their creator.
By your logic, and the courts logic, by applying the Constitution to corporations, you violate Sec.1 of the 13th Amendment by owning a corporation.
It was a neo-Con court decision...terrible.Rights is rights. They apply to all.
Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.
Agreed, but if you fuck with their rights as sovereign citizens to act collectively, you invite others to fuck with your rights.
The Bill of Rights says nothing about applying rights to organizations.
It says nothing about applying person-hood to corporate entities or collective entities. The rights are secured for those who are individuals with natural rights endowed by their creator.
By your logic, and the courts logic, by applying the Constitution to corporations, you violate Sec.1 of the 13th Amendment by owning a corporation.
My only concern is that during GW's presidency, the amount of influence Wall Street yielded over Congress caused great anguish among people who actually had to work for a living, whether White or Blue collar.It was a neo-Con court decision...terrible.Rights is rights. They apply to all.
Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.
Agreed, but if you fuck with their rights as sovereign citizens to act collectively, you invite others to fuck with your rights.
The Bill of Rights says nothing about applying rights to organizations.
It says nothing about applying person-hood to corporate entities or collective entities. The rights are secured for those who are individuals with natural rights endowed by their creator.
By your logic, and the courts logic, by applying the Constitution to corporations, you violate Sec.1 of the 13th Amendment by owning a corporation.
Is that why the suit was brought by the likes of the ACLU and NARAL also?
The guy who contributes one dollar gets the same access that the guy who contributes hundreds of thousands does?
If the answer is no, Obama was right. As usual.
On election day they are equal. If you don't like who a candidate takes money from (none can take hundreds of thousands from anyone) don't vote for him.
Did it bother you at all how much Obama took from Wall Street?
Could you be more specific? In what way has the influence of "wall street" increased and exactly what anguish has it caused?My only concern is that during GW's presidency, the amount of influence Wall Street yields over Congress caused great anguish among people who actually have to work for a living, whether White or Blue collar.It was a neo-Con court decision...terrible.Rights is rights. They apply to all.
Nope, sorry, these organizations, in no way should be allowed to have the same rights as sovereign citizens. Fuck the elites, fuck Soros and Koch. Fuck them to hell.
Agreed, but if you fuck with their rights as sovereign citizens to act collectively, you invite others to fuck with your rights.
The Bill of Rights says nothing about applying rights to organizations.
It says nothing about applying person-hood to corporate entities or collective entities. The rights are secured for those who are individuals with natural rights endowed by their creator.
By your logic, and the courts logic, by applying the Constitution to corporations, you violate Sec.1 of the 13th Amendment by owning a corporation.
Is that why the suit was brought by the likes of the ACLU and NARAL also?
I have 1 vote but 0 influence over my so-called Representatives,
Off-shoring, Business Visas, Trespassers, millions lost Healthcare coverage due to layoffs.Could you be more specific? In what way has the influence of "wall street" increased and exactly what anguish has it caused?My only concern is that during GW's presidency, the amount of influence Wall Street yields over Congress caused great anguish among people who actually have to work for a living, whether White or Blue collar.It was a neo-Con court decision...terrible.Rights is rights. They apply to all.
Agreed, but if you fuck with their rights as sovereign citizens to act collectively, you invite others to fuck with your rights.
The Bill of Rights says nothing about applying rights to organizations.
It says nothing about applying person-hood to corporate entities or collective entities. The rights are secured for those who are individuals with natural rights endowed by their creator.
By your logic, and the courts logic, by applying the Constitution to corporations, you violate Sec.1 of the 13th Amendment by owning a corporation.
Is that why the suit was brought by the likes of the ACLU and NARAL also?
I have 1 vote but 0 influence over my so-called Representatives,
Pretty much other than when Hillary was auctioning off access to the highest bidder.The guy who contributes one dollar gets the same access that the guy who contributes hundreds of thousands does?
If the answer is no, Obama was right. As usual.
On election day they are equal. If you don't like who a candidate takes money from (none can take hundreds of thousands from anyone) don't vote for him.
Did it bother you at all how much Obama took from Wall Street?
nice dodge....
do they have the same access?
How does this show greater influence from Wall Street over the government? Much of the financial industry ran amuck and government agencies like the FDIC failed to do due diligence, but none of that shows influence over the government.Off-shoring, Business Visas, Trespassers, millions lost Healthcare coverage due to layoffs.Could you be more specific? In what way has the influence of "wall street" increased and exactly what anguish has it caused?My only concern is that during GW's presidency, the amount of influence Wall Street yields over Congress caused great anguish among people who actually have to work for a living, whether White or Blue collar.It was a neo-Con court decision...terrible.The Bill of Rights says nothing about applying rights to organizations.
It says nothing about applying person-hood to corporate entities or collective entities. The rights are secured for those who are individuals with natural rights endowed by their creator.
By your logic, and the courts logic, by applying the Constitution to corporations, you violate Sec.1 of the 13th Amendment by owning a corporation.
Is that why the suit was brought by the likes of the ACLU and NARAL also?
I have 1 vote but 0 influence over my so-called Representatives,
It was a good time to be a big shot at a corporation.
Of course, no one noticed until the Housing Crash.
The government makes policies that affect people's corporation, therefore they have freedom of speech to attack or defend candidates. Citizens United is a freedom of speech issue.Corporations are not the people they supposedly represent and only the Board has the ability to make decisions.
All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.
That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.
Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.
All citizens are "special interests" and have the constitutional right to free speech and to contribute to their causes.
That groups of citizens choose to exercise these rights in a collective manner is supported by the same constitutional amendment.
Foreign contributions are a separate issue, and responsibility for accepting such contributions should sit solely with the candidate receiving them.
True, but corporations should not be considered citizens in regard to the Bill of Rights. This, is the underlying problem, and the root of the corruption. Folks that are against judicial activism should not pick and choose.
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia
Why?
Without the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, corporations become nothing more than banks for the political to buy votes.
or >>>
~S~
True. Congress, and by extension, the entirety of Government, is the one percent. The problem is, they have the power to make the rules that benefit, guess who? Themselves.
In order to even manage to get your case heard, you need to get their attention.
This isn't a problem of Citizens United, but one of electing corrupt people whose only interest is retaining their power and wealth.
Because that's not what happened.How does this show greater influence from Wall Street over the government? Much of the financial industry ran amuck and government agencies like the FDIC failed to do due diligence, but none of that shows influence over the government.Off-shoring, Business Visas, Trespassers, millions lost Healthcare coverage due to layoffs.Could you be more specific? In what way has the influence of "wall street" increased and exactly what anguish has it caused?My only concern is that during GW's presidency, the amount of influence Wall Street yields over Congress caused great anguish among people who actually have to work for a living, whether White or Blue collar.It was a neo-Con court decision...terrible.
Is that why the suit was brought by the likes of the ACLU and NARAL also?
I have 1 vote but 0 influence over my so-called Representatives,
It was a good time to be a big shot at a corporation.
Of course, no one noticed until the Housing Crash.
I don't buy it.The government makes policies that affect people's corporation, therefore they have freedom of speech to attack or defend candidates. Citizens United is a freedom of speech issue.Corporations are not the people they supposedly represent and only the Board has the ability to make decisions.
Obama was right, Alito was wrong: Citizens United has corrupted American politics
Ten years ago this week, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court overturned a century of campaign finance law, giving wealthy donors and corporations nearly unlimited ability to influence our elections. In his State of the Union address a week later, President Barack Obama said the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito famously shook his head, mouthing “not true.”
A decade later, it’s clear that President Obama was right and Justice Alito was wrong. With its decision, the court threw out restrictions on corporate and union election spending, narrowed the legal definition of “corruption” and set the stage for an influx of undisclosed dark money spending on our elections.
Morally bankrupt empty suits are the cause of corruption regardless of the arena. Putting it on a national stage merely publicly exemplifies it.
The constitution treats corporations as people because they are private property
