Do you know what is Syndrome of Diogenes? Well, I need to stop doing that because I'm filling my house with these products. Please don't visit freesamplesource(.)com is my source of free material. You are advised!
Cato institute want corporations to have "free speech" to drown out all the other speech of average Americans. Look at who funds the Cato Institute, the Koch brothers. Who are used their MONEY to pollute the hell out of the environment all in the name of using MONEY as speech. You evil bastards will be the destroyed. The American public is finally getting wise to you bastards. I love watching you evil bastards squirm. The American people is coming for YOU.
The Citizens United decision legalize corporate bribery when a corporation meets with a Senator or Congressman "look if you pass this bill, we'll contribute a ginormous amount of money to your abc PAC" Well of course he says "Ok" and then he will attempt to pass the bill. Cash to a PAC for passing a bill = bribery....Plain and simple...everyone knows it so why don't we just say what it is? Legalized bribery plain and simple. Egads! The SCOTUS sold out to the corporate globalists!
This video forgets one point: the documentary ad in question, the Hillary movie, was indeed deeply political in nature.
If you are cool with this Supreme Court decision, you are cool with corporations (non-persons) using money as a form of free speech. If you think that corporations are better speakers (this is about free speech, right?) than the average citizen, because corporations have more money, then you must love this decision.
I still have this annoying habit of going back into the Constitution to see where the idea of the modern Corporation is expressively allowed right's of personhood. I'm still baffled after 12 years of searching on where it's at.
@pjr79 We continue to see Corporations Pushing for more protection. We need Companies that are run by people who take pride in their products and the way they treat their workers. But in a world where we reward corruption, and where getting more ot of people for less pay is the standard. while working for a living is admired face to face but laughed at behind the back, I doubt this will happen. Until enough people feel like they are forced in a corner, and stop living a lie we're doomed...
@pjr79 The 1st amendment protects the speech of Humans not speech of Objects. For example The CEO of Wal-Mart can say Hillary is stupid. His opinion, protected by the 1st amendment. But WAL-MART the company, can't release a statement saying that Hillary is stupid, because The company is not protected. The CEO can plead the 5th in court, But WAL-MART can't.Companies have no Constitutional rights see the difference? The supreme court just opened the door for Companies to try and get HUMAN rights.
@oJKBo They have the money to buy it... Regular people run around stupidly spending all they money on "food" and "Health care" and crap like "a roofs over their heads". I know stupid right? While corporations who constantly whine about how hard it is to make billions of dollar, rub their pennies together(that would be the 300 billion pennies they added to the cost of their products like gas and food) so they can buy speech. The bought speech is much shinier then that free crap.
we don't have "truly" free speech.. we have open but controlled speech. We can't Produce a commercial saying that we should kill politicians or anyone. We can't utter Bomb in the airport. We can't say Vote for or You shouldn't Vote for that person. But any company who wants to dump toxic waste in a local water system, If they have enough money can spam every channel with endless commercials about how "Your favored Politician here" eats babies Because he doesn't support their dumping "rights".
Corporations own the government ......... so by your logic ....... the corporations want to control everything ....... but u use the idiotic notion that ............ BIG GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE ........ WHEN IN REALITY COCK CONTROLES IT ........ so you idiots kill the only entity able to check corporate COCK power ......... AND TRANS NATIONALS BECOME THE POWER WITHOUT THE COST OF PAYING A LIVING WAGE TO THE MIDDLE CLASS ...... SLAVE LABOR ......
Cato guy is a fricken idiot ........ corporations ....... OWN THE MSM ...... FAKE NEW IS SECOND IN WORLD ......
Corporations are not people ........ daaaaaaaaaaa ......... which is why regulation is needed ,....... without a framework you have anarchy/libertarians
@mkdelta69 You might want to learn the difference between anarchy and libertarians. The freedom to do whatever you want provided you don't interfere with others is a lot different from having no laws or rules to stop people from having their life infringed upon.
For those who comment that this is Republican Scare tactics, you are obviously ignorant in regards to the CATO institute which is not a republican, but a Libertarian based organization dedicated to the cause of freedom and civil liberties.
The 'corporations' argument is nothing but a red herring. No corporation has EVER spent a single dollar, or spoken a single word. The guys the share holders put in charge have, and they shouldn't have any less rights than any other person.
Ha, ha, ha.... It's always fun to watch folks that have spent years and years of their lives studying a system instituted on lies, and act so serious in giving you their interpretation of their ideal legalese...
.
Tell me, what would their answers be if we were still a Common Law Nation? Why was Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Golitsyn's book "New Lies for Old" banned by the Reagen WH through the supply chain of books?
.
If interested in your nations future, you can find his predictions posted on line.
I wasn't really aware of 'Citizens United' until I saw a TV ad last night urging Obama not be a 'pussy' like Neville Chamberlain re:Hitler.They Obama to STOP IRAN NOW! Are these the same assholes that wanted to go into Iraq? I've got a deal for these fuckers.Bomb Israel first, then bomb Saudi Arabia.Then you can destroy Iran. American's are too stupid to notice the difference.Their all dark skin & called 'The middle East'.Fuck these Citizens. Is cunt Cheney involved w/these people? Bill Kristol?
@coolbreezed asks "Why should corporations/unions/groups be denied of free speech?":
Well - the first time a corporation, union or group walks up and speaks to me, maybe i will be able to answer you.
If you mean that the wealthy folks, who own same are being deprived of their rights in some way, then i will laugh in your face. If one just looks around, it is clear that the entire web of society is woven to coddle and protect the wealthy.
@javamanV3 Apparently you are the one who hasn't been "looking around" because corporations, unions, and groups have been speaking to you every day of your life. They speak to you when you watch television, read a newspaper, or purchase food at the grocery store. For instance, when a Best Buy clerk asks to help you, that statement imputes to Best Buy incorporated because they are an employee acting w/in the scope of their employment. So please answer me or clarify your original statement.
@javamanV3 As to your laughter at the deprivation of the rights of "wealthy folks", I presume you mean that, in your opinion, it is acceptable to discriminate against the speech of an individual or individuals speaking collectively based solely on their pecuniary wealth. Is that it? If so, people like you are exactly the reason why the U.S. Constitution protects a speech from such outright discrimination.
Also, please provide some justification for your discriminatory treatment.
@Knightmessenger DUMB STATEMENT ........ CORPORATE MONEY IS DRIVING OUT ANY OTHER OPINION ......... COCK INDUSTRY CONTROLS THE US MILITARY AND GOV WALKER AMONG OTHERS ...... TRADING UNION WAGES FOR NO BID CONTRACTS FOR STATE OWNED ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE .........
YOUR STILL TOO STUPID ...... COCK BROS. ...... TBAGGERS ....... DAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
@mkdelta69 Hey if you're so worried about big government being controlled by narrow interests, why not limit the powers of government so those with the most money or connections can use it to control everybody else?
This is such corporate propaganda. Corporations deserve to be destroyed. By any means necessary. The corporations place profits and power above everything. We have a huge industry in people recieving health care. What kind of moral Industry makes money off the illness and suffering of others. As far as I'm concerned corporations have zero rights, and they deserve to be completely destoryed and all the top executives arrested. Fuck these corporations. kill them all.
When the government is telling people what is and is not allowed to be said and when that is no longer free speech. When you have the government telling the citizens that some people or corparations;( MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, NY Times Washington Post) have more of a right to free speech than others isjust wrong.
If Gorge Soros can spend as much as he wants anyone else can too.
I don't give a fuck about other countries or the people in Asia or Mexico. People aren't forced to work for anybody and private prisons are sanctioned by the government. You've got a lot more to fear from the government. Fuck those people in other countries, doesn't affect your life and it's none of our [American citizens] damn business.
this is a clever video, but nothing more than propaganda.
nobody wants the government to have too much power... but is it a better solution to give all of that power to corporations??
don't be ridiculous.
I'll bet you won't see the 'cato institute' getting up in arms over the Patriot act, yet here they are, so quick to defend our 'constitutional rights...'
give me a fucking break. or better yet... just drop dead.
Why are you scared of corporations? Do you think America can really get more political then we're already? I don't. Politics is everywhere: Radio, TV, books, newspapers, magazines, movies, and probably more. You're skating on then ice man, Citizens United isn't shit. Don't worry!
Ha! Give me a reason why I shouldn't be scared of corporations.
Maybe it's a good thing that the Supreme Court made this decision... because this kind of shit has already been going on, but now we have an actual battle to fight.
Now it's legally out in the open to be resisted and contested, as opposed to behind closed doors and in dark back alleys where these kinds of deals used to be made.
That's easy. Corporations can't force you to business with them. Corporations also can't violate your civil rights, put you in prison, or force your son to go to war. The government can (and has) many, many times.
You're not right about that. Corporations violate the civil rights of people all over the world. And back in the good old days, who do you think it was who needed slaves? And who was it that ABOLISHED slavery?
Many corporations STILL use slave labor in other nations. Many corporations use unsafe business practices, put unsafe chemicals on the market, peddle addictive poisons to people and advertise them to children, monopolize prices, etc etc etc etc.
Once the corporations own the wars (heads up- we're NOT too far off at all!) we'll see if they don't force our sons
Oh and p.s.
There are already privatized prison systems, and it is bad bad bad news. You don't see why it's a bad thing for somebody else to turn a profit for putting people behind bars?
You don't see why it's a bad thing for corporations to be involved in legislation??
A corporation has no invested interest in ensuring that American's rights are protected,
@themagicbullet But our 'Liberal' Left Socialist Supreme Court said that 'Corporations have all the rights of Individuals'!!? Are you saying we can't trust Corporations? LOL, just kidding
@ZDWmiamicane: Holy shit, man. Wake the fuck up!! Why do you think we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Corporations have been running our government for ages. Only a moron would believe we did it to "spread democracy". The White House has been occupied by employees of Wall St. for the past 30 yrs. & many times before that. Most of Congress has also been purchased by the corporate elite. The DOD sends troops where our corporations want to exploit someone else's resources. Face the ugly truth.
@ZDWmiamicane: "Corporations can't force you to (do?) business with them" That's a joke, right? How many choices do you have when you pay for your electricity, gas, water & cable or satellite? How much of a choice do we actually have when we travel? The Oil Cartel has forced us to stay with 19th century technology - despite the fact that we are destroying our health & environment while we allow other nations to surpass us in current technology. You've been very well indoctrinated. It's sad.
@themagicbullet ......wow you are retarded. Cato says nothing except bad things about the Patriot act, and in fact all US military adventurism overseas.
Way to prove you are a completely misinformed load. You'd do well to draw on your own advice and drop dead.
@themagicbullet free speech is too much power? Interesting. I'm guessing you were against Google and Reddit coming out against SOPA and PIPA right?
As for the Cato Institute - you might want to do some research before looking like an idiot. A quick search on their website shows more than 1200 articles and videos related to the patriot act - all negative.
Everyone deserves a voice when they are NOT lying!
If you DON'T like lobbyists, then make sure YOUR representative HONORS their OATH of office including the Limitations placed on the Federal Gov't by the 10th Amendment.
If Congress obeyed the 10th Amendment (instead of interpreting everything as commerce) then Federal Lobbyists would NOT even exist... period!
@ the vid: Hokum. Less about speaking out against gov. more about affording to be heard nationally.
The attack on rights is a red "hearing". This whole deal has to do with whether or not a natural citizen has cash to buy their candidate then the opposition has to pay for theirs. One can buy a presidential bid at 1 Million dollars and, after 2007, every natural person has that much to toy with. Corp. had money to be "heard" but the ruling din't come til Obama was in office. Unfortunate.
There is a huge difference. Political speech where the source is open to the light of day, as is required in the law, lets everyone evaluate the message and it's source.
Bribes, like Obama's pay to play, Emily's list, SEIU and Soros money that are hidden sources are a very different thing and emblematic of the criminal left.
Clearly you pulled that number out of your butt. However, you seem to equate businesses with being bad. My dear Marxist, if businesses do well, we do well and have jobs. They have as much right to press for positions that help them as do the organized fascists in the unions inside the government. You actually make my day.
this is an interestng case, this very well could vbe a good, thing, or a TERRIBLE thing putting corperations incharge of america, even other countries could influence our elections, conservatives know they have big business on their side, Obama had $600 mil to run on, but with this, wal mart a lone is worth 200 BIL and thast justone company, now they can literally buy elections, I am very nervous about this
Main Stream Media news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN) are also owned by corporations, and have little to no restrictions on how they depict candidates. They helped usher in President Obama on a cloud of favorable coverage for him, and unfavorable coverage for McCain/Palin. No book bans
The problem is too much power in money. Our collective happiness in slavery is the power of money. Stop giving the power to money and we stop giving the power and start owning, thus becoming responsible for, our power. People are not money. Nor can people's power be recognized by money.
Of all of our rights, free speech is the most profoundly sacred and important to protect. I can really see why this ruling is so important now. Government control over free speech and especially political free speech is inherently a threat to every other freedom we have. The politicians are freaking out because they have lost the right to decide who can speak about them.
paper dollars are wothless, debased, devalued, depreciated, my labor is worth more than paper, pass a law to pay me in gold or silver, then i am free. paper makes me a slave.
if you place the value of gold or silver as higher than the value of self you are a slave none the less. The value of paper and the value of gold or silver are still values external to human being and human work. Money is not power, whether your money is gold, silver or paper. Your labor is not your own if you have to sell it. You cannot sell your life, which is your labor, to someone else, to make a living. You cannot sell your labor. You can only contribute it. To what? You decide.
Progressives are really so devious but ultimately so stupid. Their demonization of anything corporate is a fig leaf for their own ravenous desire to shut us up. History has shown this. They can never justify saying that a citizen has free speech rights individually, but somehow when individuals form an organization, they lose those rights. We are seeing the beginning of the end of Progressivism, which has been in the USA for over 100 years. R.I.P.
What a horrible century is has been for the USA with progresives in power. The unprecedented economic growth has been awful and sickening. Thank God the conservatives have wrestled away the political power. Hopefully they will bankrupt the federal govt and then we will all finally be free of prosperity and security. Its getting really boring anyway.
@IronKismet, your brain is impervious to logic or values not part of your delusional worldview. Your socialist fantasies that you are part of an elite group of messiahs leading us poor people into the glorious future, simply cannot take any real facts into account. The only thing you respect, really, is the gun. Too bad for you that you will never be able to eliminate the FIRST or the SECOND amendment. So be afraid, my friend, be very afraid, because humanity will be free, like it or not.
@JohnnieGarner: You are so obviously a tool for Wall St. it's pathetic. It's almost funny how you pretend you represent the American people. You're not even a clever liar. History shows us that those with wealth always build a society that allows them to manipulate those without wealth despite the fact that the wealth would never exist without those who work. The wealthy have stepped up their attack on people but eventually enough will wake from their forced sleep and bury you elitists.
I'll support blocking a corporations right to say what they want 30 days before an election, when it is also okay to block MEDIA corporations from influencing an election. Why should NBC get to forward their agenda EVEN ON THE DAY of an election, yet Pfizer or Blue Cross/Blue Shield can't? If the media corporations are held to the same standard instead of cheerleading (Obama, anyone?), then I'll support what the liberals want in this case - and that's to have certain opinion BANNED.
They're groups of human beings who all have First Amendment rights that do not magically "vanish" because they speak together.
By your "logic," unions are not human beings, either. Nor are non-profits. And neither are entitled to join their voices to engage in political speech.
The SCOTUS just rejected your unconstitutional limits on political speech.
a media corporation isn't a human being either, but since it can report news, it has free reign. maybe if proctor and gamble bought up a media outlet you'd be more comfortable?
Right. All campaign-finance regulation is actually an attempt by the political class to shut out the rest of the people from the debate. Campaign-finance is all about incumbent protection, not protecting democracy of "fairness".
@RadAntelope: Are you on serious hard drugs or do you just hate people? How could a person with a brain believe that allowing unlimited spending on elections by corporations could be even remotely related to democracy? It is Fascist and un-American. It goes completely against the intent of the U.S. constitution.This is a page from the Hitler/Mussolini playbook. You are obviously one of the corporate elitists that have waged war on democracy & the middle class of America. Why do you hate people?
@tripfunkmonster Can't tell if you're serious or if this is just hyperbole. So blatant a violation of Godwin's law and such ridiculous hyperbole has my troll-dar tingling.
@RadAntelope: Wow, we live in different universes. If you aren't a multimillionaire or an employee of a Wall St. firm, I don't understand why you would think that unlimited spending on elections is good. I am wholeheartedly against ANY private spending on elections. It distorts the democratic process & is un-American. Why do you want the one with the most money to win and why do you consider corporations people? Only suckers still believe the Demipublican game of cheering for a party.
@RadAntelope: Is that a joke? Ron Paul is about as far away from my political beliefs as someone could be. I would like to see the ending of private financing of elections, professional lobbying criminalized, actual oversight of Wall St. - as opposed to pretend legislation, the internet sold to communications corps - not given to them, legislation to prevent monopolies & cartels, no bailouts to any corporations, loopholes taken out of tax law, corporate profit taken out of basic necessities...
@dinojake02 You don't understand what Fascism is. You shouldn't use terms you don't understand. Fascism is industry controlling government. EVERYTHING I said is exactly the opposite of Fascism. Either you work for a corporation spreading misinformation or you don't know what the hell you are talking about. What is intolerant about what I said?
@RogerOnTheRight I'd suggest that you read into your own descriptions a bit more and learn their meanings. The "U.S. Constitution" is different from the original "organic" "Constitution for the united States"... and it is a very big difference.
.
One, having been written by a sovereign Republic, allows the citizen of a State within the Republic to be the final sovereign power and the one you speak of places it's citizenry "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" under the U.S.
@HuntingNarcissists The United States Constitution-- I know of no "organic" one-- pretty clearly lays out the role of the government versus that of the citizens.
And while we are, indeed, subject to the law, the government itself is limited in its defined role. The rights and responsibilities of the people are open-ended.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The content of this video is inaccurate. The FEC never blocked speech. Under the law challenged in this case, the government could prevent a media ad 30 days before an election ONLY IF THE DONOR REFUSED TO BE DISCLOSED. Why shouldn't the public have the right to know who is paying for an ad when it is broadcast 30 days before an election? A foreign king could pump millions into TV ads and we would never know.
Alacrtious: Really? You can't choose to watch or not watch a show? Please.
The show in question was even a pay-per-view event - so not only would you have to be trapped in front of your television with no way to turn it off or change the channel, you'd have to buy it before hand.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Choose, Really, when it is on tv, radio, newspapers, billboards? Are you really that naive or do you just enjoy being sodomized by corporate america. WOW! When you have enough money to burn a message into the public's subconscious, the message becomes the medium. Maybe we can all just choose to lock ourselves away and cover our ears and eyes for the rest of our lives?
Don't read so well, huh? The message that *this particular case* was about was on pay-per-view.
And I'm not coerced at gunpoint to fall for corporate propaganda - but I *am* coerced to submit to the often politically motivated whims of government. So choosing between allowing corporations (or unions, as people like you often conveniently forget) to publicly favor one politician over another is *far* less an evil than allowing incumbent politicians to decide who's allowed to say what, when.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Books are not the same as advertisement. You have to seek out a book you choose to read it. You can't choose to avoid an advertisement on TV or radio or newspapers that you read.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video is ridiculous. Utilizing such underhanded propaganda to get the Cato Inst. foot in the door. They're taking separate issues and trying to link them together to support their own agenda for increased corporate personhood. Citizen's United is PRETENDING to care about book "banning" in order to align their own cause (corporatism/fascism) with it. Essentially, in this video, the Cato Institute is engaging in an indirect doublespeak. It's disgusting. Cato you wont even get a toe in.
Corporations should not have unalienable (human) rights, because they are not human. They are legal fictions created by a charter which is issued by (surprise!) the government. Therefore they do not deserve and were never intended to deserve, the protections of the first amendment. The FEC is only trying to prevent our government from being further overwhelmed by corporate power. There is nothing to be affraid of! However if the CATO institute has it's way, you can kiss our country goodbye
Humans in a group do not lose their right to speak. This line ("Corporations are not humans, maaan!") reeks of ignorance of the law, of morality, and of reality.
Those poor corporations have been muted long enough. LET THEM SPEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUY MORE...WANT MORE....NEED MORE....Capitalism will and is eating itself.
The Solicitor General himself said that these laws would prevent the release of a book mentioning the *name* of a candidate. Not advocating or opposing a candidate, mind you - using a candidates' *name*.
Soros published a book criticizing Bush. I wouldn't want my government to silence his opinion before an election - would you?
I trust the corporations to act in their own self-interest. I treat any messge from them thusly. I trust politicians to act in their own interest - but their influence on me is at the end of a gun. I'll take the corporations any day.
Some people are stupid. You'll never dumb down the world enough for them, and if you try, you'll trample the rights of the rest of us.
Now stop bleating nonsense and if you have a reasonable point, try to make it. I won't hold my breath.
@IronicKismet, you truly are delusional, but that is not unusual for any variety of Progressive including Marxism. Really, Marxism is an inarticulate knock-off of Hegel's philosophy of derangement. Philosophy is my beat and I tell you that I am going to crucify all that nonsense.
@JohnnieGarner Good luck but I'll bet dollars to donuts you'll be laughed and snickered at just like Ayn Rand is in academic circles. A cheap rip off of a cheap rip off.
The court needs to return to the fundamentals. Is the Movie the functional equal of 'falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater"? Does the film present a "grave and immediate danger" to the larger society? Nay! But the law bites at the most fundamental of our preferred freedoms. Why was it relevant to the FEC that the film was to run through "cable". One can watch almost anything on cable-- even porn! So how then can the gov abdicate our right to choose?
This case is of grave importance. I have read the briefs and listened to the oral arguements. As I see certain BCRA provisions area a starting point from which the Gov will seek to take even more of our constitutional liberties. Our future hinges on this case. What is the test to decide how much of free speech can be restricted? CU passes Schenk and Gitlow. There is no "grave" danger to society, except that BCRA free speech abridgments are a danger to We the People.
Recasting the corporation as anything-but-an-individual may seem an impossibly radical do-over of the American way of life, but you may have noticed that we've made a so-called radical changes recently. Are we capable of changing our political structures and process, if the status quo is a mortal poison to real liberty, justice and equality?
BTW this video is a disingenuous, hysterical canard, ie nonsense. The problem is too much money in politics. The money is the problem, not the speech.
Try to grasp the concept: Making a protected individual of a corporation, under the color of law, creates an extra person. This person can't get a voter's registration, but because it is a created individual it claims free speech and any other convenient rights of individuals. In the instant of its creation as in extra individual the corporation obtains an unfair and unreasonable advantage at every level of decision making in the democratic republic into which it wades.
Truth: The unit of a democracy, even a democratic republic, is the citizen. Not the corporation. A corporation is not an individual, with the constitutionally protected rights of an individual. Yet our polity pretend that this is so, and pretend that the founding fathers so intended. In the current case, justices raised this issue almost as a philosophical aside, plainly avoiding the real question. The FEC failed to address the core question as well.
The reason this issue is not resolved, the reason the conservative majority on the court is wrong, the resaon their nonsensical and shoddy favoritism of big business, whiner barons and deep pocket campaign contributors of all stripes is deeply offensive, the reason is that...
We treat corporations as individuals.
This fundamental yet stupid concept is at the root of our inability to recapture the political process from the oligarchs who own it.
Let us not pretend that this movie was not made by a special interest group to influence the election. They should be glad that this was not allowed to air because it would have only made Hillary richer when she succeeded in suing them. No one has the right to DEFAME anyone.
Money has always been used to exercise undue influence on the electorate.
The content or character of the film is to me not related. In my opinion the film takes on a special constitutional status because of the nature of the creator-- a group with a long standing tradition of highly critical films. The FEC prohibition of the film to run on VOD amounts to prior restraint by other media. If indeed CU was worng in their portrait of H. Clinton, then she has recourse under the law to seek redress.
So, it turns out that one of the ideas embedded in the 1st amendment (that a free and fair public debate insures that government stays responsive to public demands) is a very complicated thing. You can't just say "any statute that regulates political speech is a violation." Oh, if only things were that simple. As anyone knows, power and money can skew a debate. More resources give one voice a built-in advantage. Do we really want to live in a world where power begets power begets power?
checks and balance system is ALL out of balance! Theye do not know who is in control anymore that a judge has to ask what is allowed when it is the judge who's position was to JUDGE what violates the constituion using stare decisis and precedent of law of past. The judges should tell them in their opinions if the FEC is able to do what not any other way!
Exactly! Why are the justices asking the FEC what they think is allowed. It is supposed to be about what the Constitution and the several justices believe is allowed. (South Carolina USMC Vet history student)
I thought this was the one the Hillary camp was trying to get out before the election about how Obama's thugs basically screwed her out of her chances for the nomination. The name escapes me but it was put together by some really ANGRY Hillary people (PUMA maybe?) w/a ton of behind the scenes stuff that supposedly showed Obama's supporters breaking election rules of some kind. On this one, it's great to see we can allow assassination movies about Bush but not this one. Free speech indeed.
I'm curious whose one side this film is advocating? I'm guessing you are a Hilary supporter or Democrat and you assume that this is a film by Republicans. If you know anything about the Cato Institute you know that they are definitely conservative but are not afraid to criticize either of the controlling parties. If it is ons sided it's on the side of the people. Finance reform laws are really just incumbent protection laws.
Just like you can keep a frog in a pan and boil him by raising the temp. by just one degree you can go from free to Govt run society slowly and without noticing.
Those who warn people are just laughed at just like Moses and the flood.
What about the words "Congress shall make no law" does congress no understand. Do representatives need to go through a special class where they learn a different English?
Yeah. It's called newspeak. You can't get definitions by just looking up words in the dictionary. "Machine gun" includes .22 pistols if and when they want it to. The second doesn't say "Shall not be infringed too badly" or "Shall not be infringed by all that much," but that's how they read it. If you can pull that off, words don't mean anything anymore, so what do us proles need the first amendment for anyway? They'll probably say the act of making the law was unconstitutional...but the law's ok
There should be some way to expose the money trail while still allowing for political speech. So say as much as you want about a candidate but don't donate too much money to their campaign... or maybe I am missing something.
Hey, I'm still looking for the exemptions in the First Amendment that allow the government to outlaw I-know-it-when-I-see-it obscenity or cigarette ads or the alcohol content in beer. I must be blind.
Of course, who's going to stand up for obscenity? Most people won't even admit to looking at ordinary porn. We're a nation of pussies (not the good kind, though).
So the argument that elected officials only do certain things just because they got funding from an industry or coalition is a load of crap. Elected officials very rarely make political moves just to satisfy donors. With the huge amount of campaign contributors on each side of an issue, what's the point of acting beholden to one side or another? And it's not as if money is everything. Liberal groups or candidates CAN win, too, and many times do, much to my chagrin sometimes.
The BCRA restrictions are absolute bullshit! I wish the campaign finance reform idiots would just get over it already and realize it DOESN'T WORK! Money will always be an important factor in politics, and we can't eliminate the influence of corporate money or "corrupt" money, as some might refer to it. Money in politics is here to stay. People who have clout and favorable positions on the issues as well as a good record WILL get the fun
This video is such bullshit. It's shilling for organized groups that have more money than you (and hate you) and it wants you to like them.
pinkymixology 1 month ago
This video is so misleading.
dallasmsl 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you know what is Syndrome of Diogenes? Well, I need to stop doing that because I'm filling my house with these products. Please don't visit freesamplesource(.)com is my source of free material. You are advised!
96nacw 3 months ago
Cato institute want corporations to have "free speech" to drown out all the other speech of average Americans. Look at who funds the Cato Institute, the Koch brothers. Who are used their MONEY to pollute the hell out of the environment all in the name of using MONEY as speech. You evil bastards will be the destroyed. The American public is finally getting wise to you bastards. I love watching you evil bastards squirm. The American people is coming for YOU.
MrCowicide 6 months ago
@cokenpepsi484=SHUT UP LIBERAL BITCH
CodyRhodessafag2 7 months ago
The Citizens United decision legalize corporate bribery when a corporation meets with a Senator or Congressman "look if you pass this bill, we'll contribute a ginormous amount of money to your abc PAC" Well of course he says "Ok" and then he will attempt to pass the bill. Cash to a PAC for passing a bill = bribery....Plain and simple...everyone knows it so why don't we just say what it is? Legalized bribery plain and simple. Egads! The SCOTUS sold out to the corporate globalists!
Lochgelly1 8 months ago
This video forgets one point: the documentary ad in question, the Hillary movie, was indeed deeply political in nature.
If you are cool with this Supreme Court decision, you are cool with corporations (non-persons) using money as a form of free speech. If you think that corporations are better speakers (this is about free speech, right?) than the average citizen, because corporations have more money, then you must love this decision.
Free speech = money.
braddyboy82 9 months ago
I still have this annoying habit of going back into the Constitution to see where the idea of the modern Corporation is expressively allowed right's of personhood. I'm still baffled after 12 years of searching on where it's at.
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@pjr79 We continue to see Corporations Pushing for more protection. We need Companies that are run by people who take pride in their products and the way they treat their workers. But in a world where we reward corruption, and where getting more ot of people for less pay is the standard. while working for a living is admired face to face but laughed at behind the back, I doubt this will happen. Until enough people feel like they are forced in a corner, and stop living a lie we're doomed...
JRMCNEA 10 months ago
@pjr79 The 1st amendment protects the speech of Humans not speech of Objects. For example The CEO of Wal-Mart can say Hillary is stupid. His opinion, protected by the 1st amendment. But WAL-MART the company, can't release a statement saying that Hillary is stupid, because The company is not protected. The CEO can plead the 5th in court, But WAL-MART can't.Companies have no Constitutional rights see the difference? The supreme court just opened the door for Companies to try and get HUMAN rights.
JRMCNEA 10 months ago
@oJKBo They have the money to buy it... Regular people run around stupidly spending all they money on "food" and "Health care" and crap like "a roofs over their heads". I know stupid right? While corporations who constantly whine about how hard it is to make billions of dollar, rub their pennies together(that would be the 300 billion pennies they added to the cost of their products like gas and food) so they can buy speech. The bought speech is much shinier then that free crap.
JRMCNEA 10 months ago
we don't have "truly" free speech.. we have open but controlled speech. We can't Produce a commercial saying that we should kill politicians or anyone. We can't utter Bomb in the airport. We can't say Vote for or You shouldn't Vote for that person. But any company who wants to dump toxic waste in a local water system, If they have enough money can spam every channel with endless commercials about how "Your favored Politician here" eats babies Because he doesn't support their dumping "rights".
JRMCNEA 10 months ago
" This is America.. We dont ban books here".
awesome.
wespayne67 10 months ago
how can corporations have free speech?
oJKBo 10 months ago
ok thanks for the video
TheMakemoney11 10 months ago
corporations are things...not citizens.. therefore have no more Constitutional rights than your car.
wtrclrst 10 months ago
@wtrclrst Think of the 1st amendment as a restraint on the power of the government to regulate speech, and the ruling is easier to understand.
pjr79 10 months ago
CATO INSTITUTE ..... I'M CALLING YOU IDIOTS AND LIARS ....... ENOUGH MONEY CAN DROWN OUT OTHER SPEECH .........
mkdelta69 11 months ago
@mkdelta69 If someone wants to do what they want hard enough there is no stopping them (i.e. the gov. banning electoral persuasion)
MrSparrow118 11 months ago
@MrSparrow118 Yeah ...... THAT WORKED FOR MUBARAK AND GHADAFFY REAL WELL ...... DIDN'T IT
mkdelta69 11 months ago
Corporations own the government ......... so by your logic ....... the corporations want to control everything ....... but u use the idiotic notion that ............ BIG GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE ........ WHEN IN REALITY COCK CONTROLES IT ........ so you idiots kill the only entity able to check corporate COCK power ......... AND TRANS NATIONALS BECOME THE POWER WITHOUT THE COST OF PAYING A LIVING WAGE TO THE MIDDLE CLASS ...... SLAVE LABOR ......
mkdelta69 11 months ago
Cato guy is a fricken idiot ........ corporations ....... OWN THE MSM ...... FAKE NEW IS SECOND IN WORLD ......
Corporations are not people ........ daaaaaaaaaaa ......... which is why regulation is needed ,....... without a framework you have anarchy/libertarians
mkdelta69 11 months ago
@mkdelta69 You might want to learn the difference between anarchy and libertarians. The freedom to do whatever you want provided you don't interfere with others is a lot different from having no laws or rules to stop people from having their life infringed upon.
Knightmessenger 11 months ago
@mkdelta69 Fuck you
merceratus52 1 month ago
I am writing a paper and this helped me understand the case and form an opinion so much better.
mz123096 1 year ago
I LOVE SCHOOL SO MUCH!!!!
TheYanksFan15 1 year ago
For those who comment that this is Republican Scare tactics, you are obviously ignorant in regards to the CATO institute which is not a republican, but a Libertarian based organization dedicated to the cause of freedom and civil liberties.
caesarmoridon 1 year ago
The 'corporations' argument is nothing but a red herring. No corporation has EVER spent a single dollar, or spoken a single word. The guys the share holders put in charge have, and they shouldn't have any less rights than any other person.
HRDBMW 1 year ago
That´s just a piece of cake compared to what happens in Brazil... These are the so called modern and strong western democracies.
davidqueiroz 1 year ago
Citizen's United vs. FEC was a good thing! Thank you Roberts Court!
Class-baiting Dems are now obsolete: watch?v=wlzmMIIHudw
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Ha, ha, ha.... It's always fun to watch folks that have spent years and years of their lives studying a system instituted on lies, and act so serious in giving you their interpretation of their ideal legalese...
.
Tell me, what would their answers be if we were still a Common Law Nation? Why was Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Golitsyn's book "New Lies for Old" banned by the Reagen WH through the supply chain of books?
.
If interested in your nations future, you can find his predictions posted on line.
HuntingNarcissists 1 year ago
they will ban the books, the news papers, the movies!!! These Conservative cooks musta had hippy moms that wouldn't let them watch TV.
They are craaazy!!, damaged goods.
moped445 1 year ago
they will ban the books, the news papers, the movies!!! These Conservative cooks musta had hippy moms that wouldn't let them watch TV.
They are craaazy!!, damaged goods.
moped445 1 year ago
I wasn't really aware of 'Citizens United' until I saw a TV ad last night urging Obama not be a 'pussy' like Neville Chamberlain re:Hitler.They Obama to STOP IRAN NOW! Are these the same assholes that wanted to go into Iraq? I've got a deal for these fuckers.Bomb Israel first, then bomb Saudi Arabia.Then you can destroy Iran. American's are too stupid to notice the difference.Their all dark skin & called 'The middle East'.Fuck these Citizens. Is cunt Cheney involved w/these people? Bill Kristol?
rleary1 1 year ago
What a manipulative crock of shit.
gypsyearthspirit 1 year ago
Why should corporations/unions/groups be denied of free speech? Isn't freedom a good thing?
coolbreezed 1 year ago
@coolbreezed asks "Why should corporations/unions/groups be denied of free speech?":
Well - the first time a corporation, union or group walks up and speaks to me, maybe i will be able to answer you.
If you mean that the wealthy folks, who own same are being deprived of their rights in some way, then i will laugh in your face. If one just looks around, it is clear that the entire web of society is woven to coddle and protect the wealthy.
javamanV3 1 year ago
@javamanV3 Apparently you are the one who hasn't been "looking around" because corporations, unions, and groups have been speaking to you every day of your life. They speak to you when you watch television, read a newspaper, or purchase food at the grocery store. For instance, when a Best Buy clerk asks to help you, that statement imputes to Best Buy incorporated because they are an employee acting w/in the scope of their employment. So please answer me or clarify your original statement.
coolbreezed 1 year ago
@javamanV3 As to your laughter at the deprivation of the rights of "wealthy folks", I presume you mean that, in your opinion, it is acceptable to discriminate against the speech of an individual or individuals speaking collectively based solely on their pecuniary wealth. Is that it? If so, people like you are exactly the reason why the U.S. Constitution protects a speech from such outright discrimination.
Also, please provide some justification for your discriminatory treatment.
coolbreezed 1 year ago
@javamanV3 Are you really suggesting that some people should not have the same rights as everyone else because of the amount of wealth they have?
Knightmessenger 1 year ago
@Knightmessenger DUMB STATEMENT ........ CORPORATE MONEY IS DRIVING OUT ANY OTHER OPINION ......... COCK INDUSTRY CONTROLS THE US MILITARY AND GOV WALKER AMONG OTHERS ...... TRADING UNION WAGES FOR NO BID CONTRACTS FOR STATE OWNED ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE .........
YOUR STILL TOO STUPID ...... COCK BROS. ...... TBAGGERS ....... DAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
mkdelta69 11 months ago
@mkdelta69 Hey if you're so worried about big government being controlled by narrow interests, why not limit the powers of government so those with the most money or connections can use it to control everybody else?
Knightmessenger 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pretty good movie and I enjoyed it. you can watch it here too newWATCHmovies(dot)com.
CarolChandler011 1 year ago
Corporations are not living persons.
JoesCheapThrills 1 year ago
This is such corporate propaganda. Corporations deserve to be destroyed. By any means necessary. The corporations place profits and power above everything. We have a huge industry in people recieving health care. What kind of moral Industry makes money off the illness and suffering of others. As far as I'm concerned corporations have zero rights, and they deserve to be completely destoryed and all the top executives arrested. Fuck these corporations. kill them all.
Polar515 1 year ago
When the government is telling people what is and is not allowed to be said and when that is no longer free speech. When you have the government telling the citizens that some people or corparations;( MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, NY Times Washington Post) have more of a right to free speech than others isjust wrong.
If Gorge Soros can spend as much as he wants anyone else can too.
cupera1 1 year ago
@themagicbullet
I don't give a fuck about other countries or the people in Asia or Mexico. People aren't forced to work for anybody and private prisons are sanctioned by the government. You've got a lot more to fear from the government. Fuck those people in other countries, doesn't affect your life and it's none of our [American citizens] damn business.
ZDWmiamicane 1 year ago
This reeks of corporate interest...
DraconicFeathers 1 year ago
this is a clever video, but nothing more than propaganda.
nobody wants the government to have too much power... but is it a better solution to give all of that power to corporations??
don't be ridiculous.
I'll bet you won't see the 'cato institute' getting up in arms over the Patriot act, yet here they are, so quick to defend our 'constitutional rights...'
give me a fucking break. or better yet... just drop dead.
themagicbullet 1 year ago 2
Why are you scared of corporations? Do you think America can really get more political then we're already? I don't. Politics is everywhere: Radio, TV, books, newspapers, magazines, movies, and probably more. You're skating on then ice man, Citizens United isn't shit. Don't worry!
ZDWmiamicane 1 year ago
Ha! Give me a reason why I shouldn't be scared of corporations.
Maybe it's a good thing that the Supreme Court made this decision... because this kind of shit has already been going on, but now we have an actual battle to fight.
Now it's legally out in the open to be resisted and contested, as opposed to behind closed doors and in dark back alleys where these kinds of deals used to be made.
themagicbullet 1 year ago
That's easy. Corporations can't force you to business with them. Corporations also can't violate your civil rights, put you in prison, or force your son to go to war. The government can (and has) many, many times.
ZDWmiamicane 1 year ago 4
You're not right about that. Corporations violate the civil rights of people all over the world. And back in the good old days, who do you think it was who needed slaves? And who was it that ABOLISHED slavery?
Many corporations STILL use slave labor in other nations. Many corporations use unsafe business practices, put unsafe chemicals on the market, peddle addictive poisons to people and advertise them to children, monopolize prices, etc etc etc etc.
themagicbullet 1 year ago
Once the corporations own the wars (heads up- we're NOT too far off at all!) we'll see if they don't force our sons
Oh and p.s.
There are already privatized prison systems, and it is bad bad bad news. You don't see why it's a bad thing for somebody else to turn a profit for putting people behind bars?
You don't see why it's a bad thing for corporations to be involved in legislation??
A corporation has no invested interest in ensuring that American's rights are protected,
themagicbullet 1 year ago
@themagicbullet But our 'Liberal' Left Socialist Supreme Court said that 'Corporations have all the rights of Individuals'!!? Are you saying we can't trust Corporations? LOL, just kidding
rleary1 1 year ago
@ZDWmiamicane: Holy shit, man. Wake the fuck up!! Why do you think we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Corporations have been running our government for ages. Only a moron would believe we did it to "spread democracy". The White House has been occupied by employees of Wall St. for the past 30 yrs. & many times before that. Most of Congress has also been purchased by the corporate elite. The DOD sends troops where our corporations want to exploit someone else's resources. Face the ugly truth.
tripfunkmonster 4 months ago
@ZDWmiamicane: "Corporations can't force you to (do?) business with them" That's a joke, right? How many choices do you have when you pay for your electricity, gas, water & cable or satellite? How much of a choice do we actually have when we travel? The Oil Cartel has forced us to stay with 19th century technology - despite the fact that we are destroying our health & environment while we allow other nations to surpass us in current technology. You've been very well indoctrinated. It's sad.
tripfunkmonster 4 months ago
@ZDWmiamicane Blackwater can.
pinkymixology 1 month ago
@themagicbullet ......wow you are retarded. Cato says nothing except bad things about the Patriot act, and in fact all US military adventurism overseas.
Way to prove you are a completely misinformed load. You'd do well to draw on your own advice and drop dead.
Slim934 1 week ago
@themagicbullet free speech is too much power? Interesting. I'm guessing you were against Google and Reddit coming out against SOPA and PIPA right?
As for the Cato Institute - you might want to do some research before looking like an idiot. A quick search on their website shows more than 1200 articles and videos related to the patriot act - all negative.
donotswallow 2 days ago
freedom of speech is not freedom if attached with conditions.
Freedom to kill is always protected by freedom to defend.
jefri53 1 year ago
The Radical Progressive Left has their panties in a knot because THEIR corporate media just LOST its monopoly on speech.
Speech was NOT free before, but it is now!
As long as the advertising is correct and not a lie, then we can NEVER have too much information!
BTW, there are all kinds of laws on the books to prevent Defamation which is any wrongful injury to the reputation of a person or entity.
yakyakyak69 2 years ago
@yakyakyak69 Your concept of "free" speech arguably just got more lucrative (for the lobbyists).
iomega 2 years ago
iomega,
You concept of FREE is LESS free than mine...
Everyone deserves a voice when they are NOT lying!
If you DON'T like lobbyists, then make sure YOUR representative HONORS their OATH of office including the Limitations placed on the Federal Gov't by the 10th Amendment.
If Congress obeyed the 10th Amendment (instead of interpreting everything as commerce) then Federal Lobbyists would NOT even exist... period!
Read the 10th Amendment to the Commerce clause!
yakyakyak69 2 years ago
@ the vid: Hokum. Less about speaking out against gov. more about affording to be heard nationally.
The attack on rights is a red "hearing". This whole deal has to do with whether or not a natural citizen has cash to buy their candidate then the opposition has to pay for theirs. One can buy a presidential bid at 1 Million dollars and, after 2007, every natural person has that much to toy with. Corp. had money to be "heard" but the ruling din't come til Obama was in office. Unfortunate.
humanman65 2 years ago
What's the difference between "free speech" in the form of political money and a bribe?
It's hard to tell the difference any more.
iomega 2 years ago
There is a huge difference. Political speech where the source is open to the light of day, as is required in the law, lets everyone evaluate the message and it's source.
Bribes, like Obama's pay to play, Emily's list, SEIU and Soros money that are hidden sources are a very different thing and emblematic of the criminal left.
R2old 2 years ago
@R2old How come the top 10 lobbying groups...9 are business related. 1 is labor and issue related.
Your theory=epic fail. Sorry to burst your bubble.
iomega 2 years ago
@iomega
Clearly you pulled that number out of your butt. However, you seem to equate businesses with being bad. My dear Marxist, if businesses do well, we do well and have jobs. They have as much right to press for positions that help them as do the organized fascists in the unions inside the government. You actually make my day.
R2old 2 years ago
@R2old Look it up on wikipedia. Numbers for the largest lobbying groups are there on a chart for all to see.
Also please look up "Marxist." You obviously keep using that word without understanding what the context is. LMAO.
iomega 2 years ago
"this is america, we dont ban books here." classic line at 4:15
SFBoxers 2 years ago
"Corporation need to be restricted! But not corporations such as ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN.
Those corporations are ok, and trustworthy, and never have any bias.... uh ya.
We need to restrict just the corporations I don't like!"
-the Typical Liberal
hsfbunny 2 years ago 3
CATO Institute. Filthy lying sacks of shit. You do not represent United States Citizens. You represent Multi-National PROFIT, and you are traitors.
YentaY0 2 years ago
this is an interestng case, this very well could vbe a good, thing, or a TERRIBLE thing putting corperations incharge of america, even other countries could influence our elections, conservatives know they have big business on their side, Obama had $600 mil to run on, but with this, wal mart a lone is worth 200 BIL and thast justone company, now they can literally buy elections, I am very nervous about this
bigman123321123 2 years ago
If money=speech, then we should reverse our laws regarding money laundering and bulk cash smuggling.
FishscaleRaw 2 years ago
the cato institute is a conservative thinktank.
bwy0874 2 years ago
*libertarian
trancearmstrong 2 years ago 3
No, it's not. It's pro-gay marriage, it's pro-drug decriminalization, and it (generally) opposes our foreign misadventures.
kevink07950 2 years ago
Comment removed
Rico8458 2 years ago
your right ! money is backed by GOLD not a Charge Card or a Bank Loan !
rbvmtr 2 years ago
Main Stream Media news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN) are also owned by corporations, and have little to no restrictions on how they depict candidates. They helped usher in President Obama on a cloud of favorable coverage for him, and unfavorable coverage for McCain/Palin. No book bans
jimboking 2 years ago 5
The problem is too much power in money. Our collective happiness in slavery is the power of money. Stop giving the power to money and we stop giving the power and start owning, thus becoming responsible for, our power. People are not money. Nor can people's power be recognized by money.
RevinFreddy 2 years ago
Of all of our rights, free speech is the most profoundly sacred and important to protect. I can really see why this ruling is so important now. Government control over free speech and especially political free speech is inherently a threat to every other freedom we have. The politicians are freaking out because they have lost the right to decide who can speak about them.
WandaHopeCarter 2 years ago
paper dollars are wothless, debased, devalued, depreciated, my labor is worth more than paper, pass a law to pay me in gold or silver, then i am free. paper makes me a slave.
Rico8458 2 years ago 2
if you place the value of gold or silver as higher than the value of self you are a slave none the less. The value of paper and the value of gold or silver are still values external to human being and human work. Money is not power, whether your money is gold, silver or paper. Your labor is not your own if you have to sell it. You cannot sell your life, which is your labor, to someone else, to make a living. You cannot sell your labor. You can only contribute it. To what? You decide.
RevinFreddy 2 years ago
Progressives are really so devious but ultimately so stupid. Their demonization of anything corporate is a fig leaf for their own ravenous desire to shut us up. History has shown this. They can never justify saying that a citizen has free speech rights individually, but somehow when individuals form an organization, they lose those rights. We are seeing the beginning of the end of Progressivism, which has been in the USA for over 100 years. R.I.P.
JohnnieGarner 2 years ago 5
What a horrible century is has been for the USA with progresives in power. The unprecedented economic growth has been awful and sickening. Thank God the conservatives have wrestled away the political power. Hopefully they will bankrupt the federal govt and then we will all finally be free of prosperity and security. Its getting really boring anyway.
IronicKismet 2 years ago
@IronKismet, your brain is impervious to logic or values not part of your delusional worldview. Your socialist fantasies that you are part of an elite group of messiahs leading us poor people into the glorious future, simply cannot take any real facts into account. The only thing you respect, really, is the gun. Too bad for you that you will never be able to eliminate the FIRST or the SECOND amendment. So be afraid, my friend, be very afraid, because humanity will be free, like it or not.
JohnnieGarner 2 years ago
@JohnnieGarner 100 years of unprecedented growth, 100 years of unprecedented liberty, 100 years of unprecendented freedom. Thank you progressives.
IronicKismet 2 years ago
@JohnnieGarner: You are so obviously a tool for Wall St. it's pathetic. It's almost funny how you pretend you represent the American people. You're not even a clever liar. History shows us that those with wealth always build a society that allows them to manipulate those without wealth despite the fact that the wealth would never exist without those who work. The wealthy have stepped up their attack on people but eventually enough will wake from their forced sleep and bury you elitists.
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
The last line sums it up best.
shrikedecil 2 years ago 2
I'll support blocking a corporations right to say what they want 30 days before an election, when it is also okay to block MEDIA corporations from influencing an election. Why should NBC get to forward their agenda EVEN ON THE DAY of an election, yet Pfizer or Blue Cross/Blue Shield can't? If the media corporations are held to the same standard instead of cheerleading (Obama, anyone?), then I'll support what the liberals want in this case - and that's to have certain opinion BANNED.
JoJoJingoist 2 years ago 8
@JoJoJingoist If the people know what a corporation thinks, maybe they'll vote differently? At least then you'll know their financially invested..
joestauffacher 1 year ago
Corporations are not human beings.
TheJcanno8 2 years ago
@TheJcanno8 No, but they are legal individuals (look up the concept) with the same protected
rights.
So are unions and other asociations, for that matter (since they are also legally...corporations)
ElcubanitoKC73 2 years ago 5
They're groups of human beings who all have First Amendment rights that do not magically "vanish" because they speak together.
By your "logic," unions are not human beings, either. Nor are non-profits. And neither are entitled to join their voices to engage in political speech.
The SCOTUS just rejected your unconstitutional limits on political speech.
FAIL.
RadAntelope 2 years ago
a media corporation isn't a human being either, but since it can report news, it has free reign. maybe if proctor and gamble bought up a media outlet you'd be more comfortable?
fattymarley 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Horrible ruling by Supreme court.
utubeisjunk 2 years ago
I ban you and the junk YOU espouse. ;)
aeross60 2 years ago
Great ruling.
The government just got slapped because it violated the First Amendment eggregiously.
This is a win for free speech and a setback to incumbent politicians.
I can see why Obamacrats and Democrats are scared of it. They might get opposition at election time, and that's unacceptable. Right?
RadAntelope 2 years ago 5
Right. All campaign-finance regulation is actually an attempt by the political class to shut out the rest of the people from the debate. Campaign-finance is all about incumbent protection, not protecting democracy of "fairness".
herbs814 2 years ago
@RadAntelope: Are you on serious hard drugs or do you just hate people? How could a person with a brain believe that allowing unlimited spending on elections by corporations could be even remotely related to democracy? It is Fascist and un-American. It goes completely against the intent of the U.S. constitution.This is a page from the Hitler/Mussolini playbook. You are obviously one of the corporate elitists that have waged war on democracy & the middle class of America. Why do you hate people?
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
@tripfunkmonster Can't tell if you're serious or if this is just hyperbole. So blatant a violation of Godwin's law and such ridiculous hyperbole has my troll-dar tingling.
RadAntelope 4 months ago
@RadAntelope: Wow, we live in different universes. If you aren't a multimillionaire or an employee of a Wall St. firm, I don't understand why you would think that unlimited spending on elections is good. I am wholeheartedly against ANY private spending on elections. It distorts the democratic process & is un-American. Why do you want the one with the most money to win and why do you consider corporations people? Only suckers still believe the Demipublican game of cheering for a party.
tripfunkmonster 4 months ago
@tripfunkmonster Let me guess - you're a Ron Paulinista?
RadAntelope 4 months ago
@RadAntelope: Is that a joke? Ron Paul is about as far away from my political beliefs as someone could be. I would like to see the ending of private financing of elections, professional lobbying criminalized, actual oversight of Wall St. - as opposed to pretend legislation, the internet sold to communications corps - not given to them, legislation to prevent monopolies & cartels, no bailouts to any corporations, loopholes taken out of tax law, corporate profit taken out of basic necessities...
tripfunkmonster 4 months ago
@tripfunkmonster : my god, you're an unrepentant fascist. And you no doubt imagine yourself as "tolerant," right? War is peace, slavery is freedom.
dinojake02 1 week ago
@dinojake02 You don't understand what Fascism is. You shouldn't use terms you don't understand. Fascism is industry controlling government. EVERYTHING I said is exactly the opposite of Fascism. Either you work for a corporation spreading misinformation or you don't know what the hell you are talking about. What is intolerant about what I said?
tripfunkmonster 6 days ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hussien obama is just a puppet negro who they placed there so they can keep stealing more money.
Rico8458 2 years ago
Comment removed
jlbbrasil1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
CATO INSTITUTE - bought and paid for by corporate america. You filthy lying wolf in sheep clotihing. You lousy corporate filth. You whore.
YentaY0 2 years ago
Yet, amazingly entitled to freedom of speech.
U. S. Constitution. A great document, indeed.
RogerOnTheRight 2 years ago 7
@RogerOnTheRight I'd suggest that you read into your own descriptions a bit more and learn their meanings. The "U.S. Constitution" is different from the original "organic" "Constitution for the united States"... and it is a very big difference.
.
One, having been written by a sovereign Republic, allows the citizen of a State within the Republic to be the final sovereign power and the one you speak of places it's citizenry "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" under the U.S.
HuntingNarcissists 1 year ago
@HuntingNarcissists The United States Constitution-- I know of no "organic" one-- pretty clearly lays out the role of the government versus that of the citizens.
And while we are, indeed, subject to the law, the government itself is limited in its defined role. The rights and responsibilities of the people are open-ended.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The content of this video is inaccurate. The FEC never blocked speech. Under the law challenged in this case, the government could prevent a media ad 30 days before an election ONLY IF THE DONOR REFUSED TO BE DISCLOSED. Why shouldn't the public have the right to know who is paying for an ad when it is broadcast 30 days before an election? A foreign king could pump millions into TV ads and we would never know.
estherparness 2 years ago
Alacrtious: Really? You can't choose to watch or not watch a show? Please.
The show in question was even a pay-per-view event - so not only would you have to be trapped in front of your television with no way to turn it off or change the channel, you'd have to buy it before hand.
Give me a break.
kevink07950 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Choose, Really, when it is on tv, radio, newspapers, billboards? Are you really that naive or do you just enjoy being sodomized by corporate america. WOW! When you have enough money to burn a message into the public's subconscious, the message becomes the medium. Maybe we can all just choose to lock ourselves away and cover our ears and eyes for the rest of our lives?
IronicKismet 2 years ago
Don't read so well, huh? The message that *this particular case* was about was on pay-per-view.
And I'm not coerced at gunpoint to fall for corporate propaganda - but I *am* coerced to submit to the often politically motivated whims of government. So choosing between allowing corporations (or unions, as people like you often conveniently forget) to publicly favor one politician over another is *far* less an evil than allowing incumbent politicians to decide who's allowed to say what, when.
kevink07950 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Books are not the same as advertisement. You have to seek out a book you choose to read it. You can't choose to avoid an advertisement on TV or radio or newspapers that you read.
Alacritous 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
horrible ruling is horrible.
if you thought the rich ran things before you ain't seen nothin' yet.
LLORT3 2 years ago
Your comment is bad and you should feel bad because of it. Long live the First Amendment
chelydramat 2 years ago 3
must be nice to have money! give me some
LLORT3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is ridiculous. Utilizing such underhanded propaganda to get the Cato Inst. foot in the door. They're taking separate issues and trying to link them together to support their own agenda for increased corporate personhood. Citizen's United is PRETENDING to care about book "banning" in order to align their own cause (corporatism/fascism) with it. Essentially, in this video, the Cato Institute is engaging in an indirect doublespeak. It's disgusting. Cato you wont even get a toe in.
IngeniousEpithet 2 years ago
Corporations should not have unalienable (human) rights, because they are not human. They are legal fictions created by a charter which is issued by (surprise!) the government. Therefore they do not deserve and were never intended to deserve, the protections of the first amendment. The FEC is only trying to prevent our government from being further overwhelmed by corporate power. There is nothing to be affraid of! However if the CATO institute has it's way, you can kiss our country goodbye
MrSteveSpears 2 years ago
Humans in a group do not lose their right to speak. This line ("Corporations are not humans, maaan!") reeks of ignorance of the law, of morality, and of reality.
kevink07950 2 years ago
Those poor corporations have been muted long enough. LET THEM SPEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUY MORE...WANT MORE....NEED MORE....Capitalism will and is eating itself.
IronicKismet 2 years ago
The Solicitor General himself said that these laws would prevent the release of a book mentioning the *name* of a candidate. Not advocating or opposing a candidate, mind you - using a candidates' *name*.
Soros published a book criticizing Bush. I wouldn't want my government to silence his opinion before an election - would you?
kevink07950 2 years ago
I trust the corporations to act in their own self-interest. I treat any messge from them thusly. I trust politicians to act in their own interest - but their influence on me is at the end of a gun. I'll take the corporations any day.
Some people are stupid. You'll never dumb down the world enough for them, and if you try, you'll trample the rights of the rest of us.
Now stop bleating nonsense and if you have a reasonable point, try to make it. I won't hold my breath.
kevink07950 2 years ago
@IronicKismet, you truly are delusional, but that is not unusual for any variety of Progressive including Marxism. Really, Marxism is an inarticulate knock-off of Hegel's philosophy of derangement. Philosophy is my beat and I tell you that I am going to crucify all that nonsense.
JohnnieGarner 2 years ago
@JohnnieGarner Good luck but I'll bet dollars to donuts you'll be laughed and snickered at just like Ayn Rand is in academic circles. A cheap rip off of a cheap rip off.
IronicKismet 2 years ago
HALELUJAH! GREAT Whaleywudup glad FINALLY to see someone that GETS IT! PLEASE! Give speeches! Write Books!
combatvetlawstudent 2 years ago
The court needs to return to the fundamentals. Is the Movie the functional equal of 'falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater"? Does the film present a "grave and immediate danger" to the larger society? Nay! But the law bites at the most fundamental of our preferred freedoms. Why was it relevant to the FEC that the film was to run through "cable". One can watch almost anything on cable-- even porn! So how then can the gov abdicate our right to choose?
Whaleywudup 2 years ago 3
This case is of grave importance. I have read the briefs and listened to the oral arguements. As I see certain BCRA provisions area a starting point from which the Gov will seek to take even more of our constitutional liberties. Our future hinges on this case. What is the test to decide how much of free speech can be restricted? CU passes Schenk and Gitlow. There is no "grave" danger to society, except that BCRA free speech abridgments are a danger to We the People.
Whaleywudup 2 years ago 5
can you give me the case cite?
combatvetlawstudent 2 years ago
Recasting the corporation as anything-but-an-individual may seem an impossibly radical do-over of the American way of life, but you may have noticed that we've made a so-called radical changes recently. Are we capable of changing our political structures and process, if the status quo is a mortal poison to real liberty, justice and equality?
BTW this video is a disingenuous, hysterical canard, ie nonsense. The problem is too much money in politics. The money is the problem, not the speech.
MartinGist 2 years ago
Try to grasp the concept: Making a protected individual of a corporation, under the color of law, creates an extra person. This person can't get a voter's registration, but because it is a created individual it claims free speech and any other convenient rights of individuals. In the instant of its creation as in extra individual the corporation obtains an unfair and unreasonable advantage at every level of decision making in the democratic republic into which it wades.
MartinGist 2 years ago
Truth: The unit of a democracy, even a democratic republic, is the citizen. Not the corporation. A corporation is not an individual, with the constitutionally protected rights of an individual. Yet our polity pretend that this is so, and pretend that the founding fathers so intended. In the current case, justices raised this issue almost as a philosophical aside, plainly avoiding the real question. The FEC failed to address the core question as well.
MartinGist 2 years ago
The reason this issue is not resolved, the reason the conservative majority on the court is wrong, the resaon their nonsensical and shoddy favoritism of big business, whiner barons and deep pocket campaign contributors of all stripes is deeply offensive, the reason is that...
We treat corporations as individuals.
This fundamental yet stupid concept is at the root of our inability to recapture the political process from the oligarchs who own it.
MartinGist 2 years ago
Comment removed
koryp123 2 years ago
Let us not pretend that this movie was not made by a special interest group to influence the election. They should be glad that this was not allowed to air because it would have only made Hillary richer when she succeeded in suing them. No one has the right to DEFAME anyone.
Money has always been used to exercise undue influence on the electorate.
Momsincharge 2 years ago
The content or character of the film is to me not related. In my opinion the film takes on a special constitutional status because of the nature of the creator-- a group with a long standing tradition of highly critical films. The FEC prohibition of the film to run on VOD amounts to prior restraint by other media. If indeed CU was worng in their portrait of H. Clinton, then she has recourse under the law to seek redress.
Whaleywudup 2 years ago 2
And your point is????
Momsincharge 2 years ago
So, it turns out that one of the ideas embedded in the 1st amendment (that a free and fair public debate insures that government stays responsive to public demands) is a very complicated thing. You can't just say "any statute that regulates political speech is a violation." Oh, if only things were that simple. As anyone knows, power and money can skew a debate. More resources give one voice a built-in advantage. Do we really want to live in a world where power begets power begets power?
mcmiljr 2 years ago
FCC is a fascist part of the government. I fucking hate FCC.
AlanCom1 2 years ago
checks and balance system is ALL out of balance! Theye do not know who is in control anymore that a judge has to ask what is allowed when it is the judge who's position was to JUDGE what violates the constituion using stare decisis and precedent of law of past. The judges should tell them in their opinions if the FEC is able to do what not any other way!
combatvetlawstudent 2 years ago
Exactly! Why are the justices asking the FEC what they think is allowed. It is supposed to be about what the Constitution and the several justices believe is allowed. (South Carolina USMC Vet history student)
Whaleywudup 2 years ago
HALELUJAH!!!! Finally! Someone that GETS IT! OK I am racing to your channel to subscribe! Have a super duper day!:)
combatvetlawstudent 2 years ago
PLEASE! Give speeches! Write books! You get it!
combatvetlawstudent 2 years ago
Brilliant!
combatvetlawstudent 2 years ago
Right! Like the way our comments are rearranged on here! When I come back here your comment does not appear with mine. Thats odd.
combatvetlawstudent 2 years ago
these comments are on first page people see w/the vid and are out of order out of context. Rearrangingin our speech is WRONG!!!
combatvetlawstudent 2 years ago
I thought this was the one the Hillary camp was trying to get out before the election about how Obama's thugs basically screwed her out of her chances for the nomination. The name escapes me but it was put together by some really ANGRY Hillary people (PUMA maybe?) w/a ton of behind the scenes stuff that supposedly showed Obama's supporters breaking election rules of some kind. On this one, it's great to see we can allow assassination movies about Bush but not this one. Free speech indeed.
brewersrule1978 2 years ago
I'm curious whose one side this film is advocating? I'm guessing you are a Hilary supporter or Democrat and you assume that this is a film by Republicans. If you know anything about the Cato Institute you know that they are definitely conservative but are not afraid to criticize either of the controlling parties. If it is ons sided it's on the side of the people. Finance reform laws are really just incumbent protection laws.
flippitydoo2 2 years ago
Perhaps if you could write and form a comprehensive sentence, we all could frame a response
Wetturkey101 2 years ago
I love the constitution, the federal government should establish a day when every school would have to teach about the constitution
Sinisterene 2 years ago 2
yeah good luck with that. If they actually did that, they would be teaching kids about the very laws they subvert.
caughtupinthematrix 2 years ago
That's the funny thing, since the constitution doesn't give the federal government to establish neither a holiday nor what is taught in schools
and if I recall correctly, some senator DID try to pass something like that :(
Sinisterene 2 years ago
Great video. Good job CATO.
NevadaPolicyRI 2 years ago
Just like you can keep a frog in a pan and boil him by raising the temp. by just one degree you can go from free to Govt run society slowly and without noticing.
Those who warn people are just laughed at just like Moses and the flood.
evramos70 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuck you
loya2 2 years ago
What about the words "Congress shall make no law" does congress no understand. Do representatives need to go through a special class where they learn a different English?
Crazypower274 2 years ago 7
Yeah. It's called newspeak. You can't get definitions by just looking up words in the dictionary. "Machine gun" includes .22 pistols if and when they want it to. The second doesn't say "Shall not be infringed too badly" or "Shall not be infringed by all that much," but that's how they read it. If you can pull that off, words don't mean anything anymore, so what do us proles need the first amendment for anyway? They'll probably say the act of making the law was unconstitutional...but the law's ok
burntneal 2 years ago 2
or more likely ignore protests and insist they're defending the people's rights
burntneal 2 years ago
There should be some way to expose the money trail while still allowing for political speech. So say as much as you want about a candidate but don't donate too much money to their campaign... or maybe I am missing something.
amyphilo 2 years ago
Yes we actually do ban books, you should be taking on more than the FEC.
GalenLW 2 years ago
Hey, I'm still looking for the exemptions in the First Amendment that allow the government to outlaw I-know-it-when-I-see-it obscenity or cigarette ads or the alcohol content in beer. I must be blind.
Of course, who's going to stand up for obscenity? Most people won't even admit to looking at ordinary porn. We're a nation of pussies (not the good kind, though).
davekrueger 2 years ago 9
Stand Up For The 1st Amendment! Stand Up For Free Speech!
candidskeptic 2 years ago 7
Thank God in Heaven for Cato, a voice of sanity in a nation determined to go insane.
Gringao22 2 years ago 16
Or is it the other way around?
whoo689 2 years ago
So the argument that elected officials only do certain things just because they got funding from an industry or coalition is a load of crap. Elected officials very rarely make political moves just to satisfy donors. With the huge amount of campaign contributors on each side of an issue, what's the point of acting beholden to one side or another? And it's not as if money is everything. Liberal groups or candidates CAN win, too, and many times do, much to my chagrin sometimes.
whoo689 2 years ago
The BCRA restrictions are absolute bullshit! I wish the campaign finance reform idiots would just get over it already and realize it DOESN'T WORK! Money will always be an important factor in politics, and we can't eliminate the influence of corporate money or "corrupt" money, as some might refer to it. Money in politics is here to stay. People who have clout and favorable positions on the issues as well as a good record WILL get the fun