Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.
Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
The concept of corporations being "people" with "free speech rights" is ludicrous.
If that were true then a corporation would be restricted to the same contribution limits as you and I but that isn't the case.
Furthermore there is nothing that grants a corporation "citizenship". So anyone can create a corporation, even foreign nationals, and use it to influence the outcome of an American election.
CU will go down in history as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history and that will sully the reputation of partisan bigots like Scalia so ultimately some good might come of it.
Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.
Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.
First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"The concept of corporations being "people" with "free speech rights" is ludicrous.
If that were true then a corporation would be restricted to the same contribution limits as you and I but that isn't the case.
Furthermore there is nothing that grants a corporation "citizenship". So anyone can create a corporation, even foreign nationals, and use it to influence the outcome of an American election.
CU will go down in history as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history and that will sully the reputation of partisan bigots like Scalia so ultimately some good might come of it.
We are all lobbyists on some level, so personally I'd be careful what I advocate for or against them. Not saying you have written anything against the existence of lobbyists.Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.
Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. Are you saying Justice Kennedy is a partisan bigot and why single out only Justice Scalia?The concept of corporations being "people" with "free speech rights" is ludicrous.
If that were true then a corporation would be restricted to the same contribution limits as you and I but that isn't the case.
Furthermore there is nothing that grants a corporation "citizenship". So anyone can create a corporation, even foreign nationals, and use it to influence the outcome of an American election.
CU will go down in history as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history and that will sully the reputation of partisan bigots like Scalia so ultimately some good might come of it.
Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.
No, I don't. But I'm smart enough to realize that any group that does is doing it to buy power and influence. Both things that are anathema to the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
We are all lobbyists on some level, so personally I'd be careful what I advocate for or against them. Not saying you have written anything against the existence of lobbyists.Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.
Lobbyists are protected by the 1st amendment but their ability to "bribe" politicians with campaign contributions should be outlawed in my opinion.
Bribes are against the law.
How would you do that? Would you pass laws that you know would be ruled unconstitutional or do you have an idea how to do this within the bounds of the constitutional arguments before the Court?Simple. We need a return to limits on contributions, no "dark money", and a ban on lobbyists.
Do you know of any constitutional scholar, gadfly, or reasonably intelligent mind that agrees with you that banning all group monies is allowed by the US Constitution or should be?I disagree with any group being allowed to donate money to political campaigns. Whether it be corporations, or unions.Citizens United: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)?
Isn't a political party a group? Your view would ban parties from giving money to campaigns.
No, I don't. But I'm smart enough to realize that any group that does is doing it to buy power and influence. Both things that are anathema to the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
You deny a political party is a group like any other group? Haven't parties spent money on campaigns of one person against another? Why should a political party be treated any differently than any other group? Is this consistent with your understanding of the US Constitution and -- gulp -- the Declaration of Independence.
Do all donors demand pay back? What is wrong with influence? Do you not want to influence your representatives?
First, nobody granted corporations "citizenship"
Some people are offended by the practices and some like you the mere concept.
You object to corporations being 'people' in court, but if they aren't 'people' in court how do you sue them, how do you hold them criminally liable (can you?), how do fine them? Can you fine a door, a table, a chair?
Can foreign nationals contribute already? Is what you say about the results of the ruling spin and opinion or can you point to it in the ruling? It's okay if you can't -- point to it in the ruling. Most people can't.