If corporations are people they are psychopaths, they care ONLY about making money. We do NOT need them in our political discourse because their only aim is greed. Public finance is the only hope. BTW, as John Stewart and Stephen Colbert have demonstrated, it is VERY easy for candidates to coordinate with PACs secretly. The distinction is meaningless, and your analysis is shockingly naive.
I think the problem is the difference between corporate money and personal money. It is already well established that these two are separate (I can't open up the cash register and buy myself a doughnut on a whim). The argument most people will make is that the corporate money should not be used to influence elections, including creating commercials for or against a candidate.
Public money won't help if it is overwhelmed by special interest money.
Well done you tube. Complex issue worthy of in depth discussion and we get enough room to make sound bites. Where can I go to contribute to the process in a meaningful way. Tried the website and learned how to shorten my URL?
corporate elites dont want you to see the stories featured on CHANNELEDKNOWLEDGE:ORG.. why else would the mainstream media choose to ignore such interesting stories..? check out our archive and see for yourself..
another very striking problem that shows how little democracy is left in america... it's rediculous cause this should be an obvious issue: Advertising controls public opinion, and money controls advertising... it doesn't matter in the slightest if a single person is pushing his ideas throught with the help a lot of money, or a whole cooperation... the problem that is it obviously lowers voices of the poor and mediocre to a level where u can hear them at all... its bribing around a corner...
If they want to serve corp. and not you, DONT VOTE FOR THEM! Americans arent children who need som1 to hold their hand, you can decide who to vote for. If u dont like wat the're doing, vote for sum1 else!
@Android602715 But what happens when there is no candidate who does not serve corporations? Would you not then vote for the lesser of two evils? I have noticed that is the way many of the people I know think
This doesn't really build a logical arguement. You've strung together a bunch of nonsequiturs that don't lead to the conclusion you attempting to draw.
We already have a number of sensible restrictions on free speech.
1. No shouting "fire" in a crowded theater
2. No slander
3. No release of classified info
4. No incitement to riot.
5. No infringement of copyright/trademark
6. No disturbing the peace (e.g., shouting through a megaphone in a library, hospital, classroom, etc.)
So the debate over limitations on money in elections shouldn't be over whether it's a restriction on free speech, but whether such a restriction is sensible.
Free speech is important but it's not the only important thing. Fair elections are important too. Spending unlimited amounts of money on campaigns corrupts the process. Corporations wouldn't spend the money on campaign contributions if they didn't think they were getting something for it.
With all this technology we got today we're still unable to implement a secure system that would allow US citizens at home and abroad, to vote on issues like this directly? We still rely on being represented by Congress and Senate, while today we should have them be those who keep us informed on issues on which we will deliberate by casting our personal vote to express our will directly, without deferring to others. We should have a democracy with active and direct participation of the people.
I decide, you're naive. "for profit corps are gen going to be interested in profit which won't come from making partisan ads ...". Are u serious? Do you even know what a trade association is or what they do? Now corps will have super pacs to truly confuse the public over issues. U want clean water or jobs? Like there is only one choice. When your videos are found to be way off a year later why don't you have the courage to amend or pull them off utube. I'm sorry I wasted my time watchn
I respectfully disagree with the conclusions drawn here, I think it's a little naive that freeing up more money is going to somehow make our speech any freer. Corporations WILL involve themselves in politics to an increased extent, as often their businesses are affected by various bills in consideration. But that's just me.
@LiberalViewer You say that the government can not suppress the political speech of the speaker based on their corporate identity and that the corp have these freedoms for 3 reasons the 3rd being that they are made of a group of people. A problem is the speaker of the corp may not be representing the thoughts and ideals of the grouping. A solution I think would be to enact a bill which states that if a corporation wishes to donate it must first hold a secret ballot to decide who to donate to.
@OneSidedEquilibria If members of a corporation don't agree with its' decisions, they have the choice to leave, that can count as their vote. People should only associate with a group of people if they agree with the decisions it makes. If they choose not to leave, that's their problem.
@bigblatz Two obvious outcomes staff turn over would be so high that the company would lose significant money if this was implemented through the cost of taking on new staff. Second reason is that if a person leaves how can they vote, their no longer members of the group not to mention this completely destroys the notion of the best person for the job. are you saying that people should be forced to chose certain elected officials by their company well that is democracy for you isn't it.
@OneSidedEquilibria Power that members of a corporation have is based on how much stock they own. If shareholders threaten to pull out of a given corp., and the corp. has any sense, they offer a logical compromise to satisfy the investors' wishes. That's democracy in business. If someone is not satisfied with the way a corporation represents them, they can take their money elsewhere, and you don't need the government's intervention for that to work.
@bigblatz Generally investors are not directly involved they are managed by investment firms. As this is the case it would make your idea not imposable but more difficult my point though is why should any one have to suffer financially. Surely it makes more sense for a vote to be taken in a reasonable world then to have to have a show of 'force' by withdrawing funds. if you think the vote should be by the workers or share holders makes no difference to me that's a whole different debate.
@OneSidedEquilibria This vote already exists. It's used by the Board of Directors to make decisions its stockholders approve of. That is the Capitalist Equivalent to Democracy. It already works, completely free of government interference. In business, if you own enough, people listen to you. The government has no right to manipulate American business to make it more "fair", and you know that. America is Capitalist. If you want your vote in a Business, you have to earn it.
@bigblatz They are legally responsible to the shareholders to act in what they believe will increase the cost of the shares nothing more. Now my understanding of corps are limited but I think I have this right. The shareholders currently have no say at general meetings they're told what the company plans to do and can stick around or pull out, that's it. The government doesn't have the right they have the right to state a company must not hire illegal aliens where is the difference.
@OneSidedEquilibria So are you saying that Bill Gates, one person with billions of dollars, should be allowed to speak, but groups of people who pool their money together based on a common cause (IE a corporation), should not be allowed to speak?
And as for your second point, hiring illegal aliens is illegal, that's why the government won't let a company hire them, just like they won't let a corporation commit fraud.
@bigblatz Which was exactly my point the government can impose rules in the normal workings of the company to cover these things so why would it be unable to impose a rule which would allow my suggestion to be enforced.
@OneSidedEquilibria to clarify this point i am refering specifically to illegal aliens and fraud in the second paragraph the first paragraph is dealt with in the comment above.
@bigblatz look I know I'm peddling an is-ought horse but the current democratic system does not work. The reason for this is that the government is not serving the people they're serving the corporations. What I propose I believe puts the balance back to the people and that's it, your argument are mostly you don't like it then move on or life isn't fair. So what would happen to America if people had that attitude when you were ruled by King George you think you would have independence now?
@OneSidedEquilibria Just think about what you're saying for a SECOND. Let's say we did what you're proposing, if you wanted to organize two or more people and pool your money together to make a political film, you would be considered a CORPORATION, and you could be silenced if the government didn't agree with you. But one rich person with enough money to speak without pooling money from two or more people, would be completely free to do so without government interference.
@bigblatz First this is not what I am saying even though you say it is in three comments doesn't make it right. You have missed the point yes bill gates should be allowed to and yes groups of people should be allowed what I propose stops one person from that group using the funds of everyone to promote their message instead of the message the group wants.
@OneSidedEquilibria What you're proposing limits free speech and lets the government decide what films can be watched, what books can be read. Americans are smart enough to decide what they want to listen to. And even if they aren't, this isn't how you fix that problem.
@bigblatz No it doesn't i never said the government could scrutinise these things to stop them my comments were limited to only donations and nothing more and i stated that the government would pass a bill which ensured the funds would go to the majority view of the donating party nothing more if anything i am advocating freedom of speech not hindering it.
@OneSidedEquilibria And the government is serving the people. They're serving the people who band together to make a difference in politics. And they're making it easier for people to organize their money and speak. They are protecting our first amendment right.
@bigblatz Your saying the government should only help the people who make a difference in politics so basically the people who get them elected which is the problem that is what they are doing. Which first amendment right would this infringe on as i have already shown it advocates freedom of speech it doesn't limit it. Instead of me taking two seconds to think of what i am saying maybe you should take a few minutes to actually think about what i am saying and how it applies to the situation.
Another point. "Corporations are associations of people and those people have free speech rights". Yes, but a corporation's free speech rights (ignoring that fraud should be treated differently) should be constrained to exactly what it's constituent members have and corporations should not get special rights above and beyond those. The simple way to enforce that would be to say a corporation has no free speech rights, because in that case the rights of the members will still be in effect.
liberalviewer. Foreign entities can now put as much money as they like into our political process. Like other corporate entities, there is no disclosure required. How do you square that with the constitution?
(continued the point) Again, though, this would require corporations to be treated differently just from a fundamental logistic perspective.
To summarize, though, if someone got super-rich in today's society, then that means one of two things. Either they were good enough at serving some public need in order to achieve huge rewards, or they are extremely good at generating negotiating leverage. Our main goal is to limit the effect of the second type of rich family on our political system.
One possible point in your favor though, is it would be reasonable to prevent flesh and blood billionaires from generating so much free speech it drowns out everybody else. Regardless of the corporate personhood debate, limiting this would be nice, however it is important to note that a campaign organization that pulls in donations with a maximum of 2k per person for hundreds of thousands of people would be fundamentally different from a morality perspective from a group of 5 billionaires.
(privatization continued) This is what it means when we say our education system is owned by the public at large. Our choices are either officials of the government motivated only by honor and reputation with respect to the public or private companies motivated only by honor and reputation, but with a strong financial interest in overstating pass-through costs, enlarging the market through deception, hiding internals, and always coming back with another hand for the cookie jar.
We will know if privatization is ever done with non-corrupt intentions because it will be done via public offering, and will cover something that could actually feasibly be "owned" by a private company. That probably needs explanation. A private company can own a school building and can have a budget for teachers, but a private company that does a good job educating in elementary school can never gain from the direct benefits 20 years later. This is the definition of a renter/contractor.
More to the point, Microsoft is a bad example. There are better cases in medicine and health care and the worst cases of all are in military. One thing Milton Friedman got right is, "Whatever you reward in society, you get more of", but then he turned around and assumed that that was actually an argument for privatization. In actuality, privatization creates a class of people paid billions of dollars to work toward more privatization, whatever it takes.
More on corporate profit from shaping public opinion.
Look at what actually worked to get us out of the great depression. The New Deal acknowledged that massive migrations of money and power had taken place from the poor to the rich and the only way to fix this was to reverse it. Indeed, the period 1933-1942 was the strongest growth period of the last century. Yet we have been conned into believing that WWII took us out of the Great Depression which created a great straw dummy to attack.
Maybe you should take a clue from the fact you see things differently than people you respect. I think you are overlooking a couple things here. 1) the blue chip companies that want to avoid controversy can now speak freely anonymously through superpacs 2) We are in the middle of a 40 year drought of non-biased economic opinion caused not by a lack of accurate opinions, but rather by a systematic drowning out of same. 3) Profit by all means comes from partisan ads. Google Neoliberalism.
"If you want to charge a corporation with a crime..." Ok, so lets say the corporation gets 10 years prison. What next? Also, if you have 2 good board members who are good and 2 that are evil, isn't something more granular required? That's why we have "Piercing the corporate veil" laws.
If you want to sue them, that's different, but in a completely non-symmetrical (different) way. For example, if someone causes damage on duty through negligence, there is assumed corporate responsibility.
Corporations are merely a way for the wealthy to escape liability. The worst that can happen is for them to lose their investment. But that's what insurance is for, right?
Sometimes the wealthy get nervous that we'll see what's behind the curtain, so they allow the courts to "pierce the corporate" veil & assign personal liability in some cases.
The founders of this country were very uncomfortable with the idea of corporations. Later, railroads bought Congress with stock, & the fix was in.
I got a crazy idea how about people stop buying the bull shit they hear on 30 seconds ad? and you know actually learn the politician's position and track record.
You make the generous assumption that people in the USA think. Most are uninformed about politics, history, philosophy, geography, science, ....
Ads work more than actual positions, especially attack ads, as Newt found out.
And, political positions seem not to matter much. With redistricting in Ohio, Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur are in a hot race, though their voting records & positions are almost identical.
Americans vote for candidates the way we choose toothpaste.
No. A corporation is an entity distinct from the stakeholders--which is what they'll be sure to remind you when one goes belly up in deep debt. It is not an association.
Greed has poisoned men's souls - has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed" - "Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little" - " More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. - "to victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me I say "Do not despair".! charlie chaplin
And yet, none of these systems, corruptions and barricades could ever have come into place unless you, the people, had let them.
Now, you are collectively suffering the wages of your sin. It is not fair. It is not just. But it is the only way it can be. Had not it been for much of the world being pulled along in your madness, I wouldn't even make that objection...
No, large corporations won't make political ads to rally for their political positions, of course they won't. They'll just pump millions of dollars into candidates campaigns (and then try to hide it)...who will help their political positions. See? Totally different. It's not about corporate speech, it's legalizing bribery even further.
If money is deciding how some people vote, what is the alternative? The premise of this proposition is that some people are too stupid to vote with an independent mind and are swayed by any message that is promoted often enough. But if this sector of the electorate exists then why is it better that they be influenced by a publicly funded campaign as opposed to a privately funded campaign? Whether influenced by public or private funds, the fundamental problem remains: some people are stupid.
Free Speech and everything else like it will fly out the window in the dark of the night and you, I, nor anyone else will see it coming. Enjoy it while it lasts.
It's not corporations spending money that I have a problem with. It's the quid pro quo donations that I have a problem with. Or the promises of high playing jobs after politicians get out of office, working for the companies they were supposed to be regulating.
Get REAL! There are no "good people" on the far right. Palin is an idiot, catering to idots. She never was a viable candidate. There are no viable Republicans to be found.
Mitt Romny will get the nomination and then LOSE BIG TIME against our President.
I hope after the election we can finally stop this stupid argument. If you still defend the reatarded Palin & her followers,you can expect to be laughed at each time you open your foolish mouth!
Wow, LiberalViewer, you really blew the analysis of this subject! First, I believe that the new rules allows corporations to donate money without disclosing who they are. So to say that a corporation won't get involved in controversial ads is totally false. Second, The Daily Show parody doesn't support the decision but instead shows what ridiculous outcome could occur. Of course, if a corporation wanted to run an ad, they wouldn't announce themselves as the funder behind it.
microsoft may be in business of selling software, but don't tell me that they wouldn't involve themselves in any political process that may affect the way they do business.
@turboturtle2002 I agree, like defining what is and what should be done about things such as: a monopoly, or predatory business practices, or colusion.....
The fact that elected officials can be on a payroll by anything other than the state is horrendous. The fact that donations = speech in the US is also a problem. I should not be kept silent from speaking about (hypothetical example) DRM if I'm working for a record label. I should however be stopped from saying "20 grand to whoever supports my case!" The fact that there is very little distinction on this is quite frankly frightening, and is not something that belongs in a democracy.
Thought your views were thoughtful and I can see how you arrived at them. I also don't see campaign finance as a solution because once that happens you have totally institutionalized the political parties and the government will own them as much as the corporations do now. I have my idea of how to make it better but the Citizens United blew it out of the water. The problem is that corporation have so much capital we cannot compete.
So to answer the first of the questions at the end of the clip, yes, public financing is likely the best option. Although I'd like to mention that I do not believe that there should be a total right to free speech. I believe that it should be far reaching and almost entirely free, but there are simply some things that should not be said as they are damaging to the entire human race. Racism should not have any roots in a civilized society. As such, no racist remarks
This man's facile defense of Citizen's United ruling is so full of fallacious arguments that I don't know where to begin. Wake up dude, unless you're really trying to elicit angry responses like mine.
Sam Donaldson's point is actually ultimately correct, there is no difference between them being able to donate directly to the candidate or campaign, or buying media ads in starring (now legal under Citizens United) candidates themselves in the months before an election. It essentially allows for corporations to donate millions of dollars by paying for campaign ads for the candidate, as well as eliminating the discourse laws that allow citizens to see how much corporations donated and to whom.
Free speech is for people not corporations and corporations are not people. They have no rights to our election process . Create a public financing of elections so to include more political parties to choose from.
Well, that's not calling for corruption at all. I'm sure publicly financed elections will be 100% impartial and the government won't every want to pick winners and losers.
One thing that gets overlooked here is that there actually are limitations on free speech that most people are in general agreement with. For example, Fraud statutes say that freedom of speech to trick someone out of their should not be allowed and in fact should be punishable as a crime.
Of course, there is no such thing as sending a corporation to jail, and one of the things that is most alarming about treating corps as people is the corporate veil and shielding.
4. Individuals are restricted by how much they can donate. Why shouldn't there be limits on corporations? If they are persons they can have their 2,400 like everybody else.
5. Allowing corporations to air political ads IS tantamount to unlimited campaign donations. Donations are made, those donations are spent on ads. Whats the difference?
6. Executives decide what ads to run, how much is spent, etc. They are not the owners of the company. They're buying speech with other people's money.
If you're an ACLU lawyer I'm sure your opinion is better formed than mine, but I don't understand how preventing corporations from funding political ads 60 days before an election is an abridgement of free speech.
1. Money =/= speech.
2 . Corporations are legal entities, they are not people. A logo and a product line can never be a person and as you said yourself we do treat them differently from people.
3. No individual within that corporation is prevented from saying whatever they want.
"If corporations are people, the sure as hell are at least not Americans"?
Allowing "corporations" to make contributions to candidates enables them to empower those who seek to do end harm to the country. So many congressmen are tearing down our country, rights, freedoms, etc. and these companies are almost always the enablers of such scum. "Corporations" are just an umbrella for harmful foreign interests taking root in our system.
The majority walked a fine line in which they started comparing corp. And journalist. While they both are the same i.e. Corp. They serve cpmpletly diff functions. Journalist or newspaper help spread political news, the op ed lets ppl share their opinions etc. While the banks, as just stevens wrote in his dissent do not provide any such service. They are not part of the public debate therefore should not have full protection of ppl or journalist
While I'm a big fan of your videos I have to disagree here, the case is based on two assumptions:
1. Corporations are people and
2. Money is free speech
Corporations are legal entities and should not have the rights of people, and free speech is communication, not money.
With regards to unions, unions aren't corporations, they are actual groups of people as opposed to corporations which are entities that have an "existence independent of the existences of its members".
Unions are groups of people but corporations have an "existence independent of the existences of its members", they are legal fictions created by the state.
Can you support my petition to reform campaign finance? Search YouTube for '$99 campaign finance limit.' The petition is linked in the description, and I show the URL in the video. Thanks for your help!
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
as far as i understand, it is generally accepted that money has a greater effect on the writing of legislation than on elections themselves. public campaign financing would be good idea, however full disclosure might be just as good; something that citizens united prevents
This video is full of fail. Look at super pacs and related 501(c)4s. Pacs are supposed to be transparent and release donors. 501(c)4s can take unlimited donations and not have to release the donors and then give that to the super pac who would onlyhave to disclose that the money came from the 501(c)4.
Corporations and Freedom of Speech are to very different things!! They should remain in the service arena and not aloud to give money to the political process.
This is the reason why this country is crippled like it already is
Corporations should not have an influence on politics or policy plain and simple. Every person that works for a corporation has an individual vote already. Couldn't there be a conflict of interest for a corporation to have an influence in politics & policy, when they make a profit from the voting citizens who work for them? The answer is yes....yes there is a conflict.
What good is it if people believe elected reps are making decisions based on what their constituents want as opposed to what the funders demand, if it's only a façade? No wonder Lessig changed his mind. Even top-tier intellectuals brain fart sometimes. I do believe in public financing. Whether or not it's our best hope, we'll see. But whether or not you agree with the Sierra Club's views, they're still a special-interest organization – one that can be trounced by any major corp $ btw!
IT's the TRILLIONS in BRIBERY that the vast majority of US actual Citizens oppose! The "Lobbying/MONEY/Bribery is NOT Speech, it's still bribery, and we have a right to prevent a complete corporate take over of the United States, though we are entering the competition exceedingly LATE.
What we should do is take the limits off of what a PERSON can spend on political advertisements (free speech), but put limits on what a corporation can spend. A corporation is a theoretical legal entity, separate in liability from it's owners. Therefore, it does not limit the free speech of it's owners to limit the free speech of the corporation, because the two are separate.
Furthermore, the people who run the corporations do not necessarily speak for the shareholders (owners), as they do not have a shareholder vote on whether or not to spend their corporate dollars supporting or opposing candidates or political ideas. The corporate executives have one over-riding concern: profits. And they do whatever it takes to increase profits in the alleged interest of their shareholders.
However, we must remember that the shareholders of most companies no longer receive dividends (a share of the corporation's profits based upon how many stocks they own in relation to the # of existing stocks). Instead, if a corporation profits, their stock price USUALLY increases the value of the stocks that the shareholders own, but that only profits the shareholder if he/she sells those stocks before they come crashing down in value.
In other words, owning stocks that don’t pay dividends (most stocks these days) is nothing more than legal gambling that only pays off if you guess right and manage to buy at a low price and sell at a higher price. And while you were watching the stock price, that corporation was spending your investment dollars undermining all of your values.
And in answer to your question, the idea of corporate personhood is far too controversial to simply ask how to limit campaign financing without stifling free speech. Many people (like me) fervently disagree with the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision, let alone the application of the first amendment for corporate protection. Corporations are not people anymore than the Catholic Church is in my opinion. They are an assembly of people, who each have their own private rights.
Unfortunately you cannot respond to every comment here, and I understand that (particularly because this is an older video). However, where I think you miss the mark here is regarding the real influence of corporate contributions. It isn't about whether or not money can successfully get someone elected - it is the pull that it has on politicians still holding office and wanting to fund campaigns for their reelections. And corporate pockets are both unfairly deep and single-minded: more money.
Question: Under the new law can a corporation donate and unlimited amount of money anonymously to a Super Pac which will then lobby for the candidate of their choice? Kind of like when the healthcare corporations publicly sided with President Obama while privately pouring millions into lobbying groups seeking to defeat the bill. While I agree with public finance, I don't believe this nation will ever adopt such a system.
Clearly, the position that corporations are too busy earning profits has not panned out. The business interests, literally send hundreds of lobbyists per every member of Congress. Super-pacs streamline the process allowing huge campaign contribs but are kept confidential. The result? The 2012 Presidential election will reach $1 billion per candidate. Now, if you think that giving millions to a politician won't make him beholden to the giver, you have a lot to learn about human nature.
I feel like all corporations will have a vested interest in political elections, because they have a vested interest in lowering the corporate tax rate. Presently there is about $2 trillion of capital outside of the US, the multi-national corporations refuse to repatriate it unless they are given a corporate tax holiday. They will view any candidate who proposes this as a economical investment. Politics isn't just about partisanship, there are many different issues to discuss.
People associate in corporations to make money, not to vote. The same for other associations such as unions, the primary purpose of association is usually not political. Individuals should have free speech, but associations should not have that right. This whole issue is dangerous, but I feel MUCH safer in limiting associations right to speech than in allowing them to drown out the voice of the individual.
Either disband all corporations by removing the corporate charter mechanism, or remove their rights to free speech by a constitutional amendment if necessary. Their speech should be limited to hawking products they sell.
A on 2nd Q: Instead of giving money to campaigns directly, what if people are responsible to promote candidates themselves, & to identify themselves as they do so? I as a user of FB or YT can post my opinions as me, and corps can hold rallies or buy TV adds which publicly must SAY who financed them.
Your point C ("corporations are made *up* of people, so they should be allowed speech") is a common misunderstanding:
Those individual people *already* have the right to speak. The problem is *they have no control over how the corporation speaks, putatively on their behalf under your argument. So that last one: red herring in itself. Strawman, more likely.
@baylinkdashyt I agree. The corp is owned or run by people other than most of the employees and may be in opposition to their views. It would be fine if all companies were completely and equally employee owned.
I believe we ought allow ONLY individual contributions without limit. Corporations, whether they be for profit or not, ought not have a say in the political process. This does not limit the rights of anyone. Every shareholder already has a right to free speech. Should those people who own stocks in or work within a corporation have 'double free speech?" Once as themselves and again as the corporation? Only registered voters should be allowed to finance or promote campaigns.
the real problem with giving an "association of people" the right to free speech (doubled,yes lol) is that the opinion will be of the most influential or most bullying member of the group. People in the association with differing views will keep their traps shut for fear of losing their positions. Kind of like the dissidents in Nazi Germany.
I agree with Lawrence Lessig. We need one of Jefferson's "little revolutions" followed by a Constitutional Convention. Otherwise we will never get publicly funded elections. Good solutions are readily available but our institutions provide incentives to reject them.
So corporations like Microsoft have no preference between a party that has traditionally looked the other way when companies pollute, a party that has lowered the standards for emissions, a party that gives tax breaks to billionaires (ie, the CEOs of those corporations), and a party that generally chooses to give tax breaks to middle class while taxing the wealthier brackets?
You can't stop people from spending money in this crazy country, but we should have comprehensive monitoring of all legislators' correspondence and communication and vigorous investigation of any appearance of corruption or conflict of interest. Ironically, Clarence Thomas' wife was given half a million dollars by Citizen's United, where is the justice in that?
Freedom of speech is not freedom of funding a party. They are too separate things. If a corporation want to endorse a politician good for them. But funding a party is a vicious way to reach your big corporation financial interests.
@darwinkilledgod If the corporation use their money to promote a candidate it's bullshit. But you can't stop a CEO or any one to SAY what they think about politics. But a company that own or work with media should not use it to promote any candidate. Individuals can say what they think but only as individual and not in the name of a company. Campain and votes should be an individual choice between politic ideals and not based on peer pressure and CEO selfish interests.
@MrG0TH1ER So you're okay with the government banning movies about politics then? Michael Moore's corporation shouldn't be able to make movies about US healthcare, Citizens United shouldn't be able to make an anti-Hilary movie... and so on. You want the government to determine who can say what to protect us stupid citizens from the greed of evil CEOs who would, you know... say things to us.
@darwinkilledgod Of course I don't want government to ban movies, or any journalism tools to let people know the facts. This is not the same thing than a corporation who use media to promote something that does not serve the public but only their selfish corporation. Of course an organisation who's goal is to talk about political news make money but it's not the same thing. People need to be informed (the less bias is the better). Sorry for my english :S
@MrG0TH1ER Well Citizens United overturned the banning of a movie. It was called "Hilary" and it was created and marketed for profit, and the government banned it! That's what the case is about.
Bias is undefinable. The only solution is to allow everyone to say everything. Trying to restrict anyone, including corporations, from saying things is the road to disaster.
1: corporations that produce political speeches or statements of anykind ALWAYS do it in support of plans AGAINST people, the CEO's are not voted in representative of the workers. 2: claiming corporation CEO's who do all the corp politics btw, limited to a PEOPLE status in courts limits the liability of the corporations when sued, it does not expand the liability 3: a group of people woul be a political body, race, community, corps cannot be two of those things and should be limited on the 1st 1
I've always had problems with LiberalViewer, mostly because I found him through his debates with HTWW which I think he handily lost.
Nonetheless, he takes a very intelligent view here and I respect him more for it. It takes courage to tell liberal auidences that they're wrong on this point. And they are.
If they set a limit on how much contribution any individual can make to an election and the corporations and advocacy groups are kept from funding any part of any election.
@robhoneycutt Because regulations are the way corporations use the government to destroy their competition. Ask yourself why Phillip Morris supported the latest round of tobacco regulations? Ask yourself why unions are for raising the minimum wage even though almost none of their members actually make minimum wage? Regulation is not people over corporations. It's corporations with lobbyists over corporations without them.
If corporations are people they are psychopaths, they care ONLY about making money. We do NOT need them in our political discourse because their only aim is greed. Public finance is the only hope. BTW, as John Stewart and Stephen Colbert have demonstrated, it is VERY easy for candidates to coordinate with PACs secretly. The distinction is meaningless, and your analysis is shockingly naive.
PatPowers1995 1 day ago
Ron Paul 2012
classicmovielover2 2 days ago
I think the problem is the difference between corporate money and personal money. It is already well established that these two are separate (I can't open up the cash register and buy myself a doughnut on a whim). The argument most people will make is that the corporate money should not be used to influence elections, including creating commercials for or against a candidate.
Public money won't help if it is overwhelmed by special interest money.
Viperzka 2 days ago
Well done you tube. Complex issue worthy of in depth discussion and we get enough room to make sound bites. Where can I go to contribute to the process in a meaningful way. Tried the website and learned how to shorten my URL?
keithsealund 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
corporate elites dont want you to see the stories featured on CHANNELEDKNOWLEDGE:ORG.. why else would the mainstream media choose to ignore such interesting stories..? check out our archive and see for yourself..
ChanneledKnowledge 3 days ago
another very striking problem that shows how little democracy is left in america... it's rediculous cause this should be an obvious issue: Advertising controls public opinion, and money controls advertising... it doesn't matter in the slightest if a single person is pushing his ideas throught with the help a lot of money, or a whole cooperation... the problem that is it obviously lowers voices of the poor and mediocre to a level where u can hear them at all... its bribing around a corner...
rejoin 5 days ago
If they want to serve corp. and not you, DONT VOTE FOR THEM! Americans arent children who need som1 to hold their hand, you can decide who to vote for. If u dont like wat the're doing, vote for sum1 else!
Android602715 1 week ago
@Android602715 But what happens when there is no candidate who does not serve corporations? Would you not then vote for the lesser of two evils? I have noticed that is the way many of the people I know think
XxSequndaEtapaXx 3 days ago in playlist Campaign finance, corporate personhood, Citizens United
@Android602715 You have too much faith in Americans. . .
H00le0 2 days ago
This doesn't really build a logical arguement. You've strung together a bunch of nonsequiturs that don't lead to the conclusion you attempting to draw.
scottie1f 1 week ago
if corporations are united citizens than everyone that is a part of that corporation can sign on: shareholders, workers, consumers?
skyler8perkins 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We already have a number of sensible restrictions on free speech.
1. No shouting "fire" in a crowded theater
2. No slander
3. No release of classified info
4. No incitement to riot.
5. No infringement of copyright/trademark
6. No disturbing the peace (e.g., shouting through a megaphone in a library, hospital, classroom, etc.)
So the debate over limitations on money in elections shouldn't be over whether it's a restriction on free speech, but whether such a restriction is sensible.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
Comment removed
PoetryHound 1 week ago
Comment removed
PoetryHound 1 week ago
Comment removed
PoetryHound 1 week ago
Free speech is important but it's not the only important thing. Fair elections are important too. Spending unlimited amounts of money on campaigns corrupts the process. Corporations wouldn't spend the money on campaign contributions if they didn't think they were getting something for it.
PoetryHound 1 week ago
With all this technology we got today we're still unable to implement a secure system that would allow US citizens at home and abroad, to vote on issues like this directly? We still rely on being represented by Congress and Senate, while today we should have them be those who keep us informed on issues on which we will deliberate by casting our personal vote to express our will directly, without deferring to others. We should have a democracy with active and direct participation of the people.
freakqnc 2 weeks ago
I didn't think George Will was so well-informed...he seemed really experienced in the subject matter
dominsu 2 weeks ago
Ambition and competition are natural instincts.. Greed is taught..
Hoarding is only a human instinct in times of scarcity.
jsgdk 2 weeks ago
I decide, you're naive. "for profit corps are gen going to be interested in profit which won't come from making partisan ads ...". Are u serious? Do you even know what a trade association is or what they do? Now corps will have super pacs to truly confuse the public over issues. U want clean water or jobs? Like there is only one choice. When your videos are found to be way off a year later why don't you have the courage to amend or pull them off utube. I'm sorry I wasted my time watchn
linguinei 2 weeks ago
Super pacs will kill America. You may have danced around, or totally put zero emphasis on that subject, but i agree to disagree.
sndn77 3 weeks ago
I normally agree with everything 'liberalviewer' posts, but this video is beyond off.
d3v2011 3 weeks ago
I respectfully disagree with the conclusions drawn here, I think it's a little naive that freeing up more money is going to somehow make our speech any freer. Corporations WILL involve themselves in politics to an increased extent, as often their businesses are affected by various bills in consideration. But that's just me.
PeterG00000 3 weeks ago
Yes, because with public financing, no interest exept the political group in charge of the campaign will have any power to influence the parti.
MaNkolok 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steppinonyoface Prohibit lobbying would be necessary too, and then give long prison sentences to Washington insiders.
TradingTutor 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
TradingTutor 4 weeks ago
@LiberalViewer You say that the government can not suppress the political speech of the speaker based on their corporate identity and that the corp have these freedoms for 3 reasons the 3rd being that they are made of a group of people. A problem is the speaker of the corp may not be representing the thoughts and ideals of the grouping. A solution I think would be to enact a bill which states that if a corporation wishes to donate it must first hold a secret ballot to decide who to donate to.
OneSidedEquilibria 1 month ago
@OneSidedEquilibria If members of a corporation don't agree with its' decisions, they have the choice to leave, that can count as their vote. People should only associate with a group of people if they agree with the decisions it makes. If they choose not to leave, that's their problem.
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
@bigblatz Two obvious outcomes staff turn over would be so high that the company would lose significant money if this was implemented through the cost of taking on new staff. Second reason is that if a person leaves how can they vote, their no longer members of the group not to mention this completely destroys the notion of the best person for the job. are you saying that people should be forced to chose certain elected officials by their company well that is democracy for you isn't it.
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
@OneSidedEquilibria Power that members of a corporation have is based on how much stock they own. If shareholders threaten to pull out of a given corp., and the corp. has any sense, they offer a logical compromise to satisfy the investors' wishes. That's democracy in business. If someone is not satisfied with the way a corporation represents them, they can take their money elsewhere, and you don't need the government's intervention for that to work.
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
@bigblatz The real issue of Cit. Un. is guaranteeing everyone free speech, no matter who they're associated with.
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
@bigblatz Generally investors are not directly involved they are managed by investment firms. As this is the case it would make your idea not imposable but more difficult my point though is why should any one have to suffer financially. Surely it makes more sense for a vote to be taken in a reasonable world then to have to have a show of 'force' by withdrawing funds. if you think the vote should be by the workers or share holders makes no difference to me that's a whole different debate.
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
@OneSidedEquilibria This vote already exists. It's used by the Board of Directors to make decisions its stockholders approve of. That is the Capitalist Equivalent to Democracy. It already works, completely free of government interference. In business, if you own enough, people listen to you. The government has no right to manipulate American business to make it more "fair", and you know that. America is Capitalist. If you want your vote in a Business, you have to earn it.
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
@bigblatz They are legally responsible to the shareholders to act in what they believe will increase the cost of the shares nothing more. Now my understanding of corps are limited but I think I have this right. The shareholders currently have no say at general meetings they're told what the company plans to do and can stick around or pull out, that's it. The government doesn't have the right they have the right to state a company must not hire illegal aliens where is the difference.
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
@OneSidedEquilibria So are you saying that Bill Gates, one person with billions of dollars, should be allowed to speak, but groups of people who pool their money together based on a common cause (IE a corporation), should not be allowed to speak?
And as for your second point, hiring illegal aliens is illegal, that's why the government won't let a company hire them, just like they won't let a corporation commit fraud.
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
@bigblatz Which was exactly my point the government can impose rules in the normal workings of the company to cover these things so why would it be unable to impose a rule which would allow my suggestion to be enforced.
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
@OneSidedEquilibria to clarify this point i am refering specifically to illegal aliens and fraud in the second paragraph the first paragraph is dealt with in the comment above.
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
@bigblatz look I know I'm peddling an is-ought horse but the current democratic system does not work. The reason for this is that the government is not serving the people they're serving the corporations. What I propose I believe puts the balance back to the people and that's it, your argument are mostly you don't like it then move on or life isn't fair. So what would happen to America if people had that attitude when you were ruled by King George you think you would have independence now?
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
@OneSidedEquilibria Just think about what you're saying for a SECOND. Let's say we did what you're proposing, if you wanted to organize two or more people and pool your money together to make a political film, you would be considered a CORPORATION, and you could be silenced if the government didn't agree with you. But one rich person with enough money to speak without pooling money from two or more people, would be completely free to do so without government interference.
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
@bigblatz First this is not what I am saying even though you say it is in three comments doesn't make it right. You have missed the point yes bill gates should be allowed to and yes groups of people should be allowed what I propose stops one person from that group using the funds of everyone to promote their message instead of the message the group wants.
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
@OneSidedEquilibria What you're proposing limits free speech and lets the government decide what films can be watched, what books can be read. Americans are smart enough to decide what they want to listen to. And even if they aren't, this isn't how you fix that problem.
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
@bigblatz No it doesn't i never said the government could scrutinise these things to stop them my comments were limited to only donations and nothing more and i stated that the government would pass a bill which ensured the funds would go to the majority view of the donating party nothing more if anything i am advocating freedom of speech not hindering it.
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
@OneSidedEquilibria And the government is serving the people. They're serving the people who band together to make a difference in politics. And they're making it easier for people to organize their money and speak. They are protecting our first amendment right.
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
@bigblatz Your saying the government should only help the people who make a difference in politics so basically the people who get them elected which is the problem that is what they are doing. Which first amendment right would this infringe on as i have already shown it advocates freedom of speech it doesn't limit it. Instead of me taking two seconds to think of what i am saying maybe you should take a few minutes to actually think about what i am saying and how it applies to the situation.
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
@OneSidedEquilibria Great idea.
nutblast23 3 weeks ago
@nutblast23 Thanks for the feedback its appreciated.
OneSidedEquilibria 3 weeks ago
So it is NOT okay for corporations to donate money to political campaigns, but is IS okay to let unions donate money to political campaigns?
BrandonCRC 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012!!!!!
debatefindstruth 1 month ago
Another point. "Corporations are associations of people and those people have free speech rights". Yes, but a corporation's free speech rights (ignoring that fraud should be treated differently) should be constrained to exactly what it's constituent members have and corporations should not get special rights above and beyond those. The simple way to enforce that would be to say a corporation has no free speech rights, because in that case the rights of the members will still be in effect.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@sfjeff1089 That's one of the best things i read in a long time.
realdomdom 1 month ago
liberalviewer. Foreign entities can now put as much money as they like into our political process. Like other corporate entities, there is no disclosure required. How do you square that with the constitution?
finerbiner 1 month ago
(continued the point) Again, though, this would require corporations to be treated differently just from a fundamental logistic perspective.
To summarize, though, if someone got super-rich in today's society, then that means one of two things. Either they were good enough at serving some public need in order to achieve huge rewards, or they are extremely good at generating negotiating leverage. Our main goal is to limit the effect of the second type of rich family on our political system.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
One possible point in your favor though, is it would be reasonable to prevent flesh and blood billionaires from generating so much free speech it drowns out everybody else. Regardless of the corporate personhood debate, limiting this would be nice, however it is important to note that a campaign organization that pulls in donations with a maximum of 2k per person for hundreds of thousands of people would be fundamentally different from a morality perspective from a group of 5 billionaires.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
(privatization continued) This is what it means when we say our education system is owned by the public at large. Our choices are either officials of the government motivated only by honor and reputation with respect to the public or private companies motivated only by honor and reputation, but with a strong financial interest in overstating pass-through costs, enlarging the market through deception, hiding internals, and always coming back with another hand for the cookie jar.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
We will know if privatization is ever done with non-corrupt intentions because it will be done via public offering, and will cover something that could actually feasibly be "owned" by a private company. That probably needs explanation. A private company can own a school building and can have a budget for teachers, but a private company that does a good job educating in elementary school can never gain from the direct benefits 20 years later. This is the definition of a renter/contractor.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
More to the point, Microsoft is a bad example. There are better cases in medicine and health care and the worst cases of all are in military. One thing Milton Friedman got right is, "Whatever you reward in society, you get more of", but then he turned around and assumed that that was actually an argument for privatization. In actuality, privatization creates a class of people paid billions of dollars to work toward more privatization, whatever it takes.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
More on corporate profit from shaping public opinion.
Look at what actually worked to get us out of the great depression. The New Deal acknowledged that massive migrations of money and power had taken place from the poor to the rich and the only way to fix this was to reverse it. Indeed, the period 1933-1942 was the strongest growth period of the last century. Yet we have been conned into believing that WWII took us out of the Great Depression which created a great straw dummy to attack.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
Maybe you should take a clue from the fact you see things differently than people you respect. I think you are overlooking a couple things here. 1) the blue chip companies that want to avoid controversy can now speak freely anonymously through superpacs 2) We are in the middle of a 40 year drought of non-biased economic opinion caused not by a lack of accurate opinions, but rather by a systematic drowning out of same. 3) Profit by all means comes from partisan ads. Google Neoliberalism.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
"If you want to charge a corporation with a crime..." Ok, so lets say the corporation gets 10 years prison. What next? Also, if you have 2 good board members who are good and 2 that are evil, isn't something more granular required? That's why we have "Piercing the corporate veil" laws.
If you want to sue them, that's different, but in a completely non-symmetrical (different) way. For example, if someone causes damage on duty through negligence, there is assumed corporate responsibility.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
Corporations are merely a way for the wealthy to escape liability. The worst that can happen is for them to lose their investment. But that's what insurance is for, right?
Sometimes the wealthy get nervous that we'll see what's behind the curtain, so they allow the courts to "pierce the corporate" veil & assign personal liability in some cases.
The founders of this country were very uncomfortable with the idea of corporations. Later, railroads bought Congress with stock, & the fix was in.
alphakid42 1 month ago
I got a crazy idea how about people stop buying the bull shit they hear on 30 seconds ad? and you know actually learn the politician's position and track record.
smeltingtanks 1 month ago
@smeltingtanks
You make the generous assumption that people in the USA think. Most are uninformed about politics, history, philosophy, geography, science, ....
Ads work more than actual positions, especially attack ads, as Newt found out.
And, political positions seem not to matter much. With redistricting in Ohio, Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur are in a hot race, though their voting records & positions are almost identical.
Americans vote for candidates the way we choose toothpaste.
alphakid42 1 month ago
No. A corporation is an entity distinct from the stakeholders--which is what they'll be sure to remind you when one goes belly up in deep debt. It is not an association.
newdarnaccount 1 month ago
Greed has poisoned men's souls - has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed" - "Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little" - " More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. - "to victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me I say "Do not despair".! charlie chaplin
fuckFOXpropaganda 1 month ago 11
@fuckFOXpropaganda
And yet, none of these systems, corruptions and barricades could ever have come into place unless you, the people, had let them.
Now, you are collectively suffering the wages of your sin. It is not fair. It is not just. But it is the only way it can be. Had not it been for much of the world being pulled along in your madness, I wouldn't even make that objection...
PwntifexMaximus 1 week ago
candidates show dress up like nascar drivers
laughingman961 2 months ago
No, large corporations won't make political ads to rally for their political positions, of course they won't. They'll just pump millions of dollars into candidates campaigns (and then try to hide it)...who will help their political positions. See? Totally different. It's not about corporate speech, it's legalizing bribery even further.
MagnesDrachen13 2 months ago 13
If money is deciding how some people vote, what is the alternative? The premise of this proposition is that some people are too stupid to vote with an independent mind and are swayed by any message that is promoted often enough. But if this sector of the electorate exists then why is it better that they be influenced by a publicly funded campaign as opposed to a privately funded campaign? Whether influenced by public or private funds, the fundamental problem remains: some people are stupid.
TangoAlphaDelta 2 months ago
no matter how you turn it, "citizens united" stands for legalized bribery of politicians by Big Corp. however incorrect and unfair it might be...
TheSteelGeneraI 2 months ago
Free Speech and everything else like it will fly out the window in the dark of the night and you, I, nor anyone else will see it coming. Enjoy it while it lasts.
superaider1000 2 months ago
It's not corporations spending money that I have a problem with. It's the quid pro quo donations that I have a problem with. Or the promises of high playing jobs after politicians get out of office, working for the companies they were supposed to be regulating.
hgryphon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are many more of US and fewer of YOU!
Get REAL! There are no "good people" on the far right. Palin is an idiot, catering to idots. She never was a viable candidate. There are no viable Republicans to be found.
Mitt Romny will get the nomination and then LOSE BIG TIME against our President.
I hope after the election we can finally stop this stupid argument. If you still defend the reatarded Palin & her followers,you can expect to be laughed at each time you open your foolish mouth!
thursdaysrecords1 2 months ago
Wow, LiberalViewer, you really blew the analysis of this subject! First, I believe that the new rules allows corporations to donate money without disclosing who they are. So to say that a corporation won't get involved in controversial ads is totally false. Second, The Daily Show parody doesn't support the decision but instead shows what ridiculous outcome could occur. Of course, if a corporation wanted to run an ad, they wouldn't announce themselves as the funder behind it.
CharanPagan 2 months ago
microsoft may be in business of selling software, but don't tell me that they wouldn't involve themselves in any political process that may affect the way they do business.
turboturtle2002 2 months ago
@turboturtle2002 I agree, like defining what is and what should be done about things such as: a monopoly, or predatory business practices, or colusion.....
masluxx 2 months ago
Ron Paul OPENLY opposes Corporate Personhood:
Source: watch?v=s-xFexgH76g
Like him or not, he is the only candidate on RECORD against it with all the correct specifications: I.E.; individual vs. collective dilemma, etc.
xxxxAXIxxxx 2 months ago
The fact that elected officials can be on a payroll by anything other than the state is horrendous. The fact that donations = speech in the US is also a problem. I should not be kept silent from speaking about (hypothetical example) DRM if I'm working for a record label. I should however be stopped from saying "20 grand to whoever supports my case!" The fact that there is very little distinction on this is quite frankly frightening, and is not something that belongs in a democracy.
tinyknott 2 months ago
Thought your views were thoughtful and I can see how you arrived at them. I also don't see campaign finance as a solution because once that happens you have totally institutionalized the political parties and the government will own them as much as the corporations do now. I have my idea of how to make it better but the Citizens United blew it out of the water. The problem is that corporation have so much capital we cannot compete.
eottoe2001 2 months ago
A corporation is not a person.
So to answer the first of the questions at the end of the clip, yes, public financing is likely the best option. Although I'd like to mention that I do not believe that there should be a total right to free speech. I believe that it should be far reaching and almost entirely free, but there are simply some things that should not be said as they are damaging to the entire human race. Racism should not have any roots in a civilized society. As such, no racist remarks
Marcara081 2 months ago
stop explaining the video we watching please, Its so distracting
Ak47eier 2 months ago
This man's facile defense of Citizen's United ruling is so full of fallacious arguments that I don't know where to begin. Wake up dude, unless you're really trying to elicit angry responses like mine.
graphicjer 2 months ago
Sam Donaldson's point is actually ultimately correct, there is no difference between them being able to donate directly to the candidate or campaign, or buying media ads in starring (now legal under Citizens United) candidates themselves in the months before an election. It essentially allows for corporations to donate millions of dollars by paying for campaign ads for the candidate, as well as eliminating the discourse laws that allow citizens to see how much corporations donated and to whom.
mbs029 2 months ago
Aww.can't. stand. his. voice. must. leave.
saltshaker555 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PRESSTITUTE GLOBAL MEDIA PAWNING AMERICAN SHEEPLE AS USUAL
THE MEDIA SHOULD BE QUESTION THE FED, THE WAR ROOMS & 9/11 TRUTHS, BAILOUTS FOR WALL STREET BUBBLES, ETC.
USE IPAD, IPOD TO FIGHT MEDIA BLACKOUT
WORLD WATCHES ON - AMERICAN MEDIA IS ON THE TRUMAN SHOW
DO THEY KNOW THAT?
♥ RON PAUL ♥ RON PAUL ♥ RON PAUL ♥ HE WINS HEARTS NOT JUST VOTES
ALSO WRITE ON DOLLAR BILLS : RONPAUL2012 END THE FED OR FEED THE END
ashwadhwani 2 months ago
Free speech is for people not corporations and corporations are not people. They have no rights to our election process . Create a public financing of elections so to include more political parties to choose from.
paulmax72 3 months ago
@paulmax72 >public financing of elections
Well, that's not calling for corruption at all. I'm sure publicly financed elections will be 100% impartial and the government won't every want to pick winners and losers.
Madfoot713 3 months ago
One thing that gets overlooked here is that there actually are limitations on free speech that most people are in general agreement with. For example, Fraud statutes say that freedom of speech to trick someone out of their should not be allowed and in fact should be punishable as a crime.
Of course, there is no such thing as sending a corporation to jail, and one of the things that is most alarming about treating corps as people is the corporate veil and shielding.
sfjeff1089 3 months ago
Thank you. It;s so refreshing to hear someone who can call out corruption and bad things in corporations
BUT you don't just blindly go against corporations on every issue, and you still wanna protect freedom.
The people in the corporations are still people, and they still have rights.
Very nice.
heatbucspies55 3 months ago
It is not soft...it is what it is...fascism.
punkrockparents 3 months ago
I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.
pchtermino1 3 months ago 63
@pchtermino1 You don't think the government has ever destroyed a company? Look up Standard Oil, for just one example.
kered13 1 month ago
@pchtermino1 as he said in the video, a corporation cannot be murdered.
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
@pchtermino1 If I could give you a hundred thumbs up for your comment I would.
Justin1976 3 weeks ago
4. Individuals are restricted by how much they can donate. Why shouldn't there be limits on corporations? If they are persons they can have their 2,400 like everybody else.
5. Allowing corporations to air political ads IS tantamount to unlimited campaign donations. Donations are made, those donations are spent on ads. Whats the difference?
6. Executives decide what ads to run, how much is spent, etc. They are not the owners of the company. They're buying speech with other people's money.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
If you're an ACLU lawyer I'm sure your opinion is better formed than mine, but I don't understand how preventing corporations from funding political ads 60 days before an election is an abridgement of free speech.
1. Money =/= speech.
2 . Corporations are legal entities, they are not people. A logo and a product line can never be a person and as you said yourself we do treat them differently from people.
3. No individual within that corporation is prevented from saying whatever they want.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
How'd that quote go?
"If corporations are people, the sure as hell are at least not Americans"?
Allowing "corporations" to make contributions to candidates enables them to empower those who seek to do end harm to the country. So many congressmen are tearing down our country, rights, freedoms, etc. and these companies are almost always the enablers of such scum. "Corporations" are just an umbrella for harmful foreign interests taking root in our system.
Make your product, stay out of government
OtakuRebel 3 months ago 2
The majority walked a fine line in which they started comparing corp. And journalist. While they both are the same i.e. Corp. They serve cpmpletly diff functions. Journalist or newspaper help spread political news, the op ed lets ppl share their opinions etc. While the banks, as just stevens wrote in his dissent do not provide any such service. They are not part of the public debate therefore should not have full protection of ppl or journalist
3888799 3 months ago
@LiberalViewer
While I'm a big fan of your videos I have to disagree here, the case is based on two assumptions:
1. Corporations are people and
2. Money is free speech
Corporations are legal entities and should not have the rights of people, and free speech is communication, not money.
With regards to unions, unions aren't corporations, they are actual groups of people as opposed to corporations which are entities that have an "existence independent of the existences of its members".
captainlucky1337 3 months ago 12
@captainlucky1337 Corporations and unions are groups of people. And free speech includes using your money to fund speech.
xbertocoaylax 3 months ago
@xbertocoaylax
Unions are groups of people but corporations have an "existence independent of the existences of its members", they are legal fictions created by the state.
Funding is not speaking.
captainlucky1337 1 month ago
@captainlucky1337 I absolutely agree.
nutblast23 3 weeks ago
groups of people do not make an extra person.. and people don't have habeous corpus themselves anymore
co2pirate 3 months ago 2
Can you support my petition to reform campaign finance? Search YouTube for '$99 campaign finance limit.' The petition is linked in the description, and I show the URL in the video. Thanks for your help!
nogymscotty 3 months ago
I dont see the problem with the ruling. If I work for Best Buy am I supposed to only have certain opinions?
Coldmystery 3 months ago
i agree with the guy at 5:56
smallrossy 3 months ago
Holy cow was the LiberalViewer wrong on this one. Corporations now completly own the U.S. political process. Fail fail fail.
BigDaddyCruz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
possumpistol 3 months ago
Man you are a good guy i guess but this video is full of shit
sataricon111 3 months ago
as far as i understand, it is generally accepted that money has a greater effect on the writing of legislation than on elections themselves. public campaign financing would be good idea, however full disclosure might be just as good; something that citizens united prevents
HarryRay 4 months ago
This video is full of fail. Look at super pacs and related 501(c)4s. Pacs are supposed to be transparent and release donors. 501(c)4s can take unlimited donations and not have to release the donors and then give that to the super pac who would onlyhave to disclose that the money came from the 501(c)4.
2112fatty 4 months ago 3
Insulted the democratic process itself? No need to do that,
1 we don't have such a thing
2 even if we did, democracy is undesirable and equates to mob rule. It does not recognize individual rights, and since ALL rights are individual....
3 The Constitution guarantees a Republic not a democracy so such talk is treasonous
LordShandor 4 months ago
Corporations and Freedom of Speech are to very different things!! They should remain in the service arena and not aloud to give money to the political process.
This is the reason why this country is crippled like it already is
dolan008 4 months ago 3
Corporations should not have an influence on politics or policy plain and simple. Every person that works for a corporation has an individual vote already. Couldn't there be a conflict of interest for a corporation to have an influence in politics & policy, when they make a profit from the voting citizens who work for them? The answer is yes....yes there is a conflict.
bocarealestate 4 months ago 3
What good is it if people believe elected reps are making decisions based on what their constituents want as opposed to what the funders demand, if it's only a façade? No wonder Lessig changed his mind. Even top-tier intellectuals brain fart sometimes. I do believe in public financing. Whether or not it's our best hope, we'll see. But whether or not you agree with the Sierra Club's views, they're still a special-interest organization – one that can be trounced by any major corp $ btw!
justinkase82 4 months ago
IT's the TRILLIONS in BRIBERY that the vast majority of US actual Citizens oppose! The "Lobbying/MONEY/Bribery is NOT Speech, it's still bribery, and we have a right to prevent a complete corporate take over of the United States, though we are entering the competition exceedingly LATE.
BilkedToTheBrink 4 months ago
What we should do is take the limits off of what a PERSON can spend on political advertisements (free speech), but put limits on what a corporation can spend. A corporation is a theoretical legal entity, separate in liability from it's owners. Therefore, it does not limit the free speech of it's owners to limit the free speech of the corporation, because the two are separate.
raphaels4 4 months ago
Furthermore, the people who run the corporations do not necessarily speak for the shareholders (owners), as they do not have a shareholder vote on whether or not to spend their corporate dollars supporting or opposing candidates or political ideas. The corporate executives have one over-riding concern: profits. And they do whatever it takes to increase profits in the alleged interest of their shareholders.
raphaels4 4 months ago
However, we must remember that the shareholders of most companies no longer receive dividends (a share of the corporation's profits based upon how many stocks they own in relation to the # of existing stocks). Instead, if a corporation profits, their stock price USUALLY increases the value of the stocks that the shareholders own, but that only profits the shareholder if he/she sells those stocks before they come crashing down in value.
raphaels4 4 months ago
In other words, owning stocks that don’t pay dividends (most stocks these days) is nothing more than legal gambling that only pays off if you guess right and manage to buy at a low price and sell at a higher price. And while you were watching the stock price, that corporation was spending your investment dollars undermining all of your values.
raphaels4 4 months ago
one dollar per person. period. ??
twobenz22 4 months ago
Scrutinize US Conservatives, US Liberals, US Libertarians, and other US parties.
Think and decide for yourself.
airforcemax 4 months ago
Scrutinize US Conservatives, US Liberals, and US Libertarians and decide for yourself.
I am a registered Libertarian and I will vote for the best candidate and issue instead of just voting everything the Libertarians support.
I used to like Ron Paul, but never his son Rand Paul who dissents just to dissent with citing anything reasonable to me.
airforcemax 4 months ago
your voice is awful
clairekerrypike 4 months ago
And in answer to your question, the idea of corporate personhood is far too controversial to simply ask how to limit campaign financing without stifling free speech. Many people (like me) fervently disagree with the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision, let alone the application of the first amendment for corporate protection. Corporations are not people anymore than the Catholic Church is in my opinion. They are an assembly of people, who each have their own private rights.
frozenaorta 4 months ago
Unfortunately you cannot respond to every comment here, and I understand that (particularly because this is an older video). However, where I think you miss the mark here is regarding the real influence of corporate contributions. It isn't about whether or not money can successfully get someone elected - it is the pull that it has on politicians still holding office and wanting to fund campaigns for their reelections. And corporate pockets are both unfairly deep and single-minded: more money.
frozenaorta 4 months ago
like a pack of hyenas they will turn on and devourer any that stand between them and what they can get.
masluxx 4 months ago
Yeah Goldman and Sachs supported Obama.
lovejen01 4 months ago
Question: Under the new law can a corporation donate and unlimited amount of money anonymously to a Super Pac which will then lobby for the candidate of their choice? Kind of like when the healthcare corporations publicly sided with President Obama while privately pouring millions into lobbying groups seeking to defeat the bill. While I agree with public finance, I don't believe this nation will ever adopt such a system.
NuBN2471 4 months ago
Clearly, the position that corporations are too busy earning profits has not panned out. The business interests, literally send hundreds of lobbyists per every member of Congress. Super-pacs streamline the process allowing huge campaign contribs but are kept confidential. The result? The 2012 Presidential election will reach $1 billion per candidate. Now, if you think that giving millions to a politician won't make him beholden to the giver, you have a lot to learn about human nature.
OurWorldReport 5 months ago
I feel like all corporations will have a vested interest in political elections, because they have a vested interest in lowering the corporate tax rate. Presently there is about $2 trillion of capital outside of the US, the multi-national corporations refuse to repatriate it unless they are given a corporate tax holiday. They will view any candidate who proposes this as a economical investment. Politics isn't just about partisanship, there are many different issues to discuss.
mdt2189 5 months ago
People associate in corporations to make money, not to vote. The same for other associations such as unions, the primary purpose of association is usually not political. Individuals should have free speech, but associations should not have that right. This whole issue is dangerous, but I feel MUCH safer in limiting associations right to speech than in allowing them to drown out the voice of the individual.
AsciiSillyQuestion 5 months ago
Either disband all corporations by removing the corporate charter mechanism, or remove their rights to free speech by a constitutional amendment if necessary. Their speech should be limited to hawking products they sell.
AsciiSillyQuestion 5 months ago
Summery executions of all government officials upon leaving office.
rarrmonkey 5 months ago
I miss the days where we solved our problems by killing each other. JK JK
DarthKieduss43 5 months ago
the product ofcorporate spending = the teaparty
aetherealworlds 5 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer 2
A on 2nd Q: Instead of giving money to campaigns directly, what if people are responsible to promote candidates themselves, & to identify themselves as they do so? I as a user of FB or YT can post my opinions as me, and corps can hold rallies or buy TV adds which publicly must SAY who financed them.
TheJeremyKentBGross 5 months ago in playlist TODO Unsorted
Your point C ("corporations are made *up* of people, so they should be allowed speech") is a common misunderstanding:
Those individual people *already* have the right to speak. The problem is *they have no control over how the corporation speaks, putatively on their behalf under your argument. So that last one: red herring in itself. Strawman, more likely.
baylinkdashyt 6 months ago
@baylinkdashyt I agree. The corp is owned or run by people other than most of the employees and may be in opposition to their views. It would be fine if all companies were completely and equally employee owned.
TheJeremyKentBGross 5 months ago in playlist TODO Unsorted
I believe we ought allow ONLY individual contributions without limit. Corporations, whether they be for profit or not, ought not have a say in the political process. This does not limit the rights of anyone. Every shareholder already has a right to free speech. Should those people who own stocks in or work within a corporation have 'double free speech?" Once as themselves and again as the corporation? Only registered voters should be allowed to finance or promote campaigns.
Achooification 6 months ago
@Achooification
the real problem with giving an "association of people" the right to free speech (doubled,yes lol) is that the opinion will be of the most influential or most bullying member of the group. People in the association with differing views will keep their traps shut for fear of losing their positions. Kind of like the dissidents in Nazi Germany.
gatolupas 5 months ago
I agree with Lawrence Lessig. We need one of Jefferson's "little revolutions" followed by a Constitutional Convention. Otherwise we will never get publicly funded elections. Good solutions are readily available but our institutions provide incentives to reject them.
urbanverificationist 6 months ago
So corporations like Microsoft have no preference between a party that has traditionally looked the other way when companies pollute, a party that has lowered the standards for emissions, a party that gives tax breaks to billionaires (ie, the CEOs of those corporations), and a party that generally chooses to give tax breaks to middle class while taxing the wealthier brackets?
Give me a break.
Norwification 6 months ago
THEY CAN STEAL ELECTIONS, THE WAY THEY DID WITH BUSH'S SECOND TIME. So your vote DON'T COUNT.
aereone 6 months ago
First and most likely only time I'll agree with you.
Orionx30 6 months ago
You can't stop people from spending money in this crazy country, but we should have comprehensive monitoring of all legislators' correspondence and communication and vigorous investigation of any appearance of corruption or conflict of interest. Ironically, Clarence Thomas' wife was given half a million dollars by Citizen's United, where is the justice in that?
jcondon11 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For anybody who believes,we have freedom of speech in Britain,should seriously
watch this video....
Check out the "official crown court papers" from the court case that lead
to me being the 1st ever british poet to be given a "5 year rap & poetry ban" (Video on my page)
"Donhonki" "First ever crown court BANNED british rap-poet" (2009-2014) #SuperInjunction
donhonki1 7 months ago
Whatever you do, dont change the first ammendment, its the single msot imporant thing america has!
unfad1ng 8 months ago
Freedom of speech is not freedom of funding a party. They are too separate things. If a corporation want to endorse a politician good for them. But funding a party is a vicious way to reach your big corporation financial interests.
MrG0TH1ER 8 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER What if you just want to talk about a candidate? Can a corporation do that? If so, you agree with the Supreme Court.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
@darwinkilledgod If the corporation use their money to promote a candidate it's bullshit. But you can't stop a CEO or any one to SAY what they think about politics. But a company that own or work with media should not use it to promote any candidate. Individuals can say what they think but only as individual and not in the name of a company. Campain and votes should be an individual choice between politic ideals and not based on peer pressure and CEO selfish interests.
MrG0TH1ER 8 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER So you're okay with the government banning movies about politics then? Michael Moore's corporation shouldn't be able to make movies about US healthcare, Citizens United shouldn't be able to make an anti-Hilary movie... and so on. You want the government to determine who can say what to protect us stupid citizens from the greed of evil CEOs who would, you know... say things to us.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
@darwinkilledgod Of course I don't want government to ban movies, or any journalism tools to let people know the facts. This is not the same thing than a corporation who use media to promote something that does not serve the public but only their selfish corporation. Of course an organisation who's goal is to talk about political news make money but it's not the same thing. People need to be informed (the less bias is the better). Sorry for my english :S
MrG0TH1ER 8 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER Well Citizens United overturned the banning of a movie. It was called "Hilary" and it was created and marketed for profit, and the government banned it! That's what the case is about.
Bias is undefinable. The only solution is to allow everyone to say everything. Trying to restrict anyone, including corporations, from saying things is the road to disaster.
Freedom. Accept no substitute.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
1: corporations that produce political speeches or statements of anykind ALWAYS do it in support of plans AGAINST people, the CEO's are not voted in representative of the workers. 2: claiming corporation CEO's who do all the corp politics btw, limited to a PEOPLE status in courts limits the liability of the corporations when sued, it does not expand the liability 3: a group of people woul be a political body, race, community, corps cannot be two of those things and should be limited on the 1st 1
the1tigglet 8 months ago
the US is going down.. it happened to all empires.. now it's your turn.
arenasification 8 months ago
then explain why the kock brother spend so much to buy influenced in elections?
1961arnie 9 months ago
I've always had problems with LiberalViewer, mostly because I found him through his debates with HTWW which I think he handily lost.
Nonetheless, he takes a very intelligent view here and I respect him more for it. It takes courage to tell liberal auidences that they're wrong on this point. And they are.
darwinkilledgod 9 months ago
If they set a limit on how much contribution any individual can make to an election and the corporations and advocacy groups are kept from funding any part of any election.
internationalideas 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheZombieButler 9 months ago
now i know why ppl are against this ruling. thanks!
atmark666 9 months ago
Comment removed
MrRobinMurphy 10 months ago
@MrRobinMurphy How is low regulation not pro-corporation?
robhoneycutt 10 months ago
@robhoneycutt Because regulations are the way corporations use the government to destroy their competition. Ask yourself why Phillip Morris supported the latest round of tobacco regulations? Ask yourself why unions are for raising the minimum wage even though almost none of their members actually make minimum wage? Regulation is not people over corporations. It's corporations with lobbyists over corporations without them.
darwinkilledgod 9 months ago