Consequences of the Citizens United ruling

[trevyn41]

Business corporations are first and foremost concerned with making money, not influencing policy. Unions, on the other hand, are corporations with the primary goal of influencing policy and protecting their members. So rather than businesses gaining a major advantage, unions will be the kind of groups more likely to take advantage of this amendment because their conduct naturally follows along political lines. Unions also contribute ~95% of their campaign money to the Democratic Party.

[trevyn41]

Secondly, the only thing this amendment actually changes is when corporations can spend unlimited money on election ads. Before the ruling, corporations could do whatever they wanted up until 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a midterm. This meant that all they had to do to get the exact same message across was air their ads a month or two earlier. There is no mechanism powerful enough to provide the kind of leverage to transfer control of elections.

[trevyn41]

Finally, on the constitutional right of free speech, the bill of rights makes no distinction about who engages in the act of free speech. It never qualifies that you must be an individual to enjoy the benefits of this civil liberty. The exact wording is "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". This applies to corporations (which are groups of individuals) as equally as it applies to individuals.

[superboy316]

People who like this idea just don't get it. Corporations from the US to other countries have more money than the middle and poor classes combine to the point where it is scary. In the situation we're in, people in the middle and poor class can't afford to make donations to their candidate because they're too busy trying to pay their high bills from housing to healthcare. People in the higher-ups don't have common sense anymore to help the people in this country who need help the most.