UFO and remote mind reading/manipulation technology was developed by the nazis by the end of WW2 without any alien help. : there is an extreme criminal orgonizaiton working withing high ranks of the US military waging psychological against the general population pretending to be extradimensional aliens and/or angelic and demonic forces often using holograms. ( ET life would look nothing like us, the greys look like mutated people)
As any smart business person knows, the public views the supporter of one idea that a person has automatically states they support all the ideas. Business also knows that controls and restriction equal a lack of revenue (working against the premise of business and investment). Keep it simple. Although an extreme, check out this video: Dr. John Rengen Virapen "Nebenwirkung Tod" Yes, contributors must be announced in order to offer transparency; keep the honest people honest.
why do you have to be an anonumus donor(its not like everone will know just the peolpe trying to keep elections honest) if you are supporting a party and are going to vote? all campain donations should be transparent so people know the adgendas of large corporations or othewise ban political donations give each runner the same budget and air time so ideas win out not money.
There needs to be limits on how much even corps can give. And it needs to be disclosed as to who is giving what. No back room deals. But hiding in the shadows. The Republicans VIA Mitch McConnell likes the big bucks, and all that. He said one time it was free speech. But its also known as buying votes. And buying influence. I think that the filibustering if wrong, just like tacking on more then one thing to a bill. That's sneaky.
either every one and everything should be anonymous or none (preferably none) there is no need to remain anonymous none of this money under the table type crap have some honor support your donations u greedy cowards
I think the whole funding issue reveals the core contradiction between capitalism and democracy. The political process is democratic and fair, with everyone having equal power but when it touches the world of money, democracy is threatened. If capitalism is allowed to enter politics, the oligarchy that hold all the country's wealth have control and democracy is destroyed.
please make a video on republicans and fox news saying Obama's visit to India will cost 200 million dollars a day! 200 million a day? wow are Americans that stupid? republicans failed miserably at math and accounting..epic fail.
I think the first amendment protects both the right to display the information, and to not. It's a matter of the political parties ethics if you ask me.
Instead of targeting companies, as they have a right to privacy (as do people), I think it would be best to simply list WHAT TYPE of company the amounts come from.
I think it would be a nice way to show what party truly represents the people.
China doesn't spend this much money on political advertising. Just imagine how many schools we could build for 9 billion dollars over three years... So much wasted in a broken system.
A set amount for all canaidates, & all supporters disclosed, Publicly, on said advertisment. Even then, where money & politic is mixed, corruption exist.
I think it's interesting that people think corporations can buy elections with advertisements. I've never even been close to convinced by any political ad *ever*.
Although most attack ads do turn me off of the candidate who "approved this message".
This, is a bit radical, but I would prefer that anonymous donations weren't regulated at all, and that there were no limit on contributions from individuals. Although, with the exception that foreign campaign contributions should be banned (this implies that any regulation would be aimed only for this). This way, anonymous political speech would become 100% protected.
@GeminiK hey, i was just wondering: if you are in favor of preserving the anonymity of campain contributers, how would we be able to recognize foriegn contributions? they would, after all, be anonymous. -not looking for a fight, i just want to hear as many opinions as possable regarding this issue.
@QuestionReadLearn NP, I'm happy to answer. Your question is one of the most courteous ones I had recently. I think a simple confidential report informing a regulatory body that all contributors provided proof of citizenship would be fine. Some reasonable punishment should also be instated for people who are proven in court to launder a contribution from a foreigner. Also, see eugeneonegin09 comment below about geographical restrictions which I agree with (the one I replied to "I like this").
If undisclosed donations from annonymous peoples didn't influence politics it wouldn't be tregulated like it is in less corrupt nations like the Unoited kingdom.
American politicians pretend to be honest but everyone knows who pays them for their support.
if that law passed things like above the influence and partnership for a drug free america would be fucked. they'ed have to show that they're sponsored by alcohol companies, then people would know how hypocritical they are.
Campaign finance reform is one of the worst things that has happened to our democracy in 100 years. This is just ONE story that is known, and if it does not chill you to your core....i don't know what would.
@Tevarion1 it should have been stronger. what it should have made perfectly clear, is that congresspeople should only get money from ONLY THEIR OWN DISTRICTS.senate should get money from JUST THEIR OWN STATES. governors,state reps, and state sens. should get money FROM THEIR OWN DISTRICTS AND STATES.
@ericdahlen yes, but if people are stupid enough to believe that sharron angle is better than harry reid....i dont think explaining that difference to them is possible...do you?
Today the highest level public servants who are overpaid, who accept what are essentially brides and who use their positions to create a "celebrity persona" to sell books, become talking heads and collect ridiculous fees for public appearances can do what ever they want. Rome was torn down and sold off brick by brick to line the pockets of the elites. Oh well. At least we can count on pay-per-view gladiator combat soon. Time to start stockpiling popcorn and foam fingers for the apocalypse!
being against anonymous speech stems from the same line of thought that politicians use to justify the drug war-people are easily led and simply not smart enough to make their own decisions.
Besides, we all know America doesn't have a long tradition of anonymous political speech. Sigh.
I've got the best way to fix this problem: Let's ban all political advertisement on TV and radio. We don't allow tobacco companies to advertise on TV and radio. So I don't want to hear about a free speech violation. If we do that, politicians would not need all that money so they would spend less time at fund raisers. And they would have to go back to campaigning the old-fashion way such as knocking on my door and asking me for my vote.
Have you ever noticed that many Lib.s just cannot stand the right and must name call and in general act mean spirited. It seems it would make for better reading if both sides talked about why they believe they have the answers.
Look at Obama and his worn out metaphor of the car and the ditch. He used it again today and said the Repub.s need to get in the back as in back of the bus. He also made another comment calling the Repub.s the enemy.
@bnjones28 Dude both sides can be just as childish. Your complaining about Obama's 'worn out metaphor'? What about 'Joe the Plumber'? All politicians use them. And yes he should be making the republicans his enemy, instead of being too much of a bitch to stand up to them.
@guitarfreak8900 You are wrong. Obama is president of every citizen not just the ones who will help him attempt to remake America into what he believes it should be with out any concern for what we want. You don't think he is standing up to them, he is calling them names. And Joe the plumber was made up by the left just like tea baggers rather than tea party. The right does not call him the head Nigger in charge.
@bnjones28 You have no idea what you are talking about. You think that Bush and Cheney even listened to what the opposition wanted, let alone worked with them? Joe the Plumber made up by the left? just stfu man your obviously dumb as a fucking post.
@bnjones28 That's right, I get mad when a stupid republican starts saying things that aren't true, and can't do anything to backup their ridiculous arguments. Maybe you should realize that this isn't just a big game, and this needs to be taken seriously. Then maybe, MAYBE you'll understand why I'm getting mad over your ignorance and the lies you are telling.
@guitarfreak8900 That is how Marxists are.In the revote they are the one's who go to the streets and start the fighting.They are the ones who get mad at the people who do not want their country to change.But your side does not suffer the huge number of losses.Because we, sadly, do not get mad and only fight after we have been hurt. In a few days the progressives aka socialists,Marxists will be replaced.But we still have not won.There are progressives in both parties. Bust was a progressive.
@bnjones28 Another person who has no idea what they are talking about. What a surprise. Hahahaha another republican accusing Obama and progressives of being socialist? Man you guys keep getting more retarded. "Bust" was a progressive? I hope to god you didn't mean to say Bush.
@guitarfreak8900 Yep your right President Bush is a progressive so is Senator McCain. Socialism, Marxism, Maoism: look at all of the people put together for the Obama regime. Either they said they were a Communist, Van Jones or said one of these far left ideals is they hero like Anita Dun saying she looks to Mao.
@guitarfreak8900 Your side has the lies. All the stories about the Tea Party racism. None of which were proven. The Negro Congressmen who said they were called Nigger not just once but over and over yet not one TV crew got it, not one of the 100's of camera phones, nothing. You people profess to be the lovers of all people trying to pass your government programs to protect them because as we know they are just too stupid to run their own lives. But look at how most of you speak. God bless
@bnjones28 1. republicans ARE the enemy of the working class,middle class, and the poor. 2. dems won REPUBLICANS LOST, and they should just SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.
I don't really know enough to comment intelligently but I do have a question. If I hired someone to play a recording of someone shouting fire at a crowded town hall meeting would that be protected anonymous political speech??
Great video. The more I think on it... the more I think that there should be no anonymous donations of any kind to a political candidate.... from any person/business/corporation. While, we have protected free speech, it does not come with the protection of anonymity. Certainly, there are ways to express while being anonymous, but in the context of a public election... I am not sure that I would support any anonymous donations at all, and I think it would make donors/candidate a bit more honest.
The way it ought to be is that only those people with the ability to vote may donate money (which may not be a tax write-off, they way donating to a charity could be) to any political organization or individual. And there should be a cap on how much any one person may give during any one political cycle (perhaps once a year, maybe every two years).
Or just abolish PACs and enforce a strict limit on how much an individual politician can indirectly or directly receive from anyone entity or individual. That way, you're technically not telling people what they can or cannot give (something Americans frown upon); rather, only limiting what the politician can receive (and Americans love to hate on politicians). And PACs are the butt of the nation. Have you seen Palin's PAC, haha. She uses funds to buy her own books to give away.
The most important difference between a citizen and a corporation is that a corporation is mandated to try to make as much profit as it can. Therefore their "speech" is not designed to promote the common good or a felt political position but a position which maximizes their profits. I cannot believe the Supreme Court did not draw this distinction. America INC. lol.
Always in a public election should funds & funding be transparent... Not only is it good to know who is buy our officials, but it helps decide where to invest :P
If I see hours and hours of ads for or against candidates in my local elections, I absolutely want to know who is funding them. For example, I think it is important to voters to know why Robert Mercer of Stony Brook, N.Y. is spending over $200,000 on ads for Art Robinson's congressional race in Oregon.
The Jeep add before this video shows a Jeep driving through a stream. This is very bad for fish habitat. It is not TREAD LIGHTLY. Jeep, please be a responsible steward of the environment with your product advertisments. Thank you.
@ZaggaPooNagi useless expenditure of energy, does nothing simply looks like granola smoking hippy shit.
Doesnt change anything doesnt draw attention to any problems just makes you seem like a senseless triptard.
spend you energy in critical change times dont bleed yourself dry by hating on every stupid little thing that is "wrong". Non compliance is the only real way until critical change comes, yelling and screaming about trivial aspects of the greater problems just drains you.
@Fulcanelliii wow, somebody is sure negative, and that's you Fulcaneliii. Try to release your impotent rage and learn to spread positive energy. You get more with honey than vinegar, didn't your Mommy teach you that ?
The problem is that we have a two party system that's worried about propagating itself. Both parties are damn near exactly the same, only differing on minor social issues that shouldn't even be the center of the political arena. Both parties benefit from an obtusely large government that has been bought out by equally large corporations and special interest groups. It's sad that only the tea party nutjobs are speaking out and not the passive rationalists.
Look, we can spin this into all kinds of "what ifs", but in the end, what puts people in office? Is it personal interests, or to serve the public? If our officials are still "public servants", then this question is mute.
.
How is the will of the public best conveyed? With a vote, or a bribe? Again, if money is the answer, where is our Constitution? Clarity is what we need. No one wants to look at the messy underpinnings of our system.
There's a bit of a push in Australia (at least, NSW) at the moment to have government paid elections. That is, taken out of state coffers for advertising, but then ban all contributions.
I'd back it in a heartbeat. I consider contributions to be a hinderence to democracy at any level.
The FEC failed in the 1970s, it created the PACs. The BCRA (McCain Feingold) failed because the Court cut parts of it (it thank God stopped Soft Money) and also still fails to stop the 527 and 501 Groups.
I don't see a problem with anonymous political speech or donations for ads. What really matters is the content of it. If you don't agree with it, you should challenge the arguments made, not the person making those arguments. Does the author of an ad really impact how much you believe it? I don't think it does. If an ad came out that said, "BP loves the environment," I'll be skeptical whether it says, "Funded by BP," or not.
Why don't we simply force everyone who contributes money to a political group to have their identity revealed. These should be public organizations with donor lists (not necessarily member lists) publicized. I'm seriously opposed to the idea of secret organizations, both big and small, buying our government.
The real solution though would be complete public financing of all elections, with no private donations allowed at all. Everyone can speak, but no one gets to buy politicians.
That's more than what private people can/will spend (I consider billionaires as "public" persons). That's less than what corporations and lobbies will/do/can spend.
I have one small problem with the way you introduced this topic in saying that the spending this election would be a "record 3 billion dollars". Although according to the data presented that statement is technically true, if you calculate in the rate of inflation for the same time period these amounts are almost the same. I think it is a bit misleading to present the spending as record-breaking if the actual amount of goods they are purchasing remains essentially the same over the past 4 years
people dont seem to understand that while we have a right to free speech, it also mean that we have to face consequences for what we say. i can tell my boss to fuck off and its perfectly legal, but it doesnt mean i wont face consequences for it. donations are a form of speech and should be unlimited and legal, but they need to be public so that consequences can be faced
It's a matter of volume and accuracy. How do you compete with unlimited cash, and how do you hold an anonymous amorphous shadowy group accountable for a libelous add? How do you make sure that the money is not co-mingled with foreign or unsavory sources? If it takes a constitutional amendment to get the money out of politics, people ought to pursue this. This money/graft is caustic to a democracy
Anyone else notice that Republicans are placing ads on normally liberal videos? I am looking at an ad on the right hand side of the frame that is pimping Sarah Palin. I find it offensive.
Each citizen already enjoys the right of free speech. Belonging to a group or corporation should not afford that group any more or less free speech right than exists as individuals. Bar corporations and groups completely, allow individuals unregulated donating and disclose completely.
personally, I think political ads should be made illegal. we should all be given a pamphlet outlining each candidates stance and political history...perhaps some debates,and televised speeches on TV, and that's it.
@Mattm1986 Why are you commenting to me in the first place? Are you even aware of the context of my original comment? Or do you make it a habit of sticking your nose where it doesn't belong? "Your" is a word. and "You're" requires an "E" along with an "R" and an apostrophe.
You're going to tell me how to spell it? I was the one who corrected you. And what context?? Your comment was "your an idiot". You spelled you're wrong. What fucking context???
Just guessing, but I think the threshold should be fairly high, in the range of $50-100K.I think any individual or organization that can afford to throw that much money at an election can at least be identified as having done so.
Do you have any confidence that rules for judging the likelihood of harassment are clear enough to be applied objectively?
You're good to oppose the Dem fix - it would've further concentrated power by giving all the donors who want to stay anonymous fewer outlets.
@jazber14 I guess I need to apologize for not making my point clearer so you would not misunderstand. We are talking about free speech and the publics right to know so they can make decisions. EVERYONE has to decide what is right for them. I guess you might say it is a personal point of view but in fact it is what they decide is true for them. What you decide is ALWAYS true for you until you decide otherwise. Got it?
I don't think we need disclosure. The political messages seen in ads paid for by anonymous contributors ought to stand on their own merits - knowing where an argument came from shouldn't make it any more or less persuasive. Disclosure creates a chilling effect on political speech, limiting the number of people or groups that are willing to participate and share their ideas. Honestly people - they are just buying TV ads. When was the last time you lost your free will to an ad?
@jetboyJ22 The source of the message changes the message. The intent of the message changes the message especially if it is hidden or subtle. Example: A man strongly and loudly and passionately promotes patriotism and nationalism. What if he has a small black moustache and is speaking in German? His backers are large industrial corporations and his intent is global domination through war.
@exenrontexas The source of the message doesn't fundamentally change the message. Global domination through war and genocide doesn't suddenly become appealing if espoused by Gandhi. Likewise, if a commercial featured Osama Bin Laden telling us to give more money to starving Africans, that idea would not automatically be evil. I think you really need to consider what you are saying- that Americans need to concern themselves more with *who* is saying something rather than *what* they are saying.
@L8nitedave Figuring out who would benefit from a proposed piece of legislation (or from a particular candidate getting into office) is possible with or without disclosure. You don't need to know who is funding a TV ad advocating increased offshore oil drilling to know that it would benefit oil companies. Again, the logic of the message ought to be judged, not the people or groups associated with it. No one is being forced to vote any particular way by TV ads.
@jetboyJ22 of course we are talking not about legislation here but elections and credibility and would we really automatically know that add stating candidate A lied as a boy scout was really an attack on his global warming policy if we didn't also know it was paid for by a shell company fronting BP?
@L8nitedave Voters are capable of evaluating assertions like "candidate A lied as a boy scout" in context. If they feel it's important, they will vote on it. If they feel that candidate A's global warming policy is more important, then they will vote on that. Voters don't need to know who funded every single attack ad to know that voting for a candidate who wants to do something about global warming will be bad for BP.
@jetboyJ22 That is not what I said. It is the fact that all of the facts affect the total message. Using your examples, what added information would a viewer receive from a message from Ghandi or Osama? Since the message examples that you cited are uncharacteristice with how many people view those speakers then it definitely affects their perception. Examples: Dwight Eisenhower speaks on war. He definitely has experience. Bush speaks on war. He has no direct experience. Who is more credible?
@exenrontexas If Eisenhower and Bush were both alive at the same time and they had differing messages concerning war, they would probably not make their contributions to public discourse anonymously. But if for some reason they did want to remain anonymous, wouldn't their arguments still be same? Eisenhower's experience would show through his better reasoning. I agree that a person or group's reputation can matter, but I don't think it matters enough to force people to disclose their identity.
@jetboyJ22 not having myself been a President during war I can't say I would have the fullest ability to decide which argument is more reasonable even as I consider myself more informed than most, but I'd probably have strong feelings about which persons is more credible.
@jazber14 For ever individual, they are ALWAYS deciding what is true and what is a lie. It is a process of life. Since the PEOPLE own the airwaves then the PEOPLE deserve to have alternate views so they can choose. It is a citizens duty to be informed and to choose to the best of their ability.
I vote for the return of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. Let the PEOPLE decide who is telling the truth and give equal time for non-news, opinion programming masquerading as news.
Allen, please address the conflicts between this video and your January 29 video on Citizen's United. Do you support CU or do you think we should go back to the rules under McCain/Feingold?
What it boils down to for many of us is this: Corporations are artificial persons, and as such do not have a mouth. The only way the organization can 'speak' is with money. If you equate money with speech, and enforce no restrictions on artificial persons, those with the most money will have the most speech.
@hergs And what is the roll of a CEO of a corporation.....it is the decision of a CEO to sponsor political groups to benefit the company; in short, the corporation does have a mouth and it speaks for its investing group.
@MichaeloooleahciM but they generally dont speak for their investing group, because since there is no campaign funding disclosure, most of their investors do not know what their money is funding. So the CEO speaks for no one except greed.
I'm just as confused. Let me know when he has an answer for you.
The fact alone that corporations do not share the same responsibilities or consequences as individuals is reason enough for them not to be allowed some sort of false citizenship that permits them to share the same rights as individuals.
i.e. A drug company that sells drugs that are later found to have killed those taking the prescription. If an individual kills someone, involuntarily or otherwise, they go to jail.
@hergs wrote: "Allen, please address the conflicts between this video and your January 29 video on Citizen's United"
There's no conflict between this video and my January 29 video on Citizens United titled "Is It Just Corporate Free Speech?" (or my June 14 video on the issue titled "Corporations Can't Fool California?"). They are all part of the same consistent argument. I even cited Citizens United approvingly in this video at 3:58
The ads here both say that the other side is giving jobs to China. They say nothing about what they want to do. They just bash their opponent. And I definitely think we should know where the money is coming from.
anyone with an FCC license should be banned from charging for political ads. period. A certain amount of free time should be allocated to political advertising to be doled out by lottery. that's it.
The disclosure thing is interesting to me. Firstly, just because it SHOULDN'T matter where an argument is coming from. We should TRY to separate the message from the messenger anyways. However, the point of most of these ads are USUALLY to use an "ad hominem" to attack a specific candidate. And as Aristotle says Rhetoric should not be dismissed because it is sometimes meant to persuade in the wrong direction.
In short, I don't have an answer, it isn't an easy question.
I don't understand the concept of "anonymous freedom of political speech." Where is that defined? Constitution? Legislation? Court cases? If you truly believe in what you are saying, why not identify yourself? Just askin...
@sonvolt48 B/c rich pple and big oil, insurance, and banks can put up political ads lying to the people so that they will vote for interests of said rich pple and not for their own interests. See if the big oil companies and banks and insurance companies don't have to say it's them who are putting out the ads then it is easier to trick the pple into thinking that it's avg joes putting out the ad. See how that trick works?
Quick question, would it be the total given or just one contribution that would determine with or not you need disclose. For example could a company just give millions away but in small size or would the total sum of the money still make them be disclosed.
just make it simple and say that no individual, group, or corporation can donate more then a specfic amount. For example this could be $3,000 all across the board for the max amount
IMO there should be no such thing as "anonymous political speech". It is an oxymoron since politics is a public forum. If you are unwilling to stand up in public and identify yourself then that, in itself, should disqualify you.
Why would the Republicans be against the anonymity of donors when they are the beneficiaries? When organizations like Prudential, US Chamber of Commerce, Oil Interest and even foreign Corporations throw their bucks behind the Republicans and Tea Baggers it should indicate to the dumbest of the dumb where their interest and loyalties truly lie.
1) Absolutely, however we already see money funneled into campaigns through 3rd party organizations fronted by corporate intrests with innocuous names "Chamber of Commerce", "Americans for Prosperity", "Republicans for Clean Air" ect. - the loopholes in this practice needs to be closed for disclosure to actually be effective.
2.) are you asking how much money it would take for it to be ok to bend the right of anonymous speech (in the name of democracy)? i don't think there should be a maximum amount of money you can spend before your rights are void.
This has been flagged as spam show
UFO and remote mind reading/manipulation technology was developed by the nazis by the end of WW2 without any alien help. : there is an extreme criminal orgonizaiton working withing high ranks of the US military waging psychological against the general population pretending to be extradimensional aliens and/or angelic and demonic forces often using holograms. ( ET life would look nothing like us, the greys look like mutated people)
hope4world3000 1 month ago
"We're talkin' Homer, Ozzie and the Straw"
LemmingAttack 5 months ago
As any smart business person knows, the public views the supporter of one idea that a person has automatically states they support all the ideas. Business also knows that controls and restriction equal a lack of revenue (working against the premise of business and investment). Keep it simple. Although an extreme, check out this video: Dr. John Rengen Virapen "Nebenwirkung Tod" Yes, contributors must be announced in order to offer transparency; keep the honest people honest.
thenite187 10 months ago
why do you have to be an anonumus donor(its not like everone will know just the peolpe trying to keep elections honest) if you are supporting a party and are going to vote? all campain donations should be transparent so people know the adgendas of large corporations or othewise ban political donations give each runner the same budget and air time so ideas win out not money.
me001ist 1 year ago
There needs to be limits on how much even corps can give. And it needs to be disclosed as to who is giving what. No back room deals. But hiding in the shadows. The Republicans VIA Mitch McConnell likes the big bucks, and all that. He said one time it was free speech. But its also known as buying votes. And buying influence. I think that the filibustering if wrong, just like tacking on more then one thing to a bill. That's sneaky.
They live in whole different world from us.
RCK502 1 year ago
either every one and everything should be anonymous or none (preferably none) there is no need to remain anonymous none of this money under the table type crap have some honor support your donations u greedy cowards
LordStuart94 1 year ago
I think the whole funding issue reveals the core contradiction between capitalism and democracy. The political process is democratic and fair, with everyone having equal power but when it touches the world of money, democracy is threatened. If capitalism is allowed to enter politics, the oligarchy that hold all the country's wealth have control and democracy is destroyed.
Adlasyn 1 year ago
please make a video on republicans and fox news saying Obama's visit to India will cost 200 million dollars a day! 200 million a day? wow are Americans that stupid? republicans failed miserably at math and accounting..epic fail.
mavishill 1 year ago
Ads suck.
TimmyHaag 1 year ago
This is terrific stuff LiberalViewer!
LynneJordan11 1 year ago
why arent more people upset by this?
QuestionReadLearn 1 year ago
I think the first amendment protects both the right to display the information, and to not. It's a matter of the political parties ethics if you ask me.
Instead of targeting companies, as they have a right to privacy (as do people), I think it would be best to simply list WHAT TYPE of company the amounts come from.
I think it would be a nice way to show what party truly represents the people.
Rapoirier 1 year ago
China doesn't spend this much money on political advertising. Just imagine how many schools we could build for 9 billion dollars over three years... So much wasted in a broken system.
cdnwithaconscience 1 year ago
/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM&feature=related_____can you make a video about this please, thanx
alitap 1 year ago
speaking of corporate support, this channel doesn't mind taking money for the ads they display
*UNSUBBED*
NoLongerDelusional 1 year ago
A set amount for all canaidates, & all supporters disclosed, Publicly, on said advertisment. Even then, where money & politic is mixed, corruption exist.
MrJeffsVideos 1 year ago
I think it's interesting that people think corporations can buy elections with advertisements. I've never even been close to convinced by any political ad *ever*.
Although most attack ads do turn me off of the candidate who "approved this message".
thegillotine09 1 year ago
@thegillotine09 yea but you seem smart. Most Americans are dumb. They'll believe anything they're told
TayGizzle 1 year ago
This, is a bit radical, but I would prefer that anonymous donations weren't regulated at all, and that there were no limit on contributions from individuals. Although, with the exception that foreign campaign contributions should be banned (this implies that any regulation would be aimed only for this). This way, anonymous political speech would become 100% protected.
GeminiK 1 year ago
@GeminiK hey, i was just wondering: if you are in favor of preserving the anonymity of campain contributers, how would we be able to recognize foriegn contributions? they would, after all, be anonymous. -not looking for a fight, i just want to hear as many opinions as possable regarding this issue.
QuestionReadLearn 1 year ago
@QuestionReadLearn NP, I'm happy to answer. Your question is one of the most courteous ones I had recently. I think a simple confidential report informing a regulatory body that all contributors provided proof of citizenship would be fine. Some reasonable punishment should also be instated for people who are proven in court to launder a contribution from a foreigner. Also, see eugeneonegin09 comment below about geographical restrictions which I agree with (the one I replied to "I like this").
GeminiK 1 year ago
If undisclosed donations from annonymous peoples didn't influence politics it wouldn't be tregulated like it is in less corrupt nations like the Unoited kingdom.
American politicians pretend to be honest but everyone knows who pays them for their support.
MarcusCardiff 1 year ago 13
if that law passed things like above the influence and partnership for a drug free america would be fucked. they'ed have to show that they're sponsored by alcohol companies, then people would know how hypocritical they are.
MrVincentR 1 year ago
oh no anonymous political speech!? Egad--oh and who is Publius?
oJKBo 1 year ago
Comment removed
Adjacent4 1 year ago
Why can't you people understand we do not have a Democracy????? It is a fucking REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!
ericdahlen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:01 to skip the ads
samthejokerman 1 year ago
Campaign finance reform is one of the worst things that has happened to our democracy in 100 years. This is just ONE story that is known, and if it does not chill you to your core....i don't know what would.
youtube.com/watch?v=EgyzalpAk7I
Tevarion1 1 year ago
@Tevarion1 it should have been stronger. what it should have made perfectly clear, is that congresspeople should only get money from ONLY THEIR OWN DISTRICTS.senate should get money from JUST THEIR OWN STATES. governors,state reps, and state sens. should get money FROM THEIR OWN DISTRICTS AND STATES.
eugeneonegin09 1 year ago
@eugeneonegin09 That would work.
ericdahlen 1 year ago
@eugeneonegin09 I like this.
GeminiK 1 year ago
@Tevarion1 Do you not know we do not have a Democracy?????
ericdahlen 1 year ago
@ericdahlen yes, but if people are stupid enough to believe that sharron angle is better than harry reid....i dont think explaining that difference to them is possible...do you?
Tevarion1 1 year ago
Today the highest level public servants who are overpaid, who accept what are essentially brides and who use their positions to create a "celebrity persona" to sell books, become talking heads and collect ridiculous fees for public appearances can do what ever they want. Rome was torn down and sold off brick by brick to line the pockets of the elites. Oh well. At least we can count on pay-per-view gladiator combat soon. Time to start stockpiling popcorn and foam fingers for the apocalypse!
woowooexpress 1 year ago
Another excellent video. Thanks LV!
RuinousRight 1 year ago
being against anonymous speech stems from the same line of thought that politicians use to justify the drug war-people are easily led and simply not smart enough to make their own decisions.
Besides, we all know America doesn't have a long tradition of anonymous political speech. Sigh.
VictoryCough 1 year ago
I've got the best way to fix this problem: Let's ban all political advertisement on TV and radio. We don't allow tobacco companies to advertise on TV and radio. So I don't want to hear about a free speech violation. If we do that, politicians would not need all that money so they would spend less time at fund raisers. And they would have to go back to campaigning the old-fashion way such as knocking on my door and asking me for my vote.
SPRoubi2020 1 year ago
Have you ever noticed that many Lib.s just cannot stand the right and must name call and in general act mean spirited. It seems it would make for better reading if both sides talked about why they believe they have the answers.
Look at Obama and his worn out metaphor of the car and the ditch. He used it again today and said the Repub.s need to get in the back as in back of the bus. He also made another comment calling the Repub.s the enemy.
bnjones28 1 year ago
@bnjones28 Dude both sides can be just as childish. Your complaining about Obama's 'worn out metaphor'? What about 'Joe the Plumber'? All politicians use them. And yes he should be making the republicans his enemy, instead of being too much of a bitch to stand up to them.
guitarfreak8900 1 year ago
@guitarfreak8900 You are wrong. Obama is president of every citizen not just the ones who will help him attempt to remake America into what he believes it should be with out any concern for what we want. You don't think he is standing up to them, he is calling them names. And Joe the plumber was made up by the left just like tea baggers rather than tea party. The right does not call him the head Nigger in charge.
bnjones28 1 year ago
@bnjones28 You have no idea what you are talking about. You think that Bush and Cheney even listened to what the opposition wanted, let alone worked with them? Joe the Plumber made up by the left? just stfu man your obviously dumb as a fucking post.
guitarfreak8900 1 year ago
@guitarfreak8900 Yep your a Lib. You have the nasty, mean spirited, name calling attitude. God bless
Try praying to help with your hating
bnjones28 1 year ago
@bnjones28 That's right, I get mad when a stupid republican starts saying things that aren't true, and can't do anything to backup their ridiculous arguments. Maybe you should realize that this isn't just a big game, and this needs to be taken seriously. Then maybe, MAYBE you'll understand why I'm getting mad over your ignorance and the lies you are telling.
guitarfreak8900 1 year ago
@guitarfreak8900 That is how Marxists are.In the revote they are the one's who go to the streets and start the fighting.They are the ones who get mad at the people who do not want their country to change.But your side does not suffer the huge number of losses.Because we, sadly, do not get mad and only fight after we have been hurt. In a few days the progressives aka socialists,Marxists will be replaced.But we still have not won.There are progressives in both parties. Bust was a progressive.
bnjones28 1 year ago
@bnjones28 Another person who has no idea what they are talking about. What a surprise. Hahahaha another republican accusing Obama and progressives of being socialist? Man you guys keep getting more retarded. "Bust" was a progressive? I hope to god you didn't mean to say Bush.
guitarfreak8900 1 year ago
@guitarfreak8900 Yep your right President Bush is a progressive so is Senator McCain. Socialism, Marxism, Maoism: look at all of the people put together for the Obama regime. Either they said they were a Communist, Van Jones or said one of these far left ideals is they hero like Anita Dun saying she looks to Mao.
Good afternoon and God bless
bnjones28 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bnjones28 It scares me that there are people like you living in the world.
guitarfreak8900 1 year ago
@guitarfreak8900 Your side has the lies. All the stories about the Tea Party racism. None of which were proven. The Negro Congressmen who said they were called Nigger not just once but over and over yet not one TV crew got it, not one of the 100's of camera phones, nothing. You people profess to be the lovers of all people trying to pass your government programs to protect them because as we know they are just too stupid to run their own lives. But look at how most of you speak. God bless
bnjones28 1 year ago
@bnjones28 1. republicans ARE the enemy of the working class,middle class, and the poor. 2. dems won REPUBLICANS LOST, and they should just SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.
eugeneonegin09 1 year ago
@eugeneonegin09 I am working class and poor and think both parties are bad. Yes they won but should we all just let these people destroy our country?
ericdahlen 1 year ago
I don't really know enough to comment intelligently but I do have a question. If I hired someone to play a recording of someone shouting fire at a crowded town hall meeting would that be protected anonymous political speech??
tzimtzum1618 1 year ago
screw you, a corporation should not have human rights
EricEvansAKADaMan 1 year ago
Comment removed
EricEvansAKADaMan 1 year ago
What exactly is wrong with anonymous speech or donations?
xp19375 1 year ago
Jeez... How could anyone think that disclosure is a bad idea. it's absurd!
DblOSmith 1 year ago
It's clearer than day that this is all wrong. They need to disclose.
lestliness 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer is my favorite subscription on youtube. Thanks for your continued effort, we need more thoughtful discourse like this.
wiredcoder 1 year ago
Great video. The more I think on it... the more I think that there should be no anonymous donations of any kind to a political candidate.... from any person/business/corporation. While, we have protected free speech, it does not come with the protection of anonymity. Certainly, there are ways to express while being anonymous, but in the context of a public election... I am not sure that I would support any anonymous donations at all, and I think it would make donors/candidate a bit more honest.
brianthemayan 1 year ago
stfu. nobody cares what your dirty communist facist bitchass thinks!! go fuck Barack Osama you bitch
lolhowdoishotweblol 1 year ago
@lolhowdoishotweblol
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahhahahahahahahahahaha
robinhoodOO7 1 year ago
@robinhoodOO7 glad you found sum lulz
lolhowdoishotweblol 1 year ago
@lolhowdoishotweblol
I'm glad the government helped fund and create a digital place for people like you to thrive. For that, we thank you, government.
robinhoodOO7 1 year ago
@robinhoodOO7 I'm glad you're glad! :D
lolhowdoishotweblol 1 year ago
The way it ought to be is that only those people with the ability to vote may donate money (which may not be a tax write-off, they way donating to a charity could be) to any political organization or individual. And there should be a cap on how much any one person may give during any one political cycle (perhaps once a year, maybe every two years).
Thumb up if you agree!
thecaneater 1 year ago
@thecaneater
Or just abolish PACs and enforce a strict limit on how much an individual politician can indirectly or directly receive from anyone entity or individual. That way, you're technically not telling people what they can or cannot give (something Americans frown upon); rather, only limiting what the politician can receive (and Americans love to hate on politicians). And PACs are the butt of the nation. Have you seen Palin's PAC, haha. She uses funds to buy her own books to give away.
robinhoodOO7 1 year ago
The most important difference between a citizen and a corporation is that a corporation is mandated to try to make as much profit as it can. Therefore their "speech" is not designed to promote the common good or a felt political position but a position which maximizes their profits. I cannot believe the Supreme Court did not draw this distinction. America INC. lol.
chinacat22 1 year ago 29
Always in a public election should funds & funding be transparent... Not only is it good to know who is buy our officials, but it helps decide where to invest :P
BlitzNeko 1 year ago
How disgusting is the Main Stream Media glossing over major issues? What a bunch of corporate kiss-asses!
magicpet 1 year ago
If I see hours and hours of ads for or against candidates in my local elections, I absolutely want to know who is funding them. For example, I think it is important to voters to know why Robert Mercer of Stony Brook, N.Y. is spending over $200,000 on ads for Art Robinson's congressional race in Oregon.
PaulinaPaulino 1 year ago
The Jeep add before this video shows a Jeep driving through a stream. This is very bad for fish habitat. It is not TREAD LIGHTLY. Jeep, please be a responsible steward of the environment with your product advertisments. Thank you.
ZaggaPooNagi 1 year ago
@ZaggaPooNagi useless expenditure of energy, does nothing simply looks like granola smoking hippy shit.
Doesnt change anything doesnt draw attention to any problems just makes you seem like a senseless triptard.
spend you energy in critical change times dont bleed yourself dry by hating on every stupid little thing that is "wrong". Non compliance is the only real way until critical change comes, yelling and screaming about trivial aspects of the greater problems just drains you.
Fulcanelliii 1 year ago
@Fulcanelliii wow, somebody is sure negative, and that's you Fulcaneliii. Try to release your impotent rage and learn to spread positive energy. You get more with honey than vinegar, didn't your Mommy teach you that ?
ZaggaPooNagi 1 year ago
The problem is that we have a two party system that's worried about propagating itself. Both parties are damn near exactly the same, only differing on minor social issues that shouldn't even be the center of the political arena. Both parties benefit from an obtusely large government that has been bought out by equally large corporations and special interest groups. It's sad that only the tea party nutjobs are speaking out and not the passive rationalists.
xccmx 1 year ago
Look, we can spin this into all kinds of "what ifs", but in the end, what puts people in office? Is it personal interests, or to serve the public? If our officials are still "public servants", then this question is mute.
.
How is the will of the public best conveyed? With a vote, or a bribe? Again, if money is the answer, where is our Constitution? Clarity is what we need. No one wants to look at the messy underpinnings of our system.
pjamesbda 1 year ago
There's a bit of a push in Australia (at least, NSW) at the moment to have government paid elections. That is, taken out of state coffers for advertising, but then ban all contributions.
I'd back it in a heartbeat. I consider contributions to be a hinderence to democracy at any level.
bersaba 1 year ago
couldnt you (USA) fund these campaign ads through taxes? that way your country
wouldnt be as easily bought and sold by fundimentalists and there business criminal
friends on Wall St. lol
sidesho666 1 year ago
The FEC failed in the 1970s, it created the PACs. The BCRA (McCain Feingold) failed because the Court cut parts of it (it thank God stopped Soft Money) and also still fails to stop the 527 and 501 Groups.
DaSOCIAList 1 year ago
This shows, once again, how the mainstream media fails us. By not following up and getting an answer Crowley fails her audience.
MaryJesusJoseph 1 year ago
I don't see a problem with anonymous political speech or donations for ads. What really matters is the content of it. If you don't agree with it, you should challenge the arguments made, not the person making those arguments. Does the author of an ad really impact how much you believe it? I don't think it does. If an ad came out that said, "BP loves the environment," I'll be skeptical whether it says, "Funded by BP," or not.
xp19375 1 year ago
Check out my political songs, "Vote Democratic" and "Welfare Rats and Robber Barons." More to come soon!
bassgod89 1 year ago
I like you, but I don't like your voice. It always sounds like your mouth is full of jelly.
macarion 1 year ago
hey I work for television, I think this is good for my business.
jnthnbush 1 year ago
Good source of information which invoke discussion and desire to research:
The Young Turks
The Daily Show
LiberalViewer
aarlin81 1 year ago 32
@aarlin81 and your face! zing!
jnthnbush 1 year ago
@aarlin81
I'll agree to that.
robinhoodOO7 1 year ago
@aarlin81 don't forget Democracy Now
EmeterioBetances 1 year ago
@aarlin81 New left media?
Freedomain Radio?
hesteaeble 1 year ago
Further proof that CNN suuuuuuuuuuuucks.
PathogensQuest 1 year ago
1) Hell yes 2) Any contribution
lordcheetah 1 year ago
@lordcheetah werd
wendell345 1 year ago
plutocracy lol!
greenhell666 1 year ago
Why don't we simply force everyone who contributes money to a political group to have their identity revealed. These should be public organizations with donor lists (not necessarily member lists) publicized. I'm seriously opposed to the idea of secret organizations, both big and small, buying our government.
The real solution though would be complete public financing of all elections, with no private donations allowed at all. Everyone can speak, but no one gets to buy politicians.
Viperzka 1 year ago
I thought it was supposed to be reported where the money was coming from, wasn't that part of the legislation that was passed?
squirreljester2 1 year ago
I stopped trusting Time when they started to deny the dangers of the Gulf oil spill.
elviolette 1 year ago
Of course to both
thernr 1 year ago
Your best video yet. Thank you.
NO FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS!
aBRUSHforCONFUCIUS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We already have too many CORPORATE WHORES in Congress & soon will be getting more.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
You think they care which puppet they get into office? It's a distraction
extremepietbh 1 year ago
I don't understand half of this, not in the mood I guess, just gonna like it anyway.
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago
Over $25.000 and if donation number amount greater than 4 per year.
ngfisher 1 year ago
(my idea of) limit for disclosure : 10,000 $
That's more than what private people can/will spend (I consider billionaires as "public" persons). That's less than what corporations and lobbies will/do/can spend.
nickst0ne 1 year ago
I have one small problem with the way you introduced this topic in saying that the spending this election would be a "record 3 billion dollars". Although according to the data presented that statement is technically true, if you calculate in the rate of inflation for the same time period these amounts are almost the same. I think it is a bit misleading to present the spending as record-breaking if the actual amount of goods they are purchasing remains essentially the same over the past 4 years
drewgarl 1 year ago
read the word "Clandestine" , that sums it up to me.
bigrodneyakatrey 1 year ago
Comment removed
walkingisboring 1 year ago
You posted 2 videos talking about how the Citizens United supreme court case decision was a good thing.
RiseRobotRise1 1 year ago
people dont seem to understand that while we have a right to free speech, it also mean that we have to face consequences for what we say. i can tell my boss to fuck off and its perfectly legal, but it doesnt mean i wont face consequences for it. donations are a form of speech and should be unlimited and legal, but they need to be public so that consequences can be faced
tchnowiz999 1 year ago
$1000 and your donation gets disclosed
Shadizar666 1 year ago
Is that 3 billion in real or nominal dollars?
DrFoolishit 1 year ago
It's a matter of volume and accuracy. How do you compete with unlimited cash, and how do you hold an anonymous amorphous shadowy group accountable for a libelous add? How do you make sure that the money is not co-mingled with foreign or unsavory sources? If it takes a constitutional amendment to get the money out of politics, people ought to pursue this. This money/graft is caustic to a democracy
stealth63 1 year ago
Anyone else notice that Republicans are placing ads on normally liberal videos? I am looking at an ad on the right hand side of the frame that is pimping Sarah Palin. I find it offensive.
exenrontexas 1 year ago
@exenrontexas its google thats doing that, they are targeting dissenters of this channel.
803brando 1 year ago
Each citizen already enjoys the right of free speech. Belonging to a group or corporation should not afford that group any more or less free speech right than exists as individuals. Bar corporations and groups completely, allow individuals unregulated donating and disclose completely.
L8nitedave 1 year ago
personally, I think political ads should be made illegal. we should all be given a pamphlet outlining each candidates stance and political history...perhaps some debates,and televised speeches on TV, and that's it.
vinak963 1 year ago
@vinak963 That's right, less free speech!
CupboardNinja 1 year ago
@CupboardNinja your an idiot.
vinak963 1 year ago
@vinak963
If you're going to call someone an idiot you should at least spell correctly. Its you're an idiot, not your.
Mattm1986 1 year ago
@Mattm1986 If you're going to correct somebody, at least do it properly. I used improper grammar, the spelling is fine. Idiot.
vinak963 1 year ago
@vinak963
No the spelling obviously isn't fine if it is missing a letter and apostrophe. You used improper grammar and spelling, idiot.
Mattm1986 1 year ago
@Mattm1986 Why are you commenting to me in the first place? Are you even aware of the context of my original comment? Or do you make it a habit of sticking your nose where it doesn't belong? "Your" is a word. and "You're" requires an "E" along with an "R" and an apostrophe.
vinak963 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vinak963
You're going to tell me how to spell it? I was the one who corrected you. And what context?? Your comment was "your an idiot". You spelled you're wrong. What fucking context???
Mattm1986 1 year ago
(1) Yes
(2) A couple of thousand
Guaguanco11 1 year ago
Liberal Viewer FTW
javed86 1 year ago
Just guessing, but I think the threshold should be fairly high, in the range of $50-100K.I think any individual or organization that can afford to throw that much money at an election can at least be identified as having done so.
Do you have any confidence that rules for judging the likelihood of harassment are clear enough to be applied objectively?
You're good to oppose the Dem fix - it would've further concentrated power by giving all the donors who want to stay anonymous fewer outlets.
FeelFreeToArgue 1 year ago
Hate the ads... hate the ads... hate the ads... Understand you must makeo money on this... you deserve it.... but hate the ads.
bhbs 1 year ago
@jazber14 I guess I need to apologize for not making my point clearer so you would not misunderstand. We are talking about free speech and the publics right to know so they can make decisions. EVERYONE has to decide what is right for them. I guess you might say it is a personal point of view but in fact it is what they decide is true for them. What you decide is ALWAYS true for you until you decide otherwise. Got it?
exenrontexas 1 year ago
I don't think we need disclosure. The political messages seen in ads paid for by anonymous contributors ought to stand on their own merits - knowing where an argument came from shouldn't make it any more or less persuasive. Disclosure creates a chilling effect on political speech, limiting the number of people or groups that are willing to participate and share their ideas. Honestly people - they are just buying TV ads. When was the last time you lost your free will to an ad?
jetboyJ22 1 year ago
@jetboyJ22 The source of the message changes the message. The intent of the message changes the message especially if it is hidden or subtle. Example: A man strongly and loudly and passionately promotes patriotism and nationalism. What if he has a small black moustache and is speaking in German? His backers are large industrial corporations and his intent is global domination through war.
exenrontexas 1 year ago
@exenrontexas The source of the message doesn't fundamentally change the message. Global domination through war and genocide doesn't suddenly become appealing if espoused by Gandhi. Likewise, if a commercial featured Osama Bin Laden telling us to give more money to starving Africans, that idea would not automatically be evil. I think you really need to consider what you are saying- that Americans need to concern themselves more with *who* is saying something rather than *what* they are saying.
jetboyJ22 1 year ago
@jetboyJ22 *why* is a good thing to consider, no matter *who* they are or the CU case *what* they are
L8nitedave 1 year ago
@L8nitedave Figuring out who would benefit from a proposed piece of legislation (or from a particular candidate getting into office) is possible with or without disclosure. You don't need to know who is funding a TV ad advocating increased offshore oil drilling to know that it would benefit oil companies. Again, the logic of the message ought to be judged, not the people or groups associated with it. No one is being forced to vote any particular way by TV ads.
jetboyJ22 1 year ago
@jetboyJ22 of course we are talking not about legislation here but elections and credibility and would we really automatically know that add stating candidate A lied as a boy scout was really an attack on his global warming policy if we didn't also know it was paid for by a shell company fronting BP?
L8nitedave 1 year ago
@L8nitedave Voters are capable of evaluating assertions like "candidate A lied as a boy scout" in context. If they feel it's important, they will vote on it. If they feel that candidate A's global warming policy is more important, then they will vote on that. Voters don't need to know who funded every single attack ad to know that voting for a candidate who wants to do something about global warming will be bad for BP.
jetboyJ22 1 year ago
@jetboyJ22 but if it was funded by his troupe leader, I'd consider it more than if it was funded by BP.
L8nitedave 1 year ago
@jetboyJ22 That is not what I said. It is the fact that all of the facts affect the total message. Using your examples, what added information would a viewer receive from a message from Ghandi or Osama? Since the message examples that you cited are uncharacteristice with how many people view those speakers then it definitely affects their perception. Examples: Dwight Eisenhower speaks on war. He definitely has experience. Bush speaks on war. He has no direct experience. Who is more credible?
exenrontexas 1 year ago
@exenrontexas If Eisenhower and Bush were both alive at the same time and they had differing messages concerning war, they would probably not make their contributions to public discourse anonymously. But if for some reason they did want to remain anonymous, wouldn't their arguments still be same? Eisenhower's experience would show through his better reasoning. I agree that a person or group's reputation can matter, but I don't think it matters enough to force people to disclose their identity.
jetboyJ22 1 year ago
@jetboyJ22 not having myself been a President during war I can't say I would have the fullest ability to decide which argument is more reasonable even as I consider myself more informed than most, but I'd probably have strong feelings about which persons is more credible.
L8nitedave 1 year ago
@jetboyJ22 agreed, honestly if you want to donate money you shouldnt have to identify, cause they can be easily persecuted by the stupids
DaMirrorLink 1 year ago
@jazber14 For ever individual, they are ALWAYS deciding what is true and what is a lie. It is a process of life. Since the PEOPLE own the airwaves then the PEOPLE deserve to have alternate views so they can choose. It is a citizens duty to be informed and to choose to the best of their ability.
exenrontexas 1 year ago
Is it just me, or do all Republicans look like soul-eating mother-fuckers?
wizardsbane 1 year ago 6
@wizardsbane Just you. Other Republicans look fine to me.
sklanger 1 year ago
I vote for the return of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. Let the PEOPLE decide who is telling the truth and give equal time for non-news, opinion programming masquerading as news.
exenrontexas 1 year ago
Allen, please address the conflicts between this video and your January 29 video on Citizen's United. Do you support CU or do you think we should go back to the rules under McCain/Feingold?
What it boils down to for many of us is this: Corporations are artificial persons, and as such do not have a mouth. The only way the organization can 'speak' is with money. If you equate money with speech, and enforce no restrictions on artificial persons, those with the most money will have the most speech.
hergs 1 year ago 101
@hergs And what is the roll of a CEO of a corporation.....it is the decision of a CEO to sponsor political groups to benefit the company; in short, the corporation does have a mouth and it speaks for its investing group.
MichaeloooleahciM 1 year ago
@MichaeloooleahciM but they generally dont speak for their investing group, because since there is no campaign funding disclosure, most of their investors do not know what their money is funding. So the CEO speaks for no one except greed.
Power always brings corruption.
MikeandSara88 1 year ago
@hergs
I'm just as confused. Let me know when he has an answer for you.
The fact alone that corporations do not share the same responsibilities or consequences as individuals is reason enough for them not to be allowed some sort of false citizenship that permits them to share the same rights as individuals.
i.e. A drug company that sells drugs that are later found to have killed those taking the prescription. If an individual kills someone, involuntarily or otherwise, they go to jail.
robinhoodOO7 1 year ago
@hergs wrote: "Allen, please address the conflicts between this video and your January 29 video on Citizen's United"
There's no conflict between this video and my January 29 video on Citizens United titled "Is It Just Corporate Free Speech?" (or my June 14 video on the issue titled "Corporations Can't Fool California?"). They are all part of the same consistent argument. I even cited Citizens United approvingly in this video at 3:58
I hope that helps and
thanks for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 1 year ago
The ads here both say that the other side is giving jobs to China. They say nothing about what they want to do. They just bash their opponent. And I definitely think we should know where the money is coming from.
Bobio1138 1 year ago
Solution to everything: Public funding of elections
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
anyone with an FCC license should be banned from charging for political ads. period. A certain amount of free time should be allocated to political advertising to be doled out by lottery. that's it.
iamafractal 1 year ago
The disclosure thing is interesting to me. Firstly, just because it SHOULDN'T matter where an argument is coming from. We should TRY to separate the message from the messenger anyways. However, the point of most of these ads are USUALLY to use an "ad hominem" to attack a specific candidate. And as Aristotle says Rhetoric should not be dismissed because it is sometimes meant to persuade in the wrong direction.
In short, I don't have an answer, it isn't an easy question.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
i would have to disagree with your first assertion, that he did not address the question posed. he answered it, but not completely or right away.
kittehprimo 1 year ago
"Danger for democracy." Lol, like democracy is good itself...
reapfreak 1 year ago
@reapfreak what's better?
SadieJustine 1 year ago
I don't understand the concept of "anonymous freedom of political speech." Where is that defined? Constitution? Legislation? Court cases? If you truly believe in what you are saying, why not identify yourself? Just askin...
sonvolt48 1 year ago
@sonvolt48 B/c rich pple and big oil, insurance, and banks can put up political ads lying to the people so that they will vote for interests of said rich pple and not for their own interests. See if the big oil companies and banks and insurance companies don't have to say it's them who are putting out the ads then it is easier to trick the pple into thinking that it's avg joes putting out the ad. See how that trick works?
dfrutled 1 year ago
Quick question, would it be the total given or just one contribution that would determine with or not you need disclose. For example could a company just give millions away but in small size or would the total sum of the money still make them be disclosed.
mage1over137 1 year ago
1. Yes, I think so. If the law includes corporations, then it should include all donors.
2. That's up to a political analyst to decide, I honestly have no idea.
YoinkinatorX 1 year ago
just make it simple and say that no individual, group, or corporation can donate more then a specfic amount. For example this could be $3,000 all across the board for the max amount
newcastle1919 1 year ago
IMO there should be no such thing as "anonymous political speech". It is an oxymoron since politics is a public forum. If you are unwilling to stand up in public and identify yourself then that, in itself, should disqualify you.
colourmegone 1 year ago 2
Why would the Republicans be against the anonymity of donors when they are the beneficiaries? When organizations like Prudential, US Chamber of Commerce, Oil Interest and even foreign Corporations throw their bucks behind the Republicans and Tea Baggers it should indicate to the dumbest of the dumb where their interest and loyalties truly lie.
seamoremonster 1 year ago
1) Absolutely, however we already see money funneled into campaigns through 3rd party organizations fronted by corporate intrests with innocuous names "Chamber of Commerce", "Americans for Prosperity", "Republicans for Clean Air" ect. - the loopholes in this practice needs to be closed for disclosure to actually be effective.
I3ipolar 1 year ago
china funds, fascism forms, the communist destroy fascism,everyone loves communism, the end
n8tivguitar 1 year ago
Oh no, a danger to democracy. Who cares?
4gl2u 1 year ago
1.) No
2.) are you asking how much money it would take for it to be ok to bend the right of anonymous speech (in the name of democracy)? i don't think there should be a maximum amount of money you can spend before your rights are void.
icronianson 1 year ago
i dont understand what the problem with anon donors is.
pokepat460 1 year ago
Yes. $2500.
Anything over $2500, you say who you are. I prefer keeping it low, for some reasons.
therrydicule 1 year ago
United States democracy is one of the biggest jokes of the 21st century.
LethalResistanz 1 year ago