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.
Who's going to inform the citizen? The media is owned by corporations. There are about 5 now, that own ALL the media. If those 5 corporations want a certain candidate that will get them tax breaks and anything else they want, they will not broadcast the fact that their pol is bought and paid for.
Most people don't pay attention like we do.
Most people will have no idea, they'll just watch the ads and believe them and vote for the corporate puppets.
No more will of the people.
Hello will of the fat cats.
wow... that is paranoid...
No, it's perfectly realistic. Time Warner and Disney own the most, then there's Newscorp, Viacom and GE. Well Connected - The Center for Public Integrity
They can now donate to a candidate that will do their bidding. They can control who gets what coverage.
How are you going to hear what candidate B has to say when Walmart's candidate has a billion dollars to spend on advertising bashing and smearing candidate B?
Why do you prefer corporations paying for puppet politicians over the people choosing from a fair playing field of debates and balanced advertising?
Yeah, of course I will. Just because someone can say something doesnt mean someone else cant. That's insane.
No, it's perfectly realistic. Time Warner and Disney own the most, then there's Newscorp, Viacom and GE. Well Connected - The Center for Public Integrity
They can now donate to a candidate that will do their bidding. They can control who gets what coverage.
Why on earth would they do that when they were exempt from the law to begin with and have completely free advertisement on behalf of politicians 24/7???
No, it's perfectly realistic. Time Warner and Disney own the most, then there's Newscorp, Viacom and GE. Well Connected - The Center for Public Integrity
They can now donate to a candidate that will do their bidding. They can control who gets what coverage.
Why on earth would they do that when they were exempt from the law to begin with and have completely free advertisement on behalf of politicians 24/7???
If they have a candidate in their pocket, who they've donated hundreds of millions to, that candidate will vote on laws that they want him to vote on.
Don't you see? Money makes puppets. If we allow corporations to spend unlimited money on politicians we will have lots of puppets. And they won't be doing the bidding of the people, us....they will be doing the bidding of the corporations.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf (Scalia's dissent at pages numbered 7 and 8 in the pdf version.)The dissent says that when the Framers constitutional-ized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, itwas the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind. Post, at 37. That is no doubt true. All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of indi-vidual men and womennot, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual persons right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Surely the dissent does not believe that speech
by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can becensored because it is not the speech of an individual American. It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leader-ship of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no differentor at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not an individualAmerican.7
{emphasis added}. Id.7The dissent says that speech refers to oral communications of human beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak. Post, at 37, n. 55. This is sophistry. The authorized spokesman of a corporation is a human being, who speaks on behalf of the human beings who have formed that associationjust as the spokesman of an unincorporated association speaks on behalf of its members. The power to publish thoughts, no less than the power to speak thoughts, belongs only to human beings, but the dissent sees no problem with a corporations enjoying the freedom of the press. The same footnote asserts that it has been claimed that the notion of institutional speech . . . did not exist in post-revolutionary America. This is quoted from a law-review article by a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago (Fagundes, State Actors as First AmendmentSpeakers, 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1637, 1654 (2006)), which offers as the sole support for its statement a treatise dealing with government speech, M. Yudof, When Government Speaks 4250 (1983). The cited pages of that treatise provide no support whatever for the statementunless, as seems overwhelmingly likely, the institutional speech referred to was speech by the subject of the law-review article, govern-mental institutions. The other authority cited in the footnote, a law-review article by a professor at Washington and Lee Law School, Bezanson, Institutional Speech, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 735, 775 (1995), in fact contradicts the dissent, in that it would accord free-speech protection to associations.
{Emphases added.} Id., at p. numbered "9" in the pdf version.We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is speech covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise. A documentary film critical of a potential Presidential candidate is core political speech, and its nature as such does not change simply because it was funded by a corporation. Nor does the character of that funding produce any reduction whatever in the inherent worth of the speech and its capacity for informing the public, First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978). Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.
This effort to bring about more comprehensive campaign finance reform began in 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing money to Federal campaigns. The first Federal campaign disclosure legislation was a 1910 law affecting House elections only. In 1911, the law was amended to cover Senate elections as well, and to set spending limits for all Congressional candidates.
A 103 year old law was overturned by activist judges with no precedent at all to go by.
This effort to bring about more comprehensive campaign finance reform began in 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing money to Federal campaigns. The first Federal campaign disclosure legislation was a 1910 law affecting House elections only. In 1911, the law was amended to cover Senate elections as well, and to set spending limits for all Congressional candidates.
Appendix 4: Brief History
This takes away the power of the people and delivers the power to the corporations to choose our politicians.
What I love is all this garbage about how they are gonna give money to candidates. They can NOT do that. This decision did not change that fact. Corporations STILL can not donate money to an individual candidate.
A 103 year old law was overturned by activist judges with no precedent at all to go by.
This effort to bring about more comprehensive campaign finance reform began in 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing money to Federal campaigns. The first Federal campaign disclosure legislation was a 1910 law affecting House elections only. In 1911, the law was amended to cover Senate elections as well, and to set spending limits for all Congressional candidates.
Appendix 4: Brief History
This takes away the power of the people and delivers the power to the corporations to choose our politicians.
No it just allows all voices to be heard. Something you obviously dont like.
What I love is all this garbage about how they are gonna give money to candidates. They can NOT do that. This decision did not change that fact. Corporations STILL can not donate money to an individual candidate.
The issue is that now corporations can fund campaigns.
Your post is a strawman.
Can't say this is "good" or "bad", it's just the same ol' bullshit. FREE SPPECH... which means people have the right to say shit, even if you don't like the shit they say... or they say it ALL with flashing lights and nice trucks or Obama in the background saying YES WE CAN.
The problem is not the corporations... it's the stupid f-ing Americans that will believe any damn thing they see on television.
And yes, a part of FREE SPEECH is excepting the reality it comes with: stupid people are going to have to be FREE to be STUPID.
That's America... it's worked pretty damn well for a few hundred years.
Personally I think for the sake of the people we should just stop having elections and start letting machines pick the president... hell they can do everything else nowadays.
Regardless... the corporations think the American people are politically retarded... and the vast majority of them are. But trying to stop corporations from exploiting stupidity by restricting their first amendment rights is the bullshit lazy way to solve the problem, because it coddles the American people and makes them feel comfortable in their stupidity. It's like cheating... and cheaters never win.
What I love is all this garbage about how they are gonna give money to candidates. They can NOT do that. This decision did not change that fact. Corporations STILL can not donate money to an individual candidate.
The issue is that now corporations can fund campaigns.
Your post is a strawman.
A 103 year old law was overturned by activist judges with no precedent at all to go by.
Appendix 4: Brief History
This takes away the power of the people and delivers the power to the corporations to choose our politicians.
No it just allows all voices to be heard. Something you obviously dont like.
Who's voice exactly do you think will be heard now, that would not be heard yesterday?
Do you really think the yacht owning billionaire corporate CEOs will decide to fund the campaigns of politicians and then let them vote on issues that will benefit you?
They will be voting on issues that benefit big corporations, not regular people like you and I.
Why do you have so much trust in fat cat, wall street, bankers and big oil tycoons to legislate for us?
What I love is all this garbage about how they are gonna give money to candidates. They can NOT do that. This decision did not change that fact. Corporations STILL can not donate money to an individual candidate.
The issue is that now corporations can fund campaigns.
Your post is a strawman.
What I love is all this garbage about how they are gonna give money to candidates. They can NOT do that. This decision did not change that fact. Corporations STILL can not donate money to an individual candidate.
The issue is that now corporations can fund campaigns.
Your post is a strawman.
Your post is irrelevant.
Campaigns get funded. And elected politicians still tend do whatever the hell they believe is most likely to help
them.
Sometimes this leads to bad things like corruption. Denying free speech to corporations has not prevented that.
Giving free speech to corporations will not end it or make it noticeably worse.
What I love is all this garbage about how they are gonna give money to candidates. They can NOT do that. This decision did not change that fact. Corporations STILL can not donate money to an individual candidate.
The issue is that now corporations can fund campaigns.
Your post is a strawman.
Get your facts straight and use proper English when discussing them. Corporations can NOT give money to Individual Candidates. Claiming they can is a LIE.
