I would be fine with corporations staying out of politics, if Rachael Maddow and her ilk in the media would stay out of politics.
Corporate bought adds are a drop in the bucket compared to liberal bias of media workers.
Go to a communications class at a university and take a poll. They are 99% liberal. I have seen it in a lecture hall with 500 students, "All those voting democrat raise your hand."
The governments rights stop when abridging free speech is involved. Thank god the supreme court has read the constitution, I would suggest you do the same.
If corporations are "people" then are they not also subject to the responsibilities as well as the rights of individuals--in other words, if a corporation's is found to have cut corners in producing a product, and this leads to a death, who will serve the sentence for involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide? The CEO? The entire board?
This argument is manufactured left wing authoritarian propaganda. Read the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..." The debate was not if a corporation is a person, but if congress could make a law abridging free speech. When you start with the premise that the government gives you free speech you are in a very dangerous place.
What an idiot. It's not about money, it's about freedom of speech. Using this law as it was written, this law could have been used to ban folks like Maddow, whose speech is alwasy political. Not only could they ban broadcast political speech, but print - we're talking about banning books here. Hello? RM has no brains. Just a typical socialist ambulance chaser, Chicken Little.
@abqmarchosias you have no understanding of this decision. the law it removed keeps CORPORATIONS from donating endlessly to campaigns and screwing up democracy.
@liberalmike1994 NO! The decision removed the part of the law that banned corporations and labor unions (and other organizations) from using expenditures to pay for political ads and other electioneering communications. Corporations are not going to screw up democracy because almost every corporation is not interested in being involved in politics.
@Montfortracing lol corporations aren't interested in politics?!?!!? if thats the case than why do they spend millions on lobbying. even if that was the case the stability of our democracy shouldn't depend on corporations not being interested in fucking it up. now any politician who is willing to suck up to corporations enough will have millions of dollars in free advertising backing them up.
@liberalmike1994 There lies the problem. Corporations are not interested in election politics, but in lobbying. Their lobbying is more of a threat to democracy than them spending money on political ads. Why? Because as a voter you still have a right to vote, despite all the corporate ads promoting a candidate. Whereas in lobbying your voice is silenced. So instead of campaign finance reform, there should be laws restricting how much corporations can lobby to Congress.
@liberalmike1994 Plus, I don't think corporations want to spend so much money in elections as much as they'll want to spend money on lobbying. If ExxonMobil spends billions of dollars on a political ad asking people to vote for candidate A, are the people really going to vote for candidate A? No. For one, most people hate ExxonMobil anyways. You still have the choice to not vote for candidate A. Also, candidate A may not guarantee ExxonMobil his/her election promises.
@Montfortracing you still have a choice however theres a documented link beetween amount of advertising and success in elections. Theres no law that says exxon would have to say they made the commercial instead of just creating a puppet group (like citizens united) to make their advertisements.
@liberalmike1994 If you read the beginning of Justice Kennedy's opinion, he explicitly said that disclosure of political ads by organizations (corporations, unions, non-profits, etc.) is still law. Plus, even if companies created puppet groups, the company would still need permission from the board or stockholders to send money to that "puppet" group. What would this puppet group have to say? I think McCain-Feingold still requires corporations to form PAC's to voice their opinions too.
@liberalmike1994 I don't think there is much of a correlation between amount of advertising and success in elections. Voters usually resonate more with the message than a candidate's exposure on TV.
They do much more then give TV ads, they have to travel, do rallies, give out flyers, get their word out in any way possible. That all requires massive amounts of money and it does make a big difference.
@lildread1 Corporations have unlimited amounts of money that can sway popular opinion if we allow it. The key here is to not believe everything you see on TV. Know the facts, be involved, spread the word (word of mouth) on facts that you can back up...not just opinion but facts.
Time for the people who spend their money on corporations to ensure the corporate interests are sustainable. If the people don't like a corporation defending laws, then they can stop spending each month with that company, so it can't afford to finance. world sustainability is consumers and entrepreneurs/corporations working together.
This is a free speech issue and the BHO is heavy into control and censorship of his opponents. When BHO lawyer at the FEC told the Supreme Court that the law could ban books and all other media that people could use to influence a election. If all corporations are banned from influencing an election then MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN and all other media CORPORATIONS must also be banned from commenting on candidates before the election.
Keith and Rachel do you real want to join the ranks of the unemployed
"Changes 100 yrs of election law" BULLSHIT!!! All they did was over turned McCain/Feingold. And everybody knew it would be over turned. But I hope to God big companies do use their power to get OSHA & the EPA under control, stop illegal trade policies, lower taxes on corp, and start bringing some jobs back to AMerica, which the democrat party is certainly not interested in.
Wow... wut ignorance.. What about all the jobs bush sent across the world? Outsourcing?? wut about the tax incentives bush admin gave to corps to leave the US?? feel free to show more of ur ignorance !!!
@cano21 "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of MAN. Every CITIZEN may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law" NOW G.E. is a citizen. how about foriegn owned companies with US subsidies? you want them to have freedom of speech? are you serious? or are you just disagreeing with the left wing pundits? you know john McCain warned us about this.
right. so you think that a corporation is a person, and should be allowed more rights than a person? because there are still caps on how much an individual can donate to potitical candidates.
I would be fine with corporations staying out of politics, if Rachael Maddow and her ilk in the media would stay out of politics.
Corporate bought adds are a drop in the bucket compared to liberal bias of media workers.
Go to a communications class at a university and take a poll. They are 99% liberal. I have seen it in a lecture hall with 500 students, "All those voting democrat raise your hand."
tnekkc 1 month ago
The governments rights stop when abridging free speech is involved. Thank god the supreme court has read the constitution, I would suggest you do the same.
nathanlabish 2 months ago
@nathanlabish FUCK you. that is all.
OccupyToad 1 month ago
If corporations are "people" then are they not also subject to the responsibilities as well as the rights of individuals--in other words, if a corporation's is found to have cut corners in producing a product, and this leads to a death, who will serve the sentence for involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide? The CEO? The entire board?
hatemorethanyou999 8 months ago 3
This argument is manufactured left wing authoritarian propaganda. Read the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..." The debate was not if a corporation is a person, but if congress could make a law abridging free speech. When you start with the premise that the government gives you free speech you are in a very dangerous place.
nathanlabish 2 months ago
@nathanlabish The corporations' rights stops where the public's rights begin, which is why the court's ruling is wrong.
scottandrewhutchins 2 months ago
"will healthcare reform be the first tragedy?"
oh how correct you are... how correct you are.
lildread1 10 months ago
republicrats
shaineandrahel 1 year ago
What an idiot. It's not about money, it's about freedom of speech. Using this law as it was written, this law could have been used to ban folks like Maddow, whose speech is alwasy political. Not only could they ban broadcast political speech, but print - we're talking about banning books here. Hello? RM has no brains. Just a typical socialist ambulance chaser, Chicken Little.
abqmarchosias 1 year ago
@abqmarchosias you have no understanding of this decision. the law it removed keeps CORPORATIONS from donating endlessly to campaigns and screwing up democracy.
liberalmike1994 1 year ago
@liberalmike1994 NO! The decision removed the part of the law that banned corporations and labor unions (and other organizations) from using expenditures to pay for political ads and other electioneering communications. Corporations are not going to screw up democracy because almost every corporation is not interested in being involved in politics.
Montfortracing 1 year ago
@Montfortracing lol corporations aren't interested in politics?!?!!? if thats the case than why do they spend millions on lobbying. even if that was the case the stability of our democracy shouldn't depend on corporations not being interested in fucking it up. now any politician who is willing to suck up to corporations enough will have millions of dollars in free advertising backing them up.
liberalmike1994 1 year ago
@liberalmike1994 There lies the problem. Corporations are not interested in election politics, but in lobbying. Their lobbying is more of a threat to democracy than them spending money on political ads. Why? Because as a voter you still have a right to vote, despite all the corporate ads promoting a candidate. Whereas in lobbying your voice is silenced. So instead of campaign finance reform, there should be laws restricting how much corporations can lobby to Congress.
Montfortracing 1 year ago
@liberalmike1994 Plus, I don't think corporations want to spend so much money in elections as much as they'll want to spend money on lobbying. If ExxonMobil spends billions of dollars on a political ad asking people to vote for candidate A, are the people really going to vote for candidate A? No. For one, most people hate ExxonMobil anyways. You still have the choice to not vote for candidate A. Also, candidate A may not guarantee ExxonMobil his/her election promises.
Montfortracing 1 year ago
@Montfortracing you still have a choice however theres a documented link beetween amount of advertising and success in elections. Theres no law that says exxon would have to say they made the commercial instead of just creating a puppet group (like citizens united) to make their advertisements.
liberalmike1994 1 year ago
@liberalmike1994 If you read the beginning of Justice Kennedy's opinion, he explicitly said that disclosure of political ads by organizations (corporations, unions, non-profits, etc.) is still law. Plus, even if companies created puppet groups, the company would still need permission from the board or stockholders to send money to that "puppet" group. What would this puppet group have to say? I think McCain-Feingold still requires corporations to form PAC's to voice their opinions too.
Montfortracing 1 year ago
@liberalmike1994 I don't think there is much of a correlation between amount of advertising and success in elections. Voters usually resonate more with the message than a candidate's exposure on TV.
Montfortracing 1 year ago
@Montfortracing
They do much more then give TV ads, they have to travel, do rallies, give out flyers, get their word out in any way possible. That all requires massive amounts of money and it does make a big difference.
lildread1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lildread1 Corporations have unlimited amounts of money that can sway popular opinion if we allow it. The key here is to not believe everything you see on TV. Know the facts, be involved, spread the word (word of mouth) on facts that you can back up...not just opinion but facts.
kewpified 1 month ago
UNIONS do the same thing female jackass.
usakaffir911 1 year ago
@usakaffir911 And how much money do Unions have, compared to corporations?
tropicallanterns 1 year ago
Time for the people who spend their money on corporations to ensure the corporate interests are sustainable. If the people don't like a corporation defending laws, then they can stop spending each month with that company, so it can't afford to finance. world sustainability is consumers and entrepreneurs/corporations working together.
joestauffacher 1 year ago
The banks already own the government.
truthsabre7 1 year ago
This is a free speech issue and the BHO is heavy into control and censorship of his opponents. When BHO lawyer at the FEC told the Supreme Court that the law could ban books and all other media that people could use to influence a election. If all corporations are banned from influencing an election then MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN and all other media CORPORATIONS must also be banned from commenting on candidates before the election.
Keith and Rachel do you real want to join the ranks of the unemployed
cupera1 2 years ago
Fuck all Progressives... hope you all die.
PatriotsRepublic 2 years ago
"Changes 100 yrs of election law" BULLSHIT!!! All they did was over turned McCain/Feingold. And everybody knew it would be over turned. But I hope to God big companies do use their power to get OSHA & the EPA under control, stop illegal trade policies, lower taxes on corp, and start bringing some jobs back to AMerica, which the democrat party is certainly not interested in.
MrHelldogger 2 years ago
Wow... wut ignorance.. What about all the jobs bush sent across the world? Outsourcing?? wut about the tax incentives bush admin gave to corps to leave the US?? feel free to show more of ur ignorance !!!
rockuzONE 2 years ago
Comment removed
kelsizzle07 2 years ago
Oooooh, supporting the first ammendment. How radical! LOL!
cano21 2 years ago
@cano21 "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of MAN. Every CITIZEN may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law" NOW G.E. is a citizen. how about foriegn owned companies with US subsidies? you want them to have freedom of speech? are you serious? or are you just disagreeing with the left wing pundits? you know john McCain warned us about this.
ytcurmudgeon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
right. so you think that a corporation is a person, and should be allowed more rights than a person? because there are still caps on how much an individual can donate to potitical candidates.
kelsizzle07 2 years ago
That's a lousy splice in the beginning: 0:10
wfmk1 2 years ago