This decision is an act of treason. Chief Justice John Roberts must be impeached and so must some of the Justices who supported the majority of Citizens United against the Federal Elections Commission. These members of the Supreme Court need to be held accountable through impeachment.
History will judge this decision as a very bad one - just like the Gore v. Bush decision. We were already well on our way to becoming corporatocracy. This ruling just might have put the nail in the coffin of our democracy. Most of our founding fathers would not be happy with this supreme court decision.
Ladies and Gentleman, the next time you cast a vote in a federal election, it will be valued less than the carrot shit in your baby's diaper. 5 of the hooded jesters of the United States Supreme Joke are committing TREASON, by aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war. Getting in bed with multi-visa, multinational corporations and their criminal conglomerates is government by TREASON.
You are not jobless due to the free market, because the market isn't free but rigged.
Free trade is the killer. It stems from the British Empire and the corporations that ruled Britian, like the government in America is ruled today, until Anti-Monopoly Laws were past. British Free Trade ruined everything it touched, like our Free Trade which isn't free or fair for Americans, but Hell they don't care or care to know.
This was about electioneering 30 days prior to an election. Within those 30 days, any individual could have said anything they like. Now, an elite corp (not just any corp). can spend UNLIMITED funds to do this. You can't. Your free speech has effectively been drowned out.
@GovernmentSham912 I doubt he will, because he's always been against that ruling, he's said multiple times that it was a failure on the judicial branch...
Obama lies through his teeth. He also said repeatedly he was against the Patriot Act, torture, secrecy, lobbyists, and ear marks. Yet he is still continuing and expanding them. He himself got more corporate money than even Bush. Regarding the overturning of the supreme court decision, I bet his goons will try to stall a vote in the house at least until after the elections. To make sure he won't have to make that the decision. He knows if he does veto it people will remember this.
What this ruling does, in essence, is take away the American People's voice. Why do politicians need the American People when they have big corporations? All the politicians have to do is to go after the big corporations and and the big corporations will tell the American people who is the best candidate. The American people are becoming less and less important; and the scary thing is, we do not seem to care as long as we can watch TV and go to Starbucks.
@1333fuller No it repeals a bizarre faulty interpretation of the constitution whereby organizations had free speech protection to criticize candidates but not to ask for their removal. Explain how the constitution mandates that.
If I walk outside and protest, I have free speech rights. If you and I and several others protest we have free speech and free association protection. At what point do we lose our free speech rights?
@netster007z Don't you have that free speech zone thing in America? If you can restrict the right of free speech and expression to citizens like that, it makes perfect sense to put some restrictions on corporations. At least it does to me.
@montenegrin2010 Yes some public American colleges do have speech codes which limit speech, then maintain limited 'free speech zones' where students can speak freely. The difference here is that if you do not wish to abide by a school's limiting rules, you can attend a different school. The difference is you can't fire your government.
For the record I oppose all speech codes and believe schools should remove them. Check out thefire.org, an organization which defends academic free thought.
Meadbert, how are you benefiting from this ruling? Why are you defending something that no longer needs a defense? Corporations already won. They don't need your help anymore.
We will all benefit from a less corrupt congress. I do not mean this in a partisan way at all. Since McCain/Feingold Congressional approval ratings in America have hit all time lows, but re-election rates have remained high because McCain/Feingold gave a huge advantage to sitting congressman.
@qigong1001 I love the phrasing as if corporations are some nefarious other entity with distinctly different interests than common people. Most Americans are producers and consumers. We provide labor to a business which we join voluntarily because we find it suits our interests best. Hence, most working Americans are part of a corporation. This knee jerk tendency to try to 'punish' corporations simply adds costs to production, which are passed on through reduced pay and higher prices.
@netster007z There is a difference between the usual consumerism the average corporation (like mine) is involved in and the top tier which control not only the money supply thru trade, but the government, as well as what you see on "public" airways. If you really believe the strawman about about "punishing" corporations business activities, you have been misled. Another fallacy is that corporate leaders or INDIVIDUAL members never had free speech or were not allowed to contribute. .
@qigong1001 You're right, big corporations do control the government to gain subsidies and favorable regulations. That is why we need a free market with few regulations and zero subsidies.
All businesses, big and small, are entitled to the same constitutional rights, so if big businesses lose their free speech so does yours.
The punish corporations line is not a straw man. Here's Hillary Clinton on confiscating business profits.
@netster007z Forget Clinton for now. Lets focus on this ruling.This ruling has nothing to with protecting corporations from any punishment. This gives unlimited controls to top corporations who WRITE the regulations. Thanks to the free market, Im not jobless. But the free market also works to destroy itself. The biggest corps control and WRITE the laws. This ruling only strengthens that power. They put the people in power and bail themselves out whenever. This ruling hurts the free market.
Corporations do not represent Americans. I've never had any corporation ask for my opinion as a stockholder as to who I want to support. In anycase, most corporations will not benefit, only the elite, as crazygolfer333 says.
This ruling only helps one particular class. I'll give you some clues. Its not the poor. Its not the middle. Its not even the rich. It doesn't even help most corporations. It helps the elite 1 to 2% at the top of the economic food chain. No American group will ever be able to compete with the Unlimited funding by a few billionaires unless they all magically get together to challenge them. This is a fantasy.
@meadbert You are defending a decision which no longer needs a defense. The ruling speaks for itself. All the arguments are there. Did you read it? Its one of the longest rulings ever written. Over 180 pages! That alone is disconcerting. If one can't be precise, then one lacks clarity of thought. I've already given you some of my thoughts on "changeyourcongress" 's channel.
You realize that John Paul Stevens' dissent was longer than all of the other opinions added together. Are you implying that he lacks clarity of thought? Although I disagree with Steven's opinion, I believe he had many good points.
You do realize that the "Stevens opinion" was a conglomeration of Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayors' opinion? You do realize that there are 57 pages of non-sequitirs and fallacies (Kennedy, et al) written or argued FIRST that need to be refuted? This dissenting opinion does a relatively good job showing lack of clarity on behalf of Kennedy, et al. But does miss a few key points as we've earlier discussed.
"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves. "
@meadbert The great myth is that a corporation was having its soul-less rights to free speech trampled on. In any case, corporations have always had free speech. This was about electioneering 30 days prior to an election. Within those 30 days, any individual could have said anything they like. Now, a corp. can spend UNLIMITED funds to do this. You can't. Your free speech has effectively been drowned out.
The whole purpose of free speech is electioneering. The framers did not write the first amendment so we could watch porn. The wrote it so we could criticize our government in the run up to elections which is electioneering.
Corporations are associations of people who have the same limitations I do regarding buying ads. They may only buy what they can pay for. There is no problem with that. Those of us too poor to buy tv adds can create a website for $10/month.
@meadbert I'll get to your free speech argument...but I've asked several times here and elsewhere: how are you benefitting from this ruling? Why no answer? If you don't want to, just say so. No one will see yours or my piddly website...thats like putting an ad in the yellow pages or commenting on youtube (sorry youtubers). Unless, you have tons of money to prominently advertise on TV...then of course thats the whole problem. You effectively have no speech.
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
You liberals complain about corporations...but this decision also eliminated limits for the UNIONS. Of course the Democrats in Congress will try to strip corporations of all spending power, but will leave it for the unions
And honestly- all I ever hear about this decision is arguments based on fear. You hate it because you are irrationally afraid of corporations. But I have not seen any good arguments against corporate free speech
Some important limits do remain intact: Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That ban dates to 1907.
The justices also upheld some other restrictions, including disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that advocate for political candidates.
@regina627 They ruled that CORPORATIONS have almost absolute freedom speech. That is based on the idea that they are 'persons'. Do that make any logical sense to you? They are not living beings. They have no flesh nor blood. They will flood campaigns with MILLIONS of dollars. And therefore they will basically control who gets elected.
Free speech for corporations allow millions of milddle class Americans to chip in $20 each to buy advertisements that criticize the government.
With out this you are left with the middle class effectively silenced, while millionaires and billionaires can fund political adds from their vast fortunes.
@meadbert I hope you're joking... middle class Americans? In my home state of Minnesota, Target Corporation and Best Buy Corporation have each invested over $100,000 to a PAC supporting Republican Tom Emmer for Governor. Elite individuals and large corporations have nearly identical interests. And they're just testing the waters right now. Middle class Americans already had the ability to donate $20 each before this rulings. They could donate directly and give lots more to PACs.
The Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution. If we really want to overturn this ruling, then WE THE PEOPLE need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics. There is a movement already underway at Move To Amend (dot) org.
Why do we even have a Supreme Court anymore? They are a joke. A bunch of neo-conservative activist judges making shit up as they go along. They are a joke. Its like putting Faux News on the bench. They have zero credibility.
@y4m5m5 Does the Constitution give you the right to raise your kids any way that you see fit or does it let the government decide for you? Does the Constitution let you travel freely or does it let the government decide for you? Does it let you decide if you want to use birth control or does it let the government decide for you? Its strict constructionists like you morons, the "natural law" bafoons, that would surrender these rights to the government. You flocking monkey.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment
The constitution was in no way written to limit the rights of the people. It was intentionally written to limit the government's power. If we do not interpret it literally, we instead leave it up to the government to interpret it and they will interpret it to give themselves the most power.
@meadbert You are a simpleton. Are you putting me on? No wonder Alito is on the Supreme Court. Morons like you support that white trash because you haven't got the first clue how your own government works. My god are you tea baggers just stupid filthy animals. Why didn't you pay attention in school? Were you a drop out or a home schooled loser?
@rushin2 The 1886 court decision you reference was only regarding the 14th Amendment which says states must provide equal protection to citizens. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 after the Civil War to ensure Black Americans were given equal rights by Southern States. The court's decision was unanimous. Surely you do not believe that States should be able to discriminate against Corporations based on the racial makeup of their shareholders!
Generation Investment Management's founding partners are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations
(Plus former Secretary of the Treasury (under George W Bush) & a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson has ties also to Gore & GIM
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take obamacare ... stock market went soaring again up 1% ... obama is an economic genius .. obamacare is a boom for free markets & capitalism .. & bust for the gop & red china .. join the fox news sponsor boycott
I hate to break it to everyone but the Supreme Court ruled correctly. And do not be fooled by the word "Corporation", the Corporations who tend to spend money on political campaigns arent corporations like McDonalds or E-Trade. The Corporations they are speaking of are Corporations like the ACLU, NAACP, NRA, GOA, etc.
I hate to break it to everyone but the Supreme Court ruled correctly. And do not be fooled by the word "Corporation", the Corporations who tend to spend money on political campaigns arent corporations like McDonalds or E-Trade. The Corporations they are speaking of are Corporations like the ACLU, NAACP, NRA, GOA, etc.
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take mexico ... they shoot fbi agents & their families last week ... & beheaded 15,000 of their own ... their avg lifespan is the same as us ... puurfect says the gop/china ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take foreign control of the gop ... what could happen is we invade a country like iraq because red china needs oil ... then the red army deploys in iraq as they are doing now ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take democracy ... rushbo is having his hooligans flood mrs reid's i mean pelosi's phone lines so she couldn't communicate ... the gop's & red china's version of democracy ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
If corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and You Tube have no free speech. Congress could censor every newspaper article, every broadcast and even every post on You Tube. This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme Court was correct to defend our liberties.
defending our liberties and selling out to the highest bidder are two completely diffrent ball games. in order for the 1st ammendment to apply to corporations they have to be concidered a REAL person...this is an actual law. so if the government wants to start calling buildings real people and giving them all the right as a real person than that means they are defending the liberties of buildings. doesent that seem strange to you? i mean unless you own a corporation then why would you want this?
The Bill of Rights applies to associations of people along with individuals. If the it only applied to individuals, then Congress could seize any property from any corporation without passing a law or having a warrant. They could take any information. They could wire tap every phone call or internet transmission.
Churches would not have freedom of religion.
Universities would have no free speech.
Freedom of assembly means nothing if it only applies to an individual.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. this is the firs amendment of the bill of rights, where does it say corporation? it talks about freedom of speech, if the CEO has that freedom then where is it being stifled? Please help me see your view.
The CEO of MSNBC wishes to run a campaign add on his TV station praising Obama as the best president since FDR and recommending the reelection of a Democrats. McCain-Feingold makes doing so illegal in the month of October.
Not just the CEO, but every shareholder of MSNBC is having their speech suppressed. Anyone who watches MSNBC also loses the right to choose to see that commercial.
@meadbert that makes sense, but the CEO and every shareholder can contribute to obamas campagin. So there individual rights have not been stifled in anyway. I personally think the law that makes corporations people are disgusting, based on the facts of how corporations came about and what there function is in our society. . Its silly and kind of cartoonish that the building and logos now have rights. more influence than an individual? i think so. just another way to take power from the people.
@zooxanthus Contributing to a campaign is not the same as getting your own ideas out there. Politicians would love it if the only way to exercise our right to free speech was through donating to their campaigns. Instead we have the right to independently criticize politicians. Buildings have no rights. Corporations are associations of individuals and those associations enjoy constitution rights. Corporations are not perfect, but they are an improvement on the plantation culture they replaced.
I can see your ideas and how they have validity. But take a look at corporations and the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment was put in place to protect newly freed slaves. corporation uses this amendment to override local elected leaders, especialy when it comes to zoning laws and monopoly laws. just google in corporations and the 14th amendment.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."
It only says what congress may not do. Politicians picking and choosing which associations of people may and may not criticize politicians in the run up to elections is exactly the sort of behavior the framers wanted to prevent.
If corporations have no free speech, then The New York Times, MSNBC and You Tube have no free speech. Congress could censor every newspaper article, every broadcast and every one of our posts on You Tube. This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme Court was correct to defend our freedoms.
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take campaign financing ... meocons, red china, the gop & the supreme court want Government of the people, by the people, for the people, to perish from the face of the earth ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
I guess the right to vote isn't a legally-recognized interest or right these days. Not surprising. So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines. Life, liberty, and property rights to those with money or power. Malfeasancical nonfeasancical illegitimaciness.
The real problem is it just makes more of a mess with rpesect to thiungs that are already problematic. Corporate speech isn't the problem as much as campaign finance in general, immunities problems, agencies problems, fiduciaries problems, ad nauseam problems. Long story short, people don't know their Constitution, government, and laws or things never would have gotten remotely close to this bad. The Constitution needs amended or the justice system needs to start doing their JOBS for real.
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take campaign financing .. the wsj-foxnews-rushbo neocon media is 24/7 politico ads for the gop from foreigners, like Radio Free America in reverse .. great says chairman mao ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take campaign financing ... corporations & foreigners have unlimited spending for elections but you can spend up to $100 ... it's soooo right says chairman mao & the gop ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
"sklanger, show me in the Constitution where corporations have the rights of people."
The Supreme Court did not hold that corporations have the rights of people.
It held that PEOPLE have the right to speak in association with other people, and that these associations may take the form of corporations -- which are comprised of people, duh.
goog2k, it's obvious you haven't even read the decision.
Campaign finance laws regulating direct contributions to political campaigns have nothing to do with this case. This case involves independent corporate spending on political speech for or against a candidate -- not direct contributions to the candidates' political campaigns.
So your "100 years" nonsense is bunk. Mccain-Feingold -- which bans the speech at issue -- was only enacted in 2002.
Even this video talks about the repeal of a 1990 SCOTUS decision.
This first effort at wide-ranging reform resulted in the Tillman Act of 1907. Named for its sponsor, South Carolina Senator Ben Tillman, the Tillman Act prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates. Disclosure requirements and spending limits for House and Senate candidates followed in 1910 and 1911.
dalmation, we've got Meg Whitman from Ebay running for Governor in California.
Meg will probably spend over $130 million of her own money on her campaign. She's already spent $30 million on TV just to get known before the primary.
Can you imagine when all the corporate interests in the U.S. start lining up to put they're own candidates in office, or use their bottomless pockets of stockholder's money to EXTORT politicians for whatever they want??
"the corporate interests in the U.S. start lining up to put they're own candidates in office, or use their bottomless pockets of stockholder's money to EXTORT politicians for whatever they want"
Some corporations already do that. For example, the New York Times corporation. Nobody complained when institutionally liberal media corporations endorsed their preferred candidates.
If you are upset by this ruling by the supreme court that allows unlimited corporate money to flow into political elections then search on YouTube Corporations Aren't People. There is a viral video contest for a $200 first prize. It inspired me a create my first YouTube Video and post it! Speech for HUMAN BEINGS.
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
"Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV."
They run editorials attacking candidates in print, which serve the same function.
Anyway, you contradict yourself here. If the distinction is to be made between print and television, then the decision couldn't have "overturned 100 years of legal precedent" since television as a public medium is less than a 100 years old.
The floodgates are now open to the likes of Legatus, Bishops discretionary funds, Catholic ngo/non profits, other RC CEO's, etc. The real Corporations and their Companio's.
It was bad enough when Frawley had his boyz (Johnson, Nixon, Hunt) help whack Kennedy.
dalmation, we've got Meg Whitman from Ebay running for Governor in California.
Meg will probably spend over $100 million of her own money on her campaign. I've heard she's already spent $30 million just to get known before the primary.
Can you imagine when all the business interests in the U.S. start lining up to put they're own candidates in office.
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
About half the states do not have restrictions on corporate speech in state elections. Your apocalyptic scenarios have not come to pass in these states.
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Stop holding unions in the same breath as corporations. Only 12% of our labor force is unionized. They don't have nearly the purchasing power of one corporations(like Exxon) much less powerful corporate lobbying groups like the Chamber of Commerce.
Why not? Since when does this imaginary entity get a free pass, but a corporate entity does not? Corporations and unions are both comprised of people, are they not?
They have the same free speech rights then, don't they?
BTW, for only 12% of the labor force. how is it that the SEIU gave more money to Obama than all the other orporations combined by a 5-1 margin?
The floodgates are now open to the likes of Legatus, Bishops discretionary funds, Catholic ngo/non profits, other RC CEO's, etc. The real Corporations and their Companio's.
It was bad enough when Frawley had his boyz (Johnson, Nixon, Hunt) help whack Kennedy.
The law that proponents of the ruling keep citing regarding FEC's prohibiting foreign corporations from contributing to US elections is Section 441e. Google that and you will see that there is absolutely nothing in it that prevents a company that was chartered in the US, but later sold to foreign interests from contributing unlimited amounts to our elections. That is absolutely NUTS.
Stand with me demand no corporation may spend from its treasury without the express approval of its owners. If the Supreme Court is going to treat corporations as persons with full First Amendment rights, then you and I need to make sure real people are making those decisions. Sign the petition!
Stand with me to demand no corporation may spend from its treasury without the express approval of its owners.
Sure. Will the petition also include no money to be given from the treasury of unions without the FULL 100% unanimous apporval of ALL voting members of said union?
Like that 60 MILLION given from membership dues of hard-working memebers of SEIU to Obama's campaign last election.
They should also have first amendment rights not to allow a dime of their dues to be given without their consent, right?
You are ignorant about the federalist papers. They are not in any legal format whatsoever. They are papers, like the ones you write for school. They argue for the constitution; they do not create or define anything. Go read them yourself.
And the constitution was made to replace the articles of confederation. That was the most retarded example anyone could have possible come up with.
Screw what I've been saying. Here is part of the intro for the wiki:
"The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government."
Scroll down to the section called "Judicial Use".
Gosh you are ignorant. You'd get a retroactive F in ANY US history or Gov't course of ANY level, EVER. I wish I was joking too.
I already told you the answer to all 3 questions. Just admit you lost before you embarrass yourself further.
"The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government." cont'd...
"Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v Bull, the first decision to mention The Federalist). By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions."
One more time...They are not the same thing. Nor do they have a baring on this case.
For example, Judiasm is based on the Old Testament, Chrisitanity follows the New Testament but is based on the Old. However, you would not necessarily use an Old Testament scripture to explain Christianity as it had it's own set of beliefs.
now one more time, what is your point regarding the Federalist Papers?
Obviously if Madison felt that strongly about them, he'd have incorporated them into law.
The Old Testament Is included in the Christian bible. because it's irrelevant.. Wikipedia says:
The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.
The Old Testament exist side by side with the New Testament, so do the Constitution and the federalist papers. The discussion is relevant and good law.
Reading is a skill. Where did I write the Old Testament was irrelevant to Christianity?
I wrote that you would not necesssarily answer a question on Christian faith by quoting the Old Testament. Is that too hard an analogy for you to grasp?
While both are based in previous writings, one does not necessarily become 100% relevant to explaining the other.
Follow the thread and you'll get a better grasp off the context of the discussion.
wutdaFU3K (3 days ago) Show Hide +1 Marked as spam
Reply | Spam You are ignorant about the federalist papers. They are not in any legal format whatsoever. They are papers, like the ones you write for school. They argue for the constitution; they do not create or define anything
I have read them. Thanks for making my point. They do not define anything. The Constitution does.
"Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v Bull, the first decision to mention The Federalist). By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions."
No, you can't do that. First you have to admit you were wrong about the judicial use of federalist papers. You seem to ignore that you were completely mistaken. Not to mention you had no clue about the federalist papers in the first place, or at least a MINIMAL basic understanding.
Yes, actually I can and will. Read my posts, the point was always what relevancy the Federalist Papers have in this case.
You brought them, tell me the relevancy.
You already admitted they have no relevancy in this matter, for had they you would have no problem whatsoever finingreferences to them in the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens.
No, read your own posts. You say federalist papers in general have no relevancy in any supreme court case and laughed at me. Stop trying to close the case and admit you were wrong.
Sides, I used Madison's words in fed 10 about factions silencing the minority voice, like corporations would do to individuals.
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
This decision is an act of treason. Chief Justice John Roberts must be impeached and so must some of the Justices who supported the majority of Citizens United against the Federal Elections Commission. These members of the Supreme Court need to be held accountable through impeachment.
johnluke1169 7 months ago
History will judge this decision as a very bad one - just like the Gore v. Bush decision. We were already well on our way to becoming corporatocracy. This ruling just might have put the nail in the coffin of our democracy. Most of our founding fathers would not be happy with this supreme court decision.
bpvogel 10 months ago
Ladies and Gentleman, the next time you cast a vote in a federal election, it will be valued less than the carrot shit in your baby's diaper. 5 of the hooded jesters of the United States Supreme Joke are committing TREASON, by aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war. Getting in bed with multi-visa, multinational corporations and their criminal conglomerates is government by TREASON.
solutionrevolutionsolutionrevolution
thechangeling613 10 months ago
You are not jobless due to the free market, because the market isn't free but rigged.
Free trade is the killer. It stems from the British Empire and the corporations that ruled Britian, like the government in America is ruled today, until Anti-Monopoly Laws were past. British Free Trade ruined everything it touched, like our Free Trade which isn't free or fair for Americans, but Hell they don't care or care to know.
carlrammlane 11 months ago
This was about electioneering 30 days prior to an election. Within those 30 days, any individual could have said anything they like. Now, an elite corp (not just any corp). can spend UNLIMITED funds to do this. You can't. Your free speech has effectively been drowned out.
qigong1001 1 year ago
Liberals
watch?v=d78rY5AIm0w
VonHelton 1 year ago
@VonHelton You are a liberal and support radical islam...... WHY!?!?!
PresumptionJunction1 1 year ago
Obama got more corporate money than any other candidate.
Opensecrets dut org
Will he veto whatever bill passes in congress to overturn it? If it does?
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
@GovernmentSham912 wut?
Dai1337 1 year ago
@Dai1337
dot org
Visit the website
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
@GovernmentSham912 "Will he veto whatever bill passes in congress to overturn it? If it does?" wut?
Dai1337 1 year ago
@Dai1337
I am asking if the House passes a bill to overturn the supreme court ruling, will Obama veto it?
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
@GovernmentSham912 I doubt he will, because he's always been against that ruling, he's said multiple times that it was a failure on the judicial branch...
Dai1337 1 year ago
@Dai1337
Obama lies through his teeth. He also said repeatedly he was against the Patriot Act, torture, secrecy, lobbyists, and ear marks. Yet he is still continuing and expanding them. He himself got more corporate money than even Bush. Regarding the overturning of the supreme court decision, I bet his goons will try to stall a vote in the house at least until after the elections. To make sure he won't have to make that the decision. He knows if he does veto it people will remember this.
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
What this ruling does, in essence, is take away the American People's voice. Why do politicians need the American People when they have big corporations? All the politicians have to do is to go after the big corporations and and the big corporations will tell the American people who is the best candidate. The American people are becoming less and less important; and the scary thing is, we do not seem to care as long as we can watch TV and go to Starbucks.
1333fuller 1 year ago
@1333fuller No it repeals a bizarre faulty interpretation of the constitution whereby organizations had free speech protection to criticize candidates but not to ask for their removal. Explain how the constitution mandates that.
If I walk outside and protest, I have free speech rights. If you and I and several others protest we have free speech and free association protection. At what point do we lose our free speech rights?
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z Don't you have that free speech zone thing in America? If you can restrict the right of free speech and expression to citizens like that, it makes perfect sense to put some restrictions on corporations. At least it does to me.
montenegrin2010 1 year ago
@montenegrin2010 Yes some public American colleges do have speech codes which limit speech, then maintain limited 'free speech zones' where students can speak freely. The difference here is that if you do not wish to abide by a school's limiting rules, you can attend a different school. The difference is you can't fire your government.
For the record I oppose all speech codes and believe schools should remove them. Check out thefire.org, an organization which defends academic free thought.
netster007z 1 year ago
Meadbert, how are you benefiting from this ruling? Why are you defending something that no longer needs a defense? Corporations already won. They don't need your help anymore.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001
We will all benefit from a less corrupt congress. I do not mean this in a partisan way at all. Since McCain/Feingold Congressional approval ratings in America have hit all time lows, but re-election rates have remained high because McCain/Feingold gave a huge advantage to sitting congressman.
Now the bums of both parties will get thrown out.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert History suggests otherwise.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001 I love the phrasing as if corporations are some nefarious other entity with distinctly different interests than common people. Most Americans are producers and consumers. We provide labor to a business which we join voluntarily because we find it suits our interests best. Hence, most working Americans are part of a corporation. This knee jerk tendency to try to 'punish' corporations simply adds costs to production, which are passed on through reduced pay and higher prices.
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z There is a difference between the usual consumerism the average corporation (like mine) is involved in and the top tier which control not only the money supply thru trade, but the government, as well as what you see on "public" airways. If you really believe the strawman about about "punishing" corporations business activities, you have been misled. Another fallacy is that corporate leaders or INDIVIDUAL members never had free speech or were not allowed to contribute. .
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001 You're right, big corporations do control the government to gain subsidies and favorable regulations. That is why we need a free market with few regulations and zero subsidies.
All businesses, big and small, are entitled to the same constitutional rights, so if big businesses lose their free speech so does yours.
The punish corporations line is not a straw man. Here's Hillary Clinton on confiscating business profits.
youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z Forget Clinton for now. Lets focus on this ruling.This ruling has nothing to with protecting corporations from any punishment. This gives unlimited controls to top corporations who WRITE the regulations. Thanks to the free market, Im not jobless. But the free market also works to destroy itself. The biggest corps control and WRITE the laws. This ruling only strengthens that power. They put the people in power and bail themselves out whenever. This ruling hurts the free market.
qigong1001 1 year ago
Corporations do not represent Americans. I've never had any corporation ask for my opinion as a stockholder as to who I want to support. In anycase, most corporations will not benefit, only the elite, as crazygolfer333 says.
qigong1001 1 year ago
This ruling only helps one particular class. I'll give you some clues. Its not the poor. Its not the middle. Its not even the rich. It doesn't even help most corporations. It helps the elite 1 to 2% at the top of the economic food chain. No American group will ever be able to compete with the Unlimited funding by a few billionaires unless they all magically get together to challenge them. This is a fantasy.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001
This ruling says nothing about how much billionaires can spend.
It only applies to corporations which are associations of Americans from many classes.
Citizen's United was nothing more than an association of middle class Americans who wished to criticize a "corrupt" senator before an election.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert You are defending a decision which no longer needs a defense. The ruling speaks for itself. All the arguments are there. Did you read it? Its one of the longest rulings ever written. Over 180 pages! That alone is disconcerting. If one can't be precise, then one lacks clarity of thought. I've already given you some of my thoughts on "changeyourcongress" 's channel.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001
You realize that John Paul Stevens' dissent was longer than all of the other opinions added together. Are you implying that he lacks clarity of thought? Although I disagree with Steven's opinion, I believe he had many good points.
meadbert 1 year ago
You do realize that the "Stevens opinion" was a conglomeration of Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayors' opinion? You do realize that there are 57 pages of non-sequitirs and fallacies (Kennedy, et al) written or argued FIRST that need to be refuted? This dissenting opinion does a relatively good job showing lack of clarity on behalf of Kennedy, et al. But does miss a few key points as we've earlier discussed.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001
"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves. "
- Justice Kennedy
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert The great myth is that a corporation was having its soul-less rights to free speech trampled on. In any case, corporations have always had free speech. This was about electioneering 30 days prior to an election. Within those 30 days, any individual could have said anything they like. Now, a corp. can spend UNLIMITED funds to do this. You can't. Your free speech has effectively been drowned out.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@qigong1001
The whole purpose of free speech is electioneering. The framers did not write the first amendment so we could watch porn. The wrote it so we could criticize our government in the run up to elections which is electioneering.
Corporations are associations of people who have the same limitations I do regarding buying ads. They may only buy what they can pay for. There is no problem with that. Those of us too poor to buy tv adds can create a website for $10/month.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert I'll get to your free speech argument...but I've asked several times here and elsewhere: how are you benefitting from this ruling? Why no answer? If you don't want to, just say so. No one will see yours or my piddly website...thats like putting an ad in the yellow pages or commenting on youtube (sorry youtubers). Unless, you have tons of money to prominently advertise on TV...then of course thats the whole problem. You effectively have no speech.
qigong1001 1 year ago
This just destroyed our country.
MoJoSB 1 year ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k
Oh? Does it suddenly eliminate defamation laws?
You liberals complain about corporations...but this decision also eliminated limits for the UNIONS. Of course the Democrats in Congress will try to strip corporations of all spending power, but will leave it for the unions
And honestly- all I ever hear about this decision is arguments based on fear. You hate it because you are irrationally afraid of corporations. But I have not seen any good arguments against corporate free speech
Albyiscool 1 year ago
Some important limits do remain intact: Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That ban dates to 1907.
The justices also upheld some other restrictions, including disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that advocate for political candidates.
regina627 1 year ago
@regina627 They ruled that CORPORATIONS have almost absolute freedom speech. That is based on the idea that they are 'persons'. Do that make any logical sense to you? They are not living beings. They have no flesh nor blood. They will flood campaigns with MILLIONS of dollars. And therefore they will basically control who gets elected.
crazygolfer333 1 year ago
@crazygolfer333
Free speech for corporations allow millions of milddle class Americans to chip in $20 each to buy advertisements that criticize the government.
With out this you are left with the middle class effectively silenced, while millionaires and billionaires can fund political adds from their vast fortunes.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert I hope you're joking... middle class Americans? In my home state of Minnesota, Target Corporation and Best Buy Corporation have each invested over $100,000 to a PAC supporting Republican Tom Emmer for Governor. Elite individuals and large corporations have nearly identical interests. And they're just testing the waters right now. Middle class Americans already had the ability to donate $20 each before this rulings. They could donate directly and give lots more to PACs.
crazygolfer333 1 year ago
@crazygolfer333
A billionaire who owns most of a company gets most of the benefit from his own spending and has an incentive to spend a lot on elections.
Meanwhile a member of the middle class who only owns $100 worth of stock in a company gets far less from spending and has no incentive to spend.
Relying on PACs gives a huge advantage to billionaires over middle class investors.
meadbert 1 year ago
@regina627
you can't expect these poor saps to know the difference between hard money and soft money!
Corporate crony!!
Albyiscool 1 year ago
Corruption in the supreme court.... just now showing it's self or has it always been there?
tdebat 1 year ago
@tdebat we are so lucky that the supreme court ruled for freedom of speech.
regina627 1 year ago
The financing has to be reported. Free speech wins again thanks to badasses like Scalia.
321lawc 1 year ago
The supreme court is as corrupt as the politicians
marieatthelake 1 year ago
@marieatthelake Well, now instead of backdoor deals the financing has to be reported. Free speech should be the last thing to cry over.
321lawc 1 year ago
The Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution. If we really want to overturn this ruling, then WE THE PEOPLE need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics. There is a movement already underway at Move To Amend (dot) org.
wbaltzley 1 year ago
Why do we even have a Supreme Court anymore? They are a joke. A bunch of neo-conservative activist judges making shit up as they go along. They are a joke. Its like putting Faux News on the bench. They have zero credibility.
ParkPlace5677 1 year ago
@ParkPlace5677 You only say that because the court actually ruled using the Constitution. You must be a Obama nanny state marxist butt kissing robot.
y4m5m5 1 year ago
@y4m5m5 Does the Constitution give you the right to raise your kids any way that you see fit or does it let the government decide for you? Does the Constitution let you travel freely or does it let the government decide for you? Does it let you decide if you want to use birth control or does it let the government decide for you? Its strict constructionists like you morons, the "natural law" bafoons, that would surrender these rights to the government. You flocking monkey.
ParkPlace5677 1 year ago
@ParkPlace5677
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment
The constitution was in no way written to limit the rights of the people. It was intentionally written to limit the government's power. If we do not interpret it literally, we instead leave it up to the government to interpret it and they will interpret it to give themselves the most power.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert You are a simpleton. Are you putting me on? No wonder Alito is on the Supreme Court. Morons like you support that white trash because you haven't got the first clue how your own government works. My god are you tea baggers just stupid filthy animals. Why didn't you pay attention in school? Were you a drop out or a home schooled loser?
ParkPlace5677 1 year ago
anything that can be owned can not in its very nature,have any freedom.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
Unions already got around this law, all the court did is level the playing field!
john51880 1 year ago
If Corporations have no free speech, then The New York Times, MSNBC, You Tube and Churches would have no free speech.
Congress could censor every newspaper article, every television broadcast, every post we make on You Tube and every sermon.
This would be incompatible with a free society.
The Supreme Court was correct to defend our liberties.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
You are incorrect in your foundation basis.
Such entities became "persons" only in 1886. You are a "person" by definition. You ARE a corporation yourself.
Better start research now and understand later. Instead of not understanding at all and saying nonsense...
rushin2 1 year ago
@rushin2 The 1886 court decision you reference was only regarding the 14th Amendment which says states must provide equal protection to citizens. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 after the Civil War to ensure Black Americans were given equal rights by Southern States. The court's decision was unanimous. Surely you do not believe that States should be able to discriminate against Corporations based on the racial makeup of their shareholders!
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
sure...
Equal RIGHTS to living souls AND Corporations...
no way...
rushin2 1 year ago
Goog2k's hero
Al Gore & Goldman Sachs
Generation Investment Management's founding partners are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations
(Plus former Secretary of the Treasury (under George W Bush) & a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson has ties also to Gore & GIM
Pecora Commission now!
Thisawareness 1 year ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 1 year ago
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Corporatocracy USA!!!
It's scary!
goog2k 1 year ago
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take obamacare ... stock market went soaring again up 1% ... obama is an economic genius .. obamacare is a boom for free markets & capitalism .. & bust for the gop & red china .. join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hate to break it to everyone but the Supreme Court ruled correctly. And do not be fooled by the word "Corporation", the Corporations who tend to spend money on political campaigns arent corporations like McDonalds or E-Trade. The Corporations they are speaking of are Corporations like the ACLU, NAACP, NRA, GOA, etc.
SupremeCourtWatcher 1 year ago
I hate to break it to everyone but the Supreme Court ruled correctly. And do not be fooled by the word "Corporation", the Corporations who tend to spend money on political campaigns arent corporations like McDonalds or E-Trade. The Corporations they are speaking of are Corporations like the ACLU, NAACP, NRA, GOA, etc.
SupremeCourtWatcher 1 year ago
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take mexico ... they shoot fbi agents & their families last week ... & beheaded 15,000 of their own ... their avg lifespan is the same as us ... puurfect says the gop/china ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 1 year ago
@AgnesBojaxhiu2000 I see you forgot to take your meds before posting Agnes. Keep away from sharp objects for your own sake.
dalmatian847 1 year ago
Roberts added one of the final nails in the coffin of what used to be the USA
MoJoSB 1 year ago
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take foreign control of the gop ... what could happen is we invade a country like iraq because red china needs oil ... then the red army deploys in iraq as they are doing now ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 1 year ago
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take democracy ... rushbo is having his hooligans flood mrs reid's i mean pelosi's phone lines so she couldn't communicate ... the gop's & red china's version of democracy ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 1 year ago
If corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and You Tube have no free speech. Congress could censor every newspaper article, every broadcast and even every post on You Tube. This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme Court was correct to defend our liberties.
meadbert 1 year ago
defending our liberties and selling out to the highest bidder are two completely diffrent ball games. in order for the 1st ammendment to apply to corporations they have to be concidered a REAL person...this is an actual law. so if the government wants to start calling buildings real people and giving them all the right as a real person than that means they are defending the liberties of buildings. doesent that seem strange to you? i mean unless you own a corporation then why would you want this?
zooxanthus 1 year ago
The Bill of Rights applies to associations of people along with individuals. If the it only applied to individuals, then Congress could seize any property from any corporation without passing a law or having a warrant. They could take any information. They could wire tap every phone call or internet transmission.
Churches would not have freedom of religion.
Universities would have no free speech.
Freedom of assembly means nothing if it only applies to an individual.
meadbert 1 year ago
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. this is the firs amendment of the bill of rights, where does it say corporation? it talks about freedom of speech, if the CEO has that freedom then where is it being stifled? Please help me see your view.
zooxanthus 1 year ago
The CEO of MSNBC wishes to run a campaign add on his TV station praising Obama as the best president since FDR and recommending the reelection of a Democrats. McCain-Feingold makes doing so illegal in the month of October.
Not just the CEO, but every shareholder of MSNBC is having their speech suppressed. Anyone who watches MSNBC also loses the right to choose to see that commercial.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert that makes sense, but the CEO and every shareholder can contribute to obamas campagin. So there individual rights have not been stifled in anyway. I personally think the law that makes corporations people are disgusting, based on the facts of how corporations came about and what there function is in our society. . Its silly and kind of cartoonish that the building and logos now have rights. more influence than an individual? i think so. just another way to take power from the people.
zooxanthus 1 year ago
meadbert 1 year ago
I can see your ideas and how they have validity. But take a look at corporations and the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment was put in place to protect newly freed slaves. corporation uses this amendment to override local elected leaders, especialy when it comes to zoning laws and monopoly laws. just google in corporations and the 14th amendment.
zooxanthus 1 year ago
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."
It only says what congress may not do. Politicians picking and choosing which associations of people may and may not criticize politicians in the run up to elections is exactly the sort of behavior the framers wanted to prevent.
meadbert 1 year ago
If corporations have no free speech, then The New York Times, MSNBC and You Tube have no free speech. Congress could censor every newspaper article, every broadcast and every one of our posts on You Tube. This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme Court was correct to defend our freedoms.
meadbert 2 years ago
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take campaign financing ... meocons, red china, the gop & the supreme court want Government of the people, by the people, for the people, to perish from the face of the earth ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 2 years ago
I guess the right to vote isn't a legally-recognized interest or right these days. Not surprising. So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines. Life, liberty, and property rights to those with money or power. Malfeasancical nonfeasancical illegitimaciness.
Parent33w 2 years ago
The real problem is it just makes more of a mess with rpesect to thiungs that are already problematic. Corporate speech isn't the problem as much as campaign finance in general, immunities problems, agencies problems, fiduciaries problems, ad nauseam problems. Long story short, people don't know their Constitution, government, and laws or things never would have gotten remotely close to this bad. The Constitution needs amended or the justice system needs to start doing their JOBS for real.
Parent33w 2 years ago
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take campaign financing .. the wsj-foxnews-rushbo neocon media is 24/7 politico ads for the gop from foreigners, like Radio Free America in reverse .. great says chairman mao ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 2 years ago
@MrWakethesheeple
Not sure what elections youre referring to, but corporations dont have votes here in the US.
war1980 2 years ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Corporatocracy USA!!!
It's scary!
goog2k 2 years ago
Comment removed
goog2k 2 years ago
Comment removed
goog2k 2 years ago
the wsj-foxnews-rushie ECONOMIC FREEFALL neocons is the obstruction politico of NO ... the manson i mean murdoch family (bod & largest shareholder) are led by foreigners mostly from australia & rupert's wife's born in chicom Xuzhou .. meocons CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so they lie & lie ... take campaign financing ... corporations & foreigners have unlimited spending for elections but you can spend up to $100 ... it's soooo right says chairman mao & the gop ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 2 years ago
@AgnesBojaxhiu2000
ROFLMMFAOL.
Out of Clinton, Dole, Bush, McCain, Obama, Kerry, and Gore, can you name the top 3 to receive money from foreign powers?
war1980 2 years ago
@MrWakethesheeple
I completely agree. Corporations shouldnt be allowed to make campaign donations, just unions. Unions can be trusted.
war1980 2 years ago
sklanger, you're right and Wall Street, the insurance companies, & banks already own Washington.
What planet do you live on???
goog2k 2 years ago
On a planet where the United States has something called the First Amendment.
sklanger 2 years ago
sklanger, show me in the Constitution where corporations have the rights of people.
What's next, should corporations also have the right to vote and hold office?
Duhh???
goog2k 2 years ago
"sklanger, show me in the Constitution where corporations have the rights of people."
The Supreme Court did not hold that corporations have the rights of people.
It held that PEOPLE have the right to speak in association with other people, and that these associations may take the form of corporations -- which are comprised of people, duh.
sklanger 2 years ago
sklanger, for 100 years the Congress and the Courts have said corporations DO NOT have a right to spend stockholders' money on political campaigns.
So much for judicial activism.
Duhh????
goog2k 2 years ago
goog2k, it's obvious you haven't even read the decision.
Campaign finance laws regulating direct contributions to political campaigns have nothing to do with this case. This case involves independent corporate spending on political speech for or against a candidate -- not direct contributions to the candidates' political campaigns.
So your "100 years" nonsense is bunk. Mccain-Feingold -- which bans the speech at issue -- was only enacted in 2002.
"duh"
sklanger 2 years ago
sklanger, ever heard of Google dummy???
Even this video talks about the repeal of a 1990 SCOTUS decision.
This first effort at wide-ranging reform resulted in the Tillman Act of 1907. Named for its sponsor, South Carolina Senator Ben Tillman, the Tillman Act prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates. Disclosure requirements and spending limits for House and Senate candidates followed in 1910 and 1911.
goog2k 2 years ago
Except the ruling didn't overturn the Tillman Act.
It has nothing to do with the Tillman Act.
And the ruling didn't concern "direct financial contributions to federal candidates."
Limits on direct financial contributions are still in place.
"Citizens United has not made direct contributions to candidates, and it has not suggested that
the Court should reconsider whether contribution limits should be subjected to rigorous First Amendment scrutiny." Slip op. at 43.
You fail at google.
sklanger 2 years ago
sklanger, you are an intellectually DISHONEST FRAUD.
If corporations can pay for any campaign ads or other campaign spending they wish, WHY would they need to contribute cash to a candidate.
You are spewing PATHETIC neo-con garbage.
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If corporations can pay for any campaign ads or other campaign spending they wish, WHY would they need to contribute cash to a candidate."
Same reason that individuals contribute cash to a candidate even though they can pay for or speak in support of any campaign they wish.
Are you an intellectually dishonest fraud too?
Surely you can't be this dumb.
sklanger 2 years ago
"Even this video talks about the repeal of a 1990 SCOTUS decision"
Which was what I said: 19 years. Not 100 years.
You're insane, and it's obvious you haven't read the decision.
sklanger 2 years ago
Well, I wish that were true. You should tell the 5 WACKO Supreme Court judges who overturned 100 years of legal precedent and voted for it.
Don't the conservatives call that judicial activism?
Oops!
goog2k 2 years ago
Citizens United only overruled 2 cases -- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of Mcconnell v. FEC.
The first was decided in 1990, the latter in 2003.
That's 18 years and 2 precedents. Not "100 years of legal precedent."
sklanger 2 years ago
Correction -- 19 years.
sklanger 2 years ago
@sklanger Liberals have problems with basic math, that why they thing Obamacare will "reduce the deficit"!
dalmatian847 1 year ago
BTW, dalmation, I've yet to see a single reasoned argument from you, just neo-con spam.
Duhh???
goog2k 2 years ago
dalmation, we've got Meg Whitman from Ebay running for Governor in California.
Meg will probably spend over $130 million of her own money on her campaign. She's already spent $30 million on TV just to get known before the primary.
Can you imagine when all the corporate interests in the U.S. start lining up to put they're own candidates in office, or use their bottomless pockets of stockholder's money to EXTORT politicians for whatever they want??
JEEZ, you're a fool.
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"the corporate interests in the U.S. start lining up to put they're own candidates in office, or use their bottomless pockets of stockholder's money to EXTORT politicians for whatever they want"
Some corporations already do that. For example, the New York Times corporation. Nobody complained when institutionally liberal media corporations endorsed their preferred candidates.
sklanger 2 years ago
@goog2k You mean as opposed to Obama raising 700 million after re-neging on public financing by such individuals as "qwerty" and "I.P freely"
JEEZ, you are a hypocritical idiot!
dalmatian847 1 year ago
If you are upset by this ruling by the supreme court that allows unlimited corporate money to flow into political elections then search on YouTube Corporations Aren't People. There is a viral video contest for a $200 first prize. It inspired me a create my first YouTube Video and post it! Speech for HUMAN BEINGS.
xbluebells 2 years ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Corporatocracy USA!!!
It's scary!
goog2k 2 years ago
"Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV."
They run editorials attacking candidates in print, which serve the same function.
Anyway, you contradict yourself here. If the distinction is to be made between print and television, then the decision couldn't have "overturned 100 years of legal precedent" since television as a public medium is less than a 100 years old.
sklanger 2 years ago
dalmatian, you haven't made even one reasoned argument yet.
So, who's spamming???
LOL!!!!
goog2k 2 years ago
googs: that would be you. See re=posting the same timed posts which you claerly didn't write over and over again counts as spam.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The floodgates are now open to the likes of Legatus, Bishops discretionary funds, Catholic ngo/non profits, other RC CEO's, etc. The real Corporations and their Companio's.
It was bad enough when Frawley had his boyz (Johnson, Nixon, Hunt) help whack Kennedy.
Another example of covert subversion going overt
abbesieyes 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The majority on both sides of the aisle in Washington DC. The RCC.
The majority on the Supreme Court 6-3...RCC.
The majority on Obama's Cabinet...RCC.
So, when you wonder why your country is being subverted (and by whom)....its simply a very old enemy of this Republic
abbesieyes 2 years ago
dalmation, we've got Meg Whitman from Ebay running for Governor in California.
Meg will probably spend over $100 million of her own money on her campaign. I've heard she's already spent $30 million just to get known before the primary.
Can you imagine when all the business interests in the U.S. start lining up to put they're own candidates in office.
You really are a blithering fool.
goog2k 2 years ago 4
@googs So fucking what? Meg Whitman spends her own money on a campaign, and this is bad how exactly?
Ms. Whitman by spending her own capital would by less likely to be influenced by special interests when in office. Unlike our current politicians.
This is bad, how?
What does this have to do with this ruling?
It's totally irrelevant, as are your posts are, dumbass!
dalmatian847 2 years ago
@goog2k ddddddddddvsv gr egyaertyaergaerga ergtwt gtawrgtarwgrb saergaergaerg wtwgtwtg ergaerg4t 4t 4t 4t4t q4t
regina627 1 year ago
@regina627Now MSNBC (owned by GE) no longer has a monopoly on free speech. Please read the supreme court ruling to know for yourself, i did.
regina627 1 year ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago 3
Of DNC, by DNC, for DNC.
The nation;s dumbest spanner at it again. How many times do you need to pos the same lame talking point.
Get a clue, googs you dope.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
"We haven't seen anything yet."
About half the states do not have restrictions on corporate speech in state elections. Your apocalyptic scenarios have not come to pass in these states.
sklanger 2 years ago
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Corporatocracy USA!!!
It's scary!
goog2k 2 years ago
@googs, Same shitty spam. I love how you jeep repeating the same post over and over.
I',m reporting you to youtube.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
Poor Spot, he has been getting more rabid, and is now panting like a hound that has been run hard by their master.
Since Spot is a nut-wing droid, it's no wonder that he is so winded from trying to support the insupportable.
TheGranule 2 years ago 2
@Granule. What's it like being a boil on the ass of life?
Why do you have this irrational hatred for the U.S Constitution?
dalmatian847 2 years ago
Stop holding unions in the same breath as corporations. Only 12% of our labor force is unionized. They don't have nearly the purchasing power of one corporations(like Exxon) much less powerful corporate lobbying groups like the Chamber of Commerce.
stanjz 2 years ago
Why not? Since when does this imaginary entity get a free pass, but a corporate entity does not? Corporations and unions are both comprised of people, are they not?
They have the same free speech rights then, don't they?
BTW, for only 12% of the labor force. how is it that the SEIU gave more money to Obama than all the other orporations combined by a 5-1 margin?
dalmatian847 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The floodgates are now open to the likes of Legatus, Bishops discretionary funds, Catholic ngo/non profits, other RC CEO's, etc. The real Corporations and their Companio's.
It was bad enough when Frawley had his boyz (Johnson, Nixon, Hunt) help whack Kennedy.
Another example of covert subversion going overt
abbesieyes 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The majority on both sides of the aisle in Washington DC. The RCC.
The majority on the Supreme Court 6-3...RCC.
The majority on Obama's Cabinet...RCC.
So, when you wonder why your country is being subverted (and by whom)....its simply a very old enemy of this Republic
abbesieyes 2 years ago
The law that proponents of the ruling keep citing regarding FEC's prohibiting foreign corporations from contributing to US elections is Section 441e. Google that and you will see that there is absolutely nothing in it that prevents a company that was chartered in the US, but later sold to foreign interests from contributing unlimited amounts to our elections. That is absolutely NUTS.
paulgrim96 2 years ago
There is nothing that indicates you have a working brain either, but we'll have to take your word for it.
Foreign corporation by definition is just that...a FOREIGN corporation which is not covered under U.S Laws in the first place.
Obviously someone in Mumbai does not have freedom of speech rights either. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that.
Do the black helicopters hovering over your house constantly give you any rest?
dalmatian847 2 years ago
@paulgrim So then amend the current law(441e) to close that loophole if it exists.
That requires a simple majority of which Democrats still have more than enough votes for.
Why don't they close toloophole rather than ignore the Constitutional right of free speech?
So what's stopping them?
Are they just not as smart as you are?
OR
Are foreign corporations irrelavant under this ruling like I thought.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
Stand with me demand no corporation may spend from its treasury without the express approval of its owners. If the Supreme Court is going to treat corporations as persons with full First Amendment rights, then you and I need to make sure real people are making those decisions. Sign the petition!
Stand with me to demand no corporation may spend from its treasury without the express approval of its owners.
paulgrim96 2 years ago 2
Sign the petition!
sherrod brown youknowhat com slash Site slash petition.
paulgrim96 2 years ago 2
Sure. Will the petition also include no money to be given from the treasury of unions without the FULL 100% unanimous apporval of ALL voting members of said union?
Like that 60 MILLION given from membership dues of hard-working memebers of SEIU to Obama's campaign last election.
They should also have first amendment rights not to allow a dime of their dues to be given without their consent, right?
dalmatian847 2 years ago
I'm all for it. Circulate a petition like that and I will sign it.
paulgrim96 2 years ago 2
You are ignorant about the federalist papers. They are not in any legal format whatsoever. They are papers, like the ones you write for school. They argue for the constitution; they do not create or define anything. Go read them yourself.
And the constitution was made to replace the articles of confederation. That was the most retarded example anyone could have possible come up with.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago 2
*possibly
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
I'm not ignorant about the Fedalist Papers, you are making my point for me.
They are irrelevant to this case, why you brought them up is still a mystery to me.
As were the Articles of Confederation, that was my point. Irrelevancy to a SCOTUS case dealing with The Constitution, particularly the 1st Amendment.
What they say and what is the Supreme Law of The Land are two diferent things.
Now, once more time. Why did you bring the Federalist Papers up again?
dalmatian847 2 years ago
AYFKM?
Screw what I've been saying. Here is part of the intro for the wiki:
"The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government."
Scroll down to the section called "Judicial Use".
Gosh you are ignorant. You'd get a retroactive F in ANY US history or Gov't course of ANY level, EVER. I wish I was joking too.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
So tell me something then, genius.
Why are the Federalist Papers not incorporated in the Supreme Law of the Land by the author of both, James Madison.
Why were they not relevant?
Hint: They are not the US Constitution
This was a Constitutional case. Are you comprehending this?
Once again, your ignorance on full display.
Just admit you don't have aclue what you were trying to say and leave it at that.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
I already told you the answer to all 3 questions. Just admit you lost before you embarrass yourself further.
"The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government." cont'd...
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
"Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v Bull, the first decision to mention The Federalist). By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions."
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
One more time...They are not the same thing. Nor do they have a baring on this case.
For example, Judiasm is based on the Old Testament, Chrisitanity follows the New Testament but is based on the Old. However, you would not necessarily use an Old Testament scripture to explain Christianity as it had it's own set of beliefs.
now one more time, what is your point regarding the Federalist Papers?
Obviously if Madison felt that strongly about them, he'd have incorporated them into law.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
The Old Testament Is included in the Christian bible. because it's irrelevant.. Wikipedia says:
The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.
The Old Testament exist side by side with the New Testament, so do the Constitution and the federalist papers. The discussion is relevant and good law.
You have to look at the big picture.
TheSuciocabrone 2 years ago
Reading is a skill. Where did I write the Old Testament was irrelevant to Christianity?
I wrote that you would not necesssarily answer a question on Christian faith by quoting the Old Testament. Is that too hard an analogy for you to grasp?
While both are based in previous writings, one does not necessarily become 100% relevant to explaining the other.
Follow the thread and you'll get a better grasp off the context of the discussion.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
One more time.
wutdaFU3K (3 days ago) Show Hide +1 Marked as spam
Reply | Spam You are ignorant about the federalist papers. They are not in any legal format whatsoever. They are papers, like the ones you write for school. They argue for the constitution; they do not create or define anything
I have read them. Thanks for making my point. They do not define anything. The Constitution does.
That is what the SCOTUS ruled on.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
"Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v Bull, the first decision to mention The Federalist). By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions."
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Then you should have no problem identifying exactly where they were citing The Federalist Papers were in this particular case.
Otherwise it goes back to my original point of relevance.
There is none.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
No, you can't do that. First you have to admit you were wrong about the judicial use of federalist papers. You seem to ignore that you were completely mistaken. Not to mention you had no clue about the federalist papers in the first place, or at least a MINIMAL basic understanding.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Yes, actually I can and will. Read my posts, the point was always what relevancy the Federalist Papers have in this case.
You brought them, tell me the relevancy.
You already admitted they have no relevancy in this matter, for had they you would have no problem whatsoever finingreferences to them in the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens.
Case closed. Have a nice day.
dalmatian847 2 years ago
No, read your own posts. You say federalist papers in general have no relevancy in any supreme court case and laughed at me. Stop trying to close the case and admit you were wrong.
Sides, I used Madison's words in fed 10 about factions silencing the minority voice, like corporations would do to individuals.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago 2
Same lame ass talking point you posted a half-dozen times already googs, got anything better to say before I flag it as Spam?
dalmatian847 2 years ago
"Of DNC spam, by DNC and for the DNC". another seminar spammer with nary an original thought but the same talking points verbatim.
dalmatian847 2 years ago