corporate elites dont want you to see the stories featured on CHANNELEDKNOWLEDGE:ORG.. why else would the mainstream media choose to ignore such interesting stories..? check out our archive and see for yourself..
I initially agreed with you, but now I believe CU is the death knell of our democracy.
You point out CA, but consider all the radical anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-union, and anti-immigrant laws that have been passing in OTHER states, pushed by new politicians helped by PACs. We have institutionalized corruption - private prisons donate to PACs to advocate tougher laws to create more prisoners. Obama and Romney are breaking all fundraising records.
The issue is not just on specific policies but also in the election of individuals. How do you explain the politicians who change their views and the correlating influx of money from private interests? Newt (the historian) has been a great example of this as he has changed his politics after around the same time as receiving money from big oil, pharmacy, and Freddie Mack.
I have to respectfully disagree with you again. Yes, outspending opponents doesn't secure an election. However, It increases the probability of winning by a tremendous amount
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
@LiberalViewer, how do you counter arguments that the precedent created by this ruling (namely, that corporations have the rights of individuals) is a harmful precedent? Keep presenting your opinions; while I don't agree with all of them, they are well-reasoned, and beneficial in the modern political culture
Corporate spending is most effective when it is done to limit the debate. For instance, a corporation may be fine with the Democrat position on an issue, but then donate to a moderate ( on that issue ) Republican so that they win the party's nomination over candidates with ideas the corporation finds offensive.
Don't forget that corporations have nearly unlimited funds at their disposal and possibly equal lifetimes compared to the voter who is limited in both. So in the long run who will win? Voters can feel strongly about anything they want but eventually complacency will set in, after that advantage Corporations. Unless you are imagining they will always use the same failed tactics that voters will easily identify and just scoff at.
The f+++cking democrats scream and yell about big business, but not a word about their shit eating unions who pump millions of dollars to elect these scum bags.
This is probably the best argument for minimizing government regulation of the internet I've seen.
Because getting information is so easy, more and more people are making online research a part of their routine when making big decisions... buying a car, choosing a college, and casting votes. Sure, people are free to go in completely the wrong direction online, but that's just like anywhere else. Extremists are *always* going to go off on a tear.
@zEropoint68 I wish people were getting more savvy! If you look elsewhere on the net at comments people are making you see an overwhelming number of idiots.
corporate money is not effective when it comes to campaigns that have concrete aims, or where the issue has a direct relation to the corporation concerned. however when the debate is vague or the issue is bigger than peoples' day-to-day business, then that is where corporate money talks. corporations don't usually succeed in local issues.
@Killur10 Still free speech it's there right like it's my right to skip the add lols just because you disagree doesent mean you should take away there right to voice there idea. that and I don't think he can block individual ads he doesent like and even if he could I would'nt just skip it if you don't like it.
@GUNS4MIKE1234 I just think it's sort of ironic that an anti healthcare reform ad is in this video, and in another video LiberalViewer implies that he supports reform. Also it is possible to block individual ads, although I prefer to block the ad sites and therefore almost all of their ads, with four blocked ads on this webpage.
Well, maybe we're finally getting a little smarter, but considering the way the insurance companies PR worked on health care reform, I'd say we have a long way to go.
The diamond backs won the world series and they dont have nearly the budget that the yanks do.. so money doesnt matter right? Wrong .. and thats why the damn yanks kick ass and have won like 30 word series.
Just because the money doesn't *guarantee* a win doesn't mean that it doesn't still have a an overwhelming effect.
@midgety1 -- you're mixing apples and oranges. The outcomes of the games isn't decided by the FANS (voters). Winning games is based on talent. The teams spend MONEY to secure that TALENT.
I know this is late but low-key, local elections tend to see mostly fans of politics showing up to vote. National scale is what need be seen. Also, money shouldn't impact elections. Should be only about what the candidate says or proposition will do
A couple of elections doesn't PROVE anything. There are other things that can be done, given enough money, besides flooding the airwaves with advertising. I don't know what all those things are -- but I can imaging some. I'd rather not give the corporations any ideas.
I'm surprised you're so sanguine about our ability to deal with the coming onslaught.
Any good school boy knows that anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing. The electorate are leery of anything that involves spending money, but on issues where they turn us against one another while slipping in a favorable clause or two is where we don't do so well.
I can see the need for corporate free speech, but I have also seen it twist the truth on issues that are contrary to the public interest, and it causes me great concern. I can't see a way to regulate corporate speech in a fair manner.
I think it does apply considering the way Mike Bloomberg bought an illegal third term as mayor, which was abetted by running against one of this own cronies. I gave my vote to a communist sewing machine operator as a protest.
although this is one election that bucks against the trend, there is still generally to much influence from corperations... There is no such thing as a free lunch and if a company invests a sum of money into a candidate, they WILL expect some sort of return if they do win the election...
I think that corporations have more avenues than just elections. They do influence the agenda, and censor it, unless, there is a disadvantage to not recognizing the public intrest.
If everyone knows that there is a problem, then the corporate media covers the story, or else they look like they don't care.
Statistically speaking, if one election proves something, then 30 years of the spiritually enlighteded, right-winging electorate getting a boner by the mention of corporate cowboy Reagan proves everything. Is it remotely possible that the people are being shaken awake in the midst of America becoming a 3rd world country? Or was it apnea being mistakened for wakefulness?
I hate Politicos.... it is apparent though that the ass-kissers in california have dug your own hole without a shovel, before the well-digger arrived..short lesson kalifornia kooks......A+B=C , A-C STILL EQUALS -B
fucksticks the whole lot of you in that state...sunlight causes cancer as well, fucking retards, go ahead and federally mandate no sunlight for the rest of the country you bunch of failures!
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out Democrats in that view my friend.
But you all are missing the point. The reason these people get elected is because corporations back them with money for their campaigns. That is why you see bailouts that are not effective, tax credits which benefits the top bracket, few regulations, and weak protections. It is not in the interest of their backers for them to support these efforts.
I gotta agree with sonicboomz, his point is exceptionally accurate in this situation. No, the money did not guarantee the victory. But that's not the point. The point is that the money does have a very significant influence on voter positions. While it may not be a perfect correlation, do you really want to allow money to become such a big influence in our political elections/votes. It may not be the end of democracy, but it certainly won't be the same democracy that we know or want.
My problem with corporate campaign contributions is that I worry about their influence not on election victories but on the actions of candidates. When candidates win or want to win they may appeal to corporations because even if money doesn't always work it still talks loudly, thus corporations get their way, a way that is not necessarily represented by the public, but gets disproportionate interest from the politicians.
one election proves your point??? you are a great researcher. what a idiot. look back in history for the real answer. more money spent results in 90% of winners. moron
lets see if those companies rates dont increase to cover the money lost on the advertising. uninformed voters are easy to confuse! bad 5-4 supreme court decision, Stevens agrees. Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave for the umteenth time...
The narrow search to see whether money had an effect in this or that election result is very blinkered (naive?). Instead of increasing the rights of corporations they need to be eradicated for all our sakes. If it isn't and since elective power has always been a function of money where will that leave the ordinary person if this is allowed continue.
LB if you can see that simple point then I don't see much help for you or the rest of us.
There's a reason why Congress has 17% approval yet nothing ever changes. We get to choose from the same select few professional politicians every 4 years, and they always serve their OWN interests, not that of their electorates.
yes, corporate money plays a big part, but it's more subconscious than that. There is no big meeting place where they plot, they just follow their of self-interests, which happen to lead towards the elite.
I'm tired of people following all these commentators like sheep, eating up their "facts". Any competent person can convince anyone of a great number of things with apparently legitimate facts, especially when these sources, which are often ANOMALOUS figures, are used to villainize their purporters of their antithesis, and vice versa.
If you really want to understand what's going on on a particular issue, LOOK INTO IT YOURSELF.
I really don't think you can prove a point with just one case like this. You'd have to weigh it against the outcomes of all the elections that had corporate backing to tell whether or not there is a correlation.
The Billionaire Koch brothers who funded the tea party movement just got a Republican controlled majority in the House. Are we still rolling with the corporate money can't influence elections thing..?
you are cherry picking. money overall buys elections. would they do it if it didn't work? corporations makes millions and billions of thousands (of PEOPLE). so the toil of thousands is decided buy an owner of those workers?
total bullshit. money is so pervasive in our politics right now most of the candidates are millionaires and billionaires who think their shit doesn't stink.
Totally. My wife doesn't get why the republicans refuse to raise taxes on millionaires. I told her, "Because the millionaires are the ones putting them in office!"
@mtszabo ~ absolutely, my comment was a bit convoluted, (glug glug) but our political process is completely corrupt. i used to say the same thing your wife says about advertising, pepsi spends millions and i buy coke, ha ha. joke's on me, they're in cahoots. together they squash all competition thus completely controlling the world market. so much for "free enterprise" right?
companies spend millions to get billions in legislative favors, and it's monetarily reciprocated.
@mtszabo Exactly!!! If corps. didn't benefit from spending on elections they wouldn't do it. My opinion is simple: if a law would benefit a corporation AND the nation as a whole then the people will vote in the best interests of both, here the corps. tried to deceive the people and lost, but that doesn't mean they haven't won before or will again. Corporate lobbying circumvents the fundamentals of democracy: One voter, One vote. Every CEO has a vote as a person-should they get another as a CEO?
Well I am glad to see the bitch Carley Fironia or what ever the it's name is this week LOST BIG TIME with all her millions and that very much makes me PROUD TO BE FROM CALIFORNIA.
I don't see spending money as free speech, free trade maybe.
I don't think the problem starts where companies or even rich individuals chuck money at an issue, the problem is with the money it's self (I don't have a better system to replace it) the American dream is to acquire more money then other people if this could only be done by providing the world with your efforts then ok but it is more profitable to over charge, rip people off and step on the people working for you when you can.
It's great that sometimes corporate spending fails to influence elections, but there's no doubt that corporate propaganda has a dangerous influence on political procedures. Consider the way that corporations manufactured doubt about the harmful effects of cigarettes and the way the oils companies do the same thing with climate change now. Millions of dollars in ads do influence uneducated voters and protect the interests of harmful profit making. You seem not to acknowledge this.
Oh come on LiberalViewer its CALIFORNIA of course we are smart enough NOT to be influenced by corporal shit. This is an insult to all Californians just look at Meg Whitman that dumbass thought she could buy her way to office BUT WE DIDN'T LET HER!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps the fact that it was low turn-out had something to do with it. Don't the better informed vote more often on the low turn-out? I'd think that high turn out contains a larger portion of the gullible, naive and/or ignorant than the low turn out.
Boiling the point down to win/loss is too simplistic. We need to know how the money influenced the voting totals. If both sides of Prop 16 had spent an equal $90K on their campaigns, would there have been anywhere near 2.4 million 'yes' votes? Probably not. It's likely that many of them were influenced by corporate money. So, If voters can nearly be convinced to approve a long shot like Prop 16, it should be a cakewalk to tip the scales in contests that are more competitive by nature.
@sonicboomz I agree. The only question remains whether the imbalance of corporate spending might not ecourage more outspoken dissent from individual opposers. Your comment should stimulate us all to speak out in very cogent, effective ways that reach into the minds of apathetic boob-tube watchers who still make it to the polls. Corporatism has a claw-like grip on far too many Americans with its bullshit propaganda. We Californians are only slightly more savvy.
@sonicboomz thats precisely my opinion. i am a big fan of liberal viewer, however i feel the point you just made is one over looked or perhaps was considered and dismissed prematurely. i would love for this point to be expanded on.
@sonicboomz I know you said this 9 months ago, but I just wanted to say you took the words right out of my mouth. It's people like you that make freedom of speech worthwhile.
First I'll say that I like your videos LiberalViewer; I've seen this one and the preceding one in my search for information for a term paper regarding Citizens United. You offer a different perspective that challenges my own (though my level of knowledge wasn't very deep), and you do it logically and clearly, and I appreciate that.
However, as I watched this, I felt like I had to dissent, and agree in large part with sonicboomz here.
While I appreciate your find of two cases where what we'd expect to happen didn't happen, to draw conclusions from this is a fallacy known as a hasty generalization (Wikipedia it).
Imagine I walk into LA for a moment, see 10 people but all of them children, and abruptly depart. It would be a hasty generalization to say that LA's population consists entirely of children. In the same way, we'd need to see a much larger sample size to reach a conclusion about this issue.
you've shown that spending lots of money on media marketing for a candidate or proposition doesn't always work. that doesn't mean that it will never work. if corporate money influences even a single vote or changes the result of even a single election, then the system is undermined and needs to be fixed.
They are now able to hide the money they are dumping into the elections and we will not know that the money was put in by Mercury ins. in the future, so there would be no question put to the public about whether 'Corporation X spent millions to save you money' and if done year after year then they corporations will be able to hide their "donations" even better and come up with advertizing that will work, the repugs have proven you don't need a complex message to confuse the American public
You may be right about the recent vote in California, but how will this law be interpreted in 20 years. The "now" is just fine, but as we become more and more ensconced in a society where corporations have a louder voice than people, I think people will get tired of paying attention.
The California elections were, as you said, low turn-out -- this means the few people who did vote were unusually well-researched about the topics they were voting on. I say "unusually" as compared to the average voter in large, more important elections across the U.S. I believe the majority of people who vote in larger elections are significantly more ill-informed and susceptible to corporate advertising than the California voters in this example.
The California elections were, as you said, low turn-out -- this means the few people who did vote were unusually well-researched about the topics they were voting on. I say "unusually" as compared to the average voter in large, more important elections across the U.S. I believe the majority of people who vote in larger elections are significantly more ill-informed and susceptible to corporate advertising than the California voters in this example.
You site one example but i think there are a large number of cases where the result was disastrous. Health care. The total dysfunction of the GOP. Education. These problems are the heart and soul of what is wrong with USA at this moment. The way these issues are presented to the people, in strict controlled manner, using words designed to mislead the population, and then they are given "solutions". Strictly at the behest of Corporations. It eliminates fare play. Corporations now own politicians
The government should handle campaign financing-----they should give each major candidate including 3rd and 4th party candidates equal funds and equal airtime and equal debate time and thats it!
I am so fucking sick and tired of the endless wave after wave of attack ads on television----from both sides it's nauseating. Get the corporate and special interest lobbyists out of washington------no more private contributions--give them each equal funds and let them run their own campaign
Californians may not be as gullible as the corporations assumed but I don't think that's going to ring true for every state, especially the ones that already have lots of people voting against their own interest.
Corporations are one arm of the moneyed class. Another is the foundations which supports a myriad if 'charities'. The rich can write a bill in such a way that nobody will fall for it. Then the bill that they actually want is passed because it is less outrageous and it is supported by non governmental organizations (that they control). Wake up. Anything that is not specified in the Constitution should not be done.
The initiative process in California is very different than elections of politicians on a national or state level. It is a simple yes/no vote on a very specific question. Dumping that amount of money into slandering or promoting a candidate probably would have had a very different effect.
In those elections no. Because those elections are about objects and ideas. I can hold an election in my apartment building in which I will pay each person 100 bucks to vote yes to burning down the apartment building, and no one will vote yes. The idea of burning down the apartment is not only immoral but illegal and damages the lives of the people in that building. Once you have them vote for a guy to help them ie public official and I pay him to burn down the building then you got a problem.
If you restored America's status to a republic where rule of law limits the governments ability to interfere in the private sector, then you would take away the politicians' ability to give special favors and therefore, dissipate any incentive for corporations to lobby or contribute to campaigns.
money may not buy an election in particular cases, but in general it works a majority of the time. and there's the long term goal of constantly pounding your message.
if it didn't work, you wouldn't be bombarded 24/7 with advertising. if they didn't get a return on their investment, they wouldn't do it.
but we all know they do, and they will spend from bottomless coffers that individuals can't compete with to get their way. of course money buys things, including elections.
Also, you have to take into account the native population and their anti-drone properties. California is a left leaning state with A LOT of smart people. A lot of places in this Country would go verbatim in their arguments to FOX news "media" and wingnut radio. These are the kinds of audiences I think money would have huge potential to sway.
And lets face reality here for a second. They may be forced to disclose who's funding the ad in the commercial. but we know it will be well camouflaged
Yes, you could of course point to some cases where it doesn't matter, but their is no denying that their are cases in which money plays a VITAL role. If we're talking primaries, take a look at Mrs McMahon from Connecticut. She outspend her two primary opponents by millions and ended up owning them. Something perpetually repeated to a population over a long time has an effect of resonating in some way with people. Bush knew this, and we ended up with 68% of peeps believing Saddam enacted 9/11.
Corporation's right to free speech is just ridiculous. Corporation isn't an individual. It is composed of many individuals whose collective interest lies in their profit margin. If you give a group of individuals the same right as a single individual, then what we end up having is powerful organizations competing against individual citizens.
Bill of rights protects individual freedoms, and corporations are not individuals.
When will we stop arguing over a game on the playgrounds during recess of this institution and stop attending this school thats got us on a hamster wheel and step out this big building and take care of our world and act like we've been on earth for the thousands or millions of years we've been here.
I'm a strong supporter of your channel and views, however disagree with your stance on this issue, I admit I was rather surpirsed by your position actually, you can't generalise from the Calfornia example, I would have thought you of all people would have known that.
I don't think this is about corporations having complete or majority control over an election. It is about having an unfair advantage, or taking another step toward having a greater advantage over people. Corporations do represent people. Those people however already get a say in our elections as we all do. By making a corporation an individual and embodying it with the rights of a person it is like giving those in a corporation double citizen rights. Unfairly skewing toward those individuals.
not really this depends on where this takes places because america is divided in areas where the quality of education is great and where quality of education is below average so in areas where the population is not educated to a great degree on the current state of affairs corporate funding could mean the end of democracy if corporate lobbyists haven't ended it already that is.
Oh this is shameful. You aren't this naive, are you?
Imagine Bumfuck, Fly-Over-State, rubbing their hands together over all the shiny and fancy some Corp is waving in front of their face in exchange for fucking with estate laws, trust laws, environmental regulations, anything really, and then using this backwater as a base for all their operations.
Not every state is as "savvy" as California. Some are really fucking pathetic. This may push them over the edge.
for the first question:no, this doesnt prove that at all, first of all one election can not a proof make. i dont believe that we should limit corporations ability to fund politicians unless we also limit the ability of citizens to do the same. i believe having to make note of their finances is important, but that the government has no place in telling a corporation what they can, and cannot spend their money on (save the obvious)
The question isn't whether or not a corp can spend money to guarantee an election: why can they even affect it?!?
Corporations are not people. if corps can make political speach, that gives the people running the corp too much power. They can vote, but they can also influence large numbers of other peoples votes with the money I earned them working my ass off, regardless of my(or my co-workers) agreement with their ideas. So basically CEO's will have their opinion counted multiple times.
1) How much of the vote would they have gotten if they DIDN'T spend the 47 mill?
2) If they can get 47% of the vote on something that's pretty much obviously bullshit, how much difference is that money going to make in an area where there is more confusion, or somewhere that there actually is a debate to be had?
3) Why should corporations be able to make political speech in the first place? The opinions of the people in the corporation are already accounted for.
so PG&E spent 47 mill to convince 47% of the electorate that they should bend over... it does seem pretty obvious just based on the framing of the law that the law is there to bork the consumers and help the corporation, right?
I'd like to think that 47% of us don't actually think it was a good idea, they just bought into all the ads the 47mill paid for.
Whoa man, those questions are weighted. Stop that.
At any rate, I agree with your second point. No, corporate spending will not be the end of democracy. It just creates a sloppy playing field.
To your first question though, technically, the answer you're fishing for is true. The money isn't "that overwhelming". However, it does interfere with the decision making process. Money can buy you better speech writers, artists, mudslingers, message placement, etc. It's clearly an advantage.
Politicians are not ballot initiatives, but people that can follow orders for the right price. Companies could outspend political campaigns a hundredfold. The only choice at the polls will be between two pre-purchased candidates. The Citizens United decision was for that very purpose.
I don't agree, given time, all that money will find other ways to convince voters who to vote, there just hasn't been enough time for the corportations to get all that clever yet, but they will...
LV is using the kind of dishonest "logic" he usually opposes to defend corporate rights. Low turnout elections give greater effect to sophisticated voters who can figure out the kind of scams that the anti-consumer insurance and utility industry initiatives were. If those corporate thieves had been willing to wait and invest more money into a November general election they might have convinced enough dummies with their dissembling soundbites to win - as did the mormons with Prop 8.
money may not "guarantee" an election, but by and large money is s huge tool that more often than not results in a win for the side who can generate the most funds. Yes, a few exceptions exist, but looking at the Presidential elections alone, every winner at least since Nixon has been the party who has obtained or spent the most money to garner votes. This includes tax refunds for those already in power to buy elections. Corporations are giant pools of money that regular people cannot match
In general, money does rule elections. There are some cases where it won't, but usually money decides who wins. Why do you think it is so hard for 3rd Party candidates? The money is locked up in the two main parties.
As you pointed out, this was essentially an unimportant election which was voted on by few people. People En Masse tend to decide their election opinions based on who spent more money because we have this idiotic belief that those in power only want the best for everyone. Just remember that those who want power the most tend to be sociopaths.
An important point that is not taken into account: Those candidates that are eventually elected. To whom will they owe their dept? The people that elected them or the corporations that financed their election? Doesn’t this system work in favor of growing corporative influence in governmental decisions?
But LV, I still don't understand how General Motors can make a political contribution. Surely all of the stockholders cannot be in absolute agreement. There is no General Motors to question. This is simply an avenue to allow some of our citizens, the ones who already enjoy more 'reach' than most, to gain another toe hold in the political process.
The problem is more in backing candidtes than ballot measures. It's not about who wins but about who can play and that's where the money comes in. The media won't even follow guys who can't put campaign ads on tv and point to huge warchests of campaign funds that they've raised. With no way to get their face out there they are viewed as such a long shot they fall victim to people not even caring what they have to say on issues because they don't want to "throw their vote away" .
I disagree. With a referendum, one can read what they are getting. With a candidate, one does not know how they will vote. That is the true trap of the supreme court judgement.
Now, I don't think advertising could ever convince everyone to vote for a particular candidate, but they could influence enough people to change the race in favor of a chosen candidate, at which point the elected official is indebted to a corporation for being elected, not indebted to the people who elected him/her.
I must strongly disagree with you on this topic. You can't compare a national election to a low turn out vote on bills. In the case of the bill vote, the voters had a pretty easy decision to make, and because it was low turn out they were probably more educated on the issue than the average person. In a national election, the candidates are always fairly close (ie election 2000).
The very idea of a John Roberts court voting for corporate spending upsets me before I even read the fine print. What you note is encouraging; they have still made things harder it seems to me.
The evidence you used was not an example of how corporations can e in support of a party or a candidate, only a ballot issue. Their power comes from their ability to readily spend millions on businesses that spend their monies on political mudslinging, distortion of facts, and fearmongering. Corporations do not have the limitations of finances of an American, and the don't have the liability that comes with being an individual.
I don't necessarily think the (in)ability to buy an election is correct way to see the problem. I see campaign contributions like a similar manner to indirect voting. In this case, people or corporations are voting with their money. They don't necessarily win based on greatest "votes" of money, so it's not a guarantee. What my point is, however, is that corporations have a greater ability to support their interest by "voting" with their money than most normal people do.
I’m sorry, I’m going to join most of the rest of the responders and suggest back to you that during this low turn-out, off year election only those voters that cared and had knowledge of the subject voted. I think that we will have to wait and see what we can glean from the election that occurs this November.
"Given that corporations couldn't buy the results they wanted in these low turn-out, off-year California primary eletcions, doesn't that prove corporate money just isn't that overwhelming a factor in these kind of elections." No, it does not. Barely anyone votes in the off-year elections; those who do are USUALLY intelligent people, aware of what is happening. When voting for the president and senate seats, however, you get the huge amounts of ignorant people who believe everything the TV says.
improper sampling(using just two examples and applying it to the whole country), added to the fact your samples are from a state where their views are a minority in the rest of the country are your main mistakes. Add to that the sheer power of corporations to drown out opposition messages to the point that all you see and hear is what they want you to see and hear means yes you are wrong.
PG&E may not have succeeded in their attempt to secure their monopoly, but aren't you at all concerned at how close they came considering how blatantly anti-consumer this initiative was?
The ONLY thing that would have resulted from prop 16 is that consumers would continue paying HIGHER prices for electricity to PG&E. If nearly half the voters getting conned into voting "I want to pay more money for no reason" doesn't tell you how dangerous corporate spending can be, what would?
Wait a sec. I'm going to have to point out something. You comment on how slanted fox is. but by siding with the unlimited cap.. aren't you promoting more slant? Your question is trying to say for "these kind(s) of elections" well the bigger picture is being ignored. the worry is for ALL types of elections.
Out of topics?? this seems like you want more Fox style diversions and hypnotic/misleading info passed around.
There are NO guarantees that the need for disclosure will STAY in law.
And tell me again why corporations deserve free speech? the people that belong to the corp have their voices. Plus with amendments some groups are lobbying to get exceptions of source disclosure (like the NRA)
Side note: My idea for this is a maximum contribution based on amount of taxes you pay. so if a corporation is using the system to get tax breaks, (some cases hardly anything in comparison to actual income) they are limited to a smaller contribution. Make greed counterproductive
I see a flaw in your assertion at the end of the video (although it is in the form of a question, the implication is clear). You describe the elections in question as "low turn-out," which suggests that they would predominantly involve only the most politically-active and informed voters. These voters would be the least likely to be swayed by brief television advertisements. I think we should hold off on reaching any conclusions on the effect this Supreme Court decision will have on elections.
Looks like in this instance the voters were smart, still I genuinely have an issue with equating money with speech. It goes back to the problem of corporate personhood.
This decision allows a few board members(some foreign) to spend unlimited amounts of company/shareholder money to try and influence the law. Individual citizens already had the right to spend unlimited amounts of money in the same way. LV, you don't seem to understand the issue and you don't seem very liberal if you are in favor of giving international conglomerates free reign to influence our elections.
Did you look at how close the results were? Your argument seems to be that corporations can't buy elections, but clearly your example in California shows they could. The difference between yes and no votes was in the range of just under 2 to 3 percent. If anything you showed just how possible in a liberal anti-corporation state like California it is for a corporation to potentially pass legislation.
I normally agree with you LiberalViewer, but not on this one. Allowing corporations spend money in this fashion may not GUARANTEE a win in EVERY election, but it will impact elections definitely. Corporations can sponsor all kinds of legislation that may not even be in their districts or affect their people. I don't like it. It think that it will stilt elections in favor of corporations and their pet projects.
Why would a company spend millions, if it didn't gain something?
I think you make a good point. I could see a very good advertisement for a candidate then see "This ad paid for by CITGO." And I think, oh, this guys in big Oil's pocket and is supported by Hugo Chaves. Hm.. But, as it boils down, Big Business can't vote. It can only spend money and give their pitch. Leading up to the TARP vote members of the American Bankers Association told their employees to write to their congressmen and tell them to vote No on TARP funds and why, TARP was still paseed.
Future examples will be more subtle. Corporations do not spend the big bucks because it does not work. Money is an effective tool and allowing corporations free speech rights effectively gives more extra clout to members of corporate boards of large corporations -- people who may live in far distant regions where they will not be effected measures they chose to support or fight.
lol liberalviewer ur not this naive. yeah money buys political wins. you disagree with this because of ur california example? Corporations will wisen up and find another way to convince voters. why do u think millions of dollars are ALWAYS a necessity for campaining and ur telling us money doesnt win elections? not in america.
No, because the only people who vote in these kind of small elections actually bother to do research on the propositions. If it were a big media deal, you bet your ass the corporations would win.
I would argue two main points. Those that vote in these "unimportant" off-year elections are often going to be the most dedicated and educated voters who would be less likely to fall for the corporate sleight of hand advertising.
The second point is CA is an exception, not only in its average education level for voters, but in the available technology. Being a recent transplant to SC, its clear that some states intentionally make research voting issues difficult.
Corporation have the money to hire better propaganda writers after they have temporary setbacks. I feel as though we could be headed back the days of the Feudal Lords that enough people fought for a revolution to overcome the dominance of transnational companies like the British East India Company. This act of giving a corporation that could theoretically live for ever the same rights as people is still dangerous as well as the trade agreements that don't consider worker benefits and living wage
I truly doubt that every shareholder of PG&E agreed with the proposed amendment in California, yet the CEO and Board of the corporation thought it was ok to steal money from these shareholders who is opposed to the amendment to pay for their pro-amendment advertising. I would not doubt that over 50% of the shareholders disagreed with the "speech" that was "free" (as in no cost) to the CEO...
Free Speech is an Individual Right, and is only a collective Right in that like minded people can get together and enjoy their Individual Right of Free Speech together in a group. Freedom of Association, a different right.
Corporations are not individuals and do not and should not enjoy the right to free speech, unless every individual owner of the corporation agrees with that speech. Otherwise, the corporation's speech is not universally the speech of the owners, but is the speech of a subset
Allowing CEO's, Board of Directors and the like to steal money from the stockholders to broadcast their voice louder and further than anyone else is just free speech. As in "Free" to the CEO and Board of Directors, because the shareholders are footing the bill for their "Speech". Even if the shareholders don't agree, find the "Speech" vile and repugnant to their morals.
LiberalViewer, you need a new word in your vocabulary. Corporatist, those who are in control of..
When they spend more on permitted activities, all they end up doing is saturating the voters minds and thus get very annoying and then ignored folowed by hatred and/or disgust. It's like a constant noise or smell. The human mind gets accustomed to the constant input and filters it out. True professionals know this. Politicians are no professionals at advertising, just gladhanding and scamming. Even the professionals they hire admit this.
No, those two election results are the exception rather then the rule, it's nearly impossible for a person that has less then a consistant seven figure or six figure income to succsessfully run for office.
Corporations, i.e. remorseless engines of greed, can't be given the right to 'buy elections' (even whilst ineffectual) because they learn from mistakes just as we do... they'll get better at it ... then we all suffer. Recall the Bush administration (yes, I'm basically referring to republicans as a buy-able / bought political entity). Bush simply appointed us all some pain. Never give them power.
This is far from proof. You have way too much confidence in the intelligence of the avg american to not be fooled by propaganda and rhetoric from these corporations. How can you even call yourself liberal and have this viewpoint? To me the way campaings are run and the billions spent by lobbyist in campaign donations is probably the biggest problem in our country.
We in the United States, live in a Corporate/Fascist State--the government does the bidding of the corporations; if the price is right. Most of the regulations are structured to hinder competition and to set up monopolies. A great example is the health-care industry. The price will go up and quality will go down; a characteristic of a monopoly. The ultimate monopoly is the Federal Reserve--which neither federal or has any reserves. All unconstitutional.
It spite of a good argument, proving the lack of a connection between money & election results is not a good enough reason to let corporations into the election process. The perception of fairness is everything when it comes to our public officials & voting. Having candidates for office without corporate backing appears more right and would encourage more voting. It would also increase the grassroots foundation of our nation; therefore, keeping corporations out of elections is more correct.
Are you feeling well, LiberalViewer? It's atypical of you to display quite this much bias (and lack of reason). As others have commented and as you are already well aware, a single example does not support a position. You would need to show a trend based on all available examples.
I agree with you 99% of the time, but your view on corporate spending on elections I have to disagree on. I was born and raised in California, but moved to a bible belt state as a teen. People are very different here, very naive. The overwhelming majority believe that a man survived inside of a fish's stomach for three days and that there is a bearded man in the sky. They also believe everything they see and hear on TV, including ads paid for by corporations and from lobbyists of corporations.
of course it makes claims of democracy's end look ridiculous... but isn't the real issue weather co's should really be seen as peoplewhen it comes to constitutional rights or if that causes sociopolitical problems since they do not function the same way as individuals and can not possibly be held resposnibla in the same way ( they don't serve jail-sentences). The bill of rights would apply to all the owners, employes and customers of the co, but was it really meant to apply to abstractions?
Canada's electoral and advertising system is better. Proof? The state of the Canadian democracy vs the USA. It's not an over-reaction: It is BAD. Your 3 examples pale in comparison to what has been achieved by corporations through government ownership over the last 30 years. This will only make it worse. I TOTALLY disagree with you on this one.
Your examples are true, but is it unbelievable to think they, the corporations, know more about the demographics now to figure a way to buy votes. I mean to think the the billionaires would spend money, on something other than themselves, they would change up the plan? Thanks Liberal Viewer.
With all due respect liberal viewer, the examples you point out are the exceptions to the rule. Like one of your earlier viewers stated, in more nuanced issues the outcome will likely yield different results. I do agree that the disclosure clause in the law is a good thing, However, do you really want more corporate money in our politics?
Presenting two isolated cases of big money not getting its will and using this as an argument that money does not corrupt politics in general is almost as dumb as saying "Today was a cold day. Global warming is a hoax." Seriously, you can do better than this.
I think that's anecdotal evidence, and represents an exception to the rule. Money may not guarantee anything, but it's simply incorrect to say that it has no effect at all or does not matter.
the primarily republican SCOTUS did the american people a great disservice by ruling corporations as 'people' with unlimitied donation power.
just because it didn't pan out in california the way the big corps wanted, doesn't mean it won't work elsewhere - unlimited spending allows candidates to reach more people w/more frequency. additionally, the candidates themselves are selling themselves out to corporations vs the people who elect them; look at the republicans apologizing to BP!
This one time this one guy spent a bunch of money trying to get elected but he didn't win so don't worry about it.
TheDuttzz 1 day ago in playlist Campaign finance, corporate personhood, Citizens United
This has been flagged as spam show
corporate elites dont want you to see the stories featured on CHANNELEDKNOWLEDGE:ORG.. why else would the mainstream media choose to ignore such interesting stories..? check out our archive and see for yourself..
ChanneledKnowledge 3 days ago
I initially agreed with you, but now I believe CU is the death knell of our democracy.
You point out CA, but consider all the radical anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-union, and anti-immigrant laws that have been passing in OTHER states, pushed by new politicians helped by PACs. We have institutionalized corruption - private prisons donate to PACs to advocate tougher laws to create more prisoners. Obama and Romney are breaking all fundraising records.
Are you ready to change your mind?
daedamot 3 weeks ago
The issue is not just on specific policies but also in the election of individuals. How do you explain the politicians who change their views and the correlating influx of money from private interests? Newt (the historian) has been a great example of this as he has changed his politics after around the same time as receiving money from big oil, pharmacy, and Freddie Mack.
LancePoint9 1 month ago
II think he cherry picked a few uncommon examples to prove a rule and businesses would not keep doing it if it did not work
masluxx 2 months ago 2
I have to respectfully disagree with you again. Yes, outspending opponents doesn't secure an election. However, It increases the probability of winning by a tremendous amount
hopes26 2 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
possumpistol 3 months ago
@LiberalViewer, how do you counter arguments that the precedent created by this ruling (namely, that corporations have the rights of individuals) is a harmful precedent? Keep presenting your opinions; while I don't agree with all of them, they are well-reasoned, and beneficial in the modern political culture
Iamnemo1994 4 months ago
Corporate spending is most effective when it is done to limit the debate. For instance, a corporation may be fine with the Democrat position on an issue, but then donate to a moderate ( on that issue ) Republican so that they win the party's nomination over candidates with ideas the corporation finds offensive.
AsciiSillyQuestion 5 months ago
Don't forget that corporations have nearly unlimited funds at their disposal and possibly equal lifetimes compared to the voter who is limited in both. So in the long run who will win? Voters can feel strongly about anything they want but eventually complacency will set in, after that advantage Corporations. Unless you are imagining they will always use the same failed tactics that voters will easily identify and just scoff at.
plwpahi 5 months ago
The f+++cking democrats scream and yell about big business, but not a word about their shit eating unions who pump millions of dollars to elect these scum bags.
Democats are worse than al queda
MrRonbo66 6 months ago
it might not give them a guarantee but it sure does give them a lot of leverage! ....
Peace
negotiator84 6 months ago
This is probably the best argument for minimizing government regulation of the internet I've seen.
Because getting information is so easy, more and more people are making online research a part of their routine when making big decisions... buying a car, choosing a college, and casting votes. Sure, people are free to go in completely the wrong direction online, but that's just like anywhere else. Extremists are *always* going to go off on a tear.
But your average joe is getting savvy.
zEropoint68 6 months ago
@zEropoint68 I wish people were getting more savvy! If you look elsewhere on the net at comments people are making you see an overwhelming number of idiots.
Diyisan 5 months ago
Comment removed
zEropoint68 6 months ago
You didn't support people's right to do anything. You supported corperations over people.
monokhem 7 months ago
plus elections and propositions are very different animals. elections allow corporations to hide behind politicians.
u1b2 7 months ago
corporate money is not effective when it comes to campaigns that have concrete aims, or where the issue has a direct relation to the corporation concerned. however when the debate is vague or the issue is bigger than peoples' day-to-day business, then that is where corporate money talks. corporations don't usually succeed in local issues.
u1b2 7 months ago
Maybe you should block that anti-obama supported reform ad.
Killur10 7 months ago
@Killur10 Still free speech it's there right like it's my right to skip the add lols just because you disagree doesent mean you should take away there right to voice there idea. that and I don't think he can block individual ads he doesent like and even if he could I would'nt just skip it if you don't like it.
GUNS4MIKE1234 7 months ago
@GUNS4MIKE1234 I just think it's sort of ironic that an anti healthcare reform ad is in this video, and in another video LiberalViewer implies that he supports reform. Also it is possible to block individual ads, although I prefer to block the ad sites and therefore almost all of their ads, with four blocked ads on this webpage.
Killur10 7 months ago
corporate spending to win over voters doesn't bother me. corporate spending to win over lawmakers is what bothers me.
isays 8 months ago
Well, maybe we're finally getting a little smarter, but considering the way the insurance companies PR worked on health care reform, I'd say we have a long way to go.
wickedenchanter 9 months ago
they must get some thing out if it or they would spend so much if they buy out the federal ca.won't matter any way
1961arnie 9 months ago
The diamond backs won the world series and they dont have nearly the budget that the yanks do.. so money doesnt matter right? Wrong .. and thats why the damn yanks kick ass and have won like 30 word series.
Just because the money doesn't *guarantee* a win doesn't mean that it doesn't still have a an overwhelming effect.
midgety1 9 months ago 18
@midgety1 -- you're mixing apples and oranges. The outcomes of the games isn't decided by the FANS (voters). Winning games is based on talent. The teams spend MONEY to secure that TALENT.
CarMoves 3 months ago
I know this is late but low-key, local elections tend to see mostly fans of politics showing up to vote. National scale is what need be seen. Also, money shouldn't impact elections. Should be only about what the candidate says or proposition will do
ybrammer 9 months ago
A couple of elections doesn't PROVE anything. There are other things that can be done, given enough money, besides flooding the airwaves with advertising. I don't know what all those things are -- but I can imaging some. I'd rather not give the corporations any ideas.
I'm surprised you're so sanguine about our ability to deal with the coming onslaught.
rs2013 9 months ago
Any good school boy knows that anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing. The electorate are leery of anything that involves spending money, but on issues where they turn us against one another while slipping in a favorable clause or two is where we don't do so well.
I can see the need for corporate free speech, but I have also seen it twist the truth on issues that are contrary to the public interest, and it causes me great concern. I can't see a way to regulate corporate speech in a fair manner.
Zyworski 10 months ago
I think it does apply considering the way Mike Bloomberg bought an illegal third term as mayor, which was abetted by running against one of this own cronies. I gave my vote to a communist sewing machine operator as a protest.
scottandrewhutchins 10 months ago
although this is one election that bucks against the trend, there is still generally to much influence from corperations... There is no such thing as a free lunch and if a company invests a sum of money into a candidate, they WILL expect some sort of return if they do win the election...
cemcf 10 months ago
I think that corporations have more avenues than just elections. They do influence the agenda, and censor it, unless, there is a disadvantage to not recognizing the public intrest.
If everyone knows that there is a problem, then the corporate media covers the story, or else they look like they don't care.
gregspencewolf 11 months ago
Statistically speaking, if one election proves something, then 30 years of the spiritually enlighteded, right-winging electorate getting a boner by the mention of corporate cowboy Reagan proves everything. Is it remotely possible that the people are being shaken awake in the midst of America becoming a 3rd world country? Or was it apnea being mistakened for wakefulness?
carlrammlane 11 months ago
I hate Politicos.... it is apparent though that the ass-kissers in california have dug your own hole without a shovel, before the well-digger arrived..short lesson kalifornia kooks......A+B=C , A-C STILL EQUALS -B
fucksticks the whole lot of you in that state...sunlight causes cancer as well, fucking retards, go ahead and federally mandate no sunlight for the rest of the country you bunch of failures!
Zorinth 11 months ago
who needs to buy elections when you already have plenty of Republicans already in office they can simply buy them once in
inadaizz 1 year ago
@inadaizz
"plenty of Republicans already in office"
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out Democrats in that view my friend.
But you all are missing the point. The reason these people get elected is because corporations back them with money for their campaigns. That is why you see bailouts that are not effective, tax credits which benefits the top bracket, few regulations, and weak protections. It is not in the interest of their backers for them to support these efforts.
Muthsera80 11 months ago
Do you still believe that the citizen's united decision that it all just be okay even after 2010 election
punkerme63 1 year ago
I gotta agree with sonicboomz, his point is exceptionally accurate in this situation. No, the money did not guarantee the victory. But that's not the point. The point is that the money does have a very significant influence on voter positions. While it may not be a perfect correlation, do you really want to allow money to become such a big influence in our political elections/votes. It may not be the end of democracy, but it certainly won't be the same democracy that we know or want.
TheMasalaBalla 1 year ago
My problem with corporate campaign contributions is that I worry about their influence not on election victories but on the actions of candidates. When candidates win or want to win they may appeal to corporations because even if money doesn't always work it still talks loudly, thus corporations get their way, a way that is not necessarily represented by the public, but gets disproportionate interest from the politicians.
TheBlindedHunter 1 year ago
one election proves your point??? you are a great researcher. what a idiot. look back in history for the real answer. more money spent results in 90% of winners. moron
wgschwendable 1 year ago
also meg witless witmen lost for gov of cal when she spent 109 mill.
dragonmaster613 1 year ago
Thanks for bringing this to light.
OpiatedBliss 1 year ago
i try my hardest never to watch ads... even if it's political or holds influence on my life, really... i just don't want my information that way,
SO WHERE IS MY RIGHT NOT TO WATCH ADS?!?!?!?!
fuck free speech, give me free eyesight... them ads blocking everyting.
im gonna talk free weather im permitted or not anyway.
Meansofviewing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
corporations are not people, they have no rights
michalchik 1 year ago
Just because money is not ALWAYS a guaranteed win, doesn't mean corporations deserve MORE power!
joanflouisefisher 1 year ago
lets see if those companies rates dont increase to cover the money lost on the advertising. uninformed voters are easy to confuse! bad 5-4 supreme court decision, Stevens agrees. Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave for the umteenth time...
TheClosestranger00 1 year ago
The narrow search to see whether money had an effect in this or that election result is very blinkered (naive?). Instead of increasing the rights of corporations they need to be eradicated for all our sakes. If it isn't and since elective power has always been a function of money where will that leave the ordinary person if this is allowed continue.
LB if you can see that simple point then I don't see much help for you or the rest of us.
Telcontar1962 1 year ago
There's a reason why Congress has 17% approval yet nothing ever changes. We get to choose from the same select few professional politicians every 4 years, and they always serve their OWN interests, not that of their electorates.
yes, corporate money plays a big part, but it's more subconscious than that. There is no big meeting place where they plot, they just follow their of self-interests, which happen to lead towards the elite.
SirPwn4lot 1 year ago
You have a point, BUT, In a close vote the more money spent usually wins
alloneword154 1 year ago
I'm tired of people following all these commentators like sheep, eating up their "facts". Any competent person can convince anyone of a great number of things with apparently legitimate facts, especially when these sources, which are often ANOMALOUS figures, are used to villainize their purporters of their antithesis, and vice versa.
If you really want to understand what's going on on a particular issue, LOOK INTO IT YOURSELF.
chriseatschopsuey 1 year ago
I really don't think you can prove a point with just one case like this. You'd have to weigh it against the outcomes of all the elections that had corporate backing to tell whether or not there is a correlation.
BeekersSqueakers 1 year ago
The Billionaire Koch brothers who funded the tea party movement just got a Republican controlled majority in the House. Are we still rolling with the corporate money can't influence elections thing..?
MaudsPas 1 year ago
im sure what your saying is of some importance or atleast the topicis .. but this video is bat-shit boring
KingofUA88 1 year ago
you are cherry picking. money overall buys elections. would they do it if it didn't work? corporations makes millions and billions of thousands (of PEOPLE). so the toil of thousands is decided buy an owner of those workers?
total bullshit. money is so pervasive in our politics right now most of the candidates are millionaires and billionaires who think their shit doesn't stink.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
Totally. My wife doesn't get why the republicans refuse to raise taxes on millionaires. I told her, "Because the millionaires are the ones putting them in office!"
mtszabo 1 year ago
@mtszabo ~ absolutely, my comment was a bit convoluted, (glug glug) but our political process is completely corrupt. i used to say the same thing your wife says about advertising, pepsi spends millions and i buy coke, ha ha. joke's on me, they're in cahoots. together they squash all competition thus completely controlling the world market. so much for "free enterprise" right?
companies spend millions to get billions in legislative favors, and it's monetarily reciprocated.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@mtszabo Exactly!!! If corps. didn't benefit from spending on elections they wouldn't do it. My opinion is simple: if a law would benefit a corporation AND the nation as a whole then the people will vote in the best interests of both, here the corps. tried to deceive the people and lost, but that doesn't mean they haven't won before or will again. Corporate lobbying circumvents the fundamentals of democracy: One voter, One vote. Every CEO has a vote as a person-should they get another as a CEO?
nunayafb 1 year ago
He makes it sound like they are just throwing away money!
joanflouisefisher 1 year ago
Well I am glad to see the bitch Carley Fironia or what ever the it's name is this week LOST BIG TIME with all her millions and that very much makes me PROUD TO BE FROM CALIFORNIA.
BabylonsKing 1 year ago
I don't see spending money as free speech, free trade maybe.
I don't think the problem starts where companies or even rich individuals chuck money at an issue, the problem is with the money it's self (I don't have a better system to replace it) the American dream is to acquire more money then other people if this could only be done by providing the world with your efforts then ok but it is more profitable to over charge, rip people off and step on the people working for you when you can.
rarrmonkey 1 year ago
It's great that sometimes corporate spending fails to influence elections, but there's no doubt that corporate propaganda has a dangerous influence on political procedures. Consider the way that corporations manufactured doubt about the harmful effects of cigarettes and the way the oils companies do the same thing with climate change now. Millions of dollars in ads do influence uneducated voters and protect the interests of harmful profit making. You seem not to acknowledge this.
mrfealnuthin 1 year ago
Oh come on LiberalViewer its CALIFORNIA of course we are smart enough NOT to be influenced by corporal shit. This is an insult to all Californians just look at Meg Whitman that dumbass thought she could buy her way to office BUT WE DIDN'T LET HER!!!!!!!!!
yankee82090 1 year ago
Huh, any comment after the 2010 elections, with prop 19 and Ca aside?
mostviralvideos 1 year ago
Perhaps the fact that it was low turn-out had something to do with it. Don't the better informed vote more often on the low turn-out? I'd think that high turn out contains a larger portion of the gullible, naive and/or ignorant than the low turn out.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
@SpazzzDog You are exactly right. Both commons sense and a number of studies back you up.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 1 year ago
Didn't agree then...and now? Any change in your opinion?
mtsac1 1 year ago
Boiling the point down to win/loss is too simplistic. We need to know how the money influenced the voting totals. If both sides of Prop 16 had spent an equal $90K on their campaigns, would there have been anywhere near 2.4 million 'yes' votes? Probably not. It's likely that many of them were influenced by corporate money. So, If voters can nearly be convinced to approve a long shot like Prop 16, it should be a cakewalk to tip the scales in contests that are more competitive by nature.
sonicboomz 1 year ago 41
@sonicboomz I agree. The only question remains whether the imbalance of corporate spending might not ecourage more outspoken dissent from individual opposers. Your comment should stimulate us all to speak out in very cogent, effective ways that reach into the minds of apathetic boob-tube watchers who still make it to the polls. Corporatism has a claw-like grip on far too many Americans with its bullshit propaganda. We Californians are only slightly more savvy.
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
@sonicboomz thats precisely my opinion. i am a big fan of liberal viewer, however i feel the point you just made is one over looked or perhaps was considered and dismissed prematurely. i would love for this point to be expanded on.
tiller021389 10 months ago
@sonicboomz I know you said this 9 months ago, but I just wanted to say you took the words right out of my mouth. It's people like you that make freedom of speech worthwhile.
roomie4rent 7 months ago
@sonicboomz I'm going to have to agree.
First I'll say that I like your videos LiberalViewer; I've seen this one and the preceding one in my search for information for a term paper regarding Citizens United. You offer a different perspective that challenges my own (though my level of knowledge wasn't very deep), and you do it logically and clearly, and I appreciate that.
However, as I watched this, I felt like I had to dissent, and agree in large part with sonicboomz here.
thesassaman 6 months ago
While I appreciate your find of two cases where what we'd expect to happen didn't happen, to draw conclusions from this is a fallacy known as a hasty generalization (Wikipedia it).
Imagine I walk into LA for a moment, see 10 people but all of them children, and abruptly depart. It would be a hasty generalization to say that LA's population consists entirely of children. In the same way, we'd need to see a much larger sample size to reach a conclusion about this issue.
Thank you again.
thesassaman 6 months ago
Just because they don't succeed all the time shouldn't make it ok.
toddghall 1 year ago
you've shown that spending lots of money on media marketing for a candidate or proposition doesn't always work. that doesn't mean that it will never work. if corporate money influences even a single vote or changes the result of even a single election, then the system is undermined and needs to be fixed.
paulsamuel1 1 year ago
They are now able to hide the money they are dumping into the elections and we will not know that the money was put in by Mercury ins. in the future, so there would be no question put to the public about whether 'Corporation X spent millions to save you money' and if done year after year then they corporations will be able to hide their "donations" even better and come up with advertizing that will work, the repugs have proven you don't need a complex message to confuse the American public
Dahgrostabphri 1 year ago
You may be right about the recent vote in California, but how will this law be interpreted in 20 years. The "now" is just fine, but as we become more and more ensconced in a society where corporations have a louder voice than people, I think people will get tired of paying attention.
NuPappa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The California elections were, as you said, low turn-out -- this means the few people who did vote were unusually well-researched about the topics they were voting on. I say "unusually" as compared to the average voter in large, more important elections across the U.S. I believe the majority of people who vote in larger elections are significantly more ill-informed and susceptible to corporate advertising than the California voters in this example.
sonja314 1 year ago
The California elections were, as you said, low turn-out -- this means the few people who did vote were unusually well-researched about the topics they were voting on. I say "unusually" as compared to the average voter in large, more important elections across the U.S. I believe the majority of people who vote in larger elections are significantly more ill-informed and susceptible to corporate advertising than the California voters in this example.
sonja314 1 year ago
You site one example but i think there are a large number of cases where the result was disastrous. Health care. The total dysfunction of the GOP. Education. These problems are the heart and soul of what is wrong with USA at this moment. The way these issues are presented to the people, in strict controlled manner, using words designed to mislead the population, and then they are given "solutions". Strictly at the behest of Corporations. It eliminates fare play. Corporations now own politicians
ghostandgoblins 1 year ago
no becuse the people the comps are targeting don't go to low tern out
the problem is the idiots WILL be fooled becuse they don#t care wher the add came from they just remember the add.
jannikmt 1 year ago
The government should handle campaign financing-----they should give each major candidate including 3rd and 4th party candidates equal funds and equal airtime and equal debate time and thats it!
I am so fucking sick and tired of the endless wave after wave of attack ads on television----from both sides it's nauseating. Get the corporate and special interest lobbyists out of washington------no more private contributions--give them each equal funds and let them run their own campaign
metalreign81 1 year ago
I don't like the entire system that allows for corporations to EXIST.
There should be a better way to run society, that doesn't HAVE corporations.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
i'm sure the money doesn't help.. i disagree with you man.
ThatOneDude 1 year ago
Californians may not be as gullible as the corporations assumed but I don't think that's going to ring true for every state, especially the ones that already have lots of people voting against their own interest.
TheDeathsHead 1 year ago
Corporations are one arm of the moneyed class. Another is the foundations which supports a myriad if 'charities'. The rich can write a bill in such a way that nobody will fall for it. Then the bill that they actually want is passed because it is less outrageous and it is supported by non governmental organizations (that they control). Wake up. Anything that is not specified in the Constitution should not be done.
Brimp555 1 year ago
The initiative process in California is very different than elections of politicians on a national or state level. It is a simple yes/no vote on a very specific question. Dumping that amount of money into slandering or promoting a candidate probably would have had a very different effect.
vksj 1 year ago
In those elections no. Because those elections are about objects and ideas. I can hold an election in my apartment building in which I will pay each person 100 bucks to vote yes to burning down the apartment building, and no one will vote yes. The idea of burning down the apartment is not only immoral but illegal and damages the lives of the people in that building. Once you have them vote for a guy to help them ie public official and I pay him to burn down the building then you got a problem.
thedarkfinder 1 year ago
If you restored America's status to a republic where rule of law limits the governments ability to interfere in the private sector, then you would take away the politicians' ability to give special favors and therefore, dissipate any incentive for corporations to lobby or contribute to campaigns.
Megabyxos 1 year ago
money may not buy an election in particular cases, but in general it works a majority of the time. and there's the long term goal of constantly pounding your message.
if it didn't work, you wouldn't be bombarded 24/7 with advertising. if they didn't get a return on their investment, they wouldn't do it.
but we all know they do, and they will spend from bottomless coffers that individuals can't compete with to get their way. of course money buys things, including elections.
tomitstube 1 year ago
Also, you have to take into account the native population and their anti-drone properties. California is a left leaning state with A LOT of smart people. A lot of places in this Country would go verbatim in their arguments to FOX news "media" and wingnut radio. These are the kinds of audiences I think money would have huge potential to sway.
And lets face reality here for a second. They may be forced to disclose who's funding the ad in the commercial. but we know it will be well camouflaged
Seedofwinter 1 year ago
Yes, you could of course point to some cases where it doesn't matter, but their is no denying that their are cases in which money plays a VITAL role. If we're talking primaries, take a look at Mrs McMahon from Connecticut. She outspend her two primary opponents by millions and ended up owning them. Something perpetually repeated to a population over a long time has an effect of resonating in some way with people. Bush knew this, and we ended up with 68% of peeps believing Saddam enacted 9/11.
Seedofwinter 1 year ago
Corporation's right to free speech is just ridiculous. Corporation isn't an individual. It is composed of many individuals whose collective interest lies in their profit margin. If you give a group of individuals the same right as a single individual, then what we end up having is powerful organizations competing against individual citizens.
Bill of rights protects individual freedoms, and corporations are not individuals.
JaMoond 1 year ago
When will we stop arguing over a game on the playgrounds during recess of this institution and stop attending this school thats got us on a hamster wheel and step out this big building and take care of our world and act like we've been on earth for the thousands or millions of years we've been here.
adduummyy 1 year ago
I'm a strong supporter of your channel and views, however disagree with your stance on this issue, I admit I was rather surpirsed by your position actually, you can't generalise from the Calfornia example, I would have thought you of all people would have known that.
13365488 1 year ago
I don't think this is about corporations having complete or majority control over an election. It is about having an unfair advantage, or taking another step toward having a greater advantage over people. Corporations do represent people. Those people however already get a say in our elections as we all do. By making a corporation an individual and embodying it with the rights of a person it is like giving those in a corporation double citizen rights. Unfairly skewing toward those individuals.
Saromatae 1 year ago
not really this depends on where this takes places because america is divided in areas where the quality of education is great and where quality of education is below average so in areas where the population is not educated to a great degree on the current state of affairs corporate funding could mean the end of democracy if corporate lobbyists haven't ended it already that is.
llLaughingManll 1 year ago
Oh this is shameful. You aren't this naive, are you?
Imagine Bumfuck, Fly-Over-State, rubbing their hands together over all the shiny and fancy some Corp is waving in front of their face in exchange for fucking with estate laws, trust laws, environmental regulations, anything really, and then using this backwater as a base for all their operations.
Not every state is as "savvy" as California. Some are really fucking pathetic. This may push them over the edge.
mistertakeda 1 year ago
You couldn't BE more wrong if you tried. And to answer your question... No, No and No.
MoJoSB 1 year ago
These results will change when companies start backing political parties that follow their agendas less overtly... Oh wait, that's already happened.
dylantuzyk 1 year ago
for the first question:no, this doesnt prove that at all, first of all one election can not a proof make. i dont believe that we should limit corporations ability to fund politicians unless we also limit the ability of citizens to do the same. i believe having to make note of their finances is important, but that the government has no place in telling a corporation what they can, and cannot spend their money on (save the obvious)
but i also think it sucks.
tuseroni 1 year ago
The question isn't whether or not a corp can spend money to guarantee an election: why can they even affect it?!?
Corporations are not people. if corps can make political speach, that gives the people running the corp too much power. They can vote, but they can also influence large numbers of other peoples votes with the money I earned them working my ass off, regardless of my(or my co-workers) agreement with their ideas. So basically CEO's will have their opinion counted multiple times.
geoffpot 1 year ago
So with that in mind:
1) How much of the vote would they have gotten if they DIDN'T spend the 47 mill?
2) If they can get 47% of the vote on something that's pretty much obviously bullshit, how much difference is that money going to make in an area where there is more confusion, or somewhere that there actually is a debate to be had?
3) Why should corporations be able to make political speech in the first place? The opinions of the people in the corporation are already accounted for.
geoffpot 1 year ago
so PG&E spent 47 mill to convince 47% of the electorate that they should bend over... it does seem pretty obvious just based on the framing of the law that the law is there to bork the consumers and help the corporation, right?
I'd like to think that 47% of us don't actually think it was a good idea, they just bought into all the ads the 47mill paid for.
geoffpot 1 year ago
Whoa man, those questions are weighted. Stop that.
At any rate, I agree with your second point. No, corporate spending will not be the end of democracy. It just creates a sloppy playing field.
To your first question though, technically, the answer you're fishing for is true. The money isn't "that overwhelming". However, it does interfere with the decision making process. Money can buy you better speech writers, artists, mudslingers, message placement, etc. It's clearly an advantage.
Verrimgard 1 year ago
also, there were other factors at play here. example: people were pissed off at PGE
Techra 1 year ago
anecdotal ^_^
Techra 1 year ago
Politicians are not ballot initiatives, but people that can follow orders for the right price. Companies could outspend political campaigns a hundredfold. The only choice at the polls will be between two pre-purchased candidates. The Citizens United decision was for that very purpose.
biantai888 1 year ago
I disagree too, corporations don't make multi-million dollar mistakes twice.
They will be far more subtle next time.
MarcusCardiff 1 year ago
I don't agree, given time, all that money will find other ways to convince voters who to vote, there just hasn't been enough time for the corportations to get all that clever yet, but they will...
ltflak 1 year ago
LV is using the kind of dishonest "logic" he usually opposes to defend corporate rights. Low turnout elections give greater effect to sophisticated voters who can figure out the kind of scams that the anti-consumer insurance and utility industry initiatives were. If those corporate thieves had been willing to wait and invest more money into a November general election they might have convinced enough dummies with their dissembling soundbites to win - as did the mormons with Prop 8.
rationalist47 1 year ago
money may not "guarantee" an election, but by and large money is s huge tool that more often than not results in a win for the side who can generate the most funds. Yes, a few exceptions exist, but looking at the Presidential elections alone, every winner at least since Nixon has been the party who has obtained or spent the most money to garner votes. This includes tax refunds for those already in power to buy elections. Corporations are giant pools of money that regular people cannot match
johns375 1 year ago
In general, money does rule elections. There are some cases where it won't, but usually money decides who wins. Why do you think it is so hard for 3rd Party candidates? The money is locked up in the two main parties.
Dacadvid 1 year ago
@Dacadvid Money alone will not give an candidate an advantage.
InterntzTrollerinz 1 year ago
As you pointed out, this was essentially an unimportant election which was voted on by few people. People En Masse tend to decide their election opinions based on who spent more money because we have this idiotic belief that those in power only want the best for everyone. Just remember that those who want power the most tend to be sociopaths.
Mrkaine666 1 year ago
i'm not voting anymore *-_-
Abashi76 1 year ago
An important point that is not taken into account: Those candidates that are eventually elected. To whom will they owe their dept? The people that elected them or the corporations that financed their election? Doesn’t this system work in favor of growing corporative influence in governmental decisions?
Naiculusbp 1 year ago 17
But LV, I still don't understand how General Motors can make a political contribution. Surely all of the stockholders cannot be in absolute agreement. There is no General Motors to question. This is simply an avenue to allow some of our citizens, the ones who already enjoy more 'reach' than most, to gain another toe hold in the political process.
Nothing good can come out of this.
eaodak 1 year ago
it would be nice to see "liberalviewer" revisit this issue considering how many people rightfully disagree with his screwed up position.
MpowerdAPE 1 year ago
The problem is more in backing candidtes than ballot measures. It's not about who wins but about who can play and that's where the money comes in. The media won't even follow guys who can't put campaign ads on tv and point to huge warchests of campaign funds that they've raised. With no way to get their face out there they are viewed as such a long shot they fall victim to people not even caring what they have to say on issues because they don't want to "throw their vote away" .
ArchNME 1 year ago
I disagree. With a referendum, one can read what they are getting. With a candidate, one does not know how they will vote. That is the true trap of the supreme court judgement.
noonespecia2007 1 year ago
Now, I don't think advertising could ever convince everyone to vote for a particular candidate, but they could influence enough people to change the race in favor of a chosen candidate, at which point the elected official is indebted to a corporation for being elected, not indebted to the people who elected him/her.
danlee89KS 1 year ago
I must strongly disagree with you on this topic. You can't compare a national election to a low turn out vote on bills. In the case of the bill vote, the voters had a pretty easy decision to make, and because it was low turn out they were probably more educated on the issue than the average person. In a national election, the candidates are always fairly close (ie election 2000).
danlee89KS 1 year ago
The very idea of a John Roberts court voting for corporate spending upsets me before I even read the fine print. What you note is encouraging; they have still made things harder it seems to me.
Bmacrae01 1 year ago
The evidence you used was not an example of how corporations can e in support of a party or a candidate, only a ballot issue. Their power comes from their ability to readily spend millions on businesses that spend their monies on political mudslinging, distortion of facts, and fearmongering. Corporations do not have the limitations of finances of an American, and the don't have the liability that comes with being an individual.
realoldguy1969 1 year ago
I don't necessarily think the (in)ability to buy an election is correct way to see the problem. I see campaign contributions like a similar manner to indirect voting. In this case, people or corporations are voting with their money. They don't necessarily win based on greatest "votes" of money, so it's not a guarantee. What my point is, however, is that corporations have a greater ability to support their interest by "voting" with their money than most normal people do.
tstolz256 1 year ago 29
I’m sorry, I’m going to join most of the rest of the responders and suggest back to you that during this low turn-out, off year election only those voters that cared and had knowledge of the subject voted. I think that we will have to wait and see what we can glean from the election that occurs this November.
forgetit111111 1 year ago
"Given that corporations couldn't buy the results they wanted in these low turn-out, off-year California primary eletcions, doesn't that prove corporate money just isn't that overwhelming a factor in these kind of elections." No, it does not. Barely anyone votes in the off-year elections; those who do are USUALLY intelligent people, aware of what is happening. When voting for the president and senate seats, however, you get the huge amounts of ignorant people who believe everything the TV says.
manmythlegend12 1 year ago
improper sampling(using just two examples and applying it to the whole country), added to the fact your samples are from a state where their views are a minority in the rest of the country are your main mistakes. Add to that the sheer power of corporations to drown out opposition messages to the point that all you see and hear is what they want you to see and hear means yes you are wrong.
neotruekaiser 1 year ago
PG&E may not have succeeded in their attempt to secure their monopoly, but aren't you at all concerned at how close they came considering how blatantly anti-consumer this initiative was?
The ONLY thing that would have resulted from prop 16 is that consumers would continue paying HIGHER prices for electricity to PG&E. If nearly half the voters getting conned into voting "I want to pay more money for no reason" doesn't tell you how dangerous corporate spending can be, what would?
hat301 1 year ago
Wait a sec. I'm going to have to point out something. You comment on how slanted fox is. but by siding with the unlimited cap.. aren't you promoting more slant? Your question is trying to say for "these kind(s) of elections" well the bigger picture is being ignored. the worry is for ALL types of elections.
Out of topics?? this seems like you want more Fox style diversions and hypnotic/misleading info passed around.
There are NO guarantees that the need for disclosure will STAY in law.
Skwiggs102 1 year ago
And tell me again why corporations deserve free speech? the people that belong to the corp have their voices. Plus with amendments some groups are lobbying to get exceptions of source disclosure (like the NRA)
Side note: My idea for this is a maximum contribution based on amount of taxes you pay. so if a corporation is using the system to get tax breaks, (some cases hardly anything in comparison to actual income) they are limited to a smaller contribution. Make greed counterproductive
Skwiggs102 1 year ago
I see a flaw in your assertion at the end of the video (although it is in the form of a question, the implication is clear). You describe the elections in question as "low turn-out," which suggests that they would predominantly involve only the most politically-active and informed voters. These voters would be the least likely to be swayed by brief television advertisements. I think we should hold off on reaching any conclusions on the effect this Supreme Court decision will have on elections.
mindlessdrone1991 1 year ago
No, it only shows that massively large corporate sponsorship is not successful 100% of the time.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
Looks like in this instance the voters were smart, still I genuinely have an issue with equating money with speech. It goes back to the problem of corporate personhood.
JoeMulk 1 year ago
This isn't a free speech issue!!!!!!
Corporations aren't people.
This decision allows a few board members(some foreign) to spend unlimited amounts of company/shareholder money to try and influence the law. Individual citizens already had the right to spend unlimited amounts of money in the same way. LV, you don't seem to understand the issue and you don't seem very liberal if you are in favor of giving international conglomerates free reign to influence our elections.
potawatamus1 1 year ago
Did you look at how close the results were? Your argument seems to be that corporations can't buy elections, but clearly your example in California shows they could. The difference between yes and no votes was in the range of just under 2 to 3 percent. If anything you showed just how possible in a liberal anti-corporation state like California it is for a corporation to potentially pass legislation.
sgmarshall 1 year ago
I normally agree with you LiberalViewer, but not on this one. Allowing corporations spend money in this fashion may not GUARANTEE a win in EVERY election, but it will impact elections definitely. Corporations can sponsor all kinds of legislation that may not even be in their districts or affect their people. I don't like it. It think that it will stilt elections in favor of corporations and their pet projects.
Why would a company spend millions, if it didn't gain something?
yuxiaobi 1 year ago
I think you make a good point. I could see a very good advertisement for a candidate then see "This ad paid for by CITGO." And I think, oh, this guys in big Oil's pocket and is supported by Hugo Chaves. Hm.. But, as it boils down, Big Business can't vote. It can only spend money and give their pitch. Leading up to the TARP vote members of the American Bankers Association told their employees to write to their congressmen and tell them to vote No on TARP funds and why, TARP was still paseed.
SaucerheadTharp 1 year ago
No
Future examples will be more subtle. Corporations do not spend the big bucks because it does not work. Money is an effective tool and allowing corporations free speech rights effectively gives more extra clout to members of corporate boards of large corporations -- people who may live in far distant regions where they will not be effected measures they chose to support or fight.
changealice 1 year ago
lol liberalviewer ur not this naive. yeah money buys political wins. you disagree with this because of ur california example? Corporations will wisen up and find another way to convince voters. why do u think millions of dollars are ALWAYS a necessity for campaining and ur telling us money doesnt win elections? not in america.
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
No, because the only people who vote in these kind of small elections actually bother to do research on the propositions. If it were a big media deal, you bet your ass the corporations would win.
Tatchko 1 year ago
I would argue two main points. Those that vote in these "unimportant" off-year elections are often going to be the most dedicated and educated voters who would be less likely to fall for the corporate sleight of hand advertising.
The second point is CA is an exception, not only in its average education level for voters, but in the available technology. Being a recent transplant to SC, its clear that some states intentionally make research voting issues difficult.
GuyofDoom 1 year ago
@GuyofDoom
I agree but the corporations will get better, they always do.
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
Corporation have the money to hire better propaganda writers after they have temporary setbacks. I feel as though we could be headed back the days of the Feudal Lords that enough people fought for a revolution to overcome the dominance of transnational companies like the British East India Company. This act of giving a corporation that could theoretically live for ever the same rights as people is still dangerous as well as the trade agreements that don't consider worker benefits and living wage
JKEJulian 1 year ago
I truly doubt that every shareholder of PG&E agreed with the proposed amendment in California, yet the CEO and Board of the corporation thought it was ok to steal money from these shareholders who is opposed to the amendment to pay for their pro-amendment advertising. I would not doubt that over 50% of the shareholders disagreed with the "speech" that was "free" (as in no cost) to the CEO...
It's called theft, fraud, not free speech.
WeBeGood06 1 year ago
Free Speech is an Individual Right, and is only a collective Right in that like minded people can get together and enjoy their Individual Right of Free Speech together in a group. Freedom of Association, a different right.
Corporations are not individuals and do not and should not enjoy the right to free speech, unless every individual owner of the corporation agrees with that speech. Otherwise, the corporation's speech is not universally the speech of the owners, but is the speech of a subset
WeBeGood06 1 year ago
Your right LiberalViewer,
Allowing CEO's, Board of Directors and the like to steal money from the stockholders to broadcast their voice louder and further than anyone else is just free speech. As in "Free" to the CEO and Board of Directors, because the shareholders are footing the bill for their "Speech". Even if the shareholders don't agree, find the "Speech" vile and repugnant to their morals.
LiberalViewer, you need a new word in your vocabulary. Corporatist, those who are in control of..
WeBeGood06 1 year ago
When they spend more on permitted activities, all they end up doing is saturating the voters minds and thus get very annoying and then ignored folowed by hatred and/or disgust. It's like a constant noise or smell. The human mind gets accustomed to the constant input and filters it out. True professionals know this. Politicians are no professionals at advertising, just gladhanding and scamming. Even the professionals they hire admit this.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
No, those two election results are the exception rather then the rule, it's nearly impossible for a person that has less then a consistant seven figure or six figure income to succsessfully run for office.
gooyzit 1 year ago
While I normally love your work, history is full of evidence to the contrary.
rebeccalinares2 1 year ago
@LV -- normally we agree, but in this case *no*.
Corporations, i.e. remorseless engines of greed, can't be given the right to 'buy elections' (even whilst ineffectual) because they learn from mistakes just as we do... they'll get better at it ... then we all suffer. Recall the Bush administration (yes, I'm basically referring to republicans as a buy-able / bought political entity). Bush simply appointed us all some pain. Never give them power.
Even really good kids will abuse a light saber.
Hardryv 1 year ago
This is far from proof. You have way too much confidence in the intelligence of the avg american to not be fooled by propaganda and rhetoric from these corporations. How can you even call yourself liberal and have this viewpoint? To me the way campaings are run and the billions spent by lobbyist in campaign donations is probably the biggest problem in our country.
chillwill120 1 year ago
We in the United States, live in a Corporate/Fascist State--the government does the bidding of the corporations; if the price is right. Most of the regulations are structured to hinder competition and to set up monopolies. A great example is the health-care industry. The price will go up and quality will go down; a characteristic of a monopoly. The ultimate monopoly is the Federal Reserve--which neither federal or has any reserves. All unconstitutional.
sapofgold 1 year ago
It spite of a good argument, proving the lack of a connection between money & election results is not a good enough reason to let corporations into the election process. The perception of fairness is everything when it comes to our public officials & voting. Having candidates for office without corporate backing appears more right and would encourage more voting. It would also increase the grassroots foundation of our nation; therefore, keeping corporations out of elections is more correct.
TainaAtheist1 1 year ago
Are you feeling well, LiberalViewer? It's atypical of you to display quite this much bias (and lack of reason). As others have commented and as you are already well aware, a single example does not support a position. You would need to show a trend based on all available examples.
TritonAlias 1 year ago
I agree with you 99% of the time, but your view on corporate spending on elections I have to disagree on. I was born and raised in California, but moved to a bible belt state as a teen. People are very different here, very naive. The overwhelming majority believe that a man survived inside of a fish's stomach for three days and that there is a bearded man in the sky. They also believe everything they see and hear on TV, including ads paid for by corporations and from lobbyists of corporations.
memphisn8 1 year ago
of course it makes claims of democracy's end look ridiculous... but isn't the real issue weather co's should really be seen as peoplewhen it comes to constitutional rights or if that causes sociopolitical problems since they do not function the same way as individuals and can not possibly be held resposnibla in the same way ( they don't serve jail-sentences). The bill of rights would apply to all the owners, employes and customers of the co, but was it really meant to apply to abstractions?
mbostrom 1 year ago
Canada's electoral and advertising system is better. Proof? The state of the Canadian democracy vs the USA. It's not an over-reaction: It is BAD. Your 3 examples pale in comparison to what has been achieved by corporations through government ownership over the last 30 years. This will only make it worse. I TOTALLY disagree with you on this one.
RecusantPhysis 1 year ago
Your examples are true, but is it unbelievable to think they, the corporations, know more about the demographics now to figure a way to buy votes. I mean to think the the billionaires would spend money, on something other than themselves, they would change up the plan? Thanks Liberal Viewer.
DaSOCIAList 1 year ago
With all due respect liberal viewer, the examples you point out are the exceptions to the rule. Like one of your earlier viewers stated, in more nuanced issues the outcome will likely yield different results. I do agree that the disclosure clause in the law is a good thing, However, do you really want more corporate money in our politics?
sergioconvers 1 year ago
Presenting two isolated cases of big money not getting its will and using this as an argument that money does not corrupt politics in general is almost as dumb as saying "Today was a cold day. Global warming is a hoax." Seriously, you can do better than this.
MrFalderal 1 year ago
I think that's anecdotal evidence, and represents an exception to the rule. Money may not guarantee anything, but it's simply incorrect to say that it has no effect at all or does not matter.
scourge108 1 year ago
the primarily republican SCOTUS did the american people a great disservice by ruling corporations as 'people' with unlimitied donation power.
just because it didn't pan out in california the way the big corps wanted, doesn't mean it won't work elsewhere - unlimited spending allows candidates to reach more people w/more frequency. additionally, the candidates themselves are selling themselves out to corporations vs the people who elect them; look at the republicans apologizing to BP!
carmenelectra10 1 year ago