All but a small handful of our politicians are already bought and paid for, and it is the media which helps those same bought and paid for politicians get re-elected. The largest by far contributor to Obama's campaign is Goldman Sachs. And the candidate who opposes him on the GOP Side, Mitt Romney ... his largest contributor by far is ... GOLDMAN SACHS!
And who is the GOP candidate that the media is trying to force down our throats? ROMNEY!
The ONLY candidate that is not bought is Ron Paul.
And he will notbe allowed to be heared beyond a cursory attempt...Beyond his idiotic Right to Work silliness,he is on to something and things will not change...
@HumbleWillis the right to work or Right to Work legislation?Everyone has the right to work,but what right does Ron Paul have to legislatively bust unions under the guise of "personal freedom"?...The "personal freedom" brough to you by the NAM and the Koch Bros.?
Would you rather the people decide which candidate they listen to, or the government? We have the right to choose who we associate with, just as much as we have the right to speak! The people choose who they listen to!
Corporations have unlimited amounts of money that can sway popular opinion if we allow it. The key here is to not believe everything you see on TV. Know the facts, be involved, spread the word (word of mouth) on facts that you can back up...not just opinion but facts.
@TexasFreedomFighter George Carlin once made an observation about freedom fighters.. "Well, if fire fighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?" In your case he was damn straight on the money.
This is a major aberration in the drum beat of freedom that is the United States. Personally, I don't know how those justices sleep at night knowing that they have under-minded and slapped democracy in the face with this. We will endure and overcome this, but not without amending out sacred Constitution. Clearly the "constructionists" have taken a liking for judicial activism.
This just shows how libtards hate capitalism and America. They should all be executed for treason for what they have done over the past 3 years, especially the Jew Keith Olbermann! Fucking Communist traitors!!!
This argument is manufactured left wing authoritarian propaganda. Read the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..." The debate was not if a corporation is a person, but if congress could make a law abridging free speech.
@nathanlabish Unfortunately, the impact of corporations spending as much money
as they want, can in effect buy or influence elections. Frightening to think that spending lots of money can influence an election, but it is true. Rick Scott getting elected in Florida is just one example.
@quesondric I think I understand your argument: "Corporations have too much money, they could influence elections with it." I might add "People with the intellect to write convincingly have the ability to convince people of their opinions, they could influence elections." or "People with charismatic personalities have the ability to sway others, they could influence elections." Whose job will it be to decide? I say the judges got it right! The gov can keep its grubby little hands off free speech
@nathanlabish I have to disagree. With that logic, he with the most money can buy a court decision that is not based on logic or merit. This decision will be overturned in my lifetime, because people are going to realize that it creates an unfair advantage. And fairness is an American tradition.
I don't follow, I was not talking about court decisions but about political speech. As to your other point, equal rights and freedom among other things are guaranteed by our Constitution, fairness is not. Until the civil rights movement segregation was an American tradition. Lets all be thankful the courts were guided by our constitution and not traditions.
@nathanlabish I still have to disagree. Fundamental Fairness is a recurring theme in constitutional law. Being guided by the constitution is being dedicated to fairness. As to tradition, it is easier to make a case on existing decisions. But in Citizens United the court did neither. On another note, can you ijmagine what TV commercials are going to be like prior to the election this year? Get ready!
@nathanlabish I agree. I believe that voters should not make decisions based on commercials. I think they should get their information from other sources. But you and I are not naive.
@nathanlabish How delusional. Rights are intended for individual citizens, not for collectives. You are an individual citizen of the united States. Corporations are Collectives, which are not bound by any nationality. To give them the ability to influence elections opens the office of government to foreign influence, and trust me it will. The regulations which are supposed to prevent coordination between candidate and Super-Pac are non existent and impossible to enforce.
@nathanlabish You should re-read that page, since if you look closely, Corporations are prohibited from making donations to candidates, creating, and working to Super PACS, but there is no clear language banning foreign corporations from Donating to Super PACS, The organizations are not the problem, it's the million dollar 'donations,' since they're the ones who get trillion dollar returns on their investments, I mean 'donations,' via 'non-coordination.'
@nathanlabish First of all, the first amendment along with the rest of the bill of rights involve the rights of individuals. It doesn't mention anywhere that these rights are extended to coporate entities. Secondly, the government can place reasonable time, manner, place restrictions on free speech. I think anyone in their right mind would agree that preventing the most wealthy individuals and groups from simply buying politicians is a reasonable restraint on free speech!
1) It is not legal to "buy" people; 13th amendment.
2) "The most wealthy" have equal protection (and equal rights to free speech); 14th amendment.
3) I can not think of a more reasonable use of free speech than airtime in election season.
P.S. I will admit that you argued your point well, you almost convinced me; perhaps due to the advantage you have due to your uncommon rhetorical skills it would be reasonable for you to be limited to one post.
@nathanlabish True but understand that we have had this restriction on free speech for over 100 years since the tillman act. It became obvious in the early 20th century that with enough money, corporate entities and wealthy individuals could in effect buy policy undermining our democratic process. This is nothing new, but as our financial system changes so to will our campaign finance laws. That is all I'm saying.
The 100 year argument does not make it right. Slavery went on in this country for 92 years and it was wrong.
"Buying policy" is bribery and corruption and is illegal.
Speech (esp. public political speech) is the right way to influence policy. The wealthy have just as much a right to influence policy as the poor, the charismatic, the rhetorically gifted, unions, MADD, etc.
Discrimination is wrong. The Wealthy should not be marginalized just because they have money.
@nathanlabish unfortunately the law doesn't consider taking campaign donations and then rewarding those doners with pork to be bribery... though the effect is the same. Giving money is not speech. Like you said, bribery is illegal, gifts can be taxed etc... And doing the campaining FOR a candidate in effect is the same as giving directly to the candidate. Yes wealthy have the ame right to influence policy with their speech, that doesn't mean they have the right to buy policy with their wealth
Well everyone from the ACLU, to the Heritage Foundation, to the Supreme Court thinks that giving money to help an election is free speech. So if you disagree... well, I guess you should not contribute any of your money any political cause.
I think my last post covered "buying policy" and "bribery".
And if you think the law about "campaign donations.....pork" is wrong you should try to have the law changed. But don't forget you can't contribute $ to any elections. (your rules)
@nathanlabish Bullshit.The Bill of Rights and the Constitution was not meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be interpreted in the way that best serves the American people. Do you really think that CEO's of multi-billion dollar corporations will donate money to causes that benefit the public? Remember what Mark Twain said, "we have the best politicians money can buy."
The problem with Citizens United can be seen in the New York Times article of October 30, 2011. Karl Rove, Haley Barbor, et al, have raised well over 1/2 billion dollars to date, and it's all secret. They bought the Republican majority in the House in 2010, and they're going to continue until all of the legislators are whores, beholden to corporate interests rather than the interest of US citizens. The two are often mutually exclusive. More money = more free speech? How dangerous and sad.
SCARY!! Tea Party lemmings are already in place with reinforcements not far behind. Sadly most Americans ignore this stuff thinking it doesn't really affect them.
I saw this live, and thought it was terrifying even THEN. NOW, tho, now that we've seen the beginning of what he predicted coming to pass, this message is much, MUCH scarier!
For example, "finding people to blame the worsening conditions on?" Teachers. Public or unionized workers. Etc., etc.
the united corporations of america !! corporate profits will be put ahead of our democracy , our health , the enviroment and the health of the planet itself ! whats ironic and idiotic , is that corporations will make greater long term profits with a thriving US economy and middle class . and what will profits mean when our planet is ruined by the creed of greed ?!!
These economic injustices and others will continue as long as wealthy contributors corrupt our political process. Many of us feel the President can and should do much more to rein in Wall Street, create jobs, and defend Medicare and Social Security. But any likely opponent would probably be far worse. Politicians in this post-Citizens United world are either limited by corporate power or prostituted to it..... (Copied from TruthOut) Great website btw!
LOL...Everything out of Olberman's mouth here was outrageous hyperbole, at best and flat out lies at worst. Comparing this ruling to Dred Scott is bad enough, but what my real problem is is that I'm 99.9999% sure that he hasn't read the entire ruling. If he had, he would know that nothing he's saying here is the case. Just another media prostitute out of the George Soros Brothel (Inc.?).
@drme83 If you continue to lie to the masses, they will believe everything as the truth! Our country is collective idiot box and we have been sorely damned as a nation... thanks to the likes of the corporate elite.
Bye bye America, it was nice knowing you but you've now sowed the final seed of your end as a nation of independent, well-informed, well-educated people, who cared about truth, justice and fairness. You were too distracted by junk food, junk TV and junk culture to realise what was really happening. Hopefully other nations will learn from your example.
lol...america deserves to be told what to do. it a country of morons (watch the movie "Idiocracy"). The people of America are retarded and the only way to get back on track is to tell these retards what to do, now we need chem castration for the devils rejects that are reproducing by record numbers. And this guy *talking about the fair media out there* ahahahaha...hes working for the people that spread hate by psyops shit
I finally figured out why the lady holding the scales of justice is always blind folded,Because she cant stand to watch you lawyers make there deals.Will it ever stop,you judges?
The Dred Scott ruling didn't actually change anything. It maintained the status quo, where slavery already existed and was even specifically protected by the Constitution. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment to get rid of slavery. The Citizens United decision, on the other hand, brings us a huge change. Corporations now officially have MORE rights than actual human beings, and if nothing is done to reverse it, the decision will be the death knell of democracy.
I have over and over and over and over again written papers and done presentations in school about just what the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision is and how it murdered what little democracy is left. These college kids don't seem to give a sh1t, they are more worried about the last episode of Jersey Shore. I say let them burn in the scorching flames of global warming and climate change. Metaphorically speaking, it is happening now, way before it will literally happen.
I have also try to give presentations on important issues in school and no one cares, i feel you i also contemplating just letting the idiots suffer while i try to improve myself. Educating a sheep he is a sheep is the hardest thing to do.
Union busting, lower taxes for the rich, new wars, the conservative agenda, tea party split, city takeover like Michigan, Keith is already gone from MSNBC, Glen Beck is about to lose his fox job, Net Neutrality never happened, ATT and T-Mobile super mergers and on and on.
No one really know how very bad this was for the people of this country and no one knows how much worse it can get...but they will.
@freelancer977 Government Unions are parasites. Minimum work, a lot of waste, many unnecessary employees, huge administration and pressure to increase taxes on citizens who earn much less than they do. Boeing Union, Long Shoremen and others, became arrogant, bullish, extortionists and lazy. Today's labor movement is caricature of that 100 years ago. It used to be honest and just. Not anymore. Go to the convention center as an exhibitor and you will get reality checked.
"In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886." And that ruling - Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific RR - is one of the most bizarre ever made, because the ruling came even before arguments had been made before the Court. In other words... the fix was in.
January 21, 2010- the day America died. And btw I voted for McCain. And from now on will only vote for candidates that stand up to Big Government AND Big Business. Read walmart is not a person to see why this ruling was so wrong
January 21, 2010- the day America died. And btw I voted for McCain. And from now on will only vote for candidates that stand up to Big Government AND Big Business.
Where then, does this leave the people's power of "voice?" More imbalance of power! If money talks, then who has more power now? People or the new class of "people?" So disgusted! I wonder how much money the judges who supported this made from this ruling.
He blew this case entirely out of proportion and as a corporate attorney I agree with the Supreme courts decision, you cannot limit the right of the people to address grievances or petition the government. In its ruling the court understood that corporations are not sentient beings but rather entities made up of citizens; therefore the right to give to political parties cannot be abridged by them. Great ruling for corporate America!!!
@blackdragon767 As a corporate attorney of course you agree with it, Addressing grievances and petitioning the government? Isn't that what unions are for. You forgot to mention that unlike political groups corporations do not represent the views and interests of all it's members, Only the people who own large amounts of stock in the company and only when it means more profit for the people at the top. Good-Buy America
Please don't overreact. Read into the facts more. I have to write a research paper on this case. And so far I have been surprised to learn that this case might not be as big as Olbermann says...
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
Being the righteous, principled guy he is, I'm sure Keith Olbermann will be returning all the salary and stock options he's received from GE. Wouldn't want his opinions tainted by funding from some evil corporation.
After all, Disney's blood money kept him from telling the truth about corporations all those years on SportsCenter. How can we trust him while he continues to feed from the corporate trough?
those mother fucking sons of bitches........ im going to move to a diffrent country when I can If that law is never repealed.... mabey ill move to japan....
The position that freedom in election spending is a BAD thing is an ELITIST argument.
People who are concerned about this freedom correctly conclude that corporations will spend $ on elections. Truth is, that $ to elections = advertising only. If that bothers you then you MUST assume that the American electorate is stupid enough to choose who represents them based solely on TV/radio ads rather than researching the issues on their own.
@419dman I do receive any compensation for posting here. I just enjoy exposing that folks who wish to suppress free speech also hold the belief that they are somehow superior to their fellow Americans. Believing that unless we ban certain groups from advertising, America will bow to the wishes of "evil" corporations operates on the assumption that a majority of Americans are stupid enough to base their beliefs solely upon advertising. That by definition is elitist.
@coolbreezed You do receive compensation for posting here, a Freudian slip? How in the hell do you consider corporations buying political power away from the less wealthy free speech? If corporations are allowed to influence politics only the corporations will have a voice, that voice belongs to the majority stock holders and executives who are the REAL ELITES, not the majority of it's employees who no longer have a voice because the unions are being destroyed. Define High Treason
@deepfreeze202 You're ignorant on the constitutional definition of speech. Political ads, wearing a tshirt, burning flags, or making porn are all forms of speech. Nobody is buying political power. And nobody is being denied their right to speak.
You're also ignorant about the corp. form. A corp's employees simply enter into a contract w/ the corp. to work for pay ... all the way from janitor to CEO. They have no power. Never did.
PRIVATE unions are not being destroyed. High treason? LOL!!!
@coolbreezed Let me spell it out for you, political ads cost money corporations have lots of it, Corporations buy political ads because it's in there best interest to do so, Corporations own politicians by way of campaign contributions, The average person/people cannot afford mass advertising, corporations will have the voice and the average citizen will not. Plutocracy
Selling out your country for profit = high treason
@deepfreeze202 Corps. do not own politicians any more than unions "own" politicians. That is just nonsensical hyperbole. All corps are doing in this case is making a simple advertisement either in favor or against a certain political point of view. If an "average person" (who you think is too stupid to make decisions w/o advertisements) wants to buy advertising time they are more then welcome.
As for "equal voice" everyone has an equal voice at the ballot box. Thus there's no plutocracy.
Would you voice an opinion contrary to your employer? Wouldn't that threaten your job security, Like it or not corporations wield power over their employees. Is it a good Idea to give constitutional rights and the power that goes with those rights to corporations that have an already huge economic power over the people. I haven't even addressed multinationals.
Public Unions are being dismantled It's only a matter of time before Private Unions get the boot.
@deepfreeze202 I'd voice my opinion against my employer on non-work related matters. If I was fired it would violate employment law and I'd sue. Corps. only have "power" that their employees voluntarily grant them under contract.
Your understanding of constitutional rights is wrong. Rights aren't given by the gov. People already have those rights at birth. Gov. can only take away rights. Just because a group of people speak under a corporate form should not affect their right to speak.
@coolbreezed You still refuse to acknowledge the huge gap this creates between the people and the corporations ability to have a voice in the election of representatives. Our government is already rife with corruption because of campaign contributions that have our representatives in debt to special interest groups. It's all about money they have it we don't, and now that they can do this legally under free speech it's just a matter of time before we're cut out of the process entirely.
@deepfreeze202 You're repeating the propagandist hyperbole that the left always try to get us to fall for. The fact remains that only "the people" have the right to vote. It's elitist for you to assert that "the people" are unable to make decisions for themselves w/o political advertisements. Very elitist.
Just so you know, Citizens United did not overturn Buckley v. Valeo. Corporate political contributions are still limited. Citizens United is about political SPENDING. There's a difference.
@coolbreezed You're talking apples and Oranges man it's all the same shit, You tell people they can choose either chocolate or vanilla they don't ask for strawberry cause it isn't on the menu.
You're repeating the propaganda the right is always trying to get us to fall for, that what's good for big business is good for everyone (Reaganomics) as if they won't screw us over. The fact remains they screw us over every chance they get.
@deepfreeze202 By your silence I see you accept that Citizens United only applies to political spending w/in 60 days of a general election and not campaign contributions. Thats a start.
I never said that what's good for business is good for everyone. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Nice try.
As for your ice cream analogy, its elitist for you to think that people are unable research third party candidates. You clearly have little respect for the "people" you claim to champion. Elitist.
@coolbreezed The U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the First Amendment protects the use of corporate funds to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for public office. The decision means that companies may spend unlimited funds from their own treasuries on independent expenditures to support or oppose a candidate as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with the candidates.
@deepfreeze202 Which is exactly what I said. Prior to the ruling, corps./unions were able to speak so long as it was not w/in 60 days of a general election or w/in 30 days of a primary election. The ruling protects the right of people to assemble and speak under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Banning a group of people from contributing to the marketplace of ideas based solely on the way they choose to organize is wrong. However, like the SCOUTUS, I agree w/ certain disclosure requirements.
@coolbreezed That the only form of political spending corruption that the government can seek to protect against is quid pro quo corruption completely overlooks the insidious nature of money in democracy. The ruling will add to the flood of corporate speech that drowns out citizen voices. This flood can only leave people with the belief that corporations dominate the debate and that they have little if any ability to have their voices heard and influence decision makers in Washington.
@deepfreeze202 And because you feel that way you're elitist. You do not have enough faith in the people you claim to support to decide for themselves. You wish to suppress speech because you think "the people" are unable to develop their own political opinions, research candidates who share those opinions, and actively vote for them. Since you show such little respect for the intelligence of your fellow citizens while maintaining that you are able to make such a judgment makes you an elitist.
@coolbreezed You're obviously pro corporation which implies you believe what's good for business is good for everyone, the only other conclusion I see is you being against the average citizen.
It seems you don't understand the most basic explanation of something so obvious a child could grasp it. I still don't understand why you republicans think throwing around the word elitist somehow validates your weak argument. You are the one who has little respect for the "people" you wish to silence.
@deepfreeze202 Your intellectual fog is quite obvious. You think that if I'm for free speech that you disagree w/ I'm automatically against the "average citizen" or I'm "pro-corporation". I'm for the average person's rights to speak whether that person is doing so as an individual or if they are speaking as a part of an organization. I'm for freedom. As for "pro-corporate", I have no idea what that means. Please explain.
Unlike you, I don't wish to silence speech. For anyone.
@coolbreezed You keep calling me elitist and claiming I don't understand what I'm talking about, yet you fail to realize the impact for the majority of citizens. How can you support corporations who have a huge monetary advantage having more influence in politics and not be against the average citizen? Perhaps you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our capitalism works in reality.
Unlike you I wish free speech to remain with all the people not just those who can buy it.
@deepfreeze202 What impact? Before Citizens United did the "majority of citizens" buy costly advertising spots on TV and in print to put forth their opinions? NO. This changes nothing except the content of the speech that people will hear. And since you think the people are lemmings who will do what the TV tells them you are elitist.
Free speech remains with the people. ALL PEOPLE. And if people wish to organize and assemble to speak as a group then so be it. Thats called freedom my friend.
@coolbreezed Once again I would remind you that the "majority of citizens" do not have the funds to compete with corporations so even where they do pay for costly advertising spots they're drowned out. You would do well to not underestimate the influence held by TV, the majority of Americans get their information from Mainstream media outlets such as Fox "news" and MSNBC "news" enough said.
@deepfreeze202 They never bought advertising time in the first place. Your point is meaningless.
As for your clear disrespect for the intelligence of our fellow voters ... you are an elitist as is your argument against the effect of Citizens United. You have proven my point. Thank you.
@coolbreezed How can you say being against corporations having constitutional rights to buy political power is elitist. You're out of touch. Money spent on advertising pays works that's why it's everywhere. Corporations have far more money than any average group of citizens, it won't matter if the electorate is stupid or not they won't see any choices other than the ones big business wants them to.
@deepfreeze202 There you go w/ more elitism. You don't give the average person enough credit to see through the fog and get to the real issues. But presumably, you think that you can, thus you think you are somehow better than everyone else because you are able to see through the political speech whereas others cannot. This is an elitist stance pure and simple.
And I'm not talking about "buying political power". I'm simple talking about free speech ... nothing more.
@coolbreezed You need to examine your definition of elitist. As I said before it does not matter how smart or stupid the people are, People can't buy products they've never seen. How many major parties are there in the US? 2 republicans and democrats, What about the smaller parties how do you know if you agree with their ideals or not? During a presidential election how often do you see anyone except the DEM and REP candidates?
@deepfreeze202 There you go again think the masses won't look outside their own television to find the answers. Unlike you, I have faith is people's ability to research each candidate either on the internet and/or by election newsletters and make their decision based about that research. The fact that you think the average person is just a TV watching slob unable to do research for himself is certainly elitist.
olbermann is upset because he is now...finally going to be required to actually "stay neutral". No more "tingle up my leg" comments will be allowed. But isn't that really what much of the problem here is? The journalists are spinning or blocking the facts according to their position. That is not news...that is politics. The coverage on the tea party movement and obama is a perfect example of how the media has gotten into the business of "king making" & it has to stop!
This is all bullshit. Unions have gained all of the same rights as any other corporation. A ban on abortion? I'm all for it. Fox inflames people against the state? What the fuck do you think you were just doing now?
It was clear to many, even non US citizens what was happening over there.
Your too late.
And what he accuses Fox of the left are as guilty when they bought the Obama crap hook line and sinker. Yes the saviour Obama. Hows that working out for ya.
Your politicians are already prostitutes. The ones that matter. They matter because they have prostituted themselves. Thats why people like Ron Paul are laughed at. He would be an antidote. At least for a while
It was clear to many, even non US citizens what was happening over there.
Your too late.
And what he accuses Fox of the left are as guilty when they bought the Obama crap hook line and sinker. Yes the saviour Obama. Hows that working out for ya.
Your politicians are already prostitutes. The ones that matter. They matter because they have prostituted themselves. Thats why people like Ron Paul are laughed at. He would be an antidote. >>
It was clear to many, even non US citizens what was happening over there.
Your too late.
And what he accuses Fox of the left are as guilty when they bought the Obama crap hook line and sinker. Yes the saviour Obama. Hows that working out for ya.
Your politicians are already prostitutes. The ones that matter. They matter because they have prostituted themselves. Thats why people like Ron Paul are laughed at. He would be an antidote. >> For a while.
He's a socialist....Loved him at ESPN. But he went from Joe Six-Pack to Joe Stalin very quickly! He's good....and I admire his talent, but he certainly sold his soul for a huge paycheck. And that's OK. Actually it's great. That's what's capitalism is all about.
The funny thing is, the very idea (concept) of capitalism, that he rails against nightly, is exactly why he is making millions of dollars a year.
If he is as smart as everyone says, maybe he answers that ironic situation on his show.
@therrydicule I sure hope you are right, cause it's looking really bleak.
When you pile up all the stuff going on. Corporations taking over the elections, talking over the internet, Wall St and the Banks already run Americas money supply, they own the media and have a true friend in Fox news.
We are running out of avenues for voices that aren't paid for by corporate America. Worst of all, more and more people are buying into the illusion the corporations are making for us.
@MoJoSB I like that sentence "the illusion that the corporations are makings for us" since... Most people don't get that corporation are a politico-legal "tool" to made "stuff". They are a a product of corporate law, which itself is a product of common laws and anti-monarchy ideology... This was against the idea of Royal Charter, giving monopoly in the 1500 and 1600 - the idea was to not have one "HDC" but many little dealers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MoJoSB I'd rather live in the Corporate States of America than the Government of America. A corporation rules with the consent of the consumer. The government considers itself a group of enlightened elite. There are hundreds of thousands of corporations bidding, competing for our support. The government is a big group of swindlers who feed off each other. The corporation can't enslave people. The government can and does.
@Trimbler00 Well, you will be happy to know, the government has been working for the corporations before you where born. So you've had you wish all your life already... Hope you have been enjoying what a good job they have been doing.
Now, that they own the law AND the vote, I hope you enjoy what is to come.
Hard to show someone they're a slave, when they don't see the cage. Good luck with your corporate world.
@MoJoSB This law also applies to unions, which outspend corporations and almost invariably support democrats. Olbermann must know this, but he also knows that it puts a damper on his argument, so he omitted it.
@Trimbler00 You must me smoking some good stuff to have posted this 1 week ago. You obviously haven't been paying attention to what these "Corporations" have been doing. You are a slave NOW if you have debt, don't grow your own food, or don't run your own business. You are COMPLETELY reliant upon the system to survive!! The corporations could care less about the consumer once they are in COMPLETE power you have no choice so they no longer need to pander to you. Seriously, take off the blindfold!
@blackmusictoday You can't be a slave to a corporation. You CHOOSE to buy their products or services either because of their quality or convenience. You CHOOSE to be employed by a corporation in order to supply your family with the necessary resources, and you are free to quit at any time if you find a better way to live. There is no explicit punishment for choosing not to do either of those things.
There is, however, punishment for not paying taxes, or committing victimless crimes like...
@Trimbler00 You are confusing the illusion of choice with actual choice. The punishment is you either become a part of the system or you become engaged in a futile war against it.
@deepfreeze202 Wow, what a false dilemma. Why do you have to wage a war against a corporation if you choose not to be employed by it? If you can find a better way to live without a corporation's products/services/employment, you have the right to do that.
@Trimbler00 The Corporations will own everything, all goods will be produced by the corporations. All jobs will be for the corporations, They will reduce pay and benefits to as little as possible to increase profit which will only go to the guys at the top, Who's going to stop them? The Unions are already being destroyed the politicians being bought by the corporations who then represents the interests of the lower and middle class the vast majority of Americans?
@deepfreeze202 Corporations are independent entities with independent owners. When you speak about them collectively it's very deceiving-- in fact, each corporation is competing with the other to provide the best product at the best price and attract the best employee. This competition is conducive to progress.
But I agree with the antitrust laws that were established at the beginning of the 20th century, especially for industries with a high barrier to entry.
@deepfreeze202 And do you even know what a corporation is? It's a business that happens to be incorporated. That includes the small business I used to work for with only 3 employees. It was a class-S corporation... I really doubt you understand the term based on how you're utilizing it.
@Trimbler00 When Businesses influence elections, power belongs to those with the most money. They will put politicians who are willing to serve them into power. Eventually a small group of ultra-wealthy people will run the country.
Who decides corporate politics? Do you believe every person who works for them will share the same opinions? We already have political parties in bed with big business, why in the world would you support taking away what little voice we have left in politics?
@Trimbler00 Should Corporations have 2nd amendment rights and be allowed to amass an arsenal? What about 4th amendment rights? no inspectors to insure worker safety. Maybe they shouldn't have to keep records because that violates the 5th amendment? The 8th amendment will prevent us from making them pay for the harm they cause. What about the 26th amendment which establishes 18 as the national voting age? Can Corporations vote? do they have to be "old enough"
@deepfreeze202 The 4th and 26th amendments are specifically endowed to people. The first amendment is not. Why shouldn't corporations have a right to the second amendment? And why would the 5th amendment make it legal for corporations to operate without records?
@Trimbler00 You just don't get it, businesses exist to make a profit and belong to the stock holders. Corporations influencing politics will only be done with the interests of the owners in mind not the people any resulting policy will affect. They won't represent the workers or any citizen who owns less than 50% of the stock. They are taking the voice away from the people who can't afford to buy it. Goodbye democracy, Hello Plutocracy.
@deepfreeze202 A corporation only exists when people voluntarily buy their products or services and when people voluntarily work for them. Without these two components, the corporation wouldn't exist. There would be no stockholders, or CEO or board of directors. Corporations fulfill consumer demand. What's wrong with that?
@Trimbler00 People "voluntarily" buy their products and services because all of the competition went out of business, everything is controlled by duopolies now (Coke/Pepsi). When the consumer has no real choice who they get the products from the company doesn't have to consider their needs. What's wrong with that? It creates a huge gap between the rich and the poor, less than 10% of the population control 70.9% of the wealth, when wealth equals influence it only benefits the wealthy.
Outlaw lobbying! Limit legislators to only three terms! No corporate campaign contributions! Make the IRS look into legislators' finances with a magnifying glass! Death penalty for corrupt legislators!
@efrixione I have this debate with my Dad all the time. Lobbying is advocacy communication with elected leaders, PAC's are legal bribery during candidates' campaign. I tell him if he really wants to outlaw lobbying, then he will get rid of labor unions and AARP (both of which he was and is a member). I tell him what he really wants is to outlaw PACs (Political Action Committees) which IS legal bribery of candidates before they are elected.
@Yankhadenough The problem is that those who make the laws are already bought. They give themselves juicy perks, Retirement benefits we wish we had. Health care above the "cadillac" insurances the millionaires have. Plus, automatic pay raises, per diem, travel expenses (including family members and mistresses). Do they have to undergo drug tests? No. We tell the world about corrupt countries. Let's check ours first. Our legislators should be the first in line to get an IRS audit every year.
As a Liberal I haven't watched Keith too often (why would I watch someone who thought similarly to me. Circlejerk?), but I was very surprised at his doomsday speech on the supreme court decision. He very much reminded me of the king of political extremism and conspiracy theories, Glenn Beck. Yes, I think the decision was a very bad step in the wrong direction. But I don't believe at all what he said will happen in the next 10 years, at least not nearly to that extreme.
Can someone please explain to me why it's "okay" for someone like George Soros to spend a fortune smearing the President, taking out full page ads in News papers and magazines.
@hoppinglark Because the line between doing what George Soros does and what I might do is blurry. The line between what I do and what Walmart does is not. People care about things. Even the worst of us cares about something other than money. Corporations do not. They never have. They never will. Any money given to anyone for any reason by a corporation is done for only one reason; an investment to make more money.
@hoppinglark What? Those aren't corporations. All the ruling does is level the playing field? Seriously? Yes, poor disadvantaged Citibank, they can't spend millions on getting corporate shills in congress to try and get more favorable legislation. Peta is not a corporation. Sierra Club is not incorporated. They do not have shareholders. They are nonprofit. That's the difference. Profit. You're definitely the one missing something here.
@BadLuck765 Yes, many of those types of groups are corporations. Just like the entertainment and print corporations that had been given special treatment before this ruling. Profit is not a requirement of a corporation. Did you know the oldest corporation is Harvard College? Think about it- both TheLiberalViewer watch?v=I_e2L9_8t8Q and ReasonTV /watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU agree this was no big deal, now that's NOT something that happens every day!
Keith ... it's NOT a democracy! It's a constitutional REPUBLIC!
Has anyone else noticed that liberals are incapable of saying the word Republic?
HumbleWillis 3 weeks ago
All but a small handful of our politicians are already bought and paid for, and it is the media which helps those same bought and paid for politicians get re-elected. The largest by far contributor to Obama's campaign is Goldman Sachs. And the candidate who opposes him on the GOP Side, Mitt Romney ... his largest contributor by far is ... GOLDMAN SACHS!
And who is the GOP candidate that the media is trying to force down our throats? ROMNEY!
The ONLY candidate that is not bought is Ron Paul.
HumbleWillis 3 weeks ago
@HumbleWillis
Spot on...
And he will notbe allowed to be heared beyond a cursory attempt...Beyond his idiotic Right to Work silliness,he is on to something and things will not change...
rbhiphopsux 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@rbhiphopsux Why is the right to work silly?
HumbleWillis 2 weeks ago
@HumbleWillis the right to work or Right to Work legislation?Everyone has the right to work,but what right does Ron Paul have to legislatively bust unions under the guise of "personal freedom"?...The "personal freedom" brough to you by the NAM and the Koch Bros.?
rbhiphopsux 2 weeks ago
Would you rather the people decide which candidate they listen to, or the government? We have the right to choose who we associate with, just as much as we have the right to speak! The people choose who they listen to!
bigblatz 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch video AsJjlC3WaTY
Citizens United supported wants those who disagree stripped of their voting rights and forced to take medication.
2411Hellokitty 1 month ago
Corporations have unlimited amounts of money that can sway popular opinion if we allow it. The key here is to not believe everything you see on TV. Know the facts, be involved, spread the word (word of mouth) on facts that you can back up...not just opinion but facts.
kewpified 1 month ago
@TexasFreedomFighter George Carlin once made an observation about freedom fighters.. "Well, if fire fighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?" In your case he was damn straight on the money.
RockinReminiscence 1 month ago
This is a major aberration in the drum beat of freedom that is the United States. Personally, I don't know how those justices sleep at night knowing that they have under-minded and slapped democracy in the face with this. We will endure and overcome this, but not without amending out sacred Constitution. Clearly the "constructionists" have taken a liking for judicial activism.
heliostellar 1 month ago
@heliostellar really good comment!!!!
gggreggg 1 month ago
This just shows how libtards hate capitalism and America. They should all be executed for treason for what they have done over the past 3 years, especially the Jew Keith Olbermann! Fucking Communist traitors!!!
ClaimAmerica4Christ 2 months ago
@ClaimAmerica4Christ a disgusting and untrue comment
gggreggg 1 month ago
Keith Olbermann is a lying far-left loon! No wonder MSNBC fired him.
TexasFreedomFighter 2 months ago
This argument is manufactured left wing authoritarian propaganda. Read the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..." The debate was not if a corporation is a person, but if congress could make a law abridging free speech.
nathanlabish 2 months ago 7
@nathanlabish Unfortunately, the impact of corporations spending as much money
as they want, can in effect buy or influence elections. Frightening to think that spending lots of money can influence an election, but it is true. Rick Scott getting elected in Florida is just one example.
quesondriac 1 month ago
@quesondric I think I understand your argument: "Corporations have too much money, they could influence elections with it." I might add "People with the intellect to write convincingly have the ability to convince people of their opinions, they could influence elections." or "People with charismatic personalities have the ability to sway others, they could influence elections." Whose job will it be to decide? I say the judges got it right! The gov can keep its grubby little hands off free speech
nathanlabish 1 month ago
@nathanlabish I have to disagree. With that logic, he with the most money can buy a court decision that is not based on logic or merit. This decision will be overturned in my lifetime, because people are going to realize that it creates an unfair advantage. And fairness is an American tradition.
quesondriac 1 month ago
@quesondriac @quesondriac
I don't follow, I was not talking about court decisions but about political speech. As to your other point, equal rights and freedom among other things are guaranteed by our Constitution, fairness is not. Until the civil rights movement segregation was an American tradition. Lets all be thankful the courts were guided by our constitution and not traditions.
nathanlabish 1 month ago
@nathanlabish I still have to disagree. Fundamental Fairness is a recurring theme in constitutional law. Being guided by the constitution is being dedicated to fairness. As to tradition, it is easier to make a case on existing decisions. But in Citizens United the court did neither. On another note, can you ijmagine what TV commercials are going to be like prior to the election this year? Get ready!
quesondriac 1 month ago
@quesondriac
I know between the unions, corporations, and all everything else it will be crazy!
Lets hope the candidates are able to shine through :)
nathanlabish 1 month ago
@nathanlabish I agree. I believe that voters should not make decisions based on commercials. I think they should get their information from other sources. But you and I are not naive.
quesondriac 1 month ago
@nathanlabish the outcome doesn't always coincide with the intended goal does it?
rfd177 1 month ago in playlist Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
@rfd177
Well... if your intended goal is free speech then yes it does coincide.
nathanlabish 1 month ago
@nathanlabish How delusional. Rights are intended for individual citizens, not for collectives. You are an individual citizen of the united States. Corporations are Collectives, which are not bound by any nationality. To give them the ability to influence elections opens the office of government to foreign influence, and trust me it will. The regulations which are supposed to prevent coordination between candidate and Super-Pac are non existent and impossible to enforce.
Derekrife1 1 month ago
@Derekrife1
Law since 1966.
XXX.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml
replace XXX with www
nathanlabish 2 weeks ago
@nathanlabish You should re-read that page, since if you look closely, Corporations are prohibited from making donations to candidates, creating, and working to Super PACS, but there is no clear language banning foreign corporations from Donating to Super PACS, The organizations are not the problem, it's the million dollar 'donations,' since they're the ones who get trillion dollar returns on their investments, I mean 'donations,' via 'non-coordination.'
Derekrife1 2 weeks ago
@nathanlabish First of all, the first amendment along with the rest of the bill of rights involve the rights of individuals. It doesn't mention anywhere that these rights are extended to coporate entities. Secondly, the government can place reasonable time, manner, place restrictions on free speech. I think anyone in their right mind would agree that preventing the most wealthy individuals and groups from simply buying politicians is a reasonable restraint on free speech!
durhamdf 1 week ago
@durhamdf @durhamdf
1) It is not legal to "buy" people; 13th amendment.
2) "The most wealthy" have equal protection (and equal rights to free speech); 14th amendment.
3) I can not think of a more reasonable use of free speech than airtime in election season.
P.S. I will admit that you argued your point well, you almost convinced me; perhaps due to the advantage you have due to your uncommon rhetorical skills it would be reasonable for you to be limited to one post.
nathanlabish 1 week ago
@nathanlabish True but understand that we have had this restriction on free speech for over 100 years since the tillman act. It became obvious in the early 20th century that with enough money, corporate entities and wealthy individuals could in effect buy policy undermining our democratic process. This is nothing new, but as our financial system changes so to will our campaign finance laws. That is all I'm saying.
durhamdf 1 week ago
@durhamdf
The 100 year argument does not make it right. Slavery went on in this country for 92 years and it was wrong.
"Buying policy" is bribery and corruption and is illegal.
Speech (esp. public political speech) is the right way to influence policy. The wealthy have just as much a right to influence policy as the poor, the charismatic, the rhetorically gifted, unions, MADD, etc.
Discrimination is wrong. The Wealthy should not be marginalized just because they have money.
nathanlabish 1 week ago
@nathanlabish unfortunately the law doesn't consider taking campaign donations and then rewarding those doners with pork to be bribery... though the effect is the same. Giving money is not speech. Like you said, bribery is illegal, gifts can be taxed etc... And doing the campaining FOR a candidate in effect is the same as giving directly to the candidate. Yes wealthy have the ame right to influence policy with their speech, that doesn't mean they have the right to buy policy with their wealth
durhamdf 1 week ago
@durhamdf
Well everyone from the ACLU, to the Heritage Foundation, to the Supreme Court thinks that giving money to help an election is free speech. So if you disagree... well, I guess you should not contribute any of your money any political cause.
I think my last post covered "buying policy" and "bribery".
And if you think the law about "campaign donations.....pork" is wrong you should try to have the law changed. But don't forget you can't contribute $ to any elections. (your rules)
nathanlabish 1 week ago
@nathanlabish Bullshit.The Bill of Rights and the Constitution was not meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be interpreted in the way that best serves the American people. Do you really think that CEO's of multi-billion dollar corporations will donate money to causes that benefit the public? Remember what Mark Twain said, "we have the best politicians money can buy."
njrobinson95 5 days ago 2
Thank you for posting this, mmflint.
writersblock26 3 months ago
Brawndo.
MysteriousMayonaise 3 months ago
The problem with Citizens United can be seen in the New York Times article of October 30, 2011. Karl Rove, Haley Barbor, et al, have raised well over 1/2 billion dollars to date, and it's all secret. They bought the Republican majority in the House in 2010, and they're going to continue until all of the legislators are whores, beholden to corporate interests rather than the interest of US citizens. The two are often mutually exclusive. More money = more free speech? How dangerous and sad.
haldonrichardson1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See "Citizens United and Fat Cat Scalia"
haldonrichardson1 4 months ago
see the video about Scalia at "haldonrichardson1"
haldonrichardson1 4 months ago
We have an awful Supreme Court....
thatsmybriefcase 4 months ago
SCARY!! Tea Party lemmings are already in place with reinforcements not far behind. Sadly most Americans ignore this stuff thinking it doesn't really affect them.
lupowins 6 months ago
I saw this live, and thought it was terrifying even THEN. NOW, tho, now that we've seen the beginning of what he predicted coming to pass, this message is much, MUCH scarier!
For example, "finding people to blame the worsening conditions on?" Teachers. Public or unionized workers. Etc., etc.
macgeek2004 7 months ago
the united corporations of america !! corporate profits will be put ahead of our democracy , our health , the enviroment and the health of the planet itself ! whats ironic and idiotic , is that corporations will make greater long term profits with a thriving US economy and middle class . and what will profits mean when our planet is ruined by the creed of greed ?!!
Thadmotor1044 7 months ago
These economic injustices and others will continue as long as wealthy contributors corrupt our political process. Many of us feel the President can and should do much more to rein in Wall Street, create jobs, and defend Medicare and Social Security. But any likely opponent would probably be far worse. Politicians in this post-Citizens United world are either limited by corporate power or prostituted to it..... (Copied from TruthOut) Great website btw!
phillipmarch22 7 months ago
LOL...Everything out of Olberman's mouth here was outrageous hyperbole, at best and flat out lies at worst. Comparing this ruling to Dred Scott is bad enough, but what my real problem is is that I'm 99.9999% sure that he hasn't read the entire ruling. If he had, he would know that nothing he's saying here is the case. Just another media prostitute out of the George Soros Brothel (Inc.?).
drme83 8 months ago
@drme83 If you continue to lie to the masses, they will believe everything as the truth! Our country is collective idiot box and we have been sorely damned as a nation... thanks to the likes of the corporate elite.
fred1671 5 months ago
Bye bye America, it was nice knowing you but you've now sowed the final seed of your end as a nation of independent, well-informed, well-educated people, who cared about truth, justice and fairness. You were too distracted by junk food, junk TV and junk culture to realise what was really happening. Hopefully other nations will learn from your example.
perrin6 8 months ago 3
lol...america deserves to be told what to do. it a country of morons (watch the movie "Idiocracy"). The people of America are retarded and the only way to get back on track is to tell these retards what to do, now we need chem castration for the devils rejects that are reproducing by record numbers. And this guy *talking about the fair media out there* ahahahaha...hes working for the people that spread hate by psyops shit
tattedtex 9 months ago
I finally figured out why the lady holding the scales of justice is always blind folded,Because she cant stand to watch you lawyers make there deals.Will it ever stop,you judges?
HaroldWillett 9 months ago
Did he really say this was worse than Dred Scott? Really? It's a shit ruling, but c'mon.
Saying people are property or saying corp. as people have same protection of free speech? Hmmm.
The14Hill 9 months ago
@The14Hill
The Dred Scott ruling didn't actually change anything. It maintained the status quo, where slavery already existed and was even specifically protected by the Constitution. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment to get rid of slavery. The Citizens United decision, on the other hand, brings us a huge change. Corporations now officially have MORE rights than actual human beings, and if nothing is done to reverse it, the decision will be the death knell of democracy.
RedXlV 1 month ago
Seems like he was right on the first steps.. We'll just have to see about the rest I guess.
gunseng2 10 months ago
I have over and over and over and over again written papers and done presentations in school about just what the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision is and how it murdered what little democracy is left. These college kids don't seem to give a sh1t, they are more worried about the last episode of Jersey Shore. I say let them burn in the scorching flames of global warming and climate change. Metaphorically speaking, it is happening now, way before it will literally happen.
petarg4housemusic 11 months ago
@petarg4housemusic
I have also try to give presentations on important issues in school and no one cares, i feel you i also contemplating just letting the idiots suffer while i try to improve myself. Educating a sheep he is a sheep is the hardest thing to do.
lildread1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OMG! I SAW A POLITICAL AD FROM AN EVIL CORPORATION AND LOST MY FREE WILL
oJKBo 11 months ago
How very prophetic that Keith:
Union busting, lower taxes for the rich, new wars, the conservative agenda, tea party split, city takeover like Michigan, Keith is already gone from MSNBC, Glen Beck is about to lose his fox job, Net Neutrality never happened, ATT and T-Mobile super mergers and on and on.
No one really know how very bad this was for the people of this country and no one knows how much worse it can get...but they will.
FreeMeFromG 11 months ago
This really sucks beyond belief.
FreeMeFromG 11 months ago
Yep, Keith pretty much predicted the Wisconsin, Ohio etc. war on unions 4:39
freelancer977 11 months ago 5
@freelancer977 Government Unions are parasites. Minimum work, a lot of waste, many unnecessary employees, huge administration and pressure to increase taxes on citizens who earn much less than they do. Boeing Union, Long Shoremen and others, became arrogant, bullish, extortionists and lazy. Today's labor movement is caricature of that 100 years ago. It used to be honest and just. Not anymore. Go to the convention center as an exhibitor and you will get reality checked.
AMCSTORE 2 months ago 5
@Rusty, the truth hurts, doesn't it? "Hatespewing?" That pretty much describes the GOPer filth that y'all elected.
MiserableOldFart 11 months ago
"In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886." And that ruling - Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific RR - is one of the most bizarre ever made, because the ruling came even before arguments had been made before the Court. In other words... the fix was in.
RoughAcres 11 months ago
January 21, 2010- the day America died. And btw I voted for McCain. And from now on will only vote for candidates that stand up to Big Government AND Big Business. Read walmart is not a person to see why this ruling was so wrong
onewhoseeks17 1 year ago
@onewhoseeks17 that is "walmart is not a person" on truth-out. org
onewhoseeks17 1 year ago 2
January 21, 2010- the day America died. And btw I voted for McCain. And from now on will only vote for candidates that stand up to Big Government AND Big Business.
onewhoseeks17 1 year ago
Legally, corporations are considered people. This could be fixed by not considering them individuals anymore.
freakylocz14 1 year ago 2
Thank God...this hate spewing creep was fired. There may be hope for MSNBC now.
Rusty350 1 year ago
He is now saying: I told you so.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
Comment removed
jordandavidfilm 1 year ago
Where then, does this leave the people's power of "voice?" More imbalance of power! If money talks, then who has more power now? People or the new class of "people?" So disgusted! I wonder how much money the judges who supported this made from this ruling.
joanflouisefisher 1 year ago
Keith, keith,, keith,,, SHUUUUUUTTT UPPPPPPP!
joe018687645 1 year ago
He blew this case entirely out of proportion and as a corporate attorney I agree with the Supreme courts decision, you cannot limit the right of the people to address grievances or petition the government. In its ruling the court understood that corporations are not sentient beings but rather entities made up of citizens; therefore the right to give to political parties cannot be abridged by them. Great ruling for corporate America!!!
blackdragon767 1 year ago
@blackdragon767 As a corporate attorney of course you agree with it, Addressing grievances and petitioning the government? Isn't that what unions are for. You forgot to mention that unlike political groups corporations do not represent the views and interests of all it's members, Only the people who own large amounts of stock in the company and only when it means more profit for the people at the top. Good-Buy America
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
Please don't overreact. Read into the facts more. I have to write a research paper on this case. And so far I have been surprised to learn that this case might not be as big as Olbermann says...
Londgirl15 1 year ago
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
cloudburstlenepmhq 1 year ago
Being the righteous, principled guy he is, I'm sure Keith Olbermann will be returning all the salary and stock options he's received from GE. Wouldn't want his opinions tainted by funding from some evil corporation.
After all, Disney's blood money kept him from telling the truth about corporations all those years on SportsCenter. How can we trust him while he continues to feed from the corporate trough?
dmonack 1 year ago
It's official: We are a plutocracy!
hatemorethanyou999 1 year ago
This person is worthless
brentsflyingv 1 year ago
those mother fucking sons of bitches........ im going to move to a diffrent country when I can If that law is never repealed.... mabey ill move to japan....
shadyguy999 1 year ago
The position that freedom in election spending is a BAD thing is an ELITIST argument.
People who are concerned about this freedom correctly conclude that corporations will spend $ on elections. Truth is, that $ to elections = advertising only. If that bothers you then you MUST assume that the American electorate is stupid enough to choose who represents them based solely on TV/radio ads rather than researching the issues on their own.
One who holds this view is clearly ELITIST.
coolbreezed 1 year ago
@coolbreezed What actual "Elitist" company pays you to copy and paste the ridiculous crap on every video to do with this case
419dman 1 year ago
@419dman I do receive any compensation for posting here. I just enjoy exposing that folks who wish to suppress free speech also hold the belief that they are somehow superior to their fellow Americans. Believing that unless we ban certain groups from advertising, America will bow to the wishes of "evil" corporations operates on the assumption that a majority of Americans are stupid enough to base their beliefs solely upon advertising. That by definition is elitist.
coolbreezed 1 year ago
@coolbreezed You do receive compensation for posting here, a Freudian slip? How in the hell do you consider corporations buying political power away from the less wealthy free speech? If corporations are allowed to influence politics only the corporations will have a voice, that voice belongs to the majority stock holders and executives who are the REAL ELITES, not the majority of it's employees who no longer have a voice because the unions are being destroyed. Define High Treason
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 You're ignorant on the constitutional definition of speech. Political ads, wearing a tshirt, burning flags, or making porn are all forms of speech. Nobody is buying political power. And nobody is being denied their right to speak.
You're also ignorant about the corp. form. A corp's employees simply enter into a contract w/ the corp. to work for pay ... all the way from janitor to CEO. They have no power. Never did.
PRIVATE unions are not being destroyed. High treason? LOL!!!
coolbreezed 11 months ago
@coolbreezed Let me spell it out for you, political ads cost money corporations have lots of it, Corporations buy political ads because it's in there best interest to do so, Corporations own politicians by way of campaign contributions, The average person/people cannot afford mass advertising, corporations will have the voice and the average citizen will not. Plutocracy
Selling out your country for profit = high treason
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 Corps. do not own politicians any more than unions "own" politicians. That is just nonsensical hyperbole. All corps are doing in this case is making a simple advertisement either in favor or against a certain political point of view. If an "average person" (who you think is too stupid to make decisions w/o advertisements) wants to buy advertising time they are more then welcome.
As for "equal voice" everyone has an equal voice at the ballot box. Thus there's no plutocracy.
coolbreezed 11 months ago
Would you voice an opinion contrary to your employer? Wouldn't that threaten your job security, Like it or not corporations wield power over their employees. Is it a good Idea to give constitutional rights and the power that goes with those rights to corporations that have an already huge economic power over the people. I haven't even addressed multinationals.
Public Unions are being dismantled It's only a matter of time before Private Unions get the boot.
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 I'd voice my opinion against my employer on non-work related matters. If I was fired it would violate employment law and I'd sue. Corps. only have "power" that their employees voluntarily grant them under contract.
Your understanding of constitutional rights is wrong. Rights aren't given by the gov. People already have those rights at birth. Gov. can only take away rights. Just because a group of people speak under a corporate form should not affect their right to speak.
coolbreezed 11 months ago
@coolbreezed You still refuse to acknowledge the huge gap this creates between the people and the corporations ability to have a voice in the election of representatives. Our government is already rife with corruption because of campaign contributions that have our representatives in debt to special interest groups. It's all about money they have it we don't, and now that they can do this legally under free speech it's just a matter of time before we're cut out of the process entirely.
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 You're repeating the propagandist hyperbole that the left always try to get us to fall for. The fact remains that only "the people" have the right to vote. It's elitist for you to assert that "the people" are unable to make decisions for themselves w/o political advertisements. Very elitist.
Just so you know, Citizens United did not overturn Buckley v. Valeo. Corporate political contributions are still limited. Citizens United is about political SPENDING. There's a difference.
coolbreezed 10 months ago
@coolbreezed You're talking apples and Oranges man it's all the same shit, You tell people they can choose either chocolate or vanilla they don't ask for strawberry cause it isn't on the menu.
You're repeating the propaganda the right is always trying to get us to fall for, that what's good for big business is good for everyone (Reaganomics) as if they won't screw us over. The fact remains they screw us over every chance they get.
deepfreeze202 10 months ago
@deepfreeze202 By your silence I see you accept that Citizens United only applies to political spending w/in 60 days of a general election and not campaign contributions. Thats a start.
I never said that what's good for business is good for everyone. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Nice try.
As for your ice cream analogy, its elitist for you to think that people are unable research third party candidates. You clearly have little respect for the "people" you claim to champion. Elitist.
coolbreezed 10 months ago
@coolbreezed The U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the First Amendment protects the use of corporate funds to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for public office. The decision means that companies may spend unlimited funds from their own treasuries on independent expenditures to support or oppose a candidate as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with the candidates.
deepfreeze202 10 months ago
@deepfreeze202 Which is exactly what I said. Prior to the ruling, corps./unions were able to speak so long as it was not w/in 60 days of a general election or w/in 30 days of a primary election. The ruling protects the right of people to assemble and speak under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Banning a group of people from contributing to the marketplace of ideas based solely on the way they choose to organize is wrong. However, like the SCOUTUS, I agree w/ certain disclosure requirements.
coolbreezed 10 months ago
@coolbreezed That the only form of political spending corruption that the government can seek to protect against is quid pro quo corruption completely overlooks the insidious nature of money in democracy. The ruling will add to the flood of corporate speech that drowns out citizen voices. This flood can only leave people with the belief that corporations dominate the debate and that they have little if any ability to have their voices heard and influence decision makers in Washington.
deepfreeze202 10 months ago
@deepfreeze202 And because you feel that way you're elitist. You do not have enough faith in the people you claim to support to decide for themselves. You wish to suppress speech because you think "the people" are unable to develop their own political opinions, research candidates who share those opinions, and actively vote for them. Since you show such little respect for the intelligence of your fellow citizens while maintaining that you are able to make such a judgment makes you an elitist.
coolbreezed 10 months ago
@coolbreezed You're obviously pro corporation which implies you believe what's good for business is good for everyone, the only other conclusion I see is you being against the average citizen.
It seems you don't understand the most basic explanation of something so obvious a child could grasp it. I still don't understand why you republicans think throwing around the word elitist somehow validates your weak argument. You are the one who has little respect for the "people" you wish to silence.
deepfreeze202 10 months ago
@deepfreeze202 Your intellectual fog is quite obvious. You think that if I'm for free speech that you disagree w/ I'm automatically against the "average citizen" or I'm "pro-corporation". I'm for the average person's rights to speak whether that person is doing so as an individual or if they are speaking as a part of an organization. I'm for freedom. As for "pro-corporate", I have no idea what that means. Please explain.
Unlike you, I don't wish to silence speech. For anyone.
coolbreezed 10 months ago
@coolbreezed You keep calling me elitist and claiming I don't understand what I'm talking about, yet you fail to realize the impact for the majority of citizens. How can you support corporations who have a huge monetary advantage having more influence in politics and not be against the average citizen? Perhaps you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our capitalism works in reality.
Unlike you I wish free speech to remain with all the people not just those who can buy it.
deepfreeze202 10 months ago
@deepfreeze202 What impact? Before Citizens United did the "majority of citizens" buy costly advertising spots on TV and in print to put forth their opinions? NO. This changes nothing except the content of the speech that people will hear. And since you think the people are lemmings who will do what the TV tells them you are elitist.
Free speech remains with the people. ALL PEOPLE. And if people wish to organize and assemble to speak as a group then so be it. Thats called freedom my friend.
coolbreezed 10 months ago
@coolbreezed Once again I would remind you that the "majority of citizens" do not have the funds to compete with corporations so even where they do pay for costly advertising spots they're drowned out. You would do well to not underestimate the influence held by TV, the majority of Americans get their information from Mainstream media outlets such as Fox "news" and MSNBC "news" enough said.
deepfreeze202 10 months ago
@deepfreeze202 They never bought advertising time in the first place. Your point is meaningless.
As for your clear disrespect for the intelligence of our fellow voters ... you are an elitist as is your argument against the effect of Citizens United. You have proven my point. Thank you.
coolbreezed 10 months ago
@coolbreezed How can you say being against corporations having constitutional rights to buy political power is elitist. You're out of touch. Money spent on advertising pays works that's why it's everywhere. Corporations have far more money than any average group of citizens, it won't matter if the electorate is stupid or not they won't see any choices other than the ones big business wants them to.
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 There you go w/ more elitism. You don't give the average person enough credit to see through the fog and get to the real issues. But presumably, you think that you can, thus you think you are somehow better than everyone else because you are able to see through the political speech whereas others cannot. This is an elitist stance pure and simple.
And I'm not talking about "buying political power". I'm simple talking about free speech ... nothing more.
coolbreezed 11 months ago
@coolbreezed You need to examine your definition of elitist. As I said before it does not matter how smart or stupid the people are, People can't buy products they've never seen. How many major parties are there in the US? 2 republicans and democrats, What about the smaller parties how do you know if you agree with their ideals or not? During a presidential election how often do you see anyone except the DEM and REP candidates?
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 There you go again think the masses won't look outside their own television to find the answers. Unlike you, I have faith is people's ability to research each candidate either on the internet and/or by election newsletters and make their decision based about that research. The fact that you think the average person is just a TV watching slob unable to do research for himself is certainly elitist.
coolbreezed 11 months ago
Thank you Roberts Court. Hasta la vista class war! watch?v=wlzmMIIHudw
Subscribe if you like it.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
If the ruling went the other way free speech as we know it or knew it would be nullified.
Tiqure 1 year ago
Go Keith Olbermann
weedofdick 1 year ago
Hey Keith,
Obama is just much as fascist as Palin. Wall Street controls him as well.
lambowolf 1 year ago
olbermann is upset because he is now...finally going to be required to actually "stay neutral". No more "tingle up my leg" comments will be allowed. But isn't that really what much of the problem here is? The journalists are spinning or blocking the facts according to their position. That is not news...that is politics. The coverage on the tea party movement and obama is a perfect example of how the media has gotten into the business of "king making" & it has to stop!
grambo47 1 year ago
This is all bullshit. Unions have gained all of the same rights as any other corporation. A ban on abortion? I'm all for it. Fox inflames people against the state? What the fuck do you think you were just doing now?
freakylocz14 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry Olberman.
Too little, too late.
It was clear to many, even non US citizens what was happening over there.
Your too late.
And what he accuses Fox of the left are as guilty when they bought the Obama crap hook line and sinker. Yes the saviour Obama. Hows that working out for ya.
Your politicians are already prostitutes. The ones that matter. They matter because they have prostituted themselves. Thats why people like Ron Paul are laughed at. He would be an antidote. At least for a while
educate1self 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
51 seconds ago
Sorry Olberman.
Too little, too late.
It was clear to many, even non US citizens what was happening over there.
Your too late.
And what he accuses Fox of the left are as guilty when they bought the Obama crap hook line and sinker. Yes the saviour Obama. Hows that working out for ya.
Your politicians are already prostitutes. The ones that matter. They matter because they have prostituted themselves. Thats why people like Ron Paul are laughed at. He would be an antidote. >>
educate1self 1 year ago
Comment removed
educate1self 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Too little, too late.
It was clear to many, even non US citizens what was happening over there.
Your too late.
And what he accuses Fox of the left are as guilty when they bought the Obama crap hook line and sinker. Yes the saviour Obama. Hows that working out for ya.
Your politicians are already prostitutes. The ones that matter. They matter because they have prostituted themselves. Thats why people like Ron Paul are laughed at. He would be an antidote. >> For a while.
educate1self 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He's a socialist....Loved him at ESPN. But he went from Joe Six-Pack to Joe Stalin very quickly! He's good....and I admire his talent, but he certainly sold his soul for a huge paycheck. And that's OK. Actually it's great. That's what's capitalism is all about.
The funny thing is, the very idea (concept) of capitalism, that he rails against nightly, is exactly why he is making millions of dollars a year.
If he is as smart as everyone says, maybe he answers that ironic situation on his show.
Flyyyy 1 year ago
Game, set, match. It's over folks. Welcome to The Corporate States of America.
MoJoSB 1 year ago 11
@MoJoSB did this not get overturned?
marshall2411 1 year ago
@marshall2411 Not that I know of...
MoJoSB 1 year ago
@MoJoSB this does look like they checkmated 98% of us, doesn't it?
We still have one advantage though, there is 98% of us.
Yankhadenough 1 year ago
@MoJoSB There is the solution of a constitutional amendment.
therrydicule 1 year ago
@therrydicule I sure hope you are right, cause it's looking really bleak.
When you pile up all the stuff going on. Corporations taking over the elections, talking over the internet, Wall St and the Banks already run Americas money supply, they own the media and have a true friend in Fox news.
We are running out of avenues for voices that aren't paid for by corporate America. Worst of all, more and more people are buying into the illusion the corporations are making for us.
Dangerous times.
MoJoSB 1 year ago
@MoJoSB I like that sentence "the illusion that the corporations are makings for us" since... Most people don't get that corporation are a politico-legal "tool" to made "stuff". They are a a product of corporate law, which itself is a product of common laws and anti-monarchy ideology... This was against the idea of Royal Charter, giving monopoly in the 1500 and 1600 - the idea was to not have one "HDC" but many little dealers.
therrydicule 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MoJoSB I'd rather live in the Corporate States of America than the Government of America. A corporation rules with the consent of the consumer. The government considers itself a group of enlightened elite. There are hundreds of thousands of corporations bidding, competing for our support. The government is a big group of swindlers who feed off each other. The corporation can't enslave people. The government can and does.
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@Trimbler00 Well, you will be happy to know, the government has been working for the corporations before you where born. So you've had you wish all your life already... Hope you have been enjoying what a good job they have been doing.
Now, that they own the law AND the vote, I hope you enjoy what is to come.
Hard to show someone they're a slave, when they don't see the cage. Good luck with your corporate world.
MoJoSB 11 months ago 4
@MoJoSB This law also applies to unions, which outspend corporations and almost invariably support democrats. Olbermann must know this, but he also knows that it puts a damper on his argument, so he omitted it.
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@Trimbler00 Unions outspend corporations? I would love to see those numbers and where you got them. Doubt that is even remotely accurate.
Unions are about the last organized group for the working stiffs in this country with any real pull. You would rather not have them?
Or are you one of the 400 people who own more wealth than the poorer half of the country? Maybe you are someone who counts on the 400, not sure.
However, I don't know HOW you can defend the mega wealthy in this country.
MoJoSB 11 months ago 2
@Trimbler00 You must me smoking some good stuff to have posted this 1 week ago. You obviously haven't been paying attention to what these "Corporations" have been doing. You are a slave NOW if you have debt, don't grow your own food, or don't run your own business. You are COMPLETELY reliant upon the system to survive!! The corporations could care less about the consumer once they are in COMPLETE power you have no choice so they no longer need to pander to you. Seriously, take off the blindfold!
blackmusictoday 11 months ago
@blackmusictoday You can't be a slave to a corporation. You CHOOSE to buy their products or services either because of their quality or convenience. You CHOOSE to be employed by a corporation in order to supply your family with the necessary resources, and you are free to quit at any time if you find a better way to live. There is no explicit punishment for choosing not to do either of those things.
There is, however, punishment for not paying taxes, or committing victimless crimes like...
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@Trimbler00 You are confusing the illusion of choice with actual choice. The punishment is you either become a part of the system or you become engaged in a futile war against it.
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 Wow, what a false dilemma. Why do you have to wage a war against a corporation if you choose not to be employed by it? If you can find a better way to live without a corporation's products/services/employment, you have the right to do that.
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@Trimbler00 The Corporations will own everything, all goods will be produced by the corporations. All jobs will be for the corporations, They will reduce pay and benefits to as little as possible to increase profit which will only go to the guys at the top, Who's going to stop them? The Unions are already being destroyed the politicians being bought by the corporations who then represents the interests of the lower and middle class the vast majority of Americans?
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 Corporations are independent entities with independent owners. When you speak about them collectively it's very deceiving-- in fact, each corporation is competing with the other to provide the best product at the best price and attract the best employee. This competition is conducive to progress.
But I agree with the antitrust laws that were established at the beginning of the 20th century, especially for industries with a high barrier to entry.
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 And do you even know what a corporation is? It's a business that happens to be incorporated. That includes the small business I used to work for with only 3 employees. It was a class-S corporation... I really doubt you understand the term based on how you're utilizing it.
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@Trimbler00 When Businesses influence elections, power belongs to those with the most money. They will put politicians who are willing to serve them into power. Eventually a small group of ultra-wealthy people will run the country.
Who decides corporate politics? Do you believe every person who works for them will share the same opinions? We already have political parties in bed with big business, why in the world would you support taking away what little voice we have left in politics?
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
Corporations should have a right to vote too. No taxation without representation.
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@Trimbler00 Should Corporations have 2nd amendment rights and be allowed to amass an arsenal? What about 4th amendment rights? no inspectors to insure worker safety. Maybe they shouldn't have to keep records because that violates the 5th amendment? The 8th amendment will prevent us from making them pay for the harm they cause. What about the 26th amendment which establishes 18 as the national voting age? Can Corporations vote? do they have to be "old enough"
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 The 4th and 26th amendments are specifically endowed to people. The first amendment is not. Why shouldn't corporations have a right to the second amendment? And why would the 5th amendment make it legal for corporations to operate without records?
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@Trimbler00 You just don't get it, businesses exist to make a profit and belong to the stock holders. Corporations influencing politics will only be done with the interests of the owners in mind not the people any resulting policy will affect. They won't represent the workers or any citizen who owns less than 50% of the stock. They are taking the voice away from the people who can't afford to buy it. Goodbye democracy, Hello Plutocracy.
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202 A corporation only exists when people voluntarily buy their products or services and when people voluntarily work for them. Without these two components, the corporation wouldn't exist. There would be no stockholders, or CEO or board of directors. Corporations fulfill consumer demand. What's wrong with that?
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@Trimbler00 People "voluntarily" buy their products and services because all of the competition went out of business, everything is controlled by duopolies now (Coke/Pepsi). When the consumer has no real choice who they get the products from the company doesn't have to consider their needs. What's wrong with that? It creates a huge gap between the rich and the poor, less than 10% of the population control 70.9% of the wealth, when wealth equals influence it only benefits the wealthy.
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@blackmusictoday (cont'd) marijuana possession, thanks to our almighty government.
Trimbler00 11 months ago
@MoJoSB its been over since americans decided that corporations could be considered people 2 centuries ago bro.
virongas408 11 months ago
Comment removed
FreeMeFromG 11 months ago
@MoJoSB The 1st Amendment doesn't have a "Unless it's unfair" clause
WillMio 10 months ago
"Good news tonight, Roger B. Tawney is off the hook!" How is that good news? What, was Tawney your idol or something?
YoungAristotle 1 year ago
Monsanto anyone?
efrixione 1 year ago
Holy shit man
soozin511 1 year ago
This is 7 months old. Move along people.
Grey80002 1 year ago
@Grey80002 yeah dont watch this old shit, huh
maurin 1 year ago
Outlaw lobbying! Limit legislators to only three terms! No corporate campaign contributions! Make the IRS look into legislators' finances with a magnifying glass! Death penalty for corrupt legislators!
efrixione 1 year ago
@efrixione I have this debate with my Dad all the time. Lobbying is advocacy communication with elected leaders, PAC's are legal bribery during candidates' campaign. I tell him if he really wants to outlaw lobbying, then he will get rid of labor unions and AARP (both of which he was and is a member). I tell him what he really wants is to outlaw PACs (Political Action Committees) which IS legal bribery of candidates before they are elected.
Yankhadenough 1 year ago
@Yankhadenough The problem is that those who make the laws are already bought. They give themselves juicy perks, Retirement benefits we wish we had. Health care above the "cadillac" insurances the millionaires have. Plus, automatic pay raises, per diem, travel expenses (including family members and mistresses). Do they have to undergo drug tests? No. We tell the world about corrupt countries. Let's check ours first. Our legislators should be the first in line to get an IRS audit every year.
efrixione 1 year ago
As a Liberal I haven't watched Keith too often (why would I watch someone who thought similarly to me. Circlejerk?), but I was very surprised at his doomsday speech on the supreme court decision. He very much reminded me of the king of political extremism and conspiracy theories, Glenn Beck. Yes, I think the decision was a very bad step in the wrong direction. But I don't believe at all what he said will happen in the next 10 years, at least not nearly to that extreme.
thejock1313 1 year ago
Can someone please explain to me why it's "okay" for someone like George Soros to spend a fortune smearing the President, taking out full page ads in News papers and magazines.
Yet if a corporation does this, it's "bad"?
hoppinglark 1 year ago
@hoppinglark Because the line between doing what George Soros does and what I might do is blurry. The line between what I do and what Walmart does is not. People care about things. Even the worst of us cares about something other than money. Corporations do not. They never have. They never will. Any money given to anyone for any reason by a corporation is done for only one reason; an investment to make more money.
BadLuck765 1 year ago
@BadLuck765 do you understand what this was about? The corporation was "Citizens United"
This ruling just levels the playing field for people to join together form a corporation and be heard. Like Sierra club, Peta, or the NRA.
hoppinglark 1 year ago
@hoppinglark What? Those aren't corporations. All the ruling does is level the playing field? Seriously? Yes, poor disadvantaged Citibank, they can't spend millions on getting corporate shills in congress to try and get more favorable legislation. Peta is not a corporation. Sierra Club is not incorporated. They do not have shareholders. They are nonprofit. That's the difference. Profit. You're definitely the one missing something here.
BadLuck765 1 year ago
@BadLuck765 Yes, many of those types of groups are corporations. Just like the entertainment and print corporations that had been given special treatment before this ruling. Profit is not a requirement of a corporation. Did you know the oldest corporation is Harvard College? Think about it- both TheLiberalViewer watch?v=I_e2L9_8t8Q and ReasonTV /watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU agree this was no big deal, now that's NOT something that happens every day!
hoppinglark 1 year ago
Wow.
MethodicalMadness 1 year ago
Yeah, we're fucked.
Econniff 1 year ago 2
Everything Keith describes has already been happening for decades. Everything except ending the unions, which would actually be good.
My favorite utterance in this blathering diatribe is "almost literally true". Really?
And the ending? Build up to a climax.. almost there, almo