Citizen Jane Explains the Impact of Citizens United

[AerosmithNirvana]

@Montfortracing - No, I do not. I think the individual people within them have rights. Sorry, I thought I made that clear.

[Montfortracing]

@AerosmithNirvana Of course you made that clear. But you still don't see that groups of people (corporations, PAC's, non-profits, unions, etc.) do have rights. Toaster-ovens are not comprised of people, corporations are comprised of people. Thus is where the corporation get's its rights. Corporations are not like people in that corporations do not have a right to life. People do. But corporations still have rights to protect its assets, property and such from government infringement.

[AerosmithNirvana]

This might just be a matter of semantics, but I think it's still quite important: No. No, corporations should not have rights. People have rights. The PEOPLE who OWN the companies should/do have rights. That's a major difference that I think people need to keep in mind. ....People - not toaster-ovens. ;-p

[Montfortracing]

@AerosmithNirvana But do you think labor unions and non-profit groups have rights?

[Rixar13]

Amend the constitution to fix this mess... Smile :-)

[watcherall]

I am stunned that People for the American Way does not even know what form of government we have. How can we trust an organization that ignorant? A new Amendment? From the ignorant? For your information, we are a republic which protects the minority through a Constitution not a democracy where two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.

[kd1s]

Yes, a Constitutional Amendment would be a good move. Eliminate the notion that corporations have the same rights as a flesh and blood human.

[Montfortracing]

@kd1s No body ever said corporations are like human beings. Corporations (just like labor unions and non-profits) are groups of people exercising their rights in a corporate form. Corporations have rights to bargain, to contract and to property, just like labor unions have rights to bargain, to negotiate, and strike. Yet, no one is complaining that labor unions have those rights, they're the ones who benefited the most from the Citizens United ruling.

[RWRewriter]

Yes, look at how effective all that money was for the Republicans in Califronia!

[Montfortracing]

@RWRewriter Yes, and they still lost! Just shows you that it's not the money that counts, but the message regardless of how much money is spent in elections.

[astraearedux]

very important message, but repulsive to watch. you can do better!

[agitcam]

I agree with the point of this video while it is a bit over simplistic. It may be effect for some audiences. The real problem with the video is the error in history. The 1986 ruling did not declare that corporations are persons. An erroneous statement in the footnotes alludes to corporate person hood but in fact the Supreme Court Chief Justice specifically stated that the ruling in the Rail Road case said nothing about corporate personhood. It is the 2010 ruling which does that. Accuracy counts.

[Montfortracing]

@agitcam Everything in this video is inaccurate. No Supreme Court ruling ever said that corporations are persons. Corporations are a group of persons, but of course they are economic entities. 1976 (Buckley v. Valeo) the Supreme Court said capping election expenditures was illegal. In Citizens United, Justices Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas never said corporations are persons, they never said that corporations can spend boat loads on elections. Caps on corporate contributions are still intact.

[agitcam]

@Montfortracing Ya right, that's why spending on the 2010 mid-term elections went to over 250 million from about 67 million in 2006. It's just a coincidence that the jump in corporate money came after the Supreme Court ruling in early 2010. The best Supreme Court the corporate money can buy. I think you should stick to cooking.

[Montfortracing]

@agitcam It all depends on where the corporations spent their money. And how much of that money came from non-profit corporations and labor unions? For one, after Citizens United there is still a cap on how much corporations and labor unions can contribute to political candidates. Plus, there's always going to be more money spent on elections, and it'll continue to grow because more and more people are going to be involved in politics and elections in the future as the population grows.

[frankftw]

@Montfortracing In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons

[Montfortracing]

@frankftw Except corporations are not like human beings like us. For one, they don't have the right to life. You have to understand, groups of people have certain rights they can exercise. As I mentioned before labor unions have rights to negotiate and strike. Even if the Supreme Court recognized that corporations are persons, what does that mean to you? What does person mean? Can't corporations have rights to protect their assets, their property, their wealth?

[Fireflygamer]

@Montfortracing "Can't corporations have rights to protect their assets, their property, their wealth?" of course they do, they should have rights for corporations that are similar to people when it comes to there own money and property, what they should not be allowed to do is buy the government in order to dismantle the rights of the people in order to make more money. But that is just what they are doing.the people should be deciding who runs the government not the corporations.

[Montfortracing]

@Fireflygamer Corporations buy the goverment primarily through lobbying, not elections. For one, campaign promises from politicians to corporations can change, where as in lobbying, people like you and I do not have a final say. It is lobbying that needs to be reformed, not campaign financing.

[Fireflygamer]

@Montfortracing i think both need reform

[Montfortracing]

@Fireflygamer "I think both need reform" Lobbying needs more reforming than campaign financing. Yet, it's been campaign financing that's had the most laws passed, and all these laws haven't changed anything. Lobbying is where the corporations get most, if not almost all, of their power, not campaign financing. I think I've mentioned this before, at least in elections you still have a right to vote, whereas in lobbying there is almost nothing you can do stop corporate influence.

[Fireflygamer]

@Montfortracing I agree with everything you said, but its the campaigns that are out to hide the truth and focus our attention on wedge issues. If we do not have campaign reform no 3 party candidate or any truly anti corporate agenda candidate would not get elected in order to challenge lobbying. If you want to limit the corporate influence over the government you need to first limit their influence on who wins elections.

[Montfortracing]

@Fireflygamer But at the same time you don't have to listen to the half-truths from campaign ads, nor you don't have to believe them. We've had campaign reform for decades and we still don't see as many third party candidates, nor see as many get elected to public office. What needs to happen is a dramatic reduction in the power of government and for every citizen to realize their worth and continuously contact their public officials about corporate influence in lobbying.

[Fireflygamer]

@Montfortracing First I do ignore campaign ads, but a lot of people do and they are effective that's why they spend so much money on them. Second the reforms you speak of are a joke, the system is still bias to the two party system. I would like to know how you plan on getting this change you want with out REAL campaign reform because until then the money is going to be spent to convince the poeple you want to stand up and protest that they should focus on other wedge issues instead.

[Montfortracing]

@Fireflygamer Again, I don't think many corporations plan to spend so much money on campaign ads. It's not in their interest, unless a candidate promotes policies that will hurt jobs and businesses. Corporations will spend money in elections because laws that we have in place help them focus more on profits. Trying to change campaign financing is not the issue. Changing the laws is the issue. Also, what's wrong with a rich Hollywood star spending millions promoting a candidate?

[Fireflygamer]

@Montfortracin I agree changing the laws so that it protects the middle class and prevents big business for taking advantage of the works is what is important. The problem is who is going to change the laws if they are all in the back pocket of the corporations. Allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on propaganda ads so that the candidates that will support them wins is why the system as it is will not change. For real change to happen we have to have honest people in office

[Montfortracing]

@Fireflygamer Don't forget, it was the free market system that helped grow the middle class to attain greater wealth, just a side note. OK, you know, it's possible that corporations could spend billions of dollars supporting an "honest" candidate, would there be anything wrong with that? Of course not. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that that honest candidate will win the election. What campaign finance reform laws would you pass if you think the current ones are bad?

[Dxmpr72]

@Montfortracing the middle class was born after the war because the u.s. was the only country standing capable of manufacturing. the emergence of unions which demanded fair wages, well funded public education among other things. the free market does not care to grow a middle class. only profits, a corporation only employes people when they absolutely have to and when its within their interest to do so, not out of charity or because they care about the community.

[sabymoon]

@Dxmpr72 Unions have been emerging for more than 500 years. First, as guilds, then as groups trying to get better working conditions. Many people have no idea the good they have done all of us.

[david888wood]

Very weak video with juvenille animation. People for the American Way can certainly find someone better to convey their message!