MSNBC aren't the one's consistently caught LYING / DISTORTING the FACTS to support their Ultra-Conservative / Anti-Obama Agenda! MSNBC is NOT committing "CONSUMER FRAUD" claiming to be "Fair and balanced" / "we report you decide"! Fox News is NOT "News" it's Far-Right Propaganda period end of story. Fox so called "News" has been and continues to MISINFORM millions of people at an astonishing rate hence the "Tea Party" hysteria.
@mrcardio9r Libtards love the Jew Keith Olbermann because he tells them what they want to hear. The fact is, Keith Olbermann is a far-left loon who belongs in a mental institution.
Fox so called "News" is NOT a legitimate news source.
1.) Fair and balanced / We report You decide? LMFAO! It's called: "Consumer Fraud"
2.) They have and continue to LIE / DISTORT the FACTS to support their Ultra-Conservative agenda.
Yes other networks will at times tend to lean "left / right" BUT they aren't flat out LYING / DISTORTING FACTS, committing "consumer fraud" and so on...
Fox News should be pulled off the air ASAP.
Fox is why we have these morons calling theirselves the "Tea P
Some of these commentators must live under a rock. Almost everything he warned against has begun to come to fruition. The attack on unions, tax breaks for rich, the attack on social services (too long to list), the attacks on reproductive rights, marriage equality, and the separation of church and state. The Tea Party has so much corporate backing, I am surprised they don't have corporate logo embroidered on there suits. Are you people paying attention?!?!?
Corporations. A person who lives forever, has unlimited money, and no accountability. Cannot serve jail time, but can only pay fines from the the billions of dollars they pocess..
Human Beings vs Corporate Entities. Oberman says it well. Remover Roberts and Clarence Thomas from the Supre Court. And boot Scalia out too...Amend the Constitution.
Thank God Keiths down for the count. Now if Maddow, Schultz, Cenk of shit, ODummell, and Mad-at-yous would all go away maybe civility and truth telling might have a chance. MSNBC: best Democratic propaganda money doesn't have to buy. They help to sink the USS America because they know that feces typically floats, but just in case, they better keep their life jackets handy.
you---sir---no longer have a job b/c you---sir---are so disgustingly biased that not even the kind of people who are willing to associate themselves with msnbc want to listen to your slanderous rantings. furthermore---sir---no one has forgotten that you lost your previous sports reporting career b/c you were fired for sexual harassment.
No doubt corporate sponsors have a hand in this firing. A show may have enough viewers but what really keeps one afloat is advertising revenue. Without that, the plug is pulled. Also I noticed Comcast deal purchasing NBC was approved today. I like Olbermann, but fan of No One. Follow any talking head lockstep... you become a parrot or a dittohead. MSNBC had axed Phil Donahue pretty much the same. Bite the hand that feeds you. Bet Fox News policy allows its talking heads to donate to politics, h
Presuming I had the brain anurisim needed to buy this grade A shit storm, I have a question -
Mr. Olbermann. If "coporations" were capable of buying off entire elections in the first place, how on Earth are they suddenly going to become immeasurably timid in the face of one or more new "laws"?
What sense does it make to rely on entity A to police and check entity B when the whole fear about B to BE checked...is that A has no power over it in the FIRST place?
@HotaruZoku And while I'm on the subject sir, you brought up money. You brought up the idea that there should be spending limits. Not on debt, loans, credit...no no. Limit -real- money.
I accept it isn't the peoples. It's a toy the government makes so we can addict ourselves, then dance at their whim. Even so. -Tangible- spending?
Presumably enforced by a group that pioneered the Mad Hatter concept of "Deficit spending?"
A government that would laugh off the very idea of limits imposed on IT?
Damn right Olbermann. I wonder how many death threats this man recieved after this was made, as usual towards people who speak the truth. Olbermann, keep speaking the truth man.
@itsanameisntit I think Americans are more capable then you give them credit for, I think they are in for a fall, but I still have hope that they will come to there senses, but so far these last 2 years have not helped that hope.
@fireflygirl246 its all mathematical, algorithms, we have reached the end of that system. All of the conditions which led to America being what it was have ceased. Everything else is and Disneyesque. I'm not trying to be condescending, a poll showed that more than 50% of Americans believe that when you wish upon a star, your dreams really do come true. Industry is gone, white collar jobs have gone, the money has gone, and now that justice has gone. Call your mom!
When he said "let's see what that will look like" I genuinely expected him to play some stock terminator footage with a tank tread going over a pile of human skulls.
Doesnt this guy always talk down at fear mongerers, well wat was that I mean good lord no1 thinks he jumped a few steps theres I dont think its right but corporations have been giving donations all along & now a supremem court ruling & this guy warns us of 1984 to come, get real. And does anyone else notice he always compares shit with stuff that happened like 200 years ago like shit hasnt changed at all since then, oh and obama got a ton of public money and lobyists
@mikedd56 this guy is not fear mongering he is reporting the FACT that this government is pretty much bought and paid for. fear monger would be something like hmm telling America a lie like " they have weapons of mass destruction"as you drag our troops into an illegal war where thousands and thousands will die. you need to wake up and shut off FOX!
@CarguyBart ....Olbermann wants his lemmings to believe that "corporation" means Walmart and Exxon. They're gullible enough to not know that this ruling allows unlimited donations from organized labor Corporations (including NEA and NTA), Leftwing news corporations, a zillion environmentalist hysteria groups (corporations) who make a handsome living off impressionable donors and the list goes on and on ad nauseum.
Start your OWN corporation--costs $100 or so in most states--you'll be rich
I know u believe all of what the media tells you but the truth is Sadaam provided safe haven & financial backing to the terrorists, he was starting to invade his neighboring countries & would disrupted our oil importing & liberals can whine all they want about it was a war for oil but that oil needed to be secured we depend on oil for a million things & they'd be singing a different tune when gas reached $5 a gal. BTW it was British intelligence that reported to us that Sadaam
was attempting to purchase ingredients for WMDs. Would it be better to stop him before he made a WMD or after & just hope he doesnt use it before we get it. Plus he already attacked 3 different countries including his own with WMDs so he did have them before. BTW our troops DID find chemical & biological weapons but the media majority refuse to report anything thats not pro-democrat. Ur just repeating what the media said what the hell do u know
There's an old saying and it's as true today as ever....."if you are under the age of 20 and not a liberal you have NO heart.....if you are over 30 and are not a conservative, you have NO BRAIN".
@RichieEastside Because they're run almost exclusively by hard-right ideologues. If they were run by those damn godless liberals, I imagine you'd be pretty pissed off right now
@streetswell I don't care what the political persuasion of businesspeople is, I'm just wondering why they would put a social agenda out there. What do they have to gain? Why would they spend money on politicians to enact it? There's no money in it...they gain nothing from it...so why would put time, money, and energy into it? I don't care if they're conservatives or liberals, why would they care about social issues like that?
@RichieEastside If they fund ultra right-wing causes, ultra right-wing politicians and political groups will reward them with access and the occasional tax break. Plus, these hard-right wackos seem to think it is their holy mission to spread their bizarre, backwards view of the world. Erik Prince of Blackwater USA is a prime example.
@RichieEastside Yes and no. They definitely contribute to get political access, but where folks like Moveon give in order to publicize their agenda, folks like Chevron and Blackwater give in order to install politicians who will favor their businesses. BTW, I really appreciate you engaging this topic like a sane adult, rather than just shouting slogans. Youtube needs more posters like you.
@streetswell Alot of that comes down to who has control though, just look at BP right now. They donated more money to Obama and the Democrats in the last 2 years than they did to all political contributions combined in the last 10. I can see why arguments such as this might still have some traction, but wait until after the midterm elections this year and it'll be flip flopped again. I don't think they try to buy the winner, but I definitely think they hedge their bets in their contributions.
Great exchange Richie and street, good to see honest dialogue is still an option.
Hope you don't mind, I just would like to add to what you said Richie,
In looking at BP have a close look at the lurid history of their control, especially of Iran after Mosadek was ousted by the US. Their disregard for anything citizen goes back many many years. We are still feeling it today in a bad way.
A 30 foot baskin shark died and washed up in NE. BP has screwed us with political cover.
@streetswell and thank you as well for not shouting slogans and cliches, if everybody could have dialogue like this then we might actually make some progress instead of just having our free speech rights go to waste on partisan nitpicking and whining.
I have to agree with him. Corporations having the same rights as persons is an amazing decision. When you consider its ultimately shareholders and not employees and managers take the hit from oil spills or mass corruption, the whole thing is isane in attributing rights and responsibilites to artifical entities. Another 4 years of bush and his corporate cronies and we'd be back in the dark ages building pyramids for a small elite. Crazy decision by the court.
Can this vacuous cunt Olbermann go a DAY without bringing up the race card? Also who the fuck is this corporate lackey to bash corporations? Oh the irony. Fucking fool.
One question, Mr President-Didn't you go back on your promise to use public financing to run for President, so in essence, you could outspend your opponent without limit? President Obama if you research your campaign contributions, most of them were from these huge corporations! Simply because you know your policies, President Obama, are bad for the American dream & that every big donor is now turning on you, does not mean it is bad for America.
@BlackRepublican2010 you are a fool! Obama's money came from us, his supporters, who voted him in to fix the mess neoCUNTS like you left this country in
@TillMakaveliReturns Obummers corporate lobbies - AIG, BP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Acorn, Moveon.org.... etc.... It is now june 11, 2010.... No more last eight years... Bush, Bush, Bush... Now its Obama, Obama, Obama... Bp Oil spill is a national disaster... He loafed on that one, Jindal waited 10 days for federal clean up response.... Healthcare will now cost 1.3 trillion annually.. CBO got it wrong.... this administration did not know what was in SB1070... unemp is now nearly 10%
And one last question, how low of an opinion of the American Peoples' intelligence do you have if you believe they can be influenced by corporate commercials instead of your Hollywood Socialist thugs? VOTE REPUBLICAN! PROUD BLACK REPUBLICAN!
This, however, will mean that if a corporation favors liberal issues, they can spend unlimited money on that, right? Olberman is speaking here as if The Left never gets money from corporations, which they certainly do.
whats there to thumbs down? I know Olbermann is liberal but this video talks about the rights of the people of the U.S. ALL people of the US vs. the corporations. At least for this topic, im asking you to consider what he is saying to heart.
I admit I am not from the US, I am from the UK and here we have an attitude that excessive spending on elections, campaigns etc is a dirty thing. People with huge funding tend to be shamed for this arguably unfair advantage and their motivations widely questioned. Having excessive funding makes you unlikely to win. Is this true also in the US? Judging by the tone of the article it is not but I want to be sure, thank you.
Have you ever looked at your driver's license..Notice that your name is in CAPS - why you ask? Because you are a corporation..Look it up. Everyone that donate money to political campaigns is ALREADY a corporation...
Get ready to have your tax dollars siphoned off into even more massive corporate welfare (Lockheed, McDonalds, Goldman Sachs, all have taken, and stolen taxpayers money). One thing you will see is much bigger government, just look at the Pentagon, a massive, treasonous, corporate whorehouse, where trillions of taxpayers money is deliberately wasted to enrich the likes of Halliburton.
Goldman used the levers of government to destroy rivals and give itself massive welfare handouts.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I hate to break it to everyone but the Supreme Court ruled correctly. And do not be fooled by the word "Corporation", the Corporations who tend to spend money on political campaigns arent corporations like McDonalds or E-Trade. The Corporations they are speaking of are Corporations like the ACLU, NAACP, NRA, GOA, etc.
No, the court was just plain correct. Freedom of speech doesn't disappear just because people organize themselves.
People like you and Olbermann just think corporations are a bogeymen. Besides, you can't stop the flow of money, all you can do is push it into the black market where the least scrupulous will win out. The worst corporate speech would still get heard the through the use of loop holes, while the good speech is silenced. fight bad speech with good, not censorship.
Yeah or maybe the military. Or perhaps the fed? Military corporations are still corporations. The Federal Reserve ITSELF is considered a corporation. You're an idiot if you think theyre not going to throw in their 2[trillion]cents.
So, why don't you go even deeper to touch the underlying layers? Explain to them about Trust Accounts set-up under sheeples' SS numbers and how the stocks with their SS numbers are traded on Wall Street. Explain to them that EVERYONE in the US of A (a corporation) IS a CORPORATION.
So, according to such understanding, Sup.Court ruled correctly. But they have BETRAYED according to GOD's laws. And they KNOW it. Now watch how that will torment them slowly... stupids...
only, corporations are NOT written about in the first amendment, nor are even hinted at in the entire document. the 5 justices that voted in favor of overturning a century of law are primary originalists, only caring about intent and what is IN the constitution, scalia said it himself. instead they acted under judicial activism and interpretivism and overturned democratically created laws going against everything they believe. the decision effected all corporations.
@SupremeCourtWatcher the only reason corporations like McDonalds and E-Trade arnt being speaked of is b/c it was illegal. Now you can include those companys and thats why its so scary
@SupremeCourtWatcher In 2009 alone the health industry spent more than half a billion dollars on lobbying. These corporations have more power than the PAC's and are willing to spend an insane amount of money to get their preferred candidate elected.
@SupremeCourtWatcher Your opinion would matter if you were right; the corporations that spend the most aren't the conservative favorite punching bags like the ACLU; they are companies with ingrained interests like Health Care (remember how much lobbyists were spending to kill single payer legislation) or Telecommunications companies (those opposed to net neutrality). The small guys aren't so worrisome, its the large ones.The Supreme Court messed up.
@SupremeCourtWatcher Corporations are not people. You want to know why they are not people? They are not born, they do not grow up, get jobs, and get married, or sleep, eat, have sex or take a shit. They are NOT people. Period. Stop drinking the damn KoolAid.
Again, it is a decision that allows the very few with thier millions to dictate what is best for all of us and the real concern for these few will be to continue to line their pockets with more money and more power. The phrase "All men(and women) are created equal" is gradually being circumvented by the narrowed mindedness of the right and left. A dictatorship, even a benevolent one is still a dictatorship and must not allowed to exist.
@SupremeCourtWatcher What about GoldmanSachs giving 1,000,000 to Obama? Who got the 400,000,000 bailout money through AIG? I'd call that a nice investment. Did you happen to see that at the Supreme Court? Besides, now limitless Saudis, Russians, and Chinese can now buy off town mayors to presidents via this Bill.
@SupremeCourtWatcher Soon youll be waxing some CEO's balls and wont have anytime to visit you tube and thats about the only good thing about this ruling.
Let them spend away if people are too stupid to pick candidates despite free speech, yes even..... ghast someone in a union or a corporation you deserve the government you get.
To a great degree I fail to see how this changes anything. After all, we'd have to start with the premise that corporations don't have a significant influence in politics now. If the arguement is that they will have influence; well what do you think they had before this ruling? DC has been bought and controlled by special influence for decades; this changes nothing.
"DC has been bought and controlled by special influence for decades; this changes nothing." This is a republican invention just as is this ruling. And it DOES change things because it enables more republican/corporate damage. However, lax attitudes like yours are scarier to me than the republican machine that rapes and kills to feed it's greed.
Just because it happened behind the scenes before doesn't mean we should accept it and allow it to happen in plain sight. This is a leap in the wrong direction.
Hi Concern Americans! And if I was in another Part of the world I would be Concerned as well. Money knows no geographical boundaries. Make your own video on You Tube. There is a contest to make your voices heard on this issue. First place prize is $200 bucks. Search You Tube on Corporations aren't People. I look forward to watching your video! Go people power!!
It's just another nut winger. He doesn't know the difference between the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence.
We swear allegiance to the Constitution, not the Declaration, the Constitution is how our country is set up. The Declaration was for foreign consumption.
The Declaration talks about G-d, or creator; it talks about a loose Confederacy of states. The Constitution does neither. It talks about freedom from religion, and a United Sates under a Federal Government.
Come on man. You're gonna nit-pick here? Look man, you might hate olbermann, but he is being truthful about this incident. This partisan hatred is what the corporations feed off, they want us to be distracted amongst ourselves while they slowly slit our throats. Corporations are there to make profits. Nothing else. They don't care about individuals, or their rights. They are there to make money and grab power. And we have unite and stop them before its too late!
So the Tenth Amendment just up and left the constitution huh? Anything not expressly allowed to the Federal Government is up to the States. I mean it's right there.
Oh God, the civil war was about State's rights but Lincoln knew he could get more support if he piggybacked on the slavery issue talked about a lot in the North. The war itself was over states' rights but Lincoln changed the culture mid-war to box in the South. It's what happens today. You make an argument without once referring to race and then BAM, you're called a racist so if you defend your point you look like you're defending racism. History professor Keith is not.
So Keith Olbermann is more knowledgeable than Supreme Court Justices? Demagoguery at its finest. This man spoke with his hand on Network Television. Does nobody see something wrong with him commenting on anything beyond sports? This man is a communications major from Cornell Agriculture and Life Sciences. By no means is he a legal scholar. How does the government banning contributions promote free speech? Watch Andrew Napolitano for a Judge's perspective, not this man.
An educated population cannot fall for ads. An honest government cannot be bought with money. An educated population can elect an honest government. It's up to the people to do what's right. People can kill people with a car but they don't the majority of the time. It can lead to a crash, but it's not guaranteed. The constitution is the constitution and it's written so people are responsible for themselves. If you vote for a dirty Democrat or Republican it's on you. Why not vote for Paul?
I do like Ron Paul, I feel he is an honest man. With good ideas.The only thing is that he will never get the nomination of his party, as he's a republican who was against the war, he would never have gotten the republican nomination in '08, however if he could become the face of the libertarian party, and i feel he could do a much better job spreading the word. That way he wouldn't be lumped in with the crazies on both sides of the isle. (This coming from a democrat)
Why be Democrat? That's why America can be bought. Stop voting for parties man. I'd rather vote for a Democrat who believes totally opposite from me but is honest and will stick to the constitution and not rob the people than a conservative just because he's a conservative any day. I used to be a stalwart Republican then I realized it was about the party and the parties both suck. You should become an independent. Stop supporting parties. Support people, ideas, and America dude.
You have a point, but I consider myself a democrat because i support things like social security as well as medicare. Ron Paul aims to re-establish the united states as a constitutional democracy, and i agree with a good 75% of what he says, however i believe that modern coporation's should have regulation, because when people have that much money there is a chance they will abuse their power, without regulations we'd still have terrible things like child labor.
I find it ironic that people accuse the democrats of "robbing the people" when the republicans constantly cause debt, which is fixed by the people. The bush republican administration started illegal profiteering wars and orchestrated the heist that leaves us bailing out goldman sachs. If you don't wake up soon they will make recipes that include your children, and serve them at one of their evil conventions. Stupid people are republicans.
It's funny because you don't know the context of my conversation with Polar. I'm not a Republican by any means. You're just this partisan jerkoff who refuses to either click my page or read my entire conversation. It's partisans like you that keep the Republicans and Democrats elected.
If corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube would have no free speech. Congress could regulate every newspaper article, tv show or even You Tube post. This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme Court was correct to defend our liberties.
You're not making sense. They are programs to give the voice of the people. Youtube has liberal and conservative viewers/vids. Look i don't care if you're a fellow liberal or a conservative, but you have to agree that if this stands the corporate robber barrons will take away our freedom. The supreme court allowed ANY corporation to give unlimited amounts of money to campaigns, even foreign corporations. We have to unite, democrat and republican to stop this.
The supreme court did not allow corporations to give money to campaigns. They only allow corporations to run their own independent ads. This in no way takes away any of our freedoms. Granting Congress the right to set up corporate censors does violate our rights to free speech.
Counting corporations as individuals is a violation of human rights and diminishes liberty for all. If the ruling was so fair, why was it only republican plants on the supreme court who ruled for it?
Actually, most churches are 501c3 non-profit religious organizations. But I can see how someone with your scant understanding of the Constitution of the United States of want to speculate on tax code.
Let me help you see something that's been going over your head.
Get 10 people together, and you can bet that not all 10 people want to vote for the same person.
Ok, so that's an organization. A for profit one has plenty of capital to buy politicians. And they do, all day long. It's called lobbying.
Now, being able to buy all their own ads and stuff, with unlimited funds, you have organizational bodies publicly buying their politicians on your behalf like it or not.
And now, a non profit organization CAN BE a corporation but one that uses it's capital to further it's agenda. An agenda that doesn't involve politics. Jesus, Mohammad, they were not political figures. Since they are tax exempt on capital and property, they have quite a bit of money at their disposal, but it's for charitable works that have no place in the political world.
You speak as though the privileged should have the right to buy politicians freely and openly.
The privileged do not need the corporate form to advertise. Warren Buffet and George Soros can already purchase commercials expressing their opinions and there is no limits placed on them.
For those of us too poor to be able to individually afford commercials, we must team up with others in the corporate form to purchase commercials collectively.
To a degree, you're right. Why the fuck aren't you asking yourself if you want your employer making political decisions and contributions on your behalf without so much as your consent? It's bad enough that they're out there already telling you who to vote for (like Walmart, for instance).
You're gonna have corporate officials funding commercials on the behalf of employees who might not even hold the same political views.
AND THEY DO THAT ALREADY! It's just now KFC can, too.
Not criticizing a politician so much as it is spending their capital to influence the outcome of an election. Therein lies the moral issue.
Citizens United make a living off criticizing shit, so don't act like their rights are being infringed upon. You got your wish, people with capital now have a loudest voice out there.
There is nothing immoral about influencing an election. Voting is the primary way we influence elections and that is not immoral. Expressing ones opinion and listening to others' opinions is how the people make informed choices. There is nothing immoral there.
Extremely rich people were already welcome to spend as much capital as they wished on ads. The question in this case, is are an association of middle class people allowed to pool their resources to buy an add together.
It's about people with money having a louder and more influential voice than people with none.
if you don't see the moral issue there, then this conversation is over.
And it has nothing at all to do with middle class being able to produce movies attacking politicians. The only reason they couldn't, was the fact it was election time and rules were in place to ensure that companies with plenty of cash couldn't hit the presses slandering candidates left and right.
If richer people can afford more food than poorer people, is the solution to ban eating? You may have identified a problem in that the rich can afford more political speech, but surely the solution is not to ban more political speech.
Furthermore, this ruling only impacted Corporations. It in no way affected individuals like Warren Buffet who are still welcome to spend as much as they want on independent advertising.
And why should corporations influence politics? Why do you keep comparing corporations do with their profit (or what they wish to profit from) to what Warren Buffet does with his own money? Why should corporate boards speak on the behalf of each and every one of their employees as to who they would like to see president?
Citizen's United was a not for profit company. It had no profits and was not using these non existent profits for anything.
Corporations can not be expected to represent their employees, lenders or customers. Corporations represent the interests of their owners, who vote for the board and therefore exert control over them.
"Conflict of Interest" is allowing Congress to regulate what can and cannot be said in the run up to elections.
If Congressmen and Senators are so corrupt that they can be easily bought, then surely the solution is not to grant this corrupt body the right to regulate which political speech the rest of the country may say.
There are two legitimate ways to oppose a politician whose policies run counter to your interests; voting against him and criticizing him publicly. Criticizing a politician is no more a conflict of interest than voting against that politician.
You don't want to give the Fed ANYTHING, let alone the power to decide how much power to bestow upon themselves. I'd love to completely abolish the power to legislate, including the disbanding of congress.
At the same time, people with otherwise highly profitable businesses and virtually unlimited Capital can practically piss slanderous ads 24/7 and swiftboat the competition in the name of Freedom and Liberty during the campaign seasons?
And I love how you stand by your big businesses and their apparent "right" to speak on behalf of it's millions or thousands of employees endorsing a politician or political party.
Shit, I don't even want them donating to both sides to be neutral, the entire practice itself is foul.
I find your moral compass so fucked I'm shocked you can find your way anywhere.
Oh dude, you're way the fuck off. It's a bit more along the lines of churches losing a tax exempt status when they involve themselves in political campaigns, not whether or not they have freedom of religion (their very existence is proof of it).
Besides, the rights apply to them as individuals, not as collective bodies. As a collective body, they are grandfathered.
Now, the nature of their organization is a different animal...
Um... No they don't. That was practically the premise of coming here altogether, so don't be stupid.
As I said, a Church's existence is proof of freedom of religion. It's guaranteed under the first amendment. Freedom of association and assembly also guarantees them the right to organize and pray together if they so choose.
Pull your head out of your ass. Congress doesn't ban anyone from assembling at church, but if you get political, you can lose your tax exempt status.
Because the corporations control the media, they wouldn't broadcast things that would hurt their image. Now, maybe some americans are ignorant and the like. But I for one will not stand by while some corporate rat takes my freedom!
I believe at the end of the day there is right and wrong and if the justices were right then 75% of the congress and senate would not be as nervous as they are with midterm election upon us you will see this topic slash the very throats of the legislators that support it.
So incredible commentary Mr. Olberman there will never be a moment where you agree on everything, but then there's right and wrong.
So very very simple they got it right 100 years ago!
Corps and Unions will not decide the law, they will have free speech. Follow their logic and vote for those elected officials who will do what's best for the country.
Are you serious...its not about free speech. Any corporation can get tv time and talk about who they like for president or any other office. Why cant they do that? No its about having another way to pay people off. "Hey...ill pay for your next ten tv advertisements, but when that new bill comes up I want you to make sure it goes away"
Thats what its about. Period.
I wouldn't doubt that some of those Judges were paid off as well to get this passed.
You wrote: "Are you serious...its not about free speech. Any corporation can get tv time and talk about who they like for president or any other office. Why cant they do that?"
Actually, corporations and unions were prohibited from buying TV time or any other media for political purposess -- until the recent supreme court decision, which declared this an infringement of free speech.
Yes that may be true...but as a corporation...Exxon's head cant get on tv and say Exxon wants this guy for this reason...no...but that same head can spend his own money...get on tv...and say.."I" like this guy for this reason. Exxon is not a person and cant talk or have an opinion. The people in it can...and they can get tv time if they wanted.
Majority rule suffers form something called "the tyranny of the majority." It's not just the votes, but what can be put to a vote.
This is not about majority rule, it's about what gets put to a vote, and it grants the wealthy a bully pulpit to speak from, and the remainder get no voice whatsoever.
I don't understand how if corporations take over there will be bans on abortion and gay marriage etc. Olberman is just as bad as O'reilly when it comes to making grandiose claims that upon a second look falter. A corporation would support abortions because they make the tools necessary for it, and probably want the ability to research stem cells. Gay marriage? married couples spend more money than anyone else, a corporation is obviously gonna see this and support it.
raz: Dred Scott said that folks who came to America or their descendants could never be citizens. This decision says that corporations (which are dictatorships) are not only citizens, but can sway elections by taking over the media with billions of $ just before elections. That makes all of the people less powerful, as the corporations get more powerful. The loss of our democracy will slowly gain momentum as special interests (composed of corporations, etc.) gain power.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country"--Thomas Jefferson
What a mistake overturning 1907 Tillman Act is the republicans wish list they will sell their soul to regain power but they will be obsolete to Corporations they will find the perfect senators heartless people and profits will be Law just wait thank God by then i'll be dead
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
The Roberts Court is the one out-of-step. They overturned previous decisions of the Supreme Court: 1990 Austin v. Michigan chamber of Commerce, which restricted corporate spending, and 2003 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission which up held the 2002 Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold), and 2007 decision on McCain-Feingold.
The 'gang of 5' either are stupid, or have an agenda to destroy the federal election process in America. They have broken their oath and should be impeached
I find it hilarious that Olbermann is hopping mad about corporations influencing the election when the networks MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, which are run by corporations and already advocate for and against candidates.
Thank you Thorbie. I see someone gave you a thumbs down for your comment. It's amazing people can't see the irony that Olberman is speaking on behalf of a CORPORATION. Apparently there are a few select coprporations (MSNBC, FOX, etc.) that can speak freely during election times but all others must be banned. How convenient is that! A few companies are given political speech monopolies and the liberal nutbags cant see any problem with that.
I don't give a crap about Olberman, democrats, repubs, I care about my families future. Nobody has ever stopped a corporation from speaking their opinion. "Free speech" is a straw man. Why have you fallen for that? Nor is this about all corporations. Its about the ones at the very top who can give unlimited sums of money to campaigns of ANY party. Can you do the same?
unebug: Text of 'Southern Strategy continued ':The 'Southern Strategy' was laid out in 1970 by Nixon's top strategist, Kevin Phillips.
It said: 'From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
" The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats'
Junebug: Please refer to the Republican 'southern strategy' begun under Nixon in 1970. It defined the major efforts in the Republican Party in racist terms, and effected the change from southern states being Democrat to being white Republican. States that used to vote Democrat now vote Republican because of the racist Republican targeting of bigoted whites.
It amazes me how foolish some people are. They have no history, and can't process complex ideas. They believe the last thing they heard at the bar, or from their drunken parents.
Why don't you read not only the constitution, but the Federalist Papers. Follow that up with the previous Supreme Court decisions which were over turned by the current gang of 5.
Then, assuming you have the attention span to accomplish this very basic research, tell us what you think in your own words.
Finally the Supreme Court acknowledges that we have a First Amendment.
Congress shall make NOLAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is ridiculous. Ridiculous. As if most politicians are not already bought and paid for. The laws in place have done nothing .. NOTHING .. to stop money in politics.
and as a result of this decisions the equivalent of NOTHING has changed.. except that "Corporations" can be more honest and transparent about who they are buying. I am frankly to discover this info.
This program, and what 'Olberman is saying, 'of 'courts ruling' is as 'historic and well spoken, as this courts ruling is misguided, and wrong. 'as well as being
one more turn of the key'...to our demise. 'SO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENCY DOESNT MATTER? [picking justices]
it will help R's in short term...then Dems will be forced to 'follow suit'.
NO CHANCE OF 3RD/4TH PARTY', so sorely needed, along with elimination of 'ALL LOBBYISTS MONIES!!
uturn: sorry if the argument s here are over your head, but it is good to hear from even those who are trying to understand. I suggest looking up the decision on the net. Be sure to read that this decision overturned previous Supreme Court decisions, and changed the law substantially
Your problems are very big to you, but we are discussing he future of America here.
10th amendment!
baldurus1 3 weeks ago
MSNBC aren't the one's consistently caught LYING / DISTORTING the FACTS to support their Ultra-Conservative / Anti-Obama Agenda! MSNBC is NOT committing "CONSUMER FRAUD" claiming to be "Fair and balanced" / "we report you decide"! Fox News is NOT "News" it's Far-Right Propaganda period end of story. Fox so called "News" has been and continues to MISINFORM millions of people at an astonishing rate hence the "Tea Party" hysteria.
mrcardio9r 3 months ago
@mrcardio9r Libtards love the Jew Keith Olbermann because he tells them what they want to hear. The fact is, Keith Olbermann is a far-left loon who belongs in a mental institution.
ClaimAmerica4Christ 1 month ago
@mrcardio9r And Fox news is the only reliable news source free from libtards with special interests.
ClaimAmerica4Christ 1 month ago
Fox so called "News" is NOT a legitimate news source.
1.) Fair and balanced / We report You decide? LMFAO! It's called: "Consumer Fraud"
2.) They have and continue to LIE / DISTORT the FACTS to support their Ultra-Conservative agenda.
Yes other networks will at times tend to lean "left / right" BUT they aren't flat out LYING / DISTORTING FACTS, committing "consumer fraud" and so on...
Fox News should be pulled off the air ASAP.
Fox is why we have these morons calling theirselves the "Tea P
mrcardio9r 3 months ago
@vikingdnax
America is going to have a huge corporate dick up its ass and its going to fuck you too.
Tobolose 3 months ago 2
Some of these commentators must live under a rock. Almost everything he warned against has begun to come to fruition. The attack on unions, tax breaks for rich, the attack on social services (too long to list), the attacks on reproductive rights, marriage equality, and the separation of church and state. The Tea Party has so much corporate backing, I am surprised they don't have corporate logo embroidered on there suits. Are you people paying attention?!?!?
SicilianBleux 5 months ago
lol Just another media white man with a BIG liberal nigger cock up his weak ass.
VIKINGxDNA 6 months ago
KO is amazing. Just about EVERYTHING that comes out of his pie hole is completely opposite from the truth.
1pt21jigawatt 6 months ago
Wow amazingly prophetic. Union stripping, libya war, arizona bill.
CapnHolic 6 months ago
Corporations. A person who lives forever, has unlimited money, and no accountability. Cannot serve jail time, but can only pay fines from the the billions of dollars they pocess..
CapnHolic 6 months ago 2
Human Beings vs Corporate Entities. Oberman says it well. Remover Roberts and Clarence Thomas from the Supre Court. And boot Scalia out too...Amend the Constitution.
utubinol 7 months ago
Sounds like Obama.
masterbrice 8 months ago
Thank God Keiths down for the count. Now if Maddow, Schultz, Cenk of shit, ODummell, and Mad-at-yous would all go away maybe civility and truth telling might have a chance. MSNBC: best Democratic propaganda money doesn't have to buy. They help to sink the USS America because they know that feces typically floats, but just in case, they better keep their life jackets handy.
chickenwretch 9 months ago
Hey, Keith. What you said about unions being neutered? It's happening. Today. In Madison, WI.
OswaldCornelius 11 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
you---sir---no longer have a job b/c you---sir---are so disgustingly biased that not even the kind of people who are willing to associate themselves with msnbc want to listen to your slanderous rantings. furthermore---sir---no one has forgotten that you lost your previous sports reporting career b/c you were fired for sexual harassment.
CornFedArmen 1 year ago
(continued from below post)
... heck they'd be at tea party rally too and not just reporting.
YourLastViewer 1 year ago
No doubt corporate sponsors have a hand in this firing. A show may have enough viewers but what really keeps one afloat is advertising revenue. Without that, the plug is pulled. Also I noticed Comcast deal purchasing NBC was approved today. I like Olbermann, but fan of No One. Follow any talking head lockstep... you become a parrot or a dittohead. MSNBC had axed Phil Donahue pretty much the same. Bite the hand that feeds you. Bet Fox News policy allows its talking heads to donate to politics, h
YourLastViewer 1 year ago
Presuming I had the brain anurisim needed to buy this grade A shit storm, I have a question -
Mr. Olbermann. If "coporations" were capable of buying off entire elections in the first place, how on Earth are they suddenly going to become immeasurably timid in the face of one or more new "laws"?
What sense does it make to rely on entity A to police and check entity B when the whole fear about B to BE checked...is that A has no power over it in the FIRST place?
HotaruZoku 1 year ago
@HotaruZoku And while I'm on the subject sir, you brought up money. You brought up the idea that there should be spending limits. Not on debt, loans, credit...no no. Limit -real- money.
I accept it isn't the peoples. It's a toy the government makes so we can addict ourselves, then dance at their whim. Even so. -Tangible- spending?
Presumably enforced by a group that pioneered the Mad Hatter concept of "Deficit spending?"
A government that would laugh off the very idea of limits imposed on IT?
HotaruZoku 1 year ago
Damn right Olbermann. I wonder how many death threats this man recieved after this was made, as usual towards people who speak the truth. Olbermann, keep speaking the truth man.
Ch4oTiK 1 year ago
I didnt understand what the introduction RE slavery had to do with the rest of the discussion. Somebody help my dumbness please
SHAHINCLAAT 1 year ago
It's all over! The last chapter in America's history.
itsanameisntit 1 year ago
@itsanameisntit It appears so.
straightedge442 1 year ago
@itsanameisntit I think Americans are more capable then you give them credit for, I think they are in for a fall, but I still have hope that they will come to there senses, but so far these last 2 years have not helped that hope.
fireflygirl246 1 year ago
@fireflygirl246 its all mathematical, algorithms, we have reached the end of that system. All of the conditions which led to America being what it was have ceased. Everything else is and Disneyesque. I'm not trying to be condescending, a poll showed that more than 50% of Americans believe that when you wish upon a star, your dreams really do come true. Industry is gone, white collar jobs have gone, the money has gone, and now that justice has gone. Call your mom!
itsanameisntit 1 year ago
Keith was right. Welcome to the Tea Party, brought to you courtesy of: Wall Street, Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, The Carlyle Group, News Corp, etc.
jezmundberserker 1 year ago
Hey, Keith, Politians are already prostitutes
lsquad1 1 year ago
The Politicians that we elect allow themselves to be corrupted because they want to be corrupted.
The Supreme Court decided correctly.
Is Olberman really trying to claim that he is not a highly paid shill for certain corporation?
jizzmonger 1 year ago
When he said "let's see what that will look like" I genuinely expected him to play some stock terminator footage with a tank tread going over a pile of human skulls.
AspiringPotato 1 year ago
Doesnt this guy always talk down at fear mongerers, well wat was that I mean good lord no1 thinks he jumped a few steps theres I dont think its right but corporations have been giving donations all along & now a supremem court ruling & this guy warns us of 1984 to come, get real. And does anyone else notice he always compares shit with stuff that happened like 200 years ago like shit hasnt changed at all since then, oh and obama got a ton of public money and lobyists
mikedd56 1 year ago
@mikedd56 this guy is not fear mongering he is reporting the FACT that this government is pretty much bought and paid for. fear monger would be something like hmm telling America a lie like " they have weapons of mass destruction"as you drag our troops into an illegal war where thousands and thousands will die. you need to wake up and shut off FOX!
CarguyBart 1 year ago
@CarguyBart ....Olbermann wants his lemmings to believe that "corporation" means Walmart and Exxon. They're gullible enough to not know that this ruling allows unlimited donations from organized labor Corporations (including NEA and NTA), Leftwing news corporations, a zillion environmentalist hysteria groups (corporations) who make a handsome living off impressionable donors and the list goes on and on ad nauseum.
Start your OWN corporation--costs $100 or so in most states--you'll be rich
baldrad 1 year ago
@CarguyBart
I know u believe all of what the media tells you but the truth is Sadaam provided safe haven & financial backing to the terrorists, he was starting to invade his neighboring countries & would disrupted our oil importing & liberals can whine all they want about it was a war for oil but that oil needed to be secured we depend on oil for a million things & they'd be singing a different tune when gas reached $5 a gal. BTW it was British intelligence that reported to us that Sadaam
mikedd56 1 year ago
@CarguyBart
was attempting to purchase ingredients for WMDs. Would it be better to stop him before he made a WMD or after & just hope he doesnt use it before we get it. Plus he already attacked 3 different countries including his own with WMDs so he did have them before. BTW our troops DID find chemical & biological weapons but the media majority refuse to report anything thats not pro-democrat. Ur just repeating what the media said what the hell do u know
mikedd56 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's an old saying and it's as true today as ever....."if you are under the age of 20 and not a liberal you have NO heart.....if you are over 30 and are not a conservative, you have NO BRAIN".
Which is it for you?
Flyyyy 1 year ago
Chief Justices - eh?
Congratulations Ms Cruz and new hubby.
Subject: Gents cycle - wire bid - deter
Anagram: Celebrity secret wedding
RaleighDawlishRaynar 1 year ago
I didn't know "prostitution" was legal.
motorolarules 1 year ago
Why would the corporations care about same sex marriage, abortion, or church and state?
RichieEastside 1 year ago
@RichieEastside Because they're run almost exclusively by hard-right ideologues. If they were run by those damn godless liberals, I imagine you'd be pretty pissed off right now
streetswell 1 year ago
@streetswell I don't care what the political persuasion of businesspeople is, I'm just wondering why they would put a social agenda out there. What do they have to gain? Why would they spend money on politicians to enact it? There's no money in it...they gain nothing from it...so why would put time, money, and energy into it? I don't care if they're conservatives or liberals, why would they care about social issues like that?
RichieEastside 1 year ago
@RichieEastside If they fund ultra right-wing causes, ultra right-wing politicians and political groups will reward them with access and the occasional tax break. Plus, these hard-right wackos seem to think it is their holy mission to spread their bizarre, backwards view of the world. Erik Prince of Blackwater USA is a prime example.
streetswell 1 year ago
@streetswell So then what about the ones that fund left wing causes, are they just as guilty?
RichieEastside 1 year ago
@RichieEastside Yes and no. They definitely contribute to get political access, but where folks like Moveon give in order to publicize their agenda, folks like Chevron and Blackwater give in order to install politicians who will favor their businesses. BTW, I really appreciate you engaging this topic like a sane adult, rather than just shouting slogans. Youtube needs more posters like you.
streetswell 1 year ago
@streetswell Alot of that comes down to who has control though, just look at BP right now. They donated more money to Obama and the Democrats in the last 2 years than they did to all political contributions combined in the last 10. I can see why arguments such as this might still have some traction, but wait until after the midterm elections this year and it'll be flip flopped again. I don't think they try to buy the winner, but I definitely think they hedge their bets in their contributions.
RichieEastside 1 year ago
@RichieEastside
Great exchange Richie and street, good to see honest dialogue is still an option.
Hope you don't mind, I just would like to add to what you said Richie,
In looking at BP have a close look at the lurid history of their control, especially of Iran after Mosadek was ousted by the US. Their disregard for anything citizen goes back many many years. We are still feeling it today in a bad way.
A 30 foot baskin shark died and washed up in NE. BP has screwed us with political cover.
Junk4Q2 1 year ago
@streetswell and thank you as well for not shouting slogans and cliches, if everybody could have dialogue like this then we might actually make some progress instead of just having our free speech rights go to waste on partisan nitpicking and whining.
RichieEastside 1 year ago
Idiot!
DAISEYBBGUN 1 year ago
No Shit Sherlock!!!!! You are the worst person in the world!!!!!!!
the430movie 1 year ago
He's on the verge of tears! LOL!! Cry for me, Keith!!
Grantrus71 1 year ago
I have to agree with him. Corporations having the same rights as persons is an amazing decision. When you consider its ultimately shareholders and not employees and managers take the hit from oil spills or mass corruption, the whole thing is isane in attributing rights and responsibilites to artifical entities. Another 4 years of bush and his corporate cronies and we'd be back in the dark ages building pyramids for a small elite. Crazy decision by the court.
mmeister7 1 year ago
Can this vacuous cunt Olbermann go a DAY without bringing up the race card? Also who the fuck is this corporate lackey to bash corporations? Oh the irony. Fucking fool.
leeason1 1 year ago
One question, Mr President-Didn't you go back on your promise to use public financing to run for President, so in essence, you could outspend your opponent without limit? President Obama if you research your campaign contributions, most of them were from these huge corporations! Simply because you know your policies, President Obama, are bad for the American dream & that every big donor is now turning on you, does not mean it is bad for America.
BlackRepublican2010 1 year ago
@BlackRepublican2010 you are a fool! Obama's money came from us, his supporters, who voted him in to fix the mess neoCUNTS like you left this country in
TillMakaveliReturns 1 year ago
@TillMakaveliReturns Obummers corporate lobbies - AIG, BP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Acorn, Moveon.org.... etc.... It is now june 11, 2010.... No more last eight years... Bush, Bush, Bush... Now its Obama, Obama, Obama... Bp Oil spill is a national disaster... He loafed on that one, Jindal waited 10 days for federal clean up response.... Healthcare will now cost 1.3 trillion annually.. CBO got it wrong.... this administration did not know what was in SB1070... unemp is now nearly 10%
the430movie 1 year ago
And one last question, how low of an opinion of the American Peoples' intelligence do you have if you believe they can be influenced by corporate commercials instead of your Hollywood Socialist thugs? VOTE REPUBLICAN! PROUD BLACK REPUBLICAN!
BlackRepublican2010 1 year ago
Olbermann pwns.
aceflamingo23 1 year ago
This, however, will mean that if a corporation favors liberal issues, they can spend unlimited money on that, right? Olberman is speaking here as if The Left never gets money from corporations, which they certainly do.
nezpercenathan 1 year ago
@nezpercenathan
He protests the fact that anyone can spend anything on that kind of thing, because it makes the government for sale.
Don't try to act like there's some sort of hypocrisy or double speak here. He's addressing an underlying principle of the deal.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
The supreme court is as corrupt as politicians.
Corporations own the government now and it will get worse.
marieatthelake 1 year ago
whats there to thumbs down? I know Olbermann is liberal but this video talks about the rights of the people of the U.S. ALL people of the US vs. the corporations. At least for this topic, im asking you to consider what he is saying to heart.
newgarda 1 year ago
"Corporations have no body to incarcerate nor a soul to redeem!"
Devlbaby 1 year ago
I admit I am not from the US, I am from the UK and here we have an attitude that excessive spending on elections, campaigns etc is a dirty thing. People with huge funding tend to be shamed for this arguably unfair advantage and their motivations widely questioned. Having excessive funding makes you unlikely to win. Is this true also in the US? Judging by the tone of the article it is not but I want to be sure, thank you.
Bodren 1 year ago
olbermann scares the crap out of me sometimes
aznbutteredtoast 1 year ago
Of course, this would be totally moot if we still had a constitutionally limited gov't, but we don't....
mlyons32331 1 year ago
Have you ever looked at your driver's license..Notice that your name is in CAPS - why you ask? Because you are a corporation..Look it up. Everyone that donate money to political campaigns is ALREADY a corporation...
samsung8369 1 year ago
I was so disappointed when I heard about this ruling! Why do I get the feeling that either
a) some corrupted scam disadvantageous to the gov't will cause them to change it back, or
b) indentured servitude is gonna make a come-back. lol Sucks so hard!!!
JewelKnuckle5 1 year ago
@JewelKnuckle5 then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!
unfortunatebeam 1 year ago
Get ready to have your tax dollars siphoned off into even more massive corporate welfare (Lockheed, McDonalds, Goldman Sachs, all have taken, and stolen taxpayers money). One thing you will see is much bigger government, just look at the Pentagon, a massive, treasonous, corporate whorehouse, where trillions of taxpayers money is deliberately wasted to enrich the likes of Halliburton.
Goldman used the levers of government to destroy rivals and give itself massive welfare handouts.
Relugus 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hate to break it to everyone but the Supreme Court ruled correctly. And do not be fooled by the word "Corporation", the Corporations who tend to spend money on political campaigns arent corporations like McDonalds or E-Trade. The Corporations they are speaking of are Corporations like the ACLU, NAACP, NRA, GOA, etc.
SupremeCourtWatcher 1 year ago
You mean the ruling was correct in your opinion, sir.
FixedNewsChannel 1 year ago 7
Comment removed
mlyons32331 1 year ago
@FixedNewsChannel
No, the court was just plain correct. Freedom of speech doesn't disappear just because people organize themselves.
People like you and Olbermann just think corporations are a bogeymen. Besides, you can't stop the flow of money, all you can do is push it into the black market where the least scrupulous will win out. The worst corporate speech would still get heard the through the use of loop holes, while the good speech is silenced. fight bad speech with good, not censorship.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
Yeah or maybe the military. Or perhaps the fed? Military corporations are still corporations. The Federal Reserve ITSELF is considered a corporation. You're an idiot if you think theyre not going to throw in their 2[trillion]cents.
truthisknowledge1 1 year ago
@SupremeCourtWatcher
So, why don't you go even deeper to touch the underlying layers? Explain to them about Trust Accounts set-up under sheeples' SS numbers and how the stocks with their SS numbers are traded on Wall Street. Explain to them that EVERYONE in the US of A (a corporation) IS a CORPORATION.
So, according to such understanding, Sup.Court ruled correctly. But they have BETRAYED according to GOD's laws. And they KNOW it. Now watch how that will torment them slowly... stupids...
rushin2 1 year ago
@SupremeCourtWatcher
only, corporations are NOT written about in the first amendment, nor are even hinted at in the entire document. the 5 justices that voted in favor of overturning a century of law are primary originalists, only caring about intent and what is IN the constitution, scalia said it himself. instead they acted under judicial activism and interpretivism and overturned democratically created laws going against everything they believe. the decision effected all corporations.
tommybme 1 year ago
@SupremeCourtWatcher the only reason corporations like McDonalds and E-Trade arnt being speaked of is b/c it was illegal. Now you can include those companys and thats why its so scary
newgarda 1 year ago
@SupremeCourtWatcher In 2009 alone the health industry spent more than half a billion dollars on lobbying. These corporations have more power than the PAC's and are willing to spend an insane amount of money to get their preferred candidate elected.
KDALove 1 year ago
@SupremeCourtWatcher Your opinion would matter if you were right; the corporations that spend the most aren't the conservative favorite punching bags like the ACLU; they are companies with ingrained interests like Health Care (remember how much lobbyists were spending to kill single payer legislation) or Telecommunications companies (those opposed to net neutrality). The small guys aren't so worrisome, its the large ones.The Supreme Court messed up.
shaicapone 1 year ago
@SupremeCourtWatcher Corporations are not people. You want to know why they are not people? They are not born, they do not grow up, get jobs, and get married, or sleep, eat, have sex or take a shit. They are NOT people. Period. Stop drinking the damn KoolAid.
InfidelAvenger 1 year ago
Again, it is a decision that allows the very few with thier millions to dictate what is best for all of us and the real concern for these few will be to continue to line their pockets with more money and more power. The phrase "All men(and women) are created equal" is gradually being circumvented by the narrowed mindedness of the right and left. A dictatorship, even a benevolent one is still a dictatorship and must not allowed to exist.
bbq1965 1 year ago
@SupremeCourtWatcher What about GoldmanSachs giving 1,000,000 to Obama? Who got the 400,000,000 bailout money through AIG? I'd call that a nice investment. Did you happen to see that at the Supreme Court? Besides, now limitless Saudis, Russians, and Chinese can now buy off town mayors to presidents via this Bill.
itsanameisntit 1 year ago
@SupremeCourtWatcher Soon youll be waxing some CEO's balls and wont have anytime to visit you tube and thats about the only good thing about this ruling.
000Evolution000 1 year ago
Let them spend away if people are too stupid to pick candidates despite free speech, yes even..... ghast someone in a union or a corporation you deserve the government you get.
ConservativeLogic 1 year ago
To a great degree I fail to see how this changes anything. After all, we'd have to start with the premise that corporations don't have a significant influence in politics now. If the arguement is that they will have influence; well what do you think they had before this ruling? DC has been bought and controlled by special influence for decades; this changes nothing.
afsoldr 1 year ago 2
"DC has been bought and controlled by special influence for decades; this changes nothing." This is a republican invention just as is this ruling. And it DOES change things because it enables more republican/corporate damage. However, lax attitudes like yours are scarier to me than the republican machine that rapes and kills to feed it's greed.
callouschristian 1 year ago
@afsoldr
Just because it happened behind the scenes before doesn't mean we should accept it and allow it to happen in plain sight. This is a leap in the wrong direction.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
Hi Concern Americans! And if I was in another Part of the world I would be Concerned as well. Money knows no geographical boundaries. Make your own video on You Tube. There is a contest to make your voices heard on this issue. First place prize is $200 bucks. Search You Tube on Corporations aren't People. I look forward to watching your video! Go people power!!
xbluebells 1 year ago
It's just another nut winger. He doesn't know the difference between the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence.
We swear allegiance to the Constitution, not the Declaration, the Constitution is how our country is set up. The Declaration was for foreign consumption.
The Declaration talks about G-d, or creator; it talks about a loose Confederacy of states. The Constitution does neither. It talks about freedom from religion, and a United Sates under a Federal Government.
TheGranule 1 year ago
Come on man. You're gonna nit-pick here? Look man, you might hate olbermann, but he is being truthful about this incident. This partisan hatred is what the corporations feed off, they want us to be distracted amongst ourselves while they slowly slit our throats. Corporations are there to make profits. Nothing else. They don't care about individuals, or their rights. They are there to make money and grab power. And we have unite and stop them before its too late!
Polar515 1 year ago
So the Tenth Amendment just up and left the constitution huh? Anything not expressly allowed to the Federal Government is up to the States. I mean it's right there.
Thebboss 1 year ago
Oh God, the civil war was about State's rights but Lincoln knew he could get more support if he piggybacked on the slavery issue talked about a lot in the North. The war itself was over states' rights but Lincoln changed the culture mid-war to box in the South. It's what happens today. You make an argument without once referring to race and then BAM, you're called a racist so if you defend your point you look like you're defending racism. History professor Keith is not.
Thebboss 1 year ago
So Keith Olbermann is more knowledgeable than Supreme Court Justices? Demagoguery at its finest. This man spoke with his hand on Network Television. Does nobody see something wrong with him commenting on anything beyond sports? This man is a communications major from Cornell Agriculture and Life Sciences. By no means is he a legal scholar. How does the government banning contributions promote free speech? Watch Andrew Napolitano for a Judge's perspective, not this man.
Thebboss 1 year ago
So corporations should be allowed to control government? That is the very defenition of Fascism.
Polar515 1 year ago
An educated population cannot fall for ads. An honest government cannot be bought with money. An educated population can elect an honest government. It's up to the people to do what's right. People can kill people with a car but they don't the majority of the time. It can lead to a crash, but it's not guaranteed. The constitution is the constitution and it's written so people are responsible for themselves. If you vote for a dirty Democrat or Republican it's on you. Why not vote for Paul?
Thebboss 1 year ago
I do like Ron Paul, I feel he is an honest man. With good ideas.The only thing is that he will never get the nomination of his party, as he's a republican who was against the war, he would never have gotten the republican nomination in '08, however if he could become the face of the libertarian party, and i feel he could do a much better job spreading the word. That way he wouldn't be lumped in with the crazies on both sides of the isle. (This coming from a democrat)
Polar515 1 year ago
Why be Democrat? That's why America can be bought. Stop voting for parties man. I'd rather vote for a Democrat who believes totally opposite from me but is honest and will stick to the constitution and not rob the people than a conservative just because he's a conservative any day. I used to be a stalwart Republican then I realized it was about the party and the parties both suck. You should become an independent. Stop supporting parties. Support people, ideas, and America dude.
Thebboss 1 year ago
You have a point, but I consider myself a democrat because i support things like social security as well as medicare. Ron Paul aims to re-establish the united states as a constitutional democracy, and i agree with a good 75% of what he says, however i believe that modern coporation's should have regulation, because when people have that much money there is a chance they will abuse their power, without regulations we'd still have terrible things like child labor.
Polar515 1 year ago
I find it ironic that people accuse the democrats of "robbing the people" when the republicans constantly cause debt, which is fixed by the people. The bush republican administration started illegal profiteering wars and orchestrated the heist that leaves us bailing out goldman sachs. If you don't wake up soon they will make recipes that include your children, and serve them at one of their evil conventions. Stupid people are republicans.
callouschristian 1 year ago
It's funny because you don't know the context of my conversation with Polar. I'm not a Republican by any means. You're just this partisan jerkoff who refuses to either click my page or read my entire conversation. It's partisans like you that keep the Republicans and Democrats elected.
Thebboss 1 year ago
If corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube would have no free speech. Congress could regulate every newspaper article, tv show or even You Tube post. This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme Court was correct to defend our liberties.
meadbert 1 year ago
You're not making sense. They are programs to give the voice of the people. Youtube has liberal and conservative viewers/vids. Look i don't care if you're a fellow liberal or a conservative, but you have to agree that if this stands the corporate robber barrons will take away our freedom. The supreme court allowed ANY corporation to give unlimited amounts of money to campaigns, even foreign corporations. We have to unite, democrat and republican to stop this.
Polar515 1 year ago
The supreme court did not allow corporations to give money to campaigns. They only allow corporations to run their own independent ads. This in no way takes away any of our freedoms. Granting Congress the right to set up corporate censors does violate our rights to free speech.
meadbert 1 year ago
Counting corporations as individuals is a violation of human rights and diminishes liberty for all. If the ruling was so fair, why was it only republican plants on the supreme court who ruled for it?
callouschristian 1 year ago
Justice John Paul Stevens who wrote the dissenting opinion that you presumably agree with was nominated by a Republican.
The Bill of Rights obviously applies to Corporations and not just individuals.
If not then the Freedom of Religion would not apply to Churches (most of whom are incorporated.)
If the freedom of assembly only applies to an individual, then what does that mean? You can assemble, but only with yourself?
meadbert 1 year ago
Actually, most churches are 501c3 non-profit religious organizations. But I can see how someone with your scant understanding of the Constitution of the United States of want to speculate on tax code.
FrozenEMT 1 year ago
@FrozenEMT
501c3 non-profit religious organizatations
are Corporations.
McCain-Feingold applied to for profit
and non profit corporations alike.
Citizens United, the corporation that
sued was not for profit.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
Let me help you see something that's been going over your head.
Get 10 people together, and you can bet that not all 10 people want to vote for the same person.
Ok, so that's an organization. A for profit one has plenty of capital to buy politicians. And they do, all day long. It's called lobbying.
Now, being able to buy all their own ads and stuff, with unlimited funds, you have organizational bodies publicly buying their politicians on your behalf like it or not.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@meadbert
And now, a non profit organization CAN BE a corporation but one that uses it's capital to further it's agenda. An agenda that doesn't involve politics. Jesus, Mohammad, they were not political figures. Since they are tax exempt on capital and property, they have quite a bit of money at their disposal, but it's for charitable works that have no place in the political world.
You speak as though the privileged should have the right to buy politicians freely and openly.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
The privileged do not need the corporate form to advertise. Warren Buffet and George Soros can already purchase commercials expressing their opinions and there is no limits placed on them.
For those of us too poor to be able to individually afford commercials, we must team up with others in the corporate form to purchase commercials collectively.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
To a degree, you're right. Why the fuck aren't you asking yourself if you want your employer making political decisions and contributions on your behalf without so much as your consent? It's bad enough that they're out there already telling you who to vote for (like Walmart, for instance).
You're gonna have corporate officials funding commercials on the behalf of employees who might not even hold the same political views.
AND THEY DO THAT ALREADY! It's just now KFC can, too.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
Citizens United was not a for profit company advertising on behalf of employees, nor were they engaged in buying a political candidate.
Citizens United was an association of citizens too poor to afford adds individually.
They only wished to criticize a politician and were banned from doing so.
Congress should not be allowed to ban associations of citizens from criticizing a politician.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
A non-profit trying to sell a movie for profit, a movie criticizing a presidential nominee during a campaign.
A dark shadow on the Supreme Court decision. Now everything is for sale.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@meadbert
Not criticizing a politician so much as it is spending their capital to influence the outcome of an election. Therein lies the moral issue.
Citizens United make a living off criticizing shit, so don't act like their rights are being infringed upon. You got your wish, people with capital now have a loudest voice out there.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
There is nothing immoral about influencing an election. Voting is the primary way we influence elections and that is not immoral. Expressing ones opinion and listening to others' opinions is how the people make informed choices. There is nothing immoral there.
Extremely rich people were already welcome to spend as much capital as they wished on ads. The question in this case, is are an association of middle class people allowed to pool their resources to buy an add together.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
It's about people with money having a louder and more influential voice than people with none.
if you don't see the moral issue there, then this conversation is over.
And it has nothing at all to do with middle class being able to produce movies attacking politicians. The only reason they couldn't, was the fact it was election time and rules were in place to ensure that companies with plenty of cash couldn't hit the presses slandering candidates left and right.
Like swiftboating
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
If richer people can afford more food than poorer people, is the solution to ban eating? You may have identified a problem in that the rich can afford more political speech, but surely the solution is not to ban more political speech.
Furthermore, this ruling only impacted Corporations. It in no way affected individuals like Warren Buffet who are still welcome to spend as much as they want on independent advertising.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
And why should corporations influence politics? Why do you keep comparing corporations do with their profit (or what they wish to profit from) to what Warren Buffet does with his own money? Why should corporate boards speak on the behalf of each and every one of their employees as to who they would like to see president?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
Citizen's United was a not for profit company. It had no profits and was not using these non existent profits for anything.
Corporations can not be expected to represent their employees, lenders or customers. Corporations represent the interests of their owners, who vote for the board and therefore exert control over them.
"Conflict of Interest" is allowing Congress to regulate what can and cannot be said in the run up to elections.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
So of course there can never be a conflict of interest behind corporations buying politicians to legislate in their favor?
You're fucking blind.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
If Congressmen and Senators are so corrupt that they can be easily bought, then surely the solution is not to grant this corrupt body the right to regulate which political speech the rest of the country may say.
There are two legitimate ways to oppose a politician whose policies run counter to your interests; voting against him and criticizing him publicly. Criticizing a politician is no more a conflict of interest than voting against that politician.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
You don't want to give the Fed ANYTHING, let alone the power to decide how much power to bestow upon themselves. I'd love to completely abolish the power to legislate, including the disbanding of congress.
At the same time, people with otherwise highly profitable businesses and virtually unlimited Capital can practically piss slanderous ads 24/7 and swiftboat the competition in the name of Freedom and Liberty during the campaign seasons?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." - Constitution
I do want to give Congress powers, but certainly not those powers explicitly denied it in the constitution.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
And you can, but I don't want people with stacks of cash buying congressman and funding their campaigns buying ads.
I don't even want a federal congress. No federal laws.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@meadbert
And I love how you stand by your big businesses and their apparent "right" to speak on behalf of it's millions or thousands of employees endorsing a politician or political party.
Shit, I don't even want them donating to both sides to be neutral, the entire practice itself is foul.
I find your moral compass so fucked I'm shocked you can find your way anywhere.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@meadbert
And apparently you have no concept of "Conflict of Interest."
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@meadbert
Oh dude, you're way the fuck off. It's a bit more along the lines of churches losing a tax exempt status when they involve themselves in political campaigns, not whether or not they have freedom of religion (their very existence is proof of it).
Besides, the rights apply to them as individuals, not as collective bodies. As a collective body, they are grandfathered.
Now, the nature of their organization is a different animal...
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
Freedom of Religion belongs to associations of individuals as well as individuals.
Congress cannot permit us Freedom of Religion in our own house, but ban us from assembling at Church to pray together.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
Um... No they don't. That was practically the premise of coming here altogether, so don't be stupid.
As I said, a Church's existence is proof of freedom of religion. It's guaranteed under the first amendment. Freedom of association and assembly also guarantees them the right to organize and pray together if they so choose.
Pull your head out of your ass. Congress doesn't ban anyone from assembling at church, but if you get political, you can lose your tax exempt status.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
I wanna hear S. Palin come out against this. Oh wait maybe she is owned by fox/news corp already. Yeah, tea party populism my.........
lhooq21 1 year ago
She is! She already signed on to be a political commentator. And this is who people to want to run for pres. in 2012...
Polar515 1 year ago
This is what Americans get for being Ignorant , and disorganized.
Look how many people are aware of this and not a word out of the public..
except on the internet...
We deserve this..YOU!! deserve this!
jumbocumbo2 1 year ago
Because the corporations control the media, they wouldn't broadcast things that would hurt their image. Now, maybe some americans are ignorant and the like. But I for one will not stand by while some corporate rat takes my freedom!
Polar515 1 year ago
I believe at the end of the day there is right and wrong and if the justices were right then 75% of the congress and senate would not be as nervous as they are with midterm election upon us you will see this topic slash the very throats of the legislators that support it.
So incredible commentary Mr. Olberman there will never be a moment where you agree on everything, but then there's right and wrong.
So very very simple they got it right 100 years ago!
digitaldreus 1 year ago
Corps and Unions will not decide the law, they will have free speech. Follow their logic and vote for those elected officials who will do what's best for the country.
RTreptow 1 year ago
Are you serious...its not about free speech. Any corporation can get tv time and talk about who they like for president or any other office. Why cant they do that? No its about having another way to pay people off. "Hey...ill pay for your next ten tv advertisements, but when that new bill comes up I want you to make sure it goes away"
Thats what its about. Period.
I wouldn't doubt that some of those Judges were paid off as well to get this passed.
Shadownian 1 year ago
Mr Shadownian:
You wrote: "Are you serious...its not about free speech. Any corporation can get tv time and talk about who they like for president or any other office. Why cant they do that?"
Actually, corporations and unions were prohibited from buying TV time or any other media for political purposess -- until the recent supreme court decision, which declared this an infringement of free speech.
RTreptow 1 year ago
Yes that may be true...but as a corporation...Exxon's head cant get on tv and say Exxon wants this guy for this reason...no...but that same head can spend his own money...get on tv...and say.."I" like this guy for this reason. Exxon is not a person and cant talk or have an opinion. The people in it can...and they can get tv time if they wanted.
Shadownian 1 year ago
Shadow, you do not understand this ruling. Please re-read RT again.
TheGranule 1 year ago
Majority rule suffers form something called "the tyranny of the majority." It's not just the votes, but what can be put to a vote.
This is not about majority rule, it's about what gets put to a vote, and it grants the wealthy a bully pulpit to speak from, and the remainder get no voice whatsoever.
GorillaDesperado 1 year ago
I don't understand how if corporations take over there will be bans on abortion and gay marriage etc. Olberman is just as bad as O'reilly when it comes to making grandiose claims that upon a second look falter. A corporation would support abortions because they make the tools necessary for it, and probably want the ability to research stem cells. Gay marriage? married couples spend more money than anyone else, a corporation is obviously gonna see this and support it.
eljefegrande22 1 year ago
The U.S. Supreme is worthless and an insult of justice .
truthisaliar2 1 year ago
raz: Dred Scott said that folks who came to America or their descendants could never be citizens. This decision says that corporations (which are dictatorships) are not only citizens, but can sway elections by taking over the media with billions of $ just before elections. That makes all of the people less powerful, as the corporations get more powerful. The loss of our democracy will slowly gain momentum as special interests (composed of corporations, etc.) gain power.
TheGranule 1 year ago
The overturning of campaigning finance reform is equivalent to the Dred Scott decision????
Either you disregard Olbermann's statement as gross hyperbole or you're as nutty as he is.
razumfrackle 1 year ago
people on tv wear way too much makeup. once you notice it, it's really distracting.
planetdarwin 2 years ago
Here is a great clip of campaign finance laws at work: /watch?v=XZXlPdF5xkE
travisalger 2 years ago
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country"--Thomas Jefferson
qigong1001 2 years ago
Corporations wouldn't do anything that was BAD for their bottom line!
There is NO WAY Corporations would Self Destruct! we all know that! and the Free Market has that magical mystical invisable hand thing!
Most politicians ARE PROSTITUTES, the system is rigged!
At the turn of the century the United States was already the leading manufacturing country in the world.
Nor was it in Manufacturing alone that the United States led the world in 1929.
But Reaganism & the GOP fixed that!
shroomduke 2 years ago
What a mistake overturning 1907 Tillman Act is the republicans wish list they will sell their soul to regain power but they will be obsolete to Corporations they will find the perfect senators heartless people and profits will be Law just wait thank God by then i'll be dead
toniu1234 2 years ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Corporatocracy USA!!!
It's scary!
goog2k 2 years ago
The Roberts Court is the one out-of-step. They overturned previous decisions of the Supreme Court: 1990 Austin v. Michigan chamber of Commerce, which restricted corporate spending, and 2003 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission which up held the 2002 Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold), and 2007 decision on McCain-Feingold.
The 'gang of 5' either are stupid, or have an agenda to destroy the federal election process in America. They have broken their oath and should be impeached
TheGranule 2 years ago
I find it hilarious that Olbermann is hopping mad about corporations influencing the election when the networks MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, which are run by corporations and already advocate for and against candidates.
Thorbie 2 years ago
Thank you Thorbie. I see someone gave you a thumbs down for your comment. It's amazing people can't see the irony that Olberman is speaking on behalf of a CORPORATION. Apparently there are a few select coprporations (MSNBC, FOX, etc.) that can speak freely during election times but all others must be banned. How convenient is that! A few companies are given political speech monopolies and the liberal nutbags cant see any problem with that.
travisalger 2 years ago
I don't give a crap about Olberman, democrats, repubs, I care about my families future. Nobody has ever stopped a corporation from speaking their opinion. "Free speech" is a straw man. Why have you fallen for that? Nor is this about all corporations. Its about the ones at the very top who can give unlimited sums of money to campaigns of ANY party. Can you do the same?
qigong1001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
unebug: Text of 'Southern Strategy continued ':The 'Southern Strategy' was laid out in 1970 by Nixon's top strategist, Kevin Phillips.
It said: 'From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
TheGranule 2 years ago
Junebug: Republican 'southern strategy' continued:
" The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats'
TheGranule 2 years ago
Junebug: Please refer to the Republican 'southern strategy' begun under Nixon in 1970. It defined the major efforts in the Republican Party in racist terms, and effected the change from southern states being Democrat to being white Republican. States that used to vote Democrat now vote Republican because of the racist Republican targeting of bigoted whites.
TheGranule 2 years ago
Especially with Obama at the helm ... We're all up the collective creek!
Junebug1960 2 years ago
Olbermann is a baffoon, a pompous, moronic, baffoon! Go back to sportscasting you twit!
Junebug1960 2 years ago
@Junebug1960, I'd try using the spellcheck before calling people buffoons; or as you would call them, "baffoons".
OrmEmber 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Radical Progressive Left has their panties in a knot because THEIR corporate media just LOST its monopoly on political speech.
Finally ALL corporations (not just MSNBC, CNBC, FOX, PBS, ABC, NBC) have equal access to air time!
As long as the advertising is correct and not a lie, then Voters can NEVER have too much information!
BTW, there are all kinds of laws on the books to prevent Defamation which is any wrongful injury to the reputation of a person or entity.
yakyakyak69 2 years ago
It amazes me how foolish some people are. They have no history, and can't process complex ideas. They believe the last thing they heard at the bar, or from their drunken parents.
Why don't you read not only the constitution, but the Federalist Papers. Follow that up with the previous Supreme Court decisions which were over turned by the current gang of 5.
Then, assuming you have the attention span to accomplish this very basic research, tell us what you think in your own words.
TheGranule 2 years ago
Finally the Supreme Court acknowledges that we have a First Amendment.
Congress shall make NOLAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Maztrim 2 years ago 2
This is ridiculous. Ridiculous. As if most politicians are not already bought and paid for. The laws in place have done nothing .. NOTHING .. to stop money in politics.
and as a result of this decisions the equivalent of NOTHING has changed.. except that "Corporations" can be more honest and transparent about who they are buying. I am frankly to discover this info.
travisalger 2 years ago
This program, and what 'Olberman is saying, 'of 'courts ruling' is as 'historic and well spoken, as this courts ruling is misguided, and wrong. 'as well as being
one more turn of the key'...to our demise. 'SO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENCY DOESNT MATTER? [picking justices]
it will help R's in short term...then Dems will be forced to 'follow suit'.
NO CHANCE OF 3RD/4TH PARTY', so sorely needed, along with elimination of 'ALL LOBBYISTS MONIES!!
MrClaydough 2 years ago
uturn: sorry if the argument s here are over your head, but it is good to hear from even those who are trying to understand. I suggest looking up the decision on the net. Be sure to read that this decision overturned previous Supreme Court decisions, and changed the law substantially
Your problems are very big to you, but we are discussing he future of America here.
TheGranule 2 years ago
Sure, while you're at it, look up SEN. TILLMAN who's work resulted in the 1907 fucck-up that delivered us to the Robert's correction.
It's a fascinating read, all about THE MAN keeping down the BLACK FOLK.
Junebug1960 2 years ago
if directing money is free speech then keeping, for myself, that federal income tax levied onto my labor is ALSO free speech.
The expression might be "I don't want to pay for your war agenda" and I have that right
uturniaphobic 2 years ago