Citizens United (Worst bill in American History?)

[Avatar4321]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people.

Nope. It doesn't. That is a meme invented by ignorant liberals.

Here's a crazy idea. Read the decision for yourself!

It never ceases to amaze me how people who are ignorant of what something says have no problem pontificating on how wrong it is to say something it doesnt say.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is it so hard for the right to believe that Citizens United was approved so certain greedy rich people can overpower everyone else's political voice?

CU is one of the worst political travesties of modern time.

Because we've actually read the case and Congress telling people or groups of people that they cannot cricitize a political candidate during election time is blatantly contrary to the first amendment.

 

[Avatar4321]

If money equals speech, those with the most money will have the loudest voices.

So you think a group of people should be prohibited from criticizing a politician during an election cycle simply because they have raised money to do so?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Citizens United was a perfectly appropriate, well-reasoned decision addressing the issue of First Amendment jurisprudence, in this case justified government control of political speech.

Part of the problem is that many incorrectly believe that it is the role of the Supreme Court to ‘fix’ or ‘resolve’ problems, such as the financing of political campaigns, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth; it was not the role of the Citizens United Court to ‘fix’ the perceived problem of too much money and undue influence concerning elections.

Moreover, Citizens United did not make corporations ‘persons,’ nor did it give them ‘rights,’ it correctly acknowledged the fact that corporate entities have a legitimate political point of view that the voters are entitled to hear, among other legitimate points of view:

Our Nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights. Speakers have become adept at presenting citizens with sound bites, talking points, and scripted messages that dominate the 24-hour news cycle. Corporations, like individuals, do not have monolithic views. On certain topics corporations may possess valuable expertise, leaving them the best equipped to point out errors or fallacies in speech of all sorts, including the speech of candidates and elected officials.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

And because those points of view are legitimate and contribute positively to overall political discourse, they cannot be subjected to un-Constitutional restrictions by the government.

Now, this doesn’t mean that the issue of financing political campaigns is not serious or important, or that indeed money might result in an undue influence with regard to elections, it does mean, however, that citizens must find another route to the desired goal of resolving the problem that doesn’t violate the First Amendment.

Last, Citizens United is consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence, where it limits the authority of the state with regard to political speech, allowing the people to freely decide the merits of candidates and issues in the context of a republican form of government as guaranteed them by the Constitution.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Another Lo-Lo poster.
Citizens United was a court case,not a bill.
Corporations have been persons since Taft was on the Supreme Court.

Water is wet, grass in green

 

[RKMBrown]

Guess the OP was just Trolling.

 

[The Rabbi]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Another Lo-Lo poster.
Citizens United was a court case,not a bill.
Corporations have been persons since Taft was on the Supreme Court.

Water is wet, grass in green

I realize I have to explain the obvious to you. Because you are a lo-lo.

 

[Edgetho]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people.

Nope. It doesn't. That is a meme invented by ignorant liberals.

Here's a crazy idea. Read the decision for yourself!

It never ceases to amaze me how people who are ignorant of what something says have no problem pontificating on how wrong it is to say something it doesnt say.

Citizens United doesn't describe Corporations as 'People' but as 'persons'

To my knowledge, they have always been so regarded

 

[Avatar4321]

Nope. It doesn't. That is a meme invented by ignorant liberals.

Here's a crazy idea. Read the decision for yourself!

It never ceases to amaze me how people who are ignorant of what something says have no problem pontificating on how wrong it is to say something it doesnt say.

Citizens United doesn't describe Corporations as 'People' but as 'persons'

To my knowledge, they have always been so regarded

They have been considered persons to allow states to establish Personal Jurisdiction over them. But that's completely irrelevant to the case.

The case is simple. Congress passed McCain Fiengold. McCain Fiengold prohibited anyone from criticizing politicians prior to an election. Essentially, it was an incumbant protection act to prohibit newcomers from challenging those already in office. The Court found that that Congress didn't have the power to ban speech. Period.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The court ruling is benign at worst. It's not nearly the evil that lolberals make it out to be. At the same time, the court declaring a corporation a person is silly. Clearly it is not a person.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Another Lo-Lo poster.
Citizens United was a court case,not a bill.
Corporations have been persons since Taft was on the Supreme Court.

Water is wet, grass in green

I realize I have to explain the obvious to you. Because you are a lo-lo.

This is a message board...you are a poster

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Were you born retarded or was your head simply mistaken for a basketball at birth?

 

[Sallow]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

It wasn't a "bill".

It was a court decision.

It may "sound' trivial but it's not.

It REVERSES nearly 100 years of legislation crafted carefully to make sure that money does not have a corrupting influence on politics.

In other words, this is legislation from a part of the government that isn't supposed to be involved in legislation.

These are justices and they are "supposed" to be blind to partisan politics.

This decision (and a few others) blew that notion away.

Oh..and it was a profoundly bad decision.

 

[Sallow]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Were you born retarded or was your head simply mistaken for a basketball at birth?

Erm..

Not everyone's as up on the differences in the branches of government as some who post here regularly.

Take this opportunity to educate..bub.

 

[Sallow]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Corporations in and of themselves are nothing more than a contract, a piece of paper, a group of individuals.

What other types of groups do you want to ban from the right to free speech? Family groups? Should I be banned from free speech if I have a family? Or only banned from free speech if I am associated with a corporation? What about other types of groups? Unions? Committees? What types of groups do you want to ban from free speech?

Owners of corporations are allowed to spend their money, yes or no?

Free speech is one thing.

Corrupting the political process is another thing entirely.

Money is not speech.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Corporations in and of themselves are nothing more than a contract, a piece of paper, a group of individuals.

What other types of groups do you want to ban from the right to free speech? Family groups? Should I be banned from free speech if I have a family? Or only banned from free speech if I am associated with a corporation? What about other types of groups? Unions? Committees? What types of groups do you want to ban from free speech?

Owners of corporations are allowed to spend their money, yes or no?

Free speech is one thing.

Corrupting the political process is another thing entirely.

Money is not speech.

Free Speech IS one thing.

Corrupting the political process IS another thing.

Money does not necessarily corrupt the political process.

The denial of the ability to speak (when that requires money) IS a corruption of the political process on our Republic.

To say that you may spend only SO MUCH money to advocate a political point of view IS an abridgment of free speech to that very extent.

Citizens United was a correct statement and determination of law under a rational concern with the First Amendment.

Citizens United STILL is not a "bill."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Were you born retarded or was your head simply mistaken for a basketball at birth?

Erm..

Not everyone's as up on the differences in the branches of government as some who post here regularly.

Take this opportunity to educate..bub.

Hey bubbahlah.

If he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, noting his ignorance tends to cast doubt on WHAT he's attempting to say.

More importantly, his ignorance on the branches of government is not the only problem with his ridiculous OP.

It is merely one of them. For example, he suffers from the same misguided notions and flawed comprehension about Free Speech as you appear to.

 

[Sallow]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Another Lo-Lo poster.
Citizens United was a court case,not a bill.
Corporations have been persons since Taft was on the Supreme Court.

Eyah..

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[1] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."[2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dot Com]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

yep. It allows them to buy elections BUT not go to jail when caught committing fraud on a massive scale. They simply get a slap on the wrist (paltry fine) Thanks Repubs

 

[Sallow]

Were you born retarded or was your head simply mistaken for a basketball at birth?

Erm..

Not everyone's as up on the differences in the branches of government as some who post here regularly.

Take this opportunity to educate..bub.

Hey bubbahlah.

If he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, noting his ignorance tends to cast doubt on WHAT he's attempting to say.

More importantly, his ignorance on the branches of government is not the only problem with his ridiculous OP.

It is merely one of them. For example, he suffers from the same misguided notions and flawed comprehension about Free Speech as you appear to.

Money or the lack thereof..should not entitle or deny anyone access to the political process.

Nor should it enable one MORE access.

Right now it does.

And that..is a huge problem.