Corporations obviously have free speech. If not Congress could censor the New York TImes, NBC, You Tube, Church Sermons and what is said on College campuses.
The idea that free speech is an individual right is silly. Speech by nature is between and among associations of people. What does it mean if you have free speech but you can only talk to yourself.
McCain/Feingold was nothing more than a cynical attempt by Congress to ban the criticism of Congress in the run up to elections.
@nwoebcke You simply dont understand that if corporations were not persons, the government would be free to do whatever it wanted to them. It could sieze their property, stifle their speech, envade their privacy, and rifle their books whenever it wanted. It would be the end of American Business as we know it!!!
@dux16 - "It could sieze their property, stifle their speech, envade their privacy, and rifle their books whenever it wanted. It would be the end of American Business as we know it!!!"
everything the defacto gov is doing to the people
I find myself on the side of the dissenting supreme court justices and disappointed by the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts. Where do you find yourselves?
PS... he missed the point that UNIONS, and PAC's should also be categorized as Corporations for election purposes.
Umm... you right-wingers (and/or Freepers) are forgeting something: these are MULTINATIONAL corporations! Sure, let's give these FOREIGN corporations our First Amendment rights! What's wrong with that? You blind, stupid, political hacks.
What sort of fascist country only grants free speech to citizens?
Certainly not America!
America allows the same free speech rights for both citizens and foreigners just as each has the same right to not be murdered.
Congress cannot ban "On the Origin of the Species" just because Charles Darwin is a foreigner. I have the right to read that book. If the Chinese Government produces anti-American propaganda congress cannot ban it. I have the right to read that as well.
Liberals like to use terms like "corporate personhood" as a weird kind of scapegoat because their left-wing representatives aren't doing EVERYTHING that they want, esp. anti-business initiatives. So they say "Aha! They received a contribution from this group. That means they were bribed." Uh, no. Since 1907, at least, corporations have NOT been allowed to give money directly from their bank accounts; they can only form PACs which can give a max of 5 grand to each candidate.
@whoo689 Instead of scapegoating "corporate personhood", how about holding your reps themselves accountable for not getting stuff done that YOU want? How about admitting they may not be as liberal as you expected, that people who run for office are actually fairly moderate compared to their most vocal supporters? The people who enable corporate malfeasance are IN the gov't, and they have the power to change things. You have the power to lobby and tell them to stop it.
@whoo689 All the people on the Left who are skewering the CU decision clearly have never worked in a big corporation, much less served at the executive level. Neither have I. But I am rational, and most businessmen are also fairly rational when it comes to making decisions regarding their companies. They're not gonna waste millions running stupid campaign or issue ads that probably won't get anywhere, all to just try to influence the American people, as if corporate ads will get our support.
@whoo689 Why spend millions on some random issue or campaign ad when they can better use that money for things like R&D or advertising their OWN products to increase profit? Why waste the money on advertising for a bill they favor that may not pass or a bill they don't favor that could very well pass? Esp. in a Democratic Congress, esp. AFTER the election and for 2 years until the next one.
@whoo689 I mean, a lot of wealthy businesses don't even really have many of their OWN lobbyists. They use outside groups like Business Roundtable or Chamber of Commerce to do it for them.
@whoo689 Do union workers (at least the ones who like unions and voluntarily signed up) individually schedule meetings with Congressmen, if they can get it, to lobby for or against a certain bill? Of course not. They let their union leaders and reps do that for them.
The "floodgates" are exaggerated. I'm so tired of bullshit slippery slope arguments from both sides of the aisle on a host of issues. "If we legalize gay marriage, society will crumble" or "If we legalize corporate expenditures for politics, they'll spend billions trying to influence our electoral system", as if somehow that means they'll actually WIN every time, or often.
And it assumes that voters are just gonna go along with the ads simply b/c a corporation said so. come on...
@whoo689 It's been, what, 3 or 4 or 5 months since the CU decision, and we STILL do not see any of this crap happening? I have not seen ONE corporate campaign or issue ad as of yet, saying "support this bill" or "support this measure". Have you?
@whoo689 More speech is always better than less. Restricting speech doesn't work. What about the marketplace of ideas? Why is it that ANYTHING, even if it is in fact truthful and makes sense, said by a corporation automatically "bad"? Why does the Left have this extreme standard for corporations ? Judge the MERITS of what someone says, not just who said it. Just because a particular group says something, it's not necessarily wrong or a lie. It's fallacious to assume the group=claims
All this decision does is allow corporations to give THEIR take on a particular issue, candidate or bill. In no way does it mean they've "bought" our system. Just let them give THEIR side of the story, and you guys on the left can give yours. And then the PEOPLE and their representatives can judge whose side has more merit. Are you afraid the corporations in some cases might actually have a better argument? Why are you afraid of letting corporations speak out? THAT's mind-boggling.
@whoo689 Have the dissenters in the CU case been paying attention to American politics for the last 40 or so years? Or 50? Americans have had little faith in the system for quite some time now! It was exacerbated by Watergate but by no means was started by it. Very few Americans these days actually will say in a poll, for instance, that "the government does what the people want" or "government responds fairly to our needs" and questions of that nature. That didn't happen b/c of corporations.
@whoo689 It happened due to a lazy 2-party duopoly that was never sufficiently challenged by outside forces, esp. 3rd parties, and career politicians on both sides did not pursue our interests with as much vigor as they could've. If you'll recall, FECA was passed not long after Nixon was almost impeached and then resigned after Watergate. FECA was pretty restrictive, although some parts have been struck down or modified by court rulings. Corporate power didn't start these feelings in voters.
@whoo689 And these feelings of apathy certainly aren't gonna start just because corporations get a little free speech. For Thom to make such a ludicrous claim based on a BOGUS dissent by a moron justice (whoever wrote that) in the case, is staggering.
The American electorate has always been fairly lazy in politics. Only a minority get involved often in politics. Voters weren't really any more rational or well-informed on political issues, according to all the relevant data, in the 50s, for example, than now. In the early or mid-1800s, or maybe it was the late 1800s, voting peaked in presidential elections, but it died down after a while to around 60 or 70%. Then gradually it got to our current level. This is nothing new.
The funny thing about campaign finance reform is that there is almost NO empirical evidence that it works, makes our electoral system much more effective and competitive, and actually prevents special interests from gaining influence. They didn't have any evidence when the Dems passed into law FECA, and they don't have much now. It's a bullshit stance that only stifles speech. If CFR works so well, why is our system still so fucked up? Why do we still have corrupt politicians?
@whoo689 CFR proposes putting bandaids on wounds that are beneath the skin- viruses, if you will. You can't stop a virus with a bandaid, as anyone with basic biology knowledge knows. There are few ways to actually do it, one of which is to PREVENT the virus from harming in the first place with a vaccine and develop immunity. Obviously, that's not a solution now since the virus is already entrenched in the system. antibiotics don't work on viruses, either.
What's this Hartmann guy whining about? Stop fucking yelling, guy. Volume ain't gonna make your argument any less deceptive. "Took away from you and me the exclusive right of free speech"... that's a lie. You're a liar.
Slowly coming to realise that the American Left is just the American Right with worse haircuts.
But the libertarians (not neocons, you moron) will tell you that the financial markets were far more regulated than you assumed, before the financial crisis, and that it was government intervention in the markets that caused the crisis.
@sklanger Indeed, the financial market and the health care market were THE MOST regulated markets in the country long before Obama's "reforms." To say they are essentially unregulated, as the Democrats have been doing, is one of the biggest lies they've ever told.
Media is protected under the 1st Amendment. YOUR argument doesn't hold water either.
Liberals endure hate speech, a subset of free speech, from conservatives, fearmongers, racists, pasty white guys in suits, and the fringe- right because we actually believe in your right to do so. If you want to be a 'corporation hugger', be my guest. But it is the right who have always advocated for a corporatist fascist state- somehow it comforts you to be controlled, I think.
What a comicbook conception of the world you have! The Constitution would make NO SENSE if it was interpreted to have an effect only on "Items" of the horse and buggy age". Was the constitution, which was written in the eighteenth century, supposed to make mention of the Internet or satellite TV?
The 'press' was their 'media' of the day!
Your situationally restricting it's interpretation when it suits your agenda!
I did not say anything about "items of the horse and buggy age." The press is a device used to publish. Hence it necessarily includes the printing press and the electronic press.
I'm not the one who's nattering on about how the founders' "vision" of the First Amendment didn't include corporations. If you want to talk about what the founders thought, you better be prepared to acknowledge the meaning of words used in the founding-era.
Orwell would roll over in his grave knowing the level of double think present in today's Republican party and in American philosophy.
Churches have no right to contribute to politician campaigns either you fucking moron. Hahaha you're using financing and speech interchangeably when it suits you and distinctively when it doesn't.
@SoCalAries "Orwell would roll over in his grave knowing the level of double think present in today's Republican party and in American philosophy."
YOU are for GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP of POLITICAL SPEECH.
You really think Orwell would side with you in being for GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP of POLITICAL SPEECH?!
And you are ignorant: churches absolutely have the right to contribute to political campaigns, UNLESS they accept a tax-exempt status from government. You don't understand how it works.
I am for govt regulation of corporate interests tipping the balance of power in their favor and therefore destroying our democracy.
Orwell was not for corporate interests impeding democracy.
I don't know that you understand how it works. Capitalism is a powerful but dangerous thing and is only truly beneficial when democracy imposes controls over it, controls imposed by the people and not by the corporations which invariably push to deregulate. Corporations are amoral.
@SoCalAries I know very well how it all works. But let's be honest: you think your sense of "democracy" is important enough to justify censoring political speech. You are in favor of kicking the First Amendment to the curb, literally ignoring it, so that the govt can censor political speech.
I, however, believe that true democracy cannot exist when govt censors political speech. Down your path is lawlessness and tyranny.
Down YOUR path is the perversion and abuse of democracy!
Capitalism is only beneficial when the people decide what can and cannot be tolerated, but with business DIRECTLY affecting politics, it fucks up the entire principal of the matter. It is not tyranny to tell people that if they want to contribute to campaigns, do it yourself! It's personal freedoms not the freedom of corporate persons to cloud political waters.
@SoCalAries You hate liberty. We already knew that, since you also hate the freedom of speech, but you basically think ALL liberty should be subjected to what "the people" want. That's not the government our Constitution created.
The First Amendment gives people the right to JOIN TOGETHER for political purposes. You're pretending that there's no GROUP rights. There are. The Consitution recognizes that people in a group have more power than individuals and THEREFORE protects that right.
@SoCalAries And what I meant by lawlessness and tyranny is that you simply hate the rule of law. If you don't like a law -- the First Amendment -- you ignore it. You want rule of men, who decide what the law is as they go. That is, by definition, lawlessness and tyranny.
That is not by definition lawlessness or tyranny. That is a pretty dense statement. Rule by the people is democracy. You are calling democracy lawlessness and tyranny. How patriotic.
You're wrong all the way around. What this comes down to is corporate personhood. Corporations are not people and therefore do not deserve the political speech of people. In now way am I disregarding the constitution. What happened to strict constructionism?
@SoCalAries "In [no] way am I disregarding the constitution."
Um.
You are in favor of a law that, literally, abridges freedom of speech.
How you can sit there and say you're not disregarding the Constitution is mind-boggling, but, in fact, you are.
Also, "rule of men" does not mean "democracy." "Rule of men" means people choosing laws as they go along, instead of following previously agreed-upon laws. Democracies must follow rule of law, too. When they don't, we get tyranny of the majority.
Who the hell would want to live in a democracy? Not me, Not Thomas Jefferson, Not George Washington or any of our founders. Do you even understand the word Democracy and what it means?
Behind the guise of hot button issues like free speech and morality this entire mindset conservatives cling to is an affront to democracy. Everyone is laughing at your persuasion worldwide and every other American is fighting for our future against your best efforts. You have been persuaded by powers beyond your comprehension to vote against your own interests.
Who's free speech are we talking about? The corporations themselves? They have free speech through the people involved with them. When a couple marries and has children they don't get a second vote or anything like that as a family. What happened to "strict constructionism"!? Where do corporations fit into the constitution? This isn't a matter of free speech, this is a matter of corruption and buying politicians. If this isn't changed the average worker will have no voice.
We're talking about the speech of people. Funny how the shareholders or members of a corporation aren't people to you.
When a couple marries they don't lose their free speech rights. So why should people lose their free speech rights when they form a corporation, or a union, or a political party?
The Constitution protects the First Amendment rights of people. Corporations are comprised of people.
You are making no sense! I did in no way insinuate that the people involved with a corporation should lose their rights. Your argument is complete moot!
Corporations are comprised of people but are not people. They have limited rights and are in no way citizens in their own right; they are comprised of citizens.
If you knew the definition of fascist, you would know that it is the hybrid of government and corporations. Your broken ideology is enabling fascism.
You insinuated that people lose their right to speak in association with other people when they choose to do so in the corporate form.
People don't have that right "limited" when they're speaking through a corporation, anymore than they have that right "limited" when they're protesting as a group.
As for fascism -- you're the one encouraging government entanglement in the speech of corporations, through censorship. I'm saying the state should stay out of it.
They don't lose it, they never fucking had it constitutionally! People don't loose their right to speech when they are part of a corporation. They just don't constitutionally have the right to pool their resources about manipulate the system. Their corporate form has no right to infinitely fund politicians. Not speech, we're NOT TALKING ABOUT SPEECH.
Without corporate citizenship your entire argument loses it's footing in the constitution. And that's what this argument is about.
People don't have the right to pool their resources? So unions, civil rights groups, political parties, and newspaper publishers -- virtually all of the incorporated -- have no First Amendment protections?
You're such a tool, you have no concept of what you're really saying. You just regurgitate what you heard on Fox. You believe in an ideal with no foundation; you live in a fantasy world. Faux News is a cult.
You make petty little arguments without taking the big picture into account and you can't even win those. I'm sad that nearly half of America would probably agree with you. I suppose we will agree to disagree because you have no fucking ammo. What you do with that info is up to you.
A married couple does not gain an additional citizenship on top of their own individual citizenship.
This is just allowing corporations to forgo PAC's that were already being used to manipulate and tempt politicians.
Now they can exercise whatever kind of corrupt version of "free speech" you condone without limits and in the open.
YOU are a PAWN of big business. You argue on ideological grounds while they make a power play. There are forces at work that you don't comprehend. You are blind.
Who said anything about citizenship? We're talking about free speech, not citizenship. Are you confused?
The vast majority of corporations have a turnover of less than $1 million per year -- most corporations aren't "big business" anymore than most individuals are billionaires.
What you really want is to censor speech from people you don't like. Too bad there's the First Amendment.
LOL!! The entire Supreme Court decision to apply the first amendment to corporations is BASED SOLELY on the assumption that corporations have citizenship! You are a total fucking tool. Do your homework man!
That figure is completely falsified btw. Goldman-Sachs ALONE makes a billion every 3 months.
I don't like you but I would fight anyone who tried to take your right of free speech away. Fyi, THIS is free speech. Financing someone's election is not in the same category as free speech!
I love how you just got smart in the last wave of comments. Before the last volley of propaganda you were just a raving simpleton. Got your thinking cap on now buddy?
Before we move forward with our debate why don't you address the plethora of evidence I presented against your sorry case? You think you can just muster the last word and 'win' after all the shit I threw at you? You haven't even begun to address the issues at stake. You seem to make little insignificant points that have no weight
Corporations are treated under the law as people, this is the basis on which the conservatives have piggybacked their "free speech for corporations" bit. If they weren't considered people, it wouldn't be an issue of free speech. Which it isn't as I've said.
Churches, unions, marriages, families. None of those have the rights of people by themselves, but all get represented THROUGH the people that are involved with them. The institutions themselves don't release a statement, the owners do.
Corporations are treated in some respects as legal persons, but not in all respects. Learn the difference.
And no, that's not at all the basis on which the Court's decision rests -- as the Court itself has made clear. You would know this if you had read the decision -- but you haven't.
Corporations too are represented through the people that are involved with them. So they have the same free speech rights as people belonging to churches, unions, marriages, families.
Why haven't corporations been given the right to vote? I argue that the same reason they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE SAME REASON THAT THEY CANNOT HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON OUR ELECTORIAL PROCESS!
Because the 15th and 17th Amendments asserts that voters cannot be denied the right to vote on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, and sex -- which presupposes that voters have a race, gender, and could have previously been enslaved.
Corporations do not have a race, gender, and cannot be enslaved. Not being natural persons, they can't vote. Simple.
Your example further proves my point. Political parties are incorporated entities. People do not lose their right to vote when they join a political party (which is a corporation).
They even have the right to vote in solidarity with persons of their own political party, who are of similar political persuasion, and presumably support the same candidate.
The Dem or Republican vote can no more be circumscribed than corporate speech can be circumscribed on account of their associational identity.
There is a fundamental difference between the voting members of a political party and the employees and other "non-voting" agents of a corporation. Are you hoping to obfuscate by being recondite? Are you doing it to yourself? Or are you just a hack?
@waterflaws Who said there wasn't a difference? I specifically said "stakeholders," in the corporation. Not employees. Maybe you should learn to read.
There are fundamental differences between the voting members of a political party and the employees and other "non-voting" agents of a for-profit corporation.
"That figure is completely falsified btw. Goldman-Sachs ALONE makes a billion every 3 months."
So every corporation is Goldman-Sachs? Are you retarded?
No, the figure wasn't "falsified."
75% of corporations taxed under federal law have a turnover of less than $1 million per year. See M. Keightley, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Business Organizational Choices: Taxation and Responses to Legislative Changes (2009).
Holy shit is that a convenient statistic. You don't even have to mention how fat the pockets of the ones at the top are!
America is rich as hell but most of the capital in this country is owned by just a few corporations.
Back the the JMT point, 90% of the media is owned by the same 5 corporations. How's that for Jedi Mind Tricks? These people at the top are smarter than us and they have an agenda in which you are but a pawn.
Sure there are big corporations. But the vast majority of them aren't. Just as there as billionaires, but the vast majority of people aren't billionaires.
Just because SOME corporations like SOME people are rich doesn't mean that speech can be banned for corporations in general, or people in general.
But then you're not a fan of free speech. We get that.
No matter how many times we talk about this we just go in circles.
Yea, I'm the fucking censorship lover. I fucking hate free speech and people that hang out in groups have no rights in my book.
You're a goddamned simpleton if you haven't understood that it's not about free speech. This has nothing to do with free speech. You just use it as an excuse, your whole God Obsessed Party uses it as a way to call everyone who disagrees with money-bombing look like a commie.
I like how when dipshits lose an argument, they claim "we're just going in circles, back and forth, no resolution really" as a way to mitigate their loss.
The issue has everything to do with free speech. Virtually all unions, civil rights groups, political parties, and newspaper publishers are corporations. According to you, the state can ban their speech at will.
And you're fine with it.
Liberal fascism at its apogee. Someone should write a book about it. Oh wait -- someone already did.
"Corporations too are represented through the people that are involved with them. So they have the same free speech rights as people belonging to churches, unions, marriages, families."
So you see if that's the case how is this new decision 'removing censorship'? They are already represented, as you've said clearly right here. You aren't connecting the dots, this decision is going to over-represent the people at the top. That's the whole problem.
Because if that's the case, then the case was correctly decided -- since corporate speech is "represented through the people involved with them," then clearly the First Amendment covers it, since corporations are comprised of people.
The result, ultimately, is the same: corporate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Your argument -- that they do not -- just self-destructed.
Being composed of people does not constitutionally grant a group to contribute an unlimited amount of money to a candidate. Money is not equivalent to speech constitutionally and a strict constructionist should know that. None of them do, conveniently.
The reason the right is so dead-set on keeping this decision is because their policies favor business over individual rights and protections. They stand to gain control during reelection.
Except the ruling does not allow a group to "contribute an unlimited amount of money to a candidate."
The Court was pretty clear on this: "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.
"Money is not equivalent to speech constitutionally and a strict constructionist should know that."
Buckley v. Valeo says otherwise. Moreover, money isn't abortion either. Can a state impose spending limits on abortion?
And who says I'm a "strict constructionist"? Who says any of the justices on the Supreme Court are "strict constructionists"? You like inventing a mythical basis for the ruling -- and mythical labels for people -- so that you can proceed to demolish strawmen. Lame.
They have labeled themselves strict constructionists. Uh duhh.
"Money isn't abortion" you mean "abortion isn't free speech"? Hahaha.
People have a right to join any group they want and to say anything they want but the group itself has no right to be considered a person or a citizen itself.
If you know anything about corporations you know they're just in it for the money. They have no political agenda other than 'cut regulation' and 'open foreign markets".
I'm going to repeat the question slowly for you this time: can the state impose a spending limit on abortions, given that money isn't abortion?
If your answer is 'no,' because you recognize that such limits would infringe upon a woman's right to have an abortion -- then you're halfway to realizing that spending limits on political speech would infringe on the First Amendment rights of people.
You ignore the entire premise of the argument and then claim that I'm an idiot. I'm a fucking honor student buddy you're not smarter than me.
Only an idiot would support a system that is not sustainable, an idea which does not and can not exist. Only an idiot would use 'pressure points', i.e. "this is impeading on free speech" in place of logic. You are a fear monger among other things.
And just because I didn't read the entire Citizens United case doesn't mean I don't know what I'm saying.
You're missing the whole point. It has nothing to do with how many massive corporations there are, in fact my point is sharpened by there being only a small percentage. We are talking about obscene amounts of money being used to virtually buy politicians, having these politicians hold the wants of the few at the top who can afford campaign financing over the needs of the many.
Do you get it now? Or are you really that dense? i don't know how many times I have to articulate this for you.
How many times do I have to tell you that this ISN'T ABOUT SPEECH. You are using free speech as a 'pressure point' to make people apposing money bombing look like commies or something. You don't fucking get it. You already said in your last post that they are indeed represented by the people involved with them, so why does the corporation itself get to contribute to elections on top of the shareholders?
Insisting that it "isn't about speech" doesn't make it not about speech.
It's obviously about speech -- a film about a prospective presidential candidate is a classic example of core political speech. You want to be able to ban political speech you don't like, that much is clear.
Since the corporation itself is comprised of its shareholders, it doesn't get to contribute "on top" of the shareholders. It's the sharedholders themselves who are contribution -- through the corporate form.
Well why can't they do it themselves? Oh, that's right, because individuals still have a cap on how much they can contribute that's been constitutionally accepted for decades.
Just like the "free market" or "democracy", "free speech" is an idea that has never occurred.
You can't make threats, you can't walk around naked, you can't bribe politicians. This could all be interpreted as free speech. But these are disruptive and aren't tolerated
This decision is disruptive to representation of people.
The ruling did not overturn caps on monetary contributions to candidates -- whether by corporations or individuals. It overturned a cap on independent expenditures on political speech.
There's no cap on that for individuals. Anyone can spend their own money, without limit, on political speech prior to an election.
The cap is on contributions to a candidate. Not on my own spending on speech. Dig?
Care to address the issue of corporations attempting to weed out candidates before you have a chance to vote for them and how that effects our attempts at fairness and democracy?
What has this alleged "attempt to weed out candidates" have to do with the ruling? Or are you just changing the subject because I melted your face on Citizens United?
You make a good point on paper but the truth is that this is going to make the working class even more under-represented, it is going to increase stratification, it is going to increase the deficit. It is going to lead to more wars with god knows who. It's going to decrease bare-bones regulations that protect consumers. It's going to alienate emerging nations. It's going to increase hatred for us world-wide. It's going to mark the downfall of a great nation.
Which defeats your argument that corporations have no First Amendment rights. Corporations are no more bereft of those rights than churches are bereft of First Amendment protection.
The rest of your polemic is boring proto-marxist fare. Grow up.
They can, genius. They do it as a group because it's more effective when people pool their resources. Why do people protest as a group? Why do people form political parties? Unions? Civil rights groups?
Changing this policy will PRESERVE free speech, which is what at stake here.
"Benito Mussolini invented a new form of government; it was the merger of corporations and state. He called it fascism Welcome my friends to the Fascist States of America. - Thom Hartmann
In an established First Amendment Supreme Court case, a Justice is quoted "The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact," which established certain, finite limits on the First Amendment.
Well thanks to this decision the First Amendment has been transformed into a suicide pact, with Roberts, Alito, Scalia & Co. as the Dr. Deaths and the Corporations as the willing executors of this pact.
@LaGreatChrisMaxie Thank you. I hope I'm wrong and my comment will end up being a bit of hyperbole along the roadside, but I just don't see how this ruling can be considered a good thing.
I am a HUGE proponent of First Amendment rights, but only when it applies to individuals, not legal entities. It will not surprise me if this case goes down in history alongside other notorious decisions like Dredd Scott. Time will tell. :)
"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.
Did you hear the one about the three guys who went into the pizza joint and ordered pizzas? They left, and saw that they all liked the same kind of pizza, and formed the Three Guys Who Like Anchovies Corporation. Next time they wanted an anchovy pie, they sent one of their members to order three pizzas, but were turned away ... and all three individuals were denied their pizza.
So censorship protects lemmings from the mesmerism of corporations? The so-called humanist view of mankind is so sad.
No matter your ideaology, when asking if we should allow our entire political process to be completely up for sale, its common sense...We shouldnt. We live in a different world then in 1776, with new threats, and new variables that the framers never had to consider. Strict constitutionalism is simply detrimental in this case.
It certainly IS a different day. The concept of liberty is different now. Then it was equality of opportunity. Now it's equality of condition. And other morality issues like slavery, murder, theft ... all changed in this brave new world some people enjoy living in. Well, at least in the eyes of people who are philosophically clueless....
If Corporations do not have free speech then that means that the New York Times, Fox News and even YouTube would not have free speech. Congress would be free to regulate the content of every Newspaper, tvstation, radio station and website. Sure you could stand in your drive way and say what you want as a person, but good luck distributing your message.
Free Speech was not granted to people in the constitution. It already existed. Congress was denied the right to infringe on free speech.
Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by the Constitution, so your argument holds no water. What the real ramifications of this ruling implies is that corporations like Exxon- Mobile and United Health are now free to contribute as much money from their treasuries as they want to political campaigns- which, btw, overturns laws in 24 states that specifically prohibits such actions. This is , by definition, judicial activism. Laws in 24 states are now just wastepaper...
Yessir, but as any Highschool level government class will tell you, our judicial system acts on precedent...This ruling broke YEARS of precedent....and for what? to open the floodgates, and allowing corporate money to completely perverse our political system that is already dominated by corporate interests? Corporations are'nt people. They dont deserve the same inherent rights common citizens do. The framers could have never imagined corporations of the size and scope that they are now.
I pose a question to you sir: when our founding fathers were constructing the constitution, would they have wanted to allow wealthy british businessmen free reign to influence our political process just because of the idea of free speech? NO. Bottom line. No. The framers are rolling in their graves right now.
Are you sure you meant to post that question to me? Reading through your posts, we seem to agree entirely. My response to meadbert on the subject was to debunk his argument that without this ruling, the press would eventually be censored- as if it has been without this ruling. Freedom of the press is not the issue. Corporations having the same rights as people is, and it is a treacherous ruling. I believe I mentioned that it overturned rulings in 24 states. I wasn't inferring a good thing.
Have you even read the ruling or the law in question? The point is that media corporations are only exempt because of statute -- which Congress can change at any time.
The basis for that exemption is statutory, not constitutional. If there's no constitutional bar to restricting the speech of corporations, then indeed there's nothing to stop Congress from censoring the corporate press should it choose to do so.
Actually, they did. That's why they drafted the First Amendment. If you disagree, show some evidence that the founding fathers excluded the speech of "british businessmen" from First Amendment protection.
The notion of corporate personhood dates from perjured testimoney (San Mateo County v. So. Pacific Railroad. 1885). It's ironic that John Roberts calls himself a "constitutional originalist" & bases his decision on a combination or perjury and fantasy. By his logic, criminal gangs, dogs, and, lawnmowers could be treated as "persons." The only way to fight this is through a constitutional amendment.
Listen to the Randy Newman song "A Few Words In Defense of Our Country" (from the C.D. titled HARPS AND ANGELS) for a view of the Supreme Court you won't even hear on Thom Hartmann's radio show.
Is this really news? At least we can see who is giving to who... They don't have to do it in secret anymore. I can't believe that people are just now starting to think that corporations run the world...
You're the one that thinks Obama has anything to do with this issue. Did you watch the video? Do you think Obama appointed or has any influence over the conservative criminals that made this ruling? I don't have the time or motivation to explain how asinine your comment was. So, thanks for broadcasting your ignorance so plainly and go fuck yourself. Good night.
First of all, far as I know I said nothing about Obama. Second of all, the government is run by the world's elite, not Obama or democrats or republicans or any other political party. Thirdly, Obama's agenda even worse than Bush, and I never thought I'd say that about anyone. Fourth, study the agenda of the NWO, they've started introducing it into even mainstream media now, it's all part of the plan, one world gov. Lastly, research HAARP and look at Katrina and Haiti again. THEY'RE GONNA KILL US
It seems staying up all night interferes with your math skills. Turns out, I don't know what you meant by 2 years and 11 months, so apologies for that. But, for your omission of the reason you dislike Obama, I'll reserve my right to disagree with you. So what happens in 2 years and 11 months.
I was referencing Dec 21, 2012. It was halfway joke and halfway serious. There's so much propoganda no one can really decipher the truth about that date. I think something will happen, whether it's metaphysical, astronomical or perpetuated by the government. And how do you know I stay up all night? You been using new surveillance technology from the CIA? Again, half joke, half serious. But in all seriousness, research HAARP and Haiti, all of you, take the red pill for once in your lives
and I dislike Obama because he's moving the NWO agenda along. I've been researching this stuff long before Fox News started talking about it (conveniently right after Bush, another NWO puppet, leaves office), ALL mainstream media is propoganda.
"I pledge Allegiance to the Banks of the United Corporations of America, and to the Profits for which they stand, one nation under Greed, Divisible, with Dishonor and Corruption for all."
We the Corporations of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect marketplace, establish Profits, insure workforce instability, provide for the common defense of corporate handouts, promote the general Welfare of the Wealthy, and secure the Blessings of Greed to ourselves and our subsidiaries, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of Corporations.
There is no mention of corporations in the constitution. "WE the people." Enough said. The framers could not foresee, perhaps to their folly, the rise & power of corporations. The only analog at the time were "joint stock companies." But even these artificial constructs came into being with a contractual agreement with a specific government. The same with corporations, but only for a period of time, when after completion they would dissolve. key point DISSOLVE.
Compliants, compliants, I ask what are you doing about it? Thom ends the program everyday with "Democracy begins with you, tag your it." Hopefully after watching this, you are writting your representive.
Everyone in the opes that they would do more than just complain here on Youtube. Sometimes, we post a comment to a story or a video and do nothing more. I'm writing and calling my representives in Washington and I am hoping others would do the same.
Agreed, but what we post here Is making a difference and changing the way things go. Nothing we do is passive. As for calling your representative you have my support although it will not mean anything since this country is a fascist state and not any longer "America."
As for the democratically weasel statement from the likes of devout DLC followers: "Democracy begins with you, tag your it." This statement operates on the false assumption that they are living in a democracy.
I signed Congress. Alan Graysons protest petiton ( savedemocracy website )and also another from Public Citizen! We must repeal 'Corporate Personhood"!!!!!
Personhood? Then they can be sued? Be found guilty of crimes and put in jail? Great!
deafinseattle1 1 month ago
Ron Paul.
paulrprichard 5 months ago
We in A.N.S.W.E.R.
are fighting to abolish corporation personhood.
Join us.
paul8kangas 9 months ago
The creation of laws is now illegal!
bradchesney11 10 months ago
The super wealthy are buying our lawmakers, plain and simple.
judyleasugar97 11 months ago 4
Corporations obviously have free speech. If not Congress could censor the New York TImes, NBC, You Tube, Church Sermons and what is said on College campuses.
The idea that free speech is an individual right is silly. Speech by nature is between and among associations of people. What does it mean if you have free speech but you can only talk to yourself.
McCain/Feingold was nothing more than a cynical attempt by Congress to ban the criticism of Congress in the run up to elections.
meadbert 1 year ago
@nwoebcke You simply dont understand that if corporations were not persons, the government would be free to do whatever it wanted to them. It could sieze their property, stifle their speech, envade their privacy, and rifle their books whenever it wanted. It would be the end of American Business as we know it!!!
dux16 1 year ago
@dux16 - "It could sieze their property, stifle their speech, envade their privacy, and rifle their books whenever it wanted. It would be the end of American Business as we know it!!!"
everything the defacto gov is doing to the people
ngonea 9 months ago
People need a financial education, you have to understand how to work in the monetary system that exists in today's world.
joestauffacher 1 year ago
I find myself on the side of the dissenting supreme court justices and disappointed by the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts. Where do you find yourselves?
PS... he missed the point that UNIONS, and PAC's should also be categorized as Corporations for election purposes.
btrask3 1 year ago
Umm... you right-wingers (and/or Freepers) are forgeting something: these are MULTINATIONAL corporations! Sure, let's give these FOREIGN corporations our First Amendment rights! What's wrong with that? You blind, stupid, political hacks.
nwoebcke 1 year ago 7
@nwoebcke
What sort of fascist country only grants free speech to citizens?
Certainly not America!
America allows the same free speech rights for both citizens and foreigners just as each has the same right to not be murdered.
Congress cannot ban "On the Origin of the Species" just because Charles Darwin is a foreigner. I have the right to read that book. If the Chinese Government produces anti-American propaganda congress cannot ban it. I have the right to read that as well.
meadbert 1 year ago
Target Ain't People
/watch?v=9FhMMmqzbD8
Yankhadenough 1 year ago
this is the WILL TO POWER... read your NIETZSCHE
matrixcmitech 1 year ago
Liberals like to use terms like "corporate personhood" as a weird kind of scapegoat because their left-wing representatives aren't doing EVERYTHING that they want, esp. anti-business initiatives. So they say "Aha! They received a contribution from this group. That means they were bribed." Uh, no. Since 1907, at least, corporations have NOT been allowed to give money directly from their bank accounts; they can only form PACs which can give a max of 5 grand to each candidate.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Instead of scapegoating "corporate personhood", how about holding your reps themselves accountable for not getting stuff done that YOU want? How about admitting they may not be as liberal as you expected, that people who run for office are actually fairly moderate compared to their most vocal supporters? The people who enable corporate malfeasance are IN the gov't, and they have the power to change things. You have the power to lobby and tell them to stop it.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 All the people on the Left who are skewering the CU decision clearly have never worked in a big corporation, much less served at the executive level. Neither have I. But I am rational, and most businessmen are also fairly rational when it comes to making decisions regarding their companies. They're not gonna waste millions running stupid campaign or issue ads that probably won't get anywhere, all to just try to influence the American people, as if corporate ads will get our support.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Why spend millions on some random issue or campaign ad when they can better use that money for things like R&D or advertising their OWN products to increase profit? Why waste the money on advertising for a bill they favor that may not pass or a bill they don't favor that could very well pass? Esp. in a Democratic Congress, esp. AFTER the election and for 2 years until the next one.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 I mean, a lot of wealthy businesses don't even really have many of their OWN lobbyists. They use outside groups like Business Roundtable or Chamber of Commerce to do it for them.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Or countless other industry groups
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Do union workers (at least the ones who like unions and voluntarily signed up) individually schedule meetings with Congressmen, if they can get it, to lobby for or against a certain bill? Of course not. They let their union leaders and reps do that for them.
whoo689 1 year ago
The "floodgates" are exaggerated. I'm so tired of bullshit slippery slope arguments from both sides of the aisle on a host of issues. "If we legalize gay marriage, society will crumble" or "If we legalize corporate expenditures for politics, they'll spend billions trying to influence our electoral system", as if somehow that means they'll actually WIN every time, or often.
And it assumes that voters are just gonna go along with the ads simply b/c a corporation said so. come on...
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 It's been, what, 3 or 4 or 5 months since the CU decision, and we STILL do not see any of this crap happening? I have not seen ONE corporate campaign or issue ad as of yet, saying "support this bill" or "support this measure". Have you?
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 More speech is always better than less. Restricting speech doesn't work. What about the marketplace of ideas? Why is it that ANYTHING, even if it is in fact truthful and makes sense, said by a corporation automatically "bad"? Why does the Left have this extreme standard for corporations ? Judge the MERITS of what someone says, not just who said it. Just because a particular group says something, it's not necessarily wrong or a lie. It's fallacious to assume the group=claims
whoo689 1 year ago
All this decision does is allow corporations to give THEIR take on a particular issue, candidate or bill. In no way does it mean they've "bought" our system. Just let them give THEIR side of the story, and you guys on the left can give yours. And then the PEOPLE and their representatives can judge whose side has more merit. Are you afraid the corporations in some cases might actually have a better argument? Why are you afraid of letting corporations speak out? THAT's mind-boggling.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Have the dissenters in the CU case been paying attention to American politics for the last 40 or so years? Or 50? Americans have had little faith in the system for quite some time now! It was exacerbated by Watergate but by no means was started by it. Very few Americans these days actually will say in a poll, for instance, that "the government does what the people want" or "government responds fairly to our needs" and questions of that nature. That didn't happen b/c of corporations.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 It happened due to a lazy 2-party duopoly that was never sufficiently challenged by outside forces, esp. 3rd parties, and career politicians on both sides did not pursue our interests with as much vigor as they could've. If you'll recall, FECA was passed not long after Nixon was almost impeached and then resigned after Watergate. FECA was pretty restrictive, although some parts have been struck down or modified by court rulings. Corporate power didn't start these feelings in voters.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 And these feelings of apathy certainly aren't gonna start just because corporations get a little free speech. For Thom to make such a ludicrous claim based on a BOGUS dissent by a moron justice (whoever wrote that) in the case, is staggering.
whoo689 1 year ago
The American electorate has always been fairly lazy in politics. Only a minority get involved often in politics. Voters weren't really any more rational or well-informed on political issues, according to all the relevant data, in the 50s, for example, than now. In the early or mid-1800s, or maybe it was the late 1800s, voting peaked in presidential elections, but it died down after a while to around 60 or 70%. Then gradually it got to our current level. This is nothing new.
whoo689 1 year ago
The funny thing about campaign finance reform is that there is almost NO empirical evidence that it works, makes our electoral system much more effective and competitive, and actually prevents special interests from gaining influence. They didn't have any evidence when the Dems passed into law FECA, and they don't have much now. It's a bullshit stance that only stifles speech. If CFR works so well, why is our system still so fucked up? Why do we still have corrupt politicians?
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 CFR proposes putting bandaids on wounds that are beneath the skin- viruses, if you will. You can't stop a virus with a bandaid, as anyone with basic biology knowledge knows. There are few ways to actually do it, one of which is to PREVENT the virus from harming in the first place with a vaccine and develop immunity. Obviously, that's not a solution now since the virus is already entrenched in the system. antibiotics don't work on viruses, either.
whoo689 1 year ago
What's this Hartmann guy whining about? Stop fucking yelling, guy. Volume ain't gonna make your argument any less deceptive. "Took away from you and me the exclusive right of free speech"... that's a lie. You're a liar.
Slowly coming to realise that the American Left is just the American Right with worse haircuts.
Hostile 1 year ago
Orwell would roll over in his grave if he was still alive down there and seriously needed to scratch his back or something
Hostile 1 year ago
The NeoCons want to do the same thing that they did to the financial markets.
DEREGULATE!
We have restricted, through, regulation, the undue influence of Corprations on our electorial process for years!
This will completely disenfranchise the electorate by giving the corporate "WAR CHEST" political supremacy!
SickBoyZap5 2 years ago
But the libertarians (not neocons, you moron) will tell you that the financial markets were far more regulated than you assumed, before the financial crisis, and that it was government intervention in the markets that caused the crisis.
sklanger 2 years ago
@sklanger Indeed, the financial market and the health care market were THE MOST regulated markets in the country long before Obama's "reforms." To say they are essentially unregulated, as the Democrats have been doing, is one of the biggest lies they've ever told.
pudgenet 1 year ago
Jonah Goldberg must be laughing his ass off. This case (and the liberal reaction to it) must surely make his case for "liberal fascism."
If there's any debate over whether liberals can be enemies of free speech, this ends it.
sklanger 2 years ago
@sklanger
Media is protected under the 1st Amendment. YOUR argument doesn't hold water either.
Liberals endure hate speech, a subset of free speech, from conservatives, fearmongers, racists, pasty white guys in suits, and the fringe- right because we actually believe in your right to do so. If you want to be a 'corporation hugger', be my guest. But it is the right who have always advocated for a corporatist fascist state- somehow it comforts you to be controlled, I think.
julsHz 2 years ago
"Media is protected under the 1st Amendment."
LOL. Where does the 1st Amendment say that "the media" is protected? It does not.
Freedom of the press refers to the freedom of the printing press -- the free use of the press to print or publish.
The modern definition of "press" as the institutional press, or "media" was unknown to the founders.
As for being controlled, I'm not the one advocating censorship of corporate speech, as you are.
You're the one who wants to be controlled here, not me.
sklanger 2 years ago
@sklanger
What a comicbook conception of the world you have! The Constitution would make NO SENSE if it was interpreted to have an effect only on "Items" of the horse and buggy age". Was the constitution, which was written in the eighteenth century, supposed to make mention of the Internet or satellite TV?
The 'press' was their 'media' of the day!
Your situationally restricting it's interpretation when it suits your agenda!
SickBoyZap5 2 years ago
"Your situationally restricting it's interpretation when it suits your agenda!"
"The word is Myopia"
Those are their strongest points, you know.
That and Orwellian "double-think".
SoCalAries 2 years ago
Orwell would probably roll over in his grave if he knew that support for freedom of speech is what passes for fascism these days.
sklanger 2 years ago
Very well said. How are Americans supposed to defend themselves against intrusive government when they can't see the forest for the trees?
Hostile 1 year ago
I did not say anything about "items of the horse and buggy age." The press is a device used to publish. Hence it necessarily includes the printing press and the electronic press.
I'm not the one who's nattering on about how the founders' "vision" of the First Amendment didn't include corporations. If you want to talk about what the founders thought, you better be prepared to acknowledge the meaning of words used in the founding-era.
sklanger 2 years ago
Orwell would roll over in his grave knowing the level of double think present in today's Republican party and in American philosophy.
Churches have no right to contribute to politician campaigns either you fucking moron. Hahaha you're using financing and speech interchangeably when it suits you and distinctively when it doesn't.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
@SoCalAries "Orwell would roll over in his grave knowing the level of double think present in today's Republican party and in American philosophy."
YOU are for GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP of POLITICAL SPEECH.
You really think Orwell would side with you in being for GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP of POLITICAL SPEECH?!
And you are ignorant: churches absolutely have the right to contribute to political campaigns, UNLESS they accept a tax-exempt status from government. You don't understand how it works.
pudgenet 1 year ago
@pudgenet
I am for govt regulation of corporate interests tipping the balance of power in their favor and therefore destroying our democracy.
Orwell was not for corporate interests impeding democracy.
I don't know that you understand how it works. Capitalism is a powerful but dangerous thing and is only truly beneficial when democracy imposes controls over it, controls imposed by the people and not by the corporations which invariably push to deregulate. Corporations are amoral.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
@SoCalAries I know very well how it all works. But let's be honest: you think your sense of "democracy" is important enough to justify censoring political speech. You are in favor of kicking the First Amendment to the curb, literally ignoring it, so that the govt can censor political speech.
I, however, believe that true democracy cannot exist when govt censors political speech. Down your path is lawlessness and tyranny.
pudgenet 1 year ago
@pudgenet
Down YOUR path is the perversion and abuse of democracy!
Capitalism is only beneficial when the people decide what can and cannot be tolerated, but with business DIRECTLY affecting politics, it fucks up the entire principal of the matter. It is not tyranny to tell people that if they want to contribute to campaigns, do it yourself! It's personal freedoms not the freedom of corporate persons to cloud political waters.
Down your path are corporate slavemasters.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
@SoCalAries You hate liberty. We already knew that, since you also hate the freedom of speech, but you basically think ALL liberty should be subjected to what "the people" want. That's not the government our Constitution created.
The First Amendment gives people the right to JOIN TOGETHER for political purposes. You're pretending that there's no GROUP rights. There are. The Consitution recognizes that people in a group have more power than individuals and THEREFORE protects that right.
pudgenet 1 year ago
@SoCalAries And what I meant by lawlessness and tyranny is that you simply hate the rule of law. If you don't like a law -- the First Amendment -- you ignore it. You want rule of men, who decide what the law is as they go. That is, by definition, lawlessness and tyranny.
pudgenet 1 year ago
@pudgenet
That is not by definition lawlessness or tyranny. That is a pretty dense statement. Rule by the people is democracy. You are calling democracy lawlessness and tyranny. How patriotic.
You're wrong all the way around. What this comes down to is corporate personhood. Corporations are not people and therefore do not deserve the political speech of people. In now way am I disregarding the constitution. What happened to strict constructionism?
SoCalAries 1 year ago
@SoCalAries "In [no] way am I disregarding the constitution."
Um.
You are in favor of a law that, literally, abridges freedom of speech.
How you can sit there and say you're not disregarding the Constitution is mind-boggling, but, in fact, you are.
Also, "rule of men" does not mean "democracy." "Rule of men" means people choosing laws as they go along, instead of following previously agreed-upon laws. Democracies must follow rule of law, too. When they don't, we get tyranny of the majority.
pudgenet 1 year ago
@SoCalAries
Who the hell would want to live in a democracy? Not me, Not Thomas Jefferson, Not George Washington or any of our founders. Do you even understand the word Democracy and what it means?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal
We don't even live in a true democracy, it's a democratic republic.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
Behind the guise of hot button issues like free speech and morality this entire mindset conservatives cling to is an affront to democracy. Everyone is laughing at your persuasion worldwide and every other American is fighting for our future against your best efforts. You have been persuaded by powers beyond your comprehension to vote against your own interests.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SoCalAries "this entire mindset conservatives cling to is an affront to democracy"
You'e an idiot.
"You have been persuaded by powers beyond your comprehension to vote against your own interests"
You're an idiot.
pudgenet 1 year ago
@sklanger
Who's free speech are we talking about? The corporations themselves? They have free speech through the people involved with them. When a couple marries and has children they don't get a second vote or anything like that as a family. What happened to "strict constructionism"!? Where do corporations fit into the constitution? This isn't a matter of free speech, this is a matter of corruption and buying politicians. If this isn't changed the average worker will have no voice.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
We're talking about the speech of people. Funny how the shareholders or members of a corporation aren't people to you.
When a couple marries they don't lose their free speech rights. So why should people lose their free speech rights when they form a corporation, or a union, or a political party?
The Constitution protects the First Amendment rights of people. Corporations are comprised of people.
sklanger 2 years ago
You are making no sense! I did in no way insinuate that the people involved with a corporation should lose their rights. Your argument is complete moot!
Corporations are comprised of people but are not people. They have limited rights and are in no way citizens in their own right; they are comprised of citizens.
If you knew the definition of fascist, you would know that it is the hybrid of government and corporations. Your broken ideology is enabling fascism.
You are terrible at logic!
SoCalAries 2 years ago
You insinuated that people lose their right to speak in association with other people when they choose to do so in the corporate form.
People don't have that right "limited" when they're speaking through a corporation, anymore than they have that right "limited" when they're protesting as a group.
As for fascism -- you're the one encouraging government entanglement in the speech of corporations, through censorship. I'm saying the state should stay out of it.
You fail at logic.
sklanger 2 years ago
They don't lose it, they never fucking had it constitutionally! People don't loose their right to speech when they are part of a corporation. They just don't constitutionally have the right to pool their resources about manipulate the system. Their corporate form has no right to infinitely fund politicians. Not speech, we're NOT TALKING ABOUT SPEECH.
Without corporate citizenship your entire argument loses it's footing in the constitution. And that's what this argument is about.
Str
SoCalAries 2 years ago
People don't have the right to pool their resources? So unions, civil rights groups, political parties, and newspaper publishers -- virtually all of the incorporated -- have no First Amendment protections?
Get real.
sklanger 2 years ago
You're such a tool, you have no concept of what you're really saying. You just regurgitate what you heard on Fox. You believe in an ideal with no foundation; you live in a fantasy world. Faux News is a cult.
You make petty little arguments without taking the big picture into account and you can't even win those. I'm sad that nearly half of America would probably agree with you. I suppose we will agree to disagree because you have no fucking ammo. What you do with that info is up to you.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
I don't get Fox news.
Even when you go off on a tangent, you get the facts wrong. How dumb are you?
sklanger 2 years ago
@SoCalAries .
The word is Myopia
SickBoyZap5 2 years ago
A married couple does not gain an additional citizenship on top of their own individual citizenship.
This is just allowing corporations to forgo PAC's that were already being used to manipulate and tempt politicians.
Now they can exercise whatever kind of corrupt version of "free speech" you condone without limits and in the open.
YOU are a PAWN of big business. You argue on ideological grounds while they make a power play. There are forces at work that you don't comprehend. You are blind.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
Who said anything about citizenship? We're talking about free speech, not citizenship. Are you confused?
The vast majority of corporations have a turnover of less than $1 million per year -- most corporations aren't "big business" anymore than most individuals are billionaires.
What you really want is to censor speech from people you don't like. Too bad there's the First Amendment.
sklanger 2 years ago
LOL!! The entire Supreme Court decision to apply the first amendment to corporations is BASED SOLELY on the assumption that corporations have citizenship! You are a total fucking tool. Do your homework man!
That figure is completely falsified btw. Goldman-Sachs ALONE makes a billion every 3 months.
I don't like you but I would fight anyone who tried to take your right of free speech away. Fyi, THIS is free speech. Financing someone's election is not in the same category as free speech!
SoCalAries 2 years ago
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The ruling does not say that corporations are protected by the First Amendment because corporations "have citizenship."
There's a fairly obvious reason why: even non-citizens have free speech rights. See Bridges v. Wixon.
You're a moron who hasn't read the decision.
sklanger 2 years ago
It's entirely about citizenship you fucking idiot. Corporations have had citizenship in this country for decades.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
But it isn't about citizenship.
Even non-citizens have free speech rights. Which means that it isn't dependent on "citizenship."
Corporations are citizens for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in federal courts, true -- but that has nothing to do with the Court's holding.
You're a simpleton who hasn't read the decision.
sklanger 2 years ago
I love how you just got smart in the last wave of comments. Before the last volley of propaganda you were just a raving simpleton. Got your thinking cap on now buddy?
Before we move forward with our debate why don't you address the plethora of evidence I presented against your sorry case? You think you can just muster the last word and 'win' after all the shit I threw at you? You haven't even begun to address the issues at stake. You seem to make little insignificant points that have no weight
SoCalAries 2 years ago
haha you're just sad.
There's nothing of substance in your reply, let alone a "plethora" of evidence (what evidence?). You even copy my insults, cretin that you are.
I've made 3 points to your face that you had no answer to.
1. That non-citizens have free spech rights under Bridges v. Wixon and thus 1st Amendment protection doesn't turn on citizenship.
2. That the vast majority of corporations aren't "big business."
3. That you're a moron who hasn't read the decision.
Thanks for playing.
sklanger 2 years ago
It turns on personhood. They are not people. Simple.
That doesn't stop the ones at the top from being huge players in political manipulation.
The fact that not all of them are huge is moot.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
Except it doesn't turn on personhood at all. "Personhood" is not once mentioned in the majority opinion.
And if the fact that not all of them are "huge" is moot, why did you bring up "big business" in the first place? Your own point is moot, dumbass.
sklanger 2 years ago
I totally messed up back there. Replace citizenship with personhood. It totally wrecks your argument fyi.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
"I totally messed up back there."
Yes you totally did. So did your parents. And no, it totally doesn't wreck anything except your own argument.
sklanger 2 years ago
Corporations are treated under the law as people, this is the basis on which the conservatives have piggybacked their "free speech for corporations" bit. If they weren't considered people, it wouldn't be an issue of free speech. Which it isn't as I've said.
Churches, unions, marriages, families. None of those have the rights of people by themselves, but all get represented THROUGH the people that are involved with them. The institutions themselves don't release a statement, the owners do.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
Corporations are treated in some respects as legal persons, but not in all respects. Learn the difference.
And no, that's not at all the basis on which the Court's decision rests -- as the Court itself has made clear. You would know this if you had read the decision -- but you haven't.
Corporations too are represented through the people that are involved with them. So they have the same free speech rights as people belonging to churches, unions, marriages, families.
Deal with it.
sklanger 2 years ago
@sklanger
Why haven't corporations been given the right to vote? I argue that the same reason they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE SAME REASON THAT THEY CANNOT HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON OUR ELECTORIAL PROCESS!
SickBoyZap5 2 years ago
Because the 15th and 17th Amendments asserts that voters cannot be denied the right to vote on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, and sex -- which presupposes that voters have a race, gender, and could have previously been enslaved.
Corporations do not have a race, gender, and cannot be enslaved. Not being natural persons, they can't vote. Simple.
sklanger 2 years ago
Correction: 19th.
sklanger 2 years ago
Your example further proves my point. Political parties are incorporated entities. People do not lose their right to vote when they join a political party (which is a corporation).
They even have the right to vote in solidarity with persons of their own political party, who are of similar political persuasion, and presumably support the same candidate.
The Dem or Republican vote can no more be circumscribed than corporate speech can be circumscribed on account of their associational identity.
sklanger 2 years ago
@sklanger
There is a fundamental difference between the voting members of a political party and the employees and other "non-voting" agents of a corporation. Are you hoping to obfuscate by being recondite? Are you doing it to yourself? Or are you just a hack?
waterflaws 1 year ago
@waterflaws Who said there wasn't a difference? I specifically said "stakeholders," in the corporation. Not employees. Maybe you should learn to read.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger
There are fundamental differences between the voting members of a political party and the employees and other "non-voting" agents of a for-profit corporation.
waterflaws 1 year ago
"That figure is completely falsified btw. Goldman-Sachs ALONE makes a billion every 3 months."
So every corporation is Goldman-Sachs? Are you retarded?
No, the figure wasn't "falsified."
75% of corporations taxed under federal law have a turnover of less than $1 million per year. See M. Keightley, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Business Organizational Choices: Taxation and Responses to Legislative Changes (2009).
How about you do your own homework, douchebag. :)
sklanger 2 years ago
The other 25% are fucking multi-billion dollar a year corporations.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
The other 25% have receipts of $1 million or more. Not "multi-billion."
It must hurt to be you.
sklanger 2 years ago
Holy shit is that a convenient statistic. You don't even have to mention how fat the pockets of the ones at the top are!
America is rich as hell but most of the capital in this country is owned by just a few corporations.
Back the the JMT point, 90% of the media is owned by the same 5 corporations. How's that for Jedi Mind Tricks? These people at the top are smarter than us and they have an agenda in which you are but a pawn.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
I'm smarter than you. But then almost anybody is.
Sure there are big corporations. But the vast majority of them aren't. Just as there as billionaires, but the vast majority of people aren't billionaires.
Just because SOME corporations like SOME people are rich doesn't mean that speech can be banned for corporations in general, or people in general.
But then you're not a fan of free speech. We get that.
sklanger 2 years ago
No matter how many times we talk about this we just go in circles.
Yea, I'm the fucking censorship lover. I fucking hate free speech and people that hang out in groups have no rights in my book.
You're a goddamned simpleton if you haven't understood that it's not about free speech. This has nothing to do with free speech. You just use it as an excuse, your whole God Obsessed Party uses it as a way to call everyone who disagrees with money-bombing look like a commie.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
I like how when dipshits lose an argument, they claim "we're just going in circles, back and forth, no resolution really" as a way to mitigate their loss.
The issue has everything to do with free speech. Virtually all unions, civil rights groups, political parties, and newspaper publishers are corporations. According to you, the state can ban their speech at will.
And you're fine with it.
Liberal fascism at its apogee. Someone should write a book about it. Oh wait -- someone already did.
sklanger 2 years ago
"Corporations too are represented through the people that are involved with them. So they have the same free speech rights as people belonging to churches, unions, marriages, families."
So you see if that's the case how is this new decision 'removing censorship'? They are already represented, as you've said clearly right here. You aren't connecting the dots, this decision is going to over-represent the people at the top. That's the whole problem.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
Because if that's the case, then the case was correctly decided -- since corporate speech is "represented through the people involved with them," then clearly the First Amendment covers it, since corporations are comprised of people.
The result, ultimately, is the same: corporate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Your argument -- that they do not -- just self-destructed.
sklanger 2 years ago
Being composed of people does not constitutionally grant a group to contribute an unlimited amount of money to a candidate. Money is not equivalent to speech constitutionally and a strict constructionist should know that. None of them do, conveniently.
The reason the right is so dead-set on keeping this decision is because their policies favor business over individual rights and protections. They stand to gain control during reelection.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
Except the ruling does not allow a group to "contribute an unlimited amount of money to a candidate."
The Court was pretty clear on this: "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 have no idea what the case is about.
Did I already say you did not read the decision?
sklanger 2 years ago
"Money is not equivalent to speech constitutionally and a strict constructionist should know that."
Buckley v. Valeo says otherwise. Moreover, money isn't abortion either. Can a state impose spending limits on abortion?
And who says I'm a "strict constructionist"? Who says any of the justices on the Supreme Court are "strict constructionists"? You like inventing a mythical basis for the ruling -- and mythical labels for people -- so that you can proceed to demolish strawmen. Lame.
sklanger 2 years ago
They have labeled themselves strict constructionists. Uh duhh.
"Money isn't abortion" you mean "abortion isn't free speech"? Hahaha.
People have a right to join any group they want and to say anything they want but the group itself has no right to be considered a person or a citizen itself.
If you know anything about corporations you know they're just in it for the money. They have no political agenda other than 'cut regulation' and 'open foreign markets".
SoCalAries 2 years ago
"They have labeled themselves strict constructionists. Uh duhh."
Name one.
Provide a quote and a source to back up your claim that justices on the court have labeled themselves as such.
sklanger 2 years ago
I'm going to repeat the question slowly for you this time: can the state impose a spending limit on abortions, given that money isn't abortion?
If your answer is 'no,' because you recognize that such limits would infringe upon a woman's right to have an abortion -- then you're halfway to realizing that spending limits on political speech would infringe on the First Amendment rights of people.
sklanger 2 years ago
You ignore the entire premise of the argument and then claim that I'm an idiot. I'm a fucking honor student buddy you're not smarter than me.
Only an idiot would support a system that is not sustainable, an idea which does not and can not exist. Only an idiot would use 'pressure points', i.e. "this is impeading on free speech" in place of logic. You are a fear monger among other things.
And just because I didn't read the entire Citizens United case doesn't mean I don't know what I'm saying.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm a fucking honor student buddy you're not smarter than me."
LOL. Medal for you.
"And just because I didn't read the entire Citizens United case doesn't mean I don't know what I'm saying."
This speaks for itself. Thanks for the laugh.
sklanger 2 years ago
You're missing the whole point. It has nothing to do with how many massive corporations there are, in fact my point is sharpened by there being only a small percentage. We are talking about obscene amounts of money being used to virtually buy politicians, having these politicians hold the wants of the few at the top who can afford campaign financing over the needs of the many.
Do you get it now? Or are you really that dense? i don't know how many times I have to articulate this for you.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
Your "point" is bunk. So the majority of corporations should have their speech banned because of a "small percentage" of rich corporations?
Should the majority of people have their speech banned because of a "small percentage" of rich people?
Extremely rich individuals can fund political speech prior to an election, without limit. You're saying that they too, can be banned from doing so.
You obviously don't grasp the consequences of your own argument. You really are that dense.
sklanger 2 years ago
How many times do I have to tell you that this ISN'T ABOUT SPEECH. You are using free speech as a 'pressure point' to make people apposing money bombing look like commies or something. You don't fucking get it. You already said in your last post that they are indeed represented by the people involved with them, so why does the corporation itself get to contribute to elections on top of the shareholders?
SoCalAries 2 years ago
Insisting that it "isn't about speech" doesn't make it not about speech.
It's obviously about speech -- a film about a prospective presidential candidate is a classic example of core political speech. You want to be able to ban political speech you don't like, that much is clear.
Since the corporation itself is comprised of its shareholders, it doesn't get to contribute "on top" of the shareholders. It's the sharedholders themselves who are contribution -- through the corporate form.
sklanger 2 years ago
Well why can't they do it themselves? Oh, that's right, because individuals still have a cap on how much they can contribute that's been constitutionally accepted for decades.
Just like the "free market" or "democracy", "free speech" is an idea that has never occurred.
You can't make threats, you can't walk around naked, you can't bribe politicians. This could all be interpreted as free speech. But these are disruptive and aren't tolerated
This decision is disruptive to representation of people.
SoCalAries 2 years ago
You are painfully ignorant and confused.
The ruling did not overturn caps on monetary contributions to candidates -- whether by corporations or individuals. It overturned a cap on independent expenditures on political speech.
There's no cap on that for individuals. Anyone can spend their own money, without limit, on political speech prior to an election.
The cap is on contributions to a candidate. Not on my own spending on speech. Dig?
sklanger 2 years ago
Care to address the issue of corporations attempting to weed out candidates before you have a chance to vote for them and how that effects our attempts at fairness and democracy?
SoCalAries 2 years ago
What has this alleged "attempt to weed out candidates" have to do with the ruling? Or are you just changing the subject because I melted your face on Citizens United?
sklanger 2 years ago
You make a good point on paper but the truth is that this is going to make the working class even more under-represented, it is going to increase stratification, it is going to increase the deficit. It is going to lead to more wars with god knows who. It's going to decrease bare-bones regulations that protect consumers. It's going to alienate emerging nations. It's going to increase hatred for us world-wide. It's going to mark the downfall of a great nation.
I read the damned decision. Not moved
SoCalAries 2 years ago
"You make a good point on paper"
Which defeats your argument that corporations have no First Amendment rights. Corporations are no more bereft of those rights than churches are bereft of First Amendment protection.
The rest of your polemic is boring proto-marxist fare. Grow up.
sklanger 2 years ago
"Well why can't they do it themselves?"
They can, genius. They do it as a group because it's more effective when people pool their resources. Why do people protest as a group? Why do people form political parties? Unions? Civil rights groups?
Because it's more effective, duh.
Honors student my ass.
sklanger 2 years ago
@sklanger
Changing this policy will PRESERVE free speech, which is what at stake here.
"Benito Mussolini invented a new form of government; it was the merger of corporations and state. He called it fascism Welcome my friends to the Fascist States of America. - Thom Hartmann
SoCalAries 2 years ago
No it won't.
The only fascist here is the one trying to censor corporate speech in order to bend them to the will of the state. In other words, you.
sklanger 2 years ago
Why do all the talking heads keep referring to America as "a democracy"?
nameofthepen 2 years ago
In an established First Amendment Supreme Court case, a Justice is quoted "The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact," which established certain, finite limits on the First Amendment.
Well thanks to this decision the First Amendment has been transformed into a suicide pact, with Roberts, Alito, Scalia & Co. as the Dr. Deaths and the Corporations as the willing executors of this pact.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
NICCCE Metaphor sir..,. Welcome to the John Roberts court....Conservative Activism use to be an oxymoron...
LaGreatChrisMaxie 2 years ago
@LaGreatChrisMaxie Thank you. I hope I'm wrong and my comment will end up being a bit of hyperbole along the roadside, but I just don't see how this ruling can be considered a good thing.
I am a HUGE proponent of First Amendment rights, but only when it applies to individuals, not legal entities. It will not surprise me if this case goes down in history alongside other notorious decisions like Dredd Scott. Time will tell. :)
mikepalomino 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
This has been flagged as spam show
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
RON PAUL = FREEDOM
longlivecrow 2 years ago
Did you hear the one about the three guys who went into the pizza joint and ordered pizzas? They left, and saw that they all liked the same kind of pizza, and formed the Three Guys Who Like Anchovies Corporation. Next time they wanted an anchovy pie, they sent one of their members to order three pizzas, but were turned away ... and all three individuals were denied their pizza.
So censorship protects lemmings from the mesmerism of corporations? The so-called humanist view of mankind is so sad.
Chase69Chase 2 years ago
@Chase69Chase Are you calling for a Pizza Neutrality law?
mikepalomino 2 years ago
No matter your ideaology, when asking if we should allow our entire political process to be completely up for sale, its common sense...We shouldnt. We live in a different world then in 1776, with new threats, and new variables that the framers never had to consider. Strict constitutionalism is simply detrimental in this case.
LaGreatChrisMaxie 2 years ago
It certainly IS a different day. The concept of liberty is different now. Then it was equality of opportunity. Now it's equality of condition. And other morality issues like slavery, murder, theft ... all changed in this brave new world some people enjoy living in. Well, at least in the eyes of people who are philosophically clueless....
Chase69Chase 2 years ago
In other words, shred the Constitution when you don't like the results?
sklanger 2 years ago
If Corporations do not have free speech then that means that the New York Times, Fox News and even YouTube would not have free speech. Congress would be free to regulate the content of every Newspaper, tvstation, radio station and website. Sure you could stand in your drive way and say what you want as a person, but good luck distributing your message.
Free Speech was not granted to people in the constitution. It already existed. Congress was denied the right to infringe on free speech.
meadbert 2 years ago
@meadbert
Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by the Constitution, so your argument holds no water. What the real ramifications of this ruling implies is that corporations like Exxon- Mobile and United Health are now free to contribute as much money from their treasuries as they want to political campaigns- which, btw, overturns laws in 24 states that specifically prohibits such actions. This is , by definition, judicial activism. Laws in 24 states are now just wastepaper...
julsHz 2 years ago
Freedom of the Press grants Television Stations to show what programming and commercials they like.
If NBC wants to run an Exxon Commercial that criticizes Congress then NBC has every right to run that commercial.
Congress cannot decide which shows and which commercials it dislikes and ban those.
meadbert 2 years ago
Yessir, but as any Highschool level government class will tell you, our judicial system acts on precedent...This ruling broke YEARS of precedent....and for what? to open the floodgates, and allowing corporate money to completely perverse our political system that is already dominated by corporate interests? Corporations are'nt people. They dont deserve the same inherent rights common citizens do. The framers could have never imagined corporations of the size and scope that they are now.
LaGreatChrisMaxie 2 years ago
I pose a question to you sir: when our founding fathers were constructing the constitution, would they have wanted to allow wealthy british businessmen free reign to influence our political process just because of the idea of free speech? NO. Bottom line. No. The framers are rolling in their graves right now.
LaGreatChrisMaxie 2 years ago
Are you sure you meant to post that question to me? Reading through your posts, we seem to agree entirely. My response to meadbert on the subject was to debunk his argument that without this ruling, the press would eventually be censored- as if it has been without this ruling. Freedom of the press is not the issue. Corporations having the same rights as people is, and it is a treacherous ruling. I believe I mentioned that it overturned rulings in 24 states. I wasn't inferring a good thing.
julsHz 2 years ago
Have you even read the ruling or the law in question? The point is that media corporations are only exempt because of statute -- which Congress can change at any time.
The basis for that exemption is statutory, not constitutional. If there's no constitutional bar to restricting the speech of corporations, then indeed there's nothing to stop Congress from censoring the corporate press should it choose to do so.
Your response to meadbert is inadequate.
sklanger 2 years ago
Actually, they did. That's why they drafted the First Amendment. If you disagree, show some evidence that the founding fathers excluded the speech of "british businessmen" from First Amendment protection.
sklanger 2 years ago
The notion of corporate personhood dates from perjured testimoney (San Mateo County v. So. Pacific Railroad. 1885). It's ironic that John Roberts calls himself a "constitutional originalist" & bases his decision on a combination or perjury and fantasy. By his logic, criminal gangs, dogs, and, lawnmowers could be treated as "persons." The only way to fight this is through a constitutional amendment.
PsychJest 2 years ago
Their are still restrictions on International corporations. The US code still restricts money from the MNCs.
ZDWmiamicane 2 years ago
Listen to the Randy Newman song "A Few Words In Defense of Our Country" (from the C.D. titled HARPS AND ANGELS) for a view of the Supreme Court you won't even hear on Thom Hartmann's radio show.
jimlaregina 2 years ago
CORPORATIONS ALREADY OWN D.C.!!!
Is this really news? At least we can see who is giving to who... They don't have to do it in secret anymore. I can't believe that people are just now starting to think that corporations run the world...
poopstreek 2 years ago
He's right. When I heard about this ruling, I first thought I may never vote again. Why bother?
greenfury87 2 years ago 4
Hell, nobody I know even knows about it. It's so depressing.
maynardr6 2 years ago
2 years and 11 months to go
DaProlifik1reaLyrics 2 years ago
retard alert!
maynardr6 2 years ago
thanks for warning us you're coming, much appreciated for real, take the plank out your eye
DaProlifik1reaLyrics 2 years ago
You're the one that thinks Obama has anything to do with this issue. Did you watch the video? Do you think Obama appointed or has any influence over the conservative criminals that made this ruling? I don't have the time or motivation to explain how asinine your comment was. So, thanks for broadcasting your ignorance so plainly and go fuck yourself. Good night.
maynardr6 2 years ago
First of all, far as I know I said nothing about Obama. Second of all, the government is run by the world's elite, not Obama or democrats or republicans or any other political party. Thirdly, Obama's agenda even worse than Bush, and I never thought I'd say that about anyone. Fourth, study the agenda of the NWO, they've started introducing it into even mainstream media now, it's all part of the plan, one world gov. Lastly, research HAARP and look at Katrina and Haiti again. THEY'RE GONNA KILL US
DaProlifik1reaLyrics 2 years ago
It seems staying up all night interferes with your math skills. Turns out, I don't know what you meant by 2 years and 11 months, so apologies for that. But, for your omission of the reason you dislike Obama, I'll reserve my right to disagree with you. So what happens in 2 years and 11 months.
maynardr6 2 years ago
I was referencing Dec 21, 2012. It was halfway joke and halfway serious. There's so much propoganda no one can really decipher the truth about that date. I think something will happen, whether it's metaphysical, astronomical or perpetuated by the government. And how do you know I stay up all night? You been using new surveillance technology from the CIA? Again, half joke, half serious. But in all seriousness, research HAARP and Haiti, all of you, take the red pill for once in your lives
DaProlifik1reaLyrics 2 years ago
and I dislike Obama because he's moving the NWO agenda along. I've been researching this stuff long before Fox News started talking about it (conveniently right after Bush, another NWO puppet, leaves office), ALL mainstream media is propoganda.
DaProlifik1reaLyrics 2 years ago
"I pledge Allegiance to the Banks of the United Corporations of America, and to the Profits for which they stand, one nation under Greed, Divisible, with Dishonor and Corruption for all."
halfhed13 2 years ago 4
We the Corporations of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect marketplace, establish Profits, insure workforce instability, provide for the common defense of corporate handouts, promote the general Welfare of the Wealthy, and secure the Blessings of Greed to ourselves and our subsidiaries, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of Corporations.
halfhed13 2 years ago 2
There is no mention of corporations in the constitution. "WE the people." Enough said. The framers could not foresee, perhaps to their folly, the rise & power of corporations. The only analog at the time were "joint stock companies." But even these artificial constructs came into being with a contractual agreement with a specific government. The same with corporations, but only for a period of time, when after completion they would dissolve. key point DISSOLVE.
biped19 2 years ago 2
Compliants, compliants, I ask what are you doing about it? Thom ends the program everyday with "Democracy begins with you, tag your it." Hopefully after watching this, you are writting your representive.
royce0869 2 years ago
"Complaints, complaints." To whom are you referring to?
biped19 2 years ago
Everyone in the opes that they would do more than just complain here on Youtube. Sometimes, we post a comment to a story or a video and do nothing more. I'm writing and calling my representives in Washington and I am hoping others would do the same.
royce0869 2 years ago
Agreed, but what we post here Is making a difference and changing the way things go. Nothing we do is passive. As for calling your representative you have my support although it will not mean anything since this country is a fascist state and not any longer "America."
As for the democratically weasel statement from the likes of devout DLC followers: "Democracy begins with you, tag your it." This statement operates on the false assumption that they are living in a democracy.
biped19 2 years ago
I signed Congress. Alan Graysons protest petiton ( savedemocracy website )and also another from Public Citizen! We must repeal 'Corporate Personhood"!!!!!
dullsvillain 2 years ago 3
Hear, hear!
biped19 2 years ago
@dullsvillain
Congresswoman Donna Edwards is proposing a constitutional admendment to stop this fascist supreme court decision.
captcrais101 2 years ago
@captcrais101
I'm googlin' that......thanks
dullsvillain 2 years ago