Both are wrong

[toomuchtime_]

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.

I disagree. You can’t assume corporations who donate to a candidate represent the interest of all the shareholders nor employees of the corporation, just as you can’t assume that a union’s donation represents the interest of every union member.

If that were in fact the case, then the union or corporation would simply give the money earmarked for donation to the individuals they “represent” and have them donate it. In that case there would be no need for the Supreme Court ruling.

Corporations or unions made donations that protect or promote the interests of the corporation or union. They are just as limited in how much they can donate to a candidate as you are, however they are virtually unlimited in how much they can contribute to PAC's. An officer of a corporation or union may support one candidate because he or she will best serve the interests of the corporation or union but he or she may personally support another candidate because that candidate best serves the personal interests of the officer of the corporation or union.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

. . . as usual?

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Wrong.......having the government put limits on campaign spending is a violation of the 1st Amendment. As hilary v Trump showed, money doesn't win an election........

Citizens United resulted in Trump winning.
"Why", you say?
Trump ran against Wall Street controlling Congress.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Is that why the suit was brought by the likes of the ACLU and NARAL also?

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.
I have 1 vote but 0 influence over my so-called Representatives,

Could you be more specific? In what way has the influence of "wall street" increased and exactly what anguish has it caused?

Off-shoring, Business Visas, Trespassers, millions lost Healthcare coverage due to layoffs.
It was a good time to be a big shot at a corporation.
Of course, no one noticed until the Housing Crash.

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.

Because that's not what happened.
I know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers and the software provided by the Feds rejected applications left and right.
The Lenders Rubber Stamped left and right.
In fact, I was out of work for 3 years and thousands in debt and was Rubber Stamped a 600,000K Home Equity Loan that I refused to take.
I am no more of an advocate for Government intervention than anyone else.
But I put the blame solely on Wall Street for the bull crap that went down.
And my friends in the business agree with me.

Both the banks and the government screwed up but I have not seen any evidence Wall Street's influence over government in this crisis.

 

[Indeependent]

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.
I have 1 vote but 0 influence over my so-called Representatives,

Could you be more specific? In what way has the influence of "wall street" increased and exactly what anguish has it caused?

Off-shoring, Business Visas, Trespassers, millions lost Healthcare coverage due to layoffs.
It was a good time to be a big shot at a corporation.
Of course, no one noticed until the Housing Crash.

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.

Because that's not what happened.
I know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers and the software provided by the Feds rejected applications left and right.
The Lenders Rubber Stamped left and right.
In fact, I was out of work for 3 years and thousands in debt and was Rubber Stamped a 600,000K Home Equity Loan that I refused to take.
I am no more of an advocate for Government intervention than anyone else.
But I put the blame solely on Wall Street for the bull crap that went down.
And my friends in the business agree with me.

Both the banks and the government screwed up but I have not seen any evidence Wall Street's influence over government in this crisis.

That's because it didn't make the news; you have to talk to people.

 

[candycorn]

The more you contribute, the more access you get.

Money is not speech.

 

[pknopp]

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?

There are all sorts of venue for access. Am I going to be able to pay $300,000 for a hour speech after their days in the White House are done?

 

[candycorn]

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?

There are all sorts of venue for access. Am I going to be able to pay $300,000 for a hour speech after their days in the White House are done?

huh?

 

[pknopp]

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?

There are all sorts of venue for access. Am I going to be able to pay $300,000 for a hour speech after their days in the White House are done?

huh?

You understood what I said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Corporations are not the people they supposedly represent and only the Board has the ability to make decisions.

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.

I didn't see the Democrat ire at the use of money by unions.

 

[pknopp]

Corporations are not the people they supposedly represent and only the Board has the ability to make decisions.

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.

I didn't see the Democrat ire at the use of money by unions.

McCain/Feingold put restrictions on unions also.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Could you be more specific? In what way has the influence of "wall street" increased and exactly what anguish has it caused?

Off-shoring, Business Visas, Trespassers, millions lost Healthcare coverage due to layoffs.
It was a good time to be a big shot at a corporation.
Of course, no one noticed until the Housing Crash.

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.

Because that's not what happened.
I know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers and the software provided by the Feds rejected applications left and right.
The Lenders Rubber Stamped left and right.
In fact, I was out of work for 3 years and thousands in debt and was Rubber Stamped a 600,000K Home Equity Loan that I refused to take.
I am no more of an advocate for Government intervention than anyone else.
But I put the blame solely on Wall Street for the bull crap that went down.
And my friends in the business agree with me.

Both the banks and the government screwed up but I have not seen any evidence Wall Street's influence over government in this crisis.

That's because it didn't make the news; you have to talk to people.

If none of this made the news, then where did the people you talked to get their information? If fact, it was all in the news and since that time several books have been written explaining the bizarre sequence of events that led to the financial crisis and the near collapse of the financial industry; all of them blame various actors in the financial industry either for stupidity or corruption, but none of them have pointed out any specific actions taken by the President or Congress that caused the crisis.

 

[candycorn]

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?

There are all sorts of venue for access. Am I going to be able to pay $300,000 for a hour speech after their days in the White House are done?

huh?

You understood what I said.

No, actually I don’t. But I’m really not that interested either

 

[pknopp]

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?

There are all sorts of venue for access. Am I going to be able to pay $300,000 for a hour speech after their days in the White House are done?

huh?

You understood what I said.

No, actually I don’t. But I’m really not that interested either

Of course.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Corporations are not the people they supposedly represent and only the Board has the ability to make decisions.

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.

I didn't see the Democrat ire at the use of money by unions.

Or money from PAC's, which are, of course, what this thread is really about.

 

[pknopp]

Off-shoring, Business Visas, Trespassers, millions lost Healthcare coverage due to layoffs.
It was a good time to be a big shot at a corporation.
Of course, no one noticed until the Housing Crash.

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.

Because that's not what happened.
I know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers and the software provided by the Feds rejected applications left and right.
The Lenders Rubber Stamped left and right.
In fact, I was out of work for 3 years and thousands in debt and was Rubber Stamped a 600,000K Home Equity Loan that I refused to take.
I am no more of an advocate for Government intervention than anyone else.
But I put the blame solely on Wall Street for the bull crap that went down.
And my friends in the business agree with me.

Both the banks and the government screwed up but I have not seen any evidence Wall Street's influence over government in this crisis.

That's because it didn't make the news; you have to talk to people.

If none of this made the news, then where did the people you talked to get their information? If fact, it was all in the news and since that time several books have been written explaining the bizarre sequence of events that led to the financial crisis and the near collapse of the financial industry; all of them blame various actors in the financial industry either for stupidity or corruption, but none of them have pointed out any specific actions taken by the President or Congress that caused the crisis.

The government guaranteed the loans.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Because that's not what happened.
I know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers and the software provided by the Feds rejected applications left and right.
The Lenders Rubber Stamped left and right.
In fact, I was out of work for 3 years and thousands in debt and was Rubber Stamped a 600,000K Home Equity Loan that I refused to take.
I am no more of an advocate for Government intervention than anyone else.
But I put the blame solely on Wall Street for the bull crap that went down.
And my friends in the business agree with me.

Both the banks and the government screwed up but I have not seen any evidence Wall Street's influence over government in this crisis.

That's because it didn't make the news; you have to talk to people.

If none of this made the news, then where did the people you talked to get their information? If fact, it was all in the news and since that time several books have been written explaining the bizarre sequence of events that led to the financial crisis and the near collapse of the financial industry; all of them blame various actors in the financial industry either for stupidity or corruption, but none of them have pointed out any specific actions taken by the President or Congress that caused the crisis.

The government guaranteed the loans.

The federal government guaranteed the deposits, not the banks.

 

[pknopp]

Because that's not what happened.
I know dozens of Mortgage Bankers and Brokers and the software provided by the Feds rejected applications left and right.
The Lenders Rubber Stamped left and right.
In fact, I was out of work for 3 years and thousands in debt and was Rubber Stamped a 600,000K Home Equity Loan that I refused to take.
I am no more of an advocate for Government intervention than anyone else.
But I put the blame solely on Wall Street for the bull crap that went down.
And my friends in the business agree with me.

Both the banks and the government screwed up but I have not seen any evidence Wall Street's influence over government in this crisis.

That's because it didn't make the news; you have to talk to people.

If none of this made the news, then where did the people you talked to get their information? If fact, it was all in the news and since that time several books have been written explaining the bizarre sequence of events that led to the financial crisis and the near collapse of the financial industry; all of them blame various actors in the financial industry either for stupidity or corruption, but none of them have pointed out any specific actions taken by the President or Congress that caused the crisis.

The government guaranteed the loans.

The federal government guaranteed the deposits, not the banks.

Fannie and Freddie were government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). Like private companies, they had to be competitive to maintain their stock prices. At the same time, the federal government implicitly guaranteed the value of the mortgages they resold on the secondary market.

Did Fannie and Freddie Cause the Mortgage Crisis?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Again, of what are such entities comprised?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Both the banks and the government screwed up but I have not seen any evidence Wall Street's influence over government in this crisis.

That's because it didn't make the news; you have to talk to people.

If none of this made the news, then where did the people you talked to get their information? If fact, it was all in the news and since that time several books have been written explaining the bizarre sequence of events that led to the financial crisis and the near collapse of the financial industry; all of them blame various actors in the financial industry either for stupidity or corruption, but none of them have pointed out any specific actions taken by the President or Congress that caused the crisis.

The government guaranteed the loans.

The federal government guaranteed the deposits, not the banks.

Fannie and Freddie were government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). Like private companies, they had to be competitive to maintain their stock prices. At the same time, the federal government implicitly guaranteed the value of the mortgages they resold on the secondary market.

Did Fannie and Freddie Cause the Mortgage Crisis?

The government guaranteed the value of the mortgages but not the banks.