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.
I don't know if any went into her bank account but her and Bill used it for travel expenses. Must be nice.hillary received ZERO money donated to the foundation....ZERO ZERO ZERO....stop lying please.The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
hillary received ZERO money donated to the foundation....ZERO ZERO ZERO....stop lying please.The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
Why do you wish to deny the people the ability to regulate our election process? The film wasn't banned from movie theaters or DVD sales, only t.v. and only within 30 days of a primary.Agreed.Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Very few people bother to look up anything at all about the actual case itself.
No one has suggested no regulations or taxes. Lie down for a spell.What we have is corpoirations run amok on both sides of the aisle. And what they do is whine and cry about regulations. If we removed all regulations this country fails the same day they are removed. America is a corporatocracy....and the corporatists want no taxes no regulations and cheap labor. And when they get every last thing they want...itsall over.
I don't wish to ban the public from regulating election processes. I do wish to stop the government from removing protected rights though.Why do you wish to deny the people the ability to regulate our election process? The film wasn't banned from movie theaters or DVD sales, only t.v. and only within 30 days of a primary.Agreed.Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Very few people bother to look up anything at all about the actual case itself.
"now"Corporate influence now controls the political process. People are in their way and they don't like it. Greedy arrogant ruling class corporatists.
Corporations should not be regarded as people with all the rights guaranteed to living breathing people. They are legal associations granted by the laws of the people and as such the people should have a right to limit corporations in whatever manner they determine to be in the best interests of the people.I don't wish to ban the public from regulating election processes. I do wish to stop the government from removing protected rights though.Why do you wish to deny the people the ability to regulate our election process? The film wasn't banned from movie theaters or DVD sales, only t.v. and only within 30 days of a primary.Agreed.Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Very few people bother to look up anything at all about the actual case itself.
They wanted to limit free speech.
Originally that was all that it was about but the court expanded the scope of the case and decided that the people's government could no longer regulate corporate spending on elections, which it had done for 100 years previous.Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Why do you wish to deny the people the ability to regulate our election process? The film wasn't banned from movie theaters or DVD sales, only t.v. and only within 30 days of a primary.Agreed.Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Very few people bother to look up anything at all about the actual case itself.
Corporations should not be regarded as people with all the rights guaranteed to living breathing people. They are legal associations granted by the laws of the people and as such the people should have a right to limit corporations in whatever manner they determine to be in the best interests of the people.I don't wish to ban the public from regulating election processes. I do wish to stop the government from removing protected rights though.Why do you wish to deny the people the ability to regulate our election process? The film wasn't banned from movie theaters or DVD sales, only t.v. and only within 30 days of a primary.Agreed.Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Very few people bother to look up anything at all about the actual case itself.
They wanted to limit free speech.
The fact is that C.U. abandoned its facial challenge to the constitutionality of sec. 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It should not have been considered by the S.C.Originally that was all that it was about but the court expanded the scope of the case and decided that the people's government could no longer regulate corporate spending on elections, which it had done for 100 years previous.Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Wrong. Citizens United struck down the prohibition on electioneering communications, which are broadcast ads that name a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Under the new rules, corporations and unions can pay for those communications — as long as they are fully disclosed and independent; that is, not coordinated with candidates or their agents.
Citizens United had no effect whatsoever on contribution limits; it related only to independent outlays. Nor did Citizens United grant corporations and unions the same rights as persons; it simply established that persons may, if they wish, express their political views through the medium of those organizations.
The case the affected spending limits was McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
Federal limits apply to contributions of money, goods or services by individuals or groups to candidates, political parties and political actions committees (PACs). Individuals cannot give more than $5,200 to a single candidate — $2,600 for the primary plus $2,600 for the general election. Corporations and labor unions are forbidden from making direct contributions. This has always been the case.
Prior to the McCutcheon decision, individuals were limited to aggregate contributions of $48,600 to all candidates plus $74,600 to all PACs and parties. Accordingly, anyone wishing to donate the maximum $5,200 per candidate would be constrained to nine candidates before encountering the combined limit. In McCutcheon, the Supreme Court overturned the aggregate ceilings because they did not advance the anti-corruption rationale underlying campaign finance laws. After all, if $5,200 did not corrupt the first nine candidates, why would the same amount corrupt the tenth, or the 50th? McCutcheon actually left intact all the limits on contributions to single candidates, parties and political committees.
Let's deal in facts, m'kay?
Again......you are reading more into my post than is actually there.Corporations should not be regarded as people with all the rights guaranteed to living breathing people. They are legal associations granted by the laws of the people and as such the people should have a right to limit corporations in whatever manner they determine to be in the best interests of the people.I don't wish to ban the public from regulating election processes. I do wish to stop the government from removing protected rights though.Why do you wish to deny the people the ability to regulate our election process? The film wasn't banned from movie theaters or DVD sales, only t.v. and only within 30 days of a primary.Agreed.Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Very few people bother to look up anything at all about the actual case itself.
They wanted to limit free speech.
Not what CU did! My God you guys just cling to the false narrative again and again!
Citizens United did NOT grant corporations and unions the same rights as persons; it simply established that persons may, if they wish, express their political views through the medium of those organizations.
And....corporations can have major influencers/stockholders within their ranks (or by using proxies as Prince Talal does) who are foreigners trying to sabotage the US by influencing her electoral process. Heck. all Putin would have to do is pay for some proxies in the US to hold controlling stock in a company, and then funnel money to thwart our elections through that loophole. George Soros recently created a loophole to shove many millions to Trump by first loaning him a bundle to build a building in Illinois, and then recently and suddenly "forgiving" the bulk of that debt. I'd like to see Trump busted on that, or questioned about it.Corporations should not be regarded as people with all the rights guaranteed to living breathing people. They are legal associations granted by the laws of the people and as such the people should have a right to limit corporations in whatever manner they determine to be in the best interests of the people.
They are not people. That does not change the fact that speech rights do not disappear when you are part of a cooperation.Corporations should not be regarded as people with all the rights guaranteed to living breathing people. They are legal associations granted by the laws of the people and as such the people should have a right to limit corporations in whatever manner they determine to be in the best interests of the people.I don't wish to ban the public from regulating election processes. I do wish to stop the government from removing protected rights though.Why do you wish to deny the people the ability to regulate our election process? The film wasn't banned from movie theaters or DVD sales, only t.v. and only within 30 days of a primary.Agreed.Personally, I do not believe the Federal government should be able to ban books or movies. THAT'S what the CU case was about.
Very few people bother to look up anything at all about the actual case itself.
They wanted to limit free speech.
