A corporation is considered a legal fiction of a person.
The plural of person is people.
We, the people, then has a broader meaning.
There was a US Federal court decision that gave lots of rights to the person of a corporation that it could not be killed / destroyed / harmed.
To fight all of the ills of fascism that resulted from that court decision, it must be overturned & soon. If the Federal courts are corrupt, then this will not happen--go back to sleep.
@oldspammer Some of this information is available in a video.
YouTube video search >the corporation part 23 machbar<
It is a 23 part series. Start with part 1 and work your way through it.
A legal fiction is not living because it is on paper. A person fiction is represented by government issue identification with name given in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS--mot mort (dead words). A live being is called a human. A human can be tricked into taking responsibility for the liabilities of the legal fiction.
@oldspammer The main thing that complicates matters is that virtually all statutes are enforced by commercial laws known as UCC maritime law enforced by corporate rule enforcement officers and UCC commerce / maritime contracts courts who are given jurisdiction by the governed individual voluntarily by submission to it / standing under its authority (understanding it or what their corporate rule enforcement officers say to the human responsible for the legal fiction / person / the accused).
i hope they pass a new law like this, which some more resistutions, and a more liberal count upholds it, which reverse this decision, just like brown vs, board did for segragation.
IF ,Big IF, they disclose who donated what to who. And that information is clearly displayed and highly available. It might be a good way to tell who to vote for. Just a thought.
One question, Mr President-Didn't you go back on your promise to use public financing to run for President, so in essence, you could outspend your opponent without limit? President Obama if you research your campaign contributions, most of them were from these huge corporations! Simply because you know your policies, President Obama, are bad for the American dream & that every big donor is now turning on you, does not mean it is bad for America.
@BlackRepublican2010 I have a feeling Obama thinks his policies are good for America. Bush probably thought lying us into a war was good for America and Clinton probably thought sleeping with an intern--well, maybe he wasn't thinking about America right then.
And one last question, how low of an opinion of the American Peoples' intelligence do you have if you believe they can be influenced by corporate commercials instead of your Hollywood Socialist thugs? VOTE REPUBLICAN! PROUD BLACK REPUBLICAN!
To all the TeaBaggers who continually cry out about their freedoms being taken away and yet they will support this outrageous high court decision. FOX News wins again. MSNBC has condemned this as bad for average working class American citizen.
Notice the ads that accompany these videos and other liberal sided issues. You won't find them around TeaBagger videos. Is YouTube really "Fair and Balanced?"
I never liked the supreme court, and now i hate it even more. this country is going down the toilet no matter what kind of government we have. One type was a crook, and the other is incompetent at getting anything done with majorities in both house and senate.
Corporations want big government, they love government intervention, especially corporate welfare.
Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, Lockheed, all these companies have sponged taxpayers money, and they and their cohorts want even more of your money.
Large corporations will (and already do) use their political influence to rig the market so any potential rivals are smashed. Monopolies and cartels will become entrenched, there will be no "free market", as you will have no choice.
This was not a "conservative" court decision. This is a Corporate Fascist Court decision. And whereas Corporate "speach" is money, Corporations today can "speak" more loudly than the people. The people owe no loyalty to Corporate Courts. Americans owe fielty ONLY to a constitutional court. The Corporate Fiction is anathema to the American constitutional republic. The Corporation is waging war against the people.
I'm speechless. Just when you thought they could stoop no lower. They are just adding flames to the fire. It will burn out eventually.
This isn't a conservative move. It's not a liberal move. It's not a moderate move. This is radical extremism at it's best. It's a radical move.
We'll reverse the ruling when they are impeached. They just forced us to impeach them. I've been calling for impeachments since they installed a puppet president in 2001. Impeach the radicals. No to tyranny.
Your logic is not very good. You say since only US citizens have the right to vote, and corporations don't, they sould not have the right to speak. Wrong. prior to 1920 women did not have the vote, but they had their First Amendment rights. The right to political speech serves to inform the public and is independent of the right to vote.
It saddens me how uneducated liberals are. In 1907, sentor Tillman proposed legislation so that corporations have donation limits. This is what everyone cites as the rule thats been in place for 100 years,. What idiot libs dont know is that senator Tillman enacted this law because republicn corporations were favorable to blacks and he didn't like that and thus wanted the businesses regulated. Go read Clarence Thomas's NY times article on drudgereport explaining this. Libs are so ignorant.
For anyone interested in checking this out, it is not "Clarence Thomas's NY Times Article." It is Adam Liptak's article, "Justice Defends Ruling on Finance" in the Politics section of the NY Times. But if you really want to know "what they were thinking," google 08-205 Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n (01/21/10).
So what.. just because you were able to google the history of the judgment doesn't make everyone else ignorant. This isn't about partisanship and Obama's criticism of the judgment doesn't have anything to do with the reasons of the original ruling in 1907; rather, he (and most people should be) concerned with the consequences of overturning it, i.e. the unmitigated influence of corporate entities on elections
If Corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech. Congress could regulate what the Times can write, what Chris Mathews can say and what we can write.
If Congress is so corrupt that they can be bought off with favorable campaign adds, then surely we do not want to give them the power to control all corporate speech in this country!
During the election Obama took in $747 million dollars and McCain $351 million while $100s of millions were donated to Obama over the internet that could not be tracked but much of that money came from foreigners, then Obama flipped flop on public campaign financing despite McCain calling for it. Now Obama tells lies about the Supreme Court because now all the groups he has been demonizing can fight back. This admin is the most ill prepared, juvenile, propagandist, lying government ever seen.
Hay it is ok, since you cant debate with facts you just insult, it is the far left lib way these days so I understand. We see it from your idealistic leader, to the lib nuts on the street to people like you on youtube.
But when you debate with people that think like idealistic children it is expected.
The good news for me is the far left lying socialist nuts have been exposed and it only took a year.
@Townclownsunite Right you do not agree with ther nuts so you are a racists, far left way that is not working. Hay I thought the one good thing was for Obama to bring the races together, but instead he has made it worse than ever.
Unfortunately our laws here in the US do treat corporations as human citizens. Everyone should watch the documentary "The Corporation" by Mark Achbar.
Also, I think Sweden, Denmark, and France should pool their corporate money together for the 2012 election and try to get someone elected here who is Socialist, unlike Barrack Obama.
Wouldn't be IRONIC if Japan, Britain, Taiwan, France, Sweden, Gernany, and Sweden form Corps and donate to support reform. Especially since GOP think they are all Liberals or Socialists.
Write your congressman if you want to see some protective legislation to combat the negative aspects of the S.Ct. decision, such as prohibiting any corporation that is unable to file a declaration that it has no foreign business nor foreign assets, from contributing to any political campaign or promoting legislation and regulating their activities as a foreign person.
These "Supreme" court judges should take some constitutional law lessions from civil law countries (i.e. Germany or Switzerland). I guess they have never heard of things like "practical concordance of constitutional values" etc..
Last night I read the entire 183 pages of the ruling on both sides AND the majority is correct! Freedom of Speech is only to be abridged when necessary for the whole and should be limited in scope. The 2 main reasons to limit such speech at issue would be to 1. protect shareholders that do not agree with such speech by the corp and 2. quid pro quo issues.You cannot suppress speech to protect the shareholder can vote to remove the director/officer and such SH should have the economic interest..
@KiheiLawyer of the company to profit from its actions. If an elected official does quid pro quo, then impeach them or don't re-elect them. The bottom line is that is the public is going to vote for someone based upon a fancy ad on TV then SHAME on the electorate. You should not suppress speech to protect morons or lazy people from understanding who they should vote for. Today, unlike 1907, there is tons of media sources and millions of companies. There is no need to limit speech here..
@KiheiLawyer Yes, they overturned 100 years of law, but the court has been controlled by democrats, white and men during that time. All the same thinkers, all appointed by Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, etc. The Burger and Wanrer courts could not have been more liberal. We had over 100 years of slavery, women not voting, etc. The Supreme Court was wrong on those issues and took Amendments to the Const. to change how wrong they were. This was a very good decision.
@biocapsule oh one more thing. They can ammend the constitution to specify that corporations are not living beings. But that takes 2/3 majority in the house and the senate. And you can tell by the republican response right now that this might be much more difficult.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater in which there is no fire is a weak analogy. Political ads are clearly understood as opinions by anyone that sees them, and citing facts that are incorrect make you just as liable to defamation, slander, and lible. And the provisions requiring them to identify themselves in the ad were not removed.
@enice482 And you haven't read the slip opinion of the Court, or the opinions of the cases overturned, likely know nothing about strict scrutiny vs. closely drawn, or stare decisis... and you're just repeating what you've been told by authorities you happen to like or trust. You're going to have to use a stronger argument than an ad hominem attack to really address the points I made, if you're even interested in doing that.
@enice482 I never said it wasn't effective. I think it's very effective in the propagandistic way, to convince people of something that it's necessarily true. But the same could be said for any weak analogy. You people are acting as if the Court just legalized lying...
I'm done. Sorry I have plenty that I COULD say but again this is youtube and it's not worth arguing on here. I'll just redirect you to this video of McCain explaining exactly how I feel...
Actually, the truth is that corporations always had this power because they could set up PAC's. Even under McCain Feingold. The provisions that were struck were also banning the poltical speech of issues organizations run and funded by ordinary people. The Supreme Court only makes electioneering a little less complicated for corporations, not any more possible. But it also enables more political speech from average people. It's a GOOD decision.
Why are we so beholden to the stupid decisions of our ancestors? Corporations are not people. Just bc a court decided that a century ago doesn't make it true. Yet here we are. We refuse to learn from past mistakes so instead of fixing them we compound them. This American experiment in Democracy is failing yet so few seem to notice or care. Depressing.
Oh and by the way, you don't think that people on the other side of the political asile are liars and obsessed with money and power also? Like I said WISE UP!
I support a limited government. Unfortunately this administration and the last administration as well found it necessary to increase it's size dramatically! I'm a conservative not a republican. I will raise the bullshit flag on whichever party I see doing dishonest and shady things!
@MYCONSERVATIVENATION There's no way you support limited government when you believe that Corporations should get away with corrupting the political process as much as they please on the basis of free speech.
If anything, you support incredibly big government.
@eternallord....The Constitution trumps all my friend! Ever hear the statement Congress shall make no law.....
Funny how that's a recurring theme in the Constitution. Come on! Trying to link me to a 'big government' argument because of free speech? PLEASE! Why don't you take a brief look at my page! And by the way all publically traded corperations are beholden to their shareholders! Do your homework..
Saying you support big government is a perfectly fair statement when you support the rights of enormous amounts of capital to be flooded into the politic process by artificial persons, which can lead to effectively drowning out voices that actually need to be heard.
Also, corporations receive public money quite commonly, and they are certainly not accountable to us - What this means, is that your beloved big business uses your money, steers along elections, and you have no say in any of it.
And I wouldn't bother busting your tits over it so much if you hadn't been such an arrogant blowhard to begin with, stompign around with your ALL CAPS harangues at people like you're some kind of morally superior being.
you needed to be humbled, and you should just let it be so.
Unfortunately, you tube does not allow fonts for emphasis, such as italics; and since I have actively worked in the field of Campaign Finance Reform, it is a highly emotional subject for me - mea culpa for letting those emotions momentarily trump manners.
As for acting morally superior - got a mirror?
I work with pompous court appointed devil's advocates.
i only talk like this to people who deserve it. and playing devil's advocate has zero to do with being a loudmouth asshole who preaches at people - it's about arguing the opposite position for the sake of balance. and it's healthy, insofar as it keep us from cleaving too hard to a side of an issue, such that we abandon reason.
I have worked with some of the best on this issue for more than ten years. If, after such consideration, I cleave "too hard" for your "taste" -that's simply your opinion. (Based on what? Five posts with caps?)
On its face, I see the "logic" of the SCOTUS Opinion, but it seems to me the Decision was politically motivated, and will be a danger to the Republic.
This "democracy" is already drowning in corporate influence and SC just opened the floodgates.
you're so busy bloviating you haven't stopped to consider (or read where I posted) that I also abhor this decision.
you just want to argue- grandstand-pretend like you're the world champion of giving a shit.
makes no difference who you've worked with.
just because I posted a caution - a possible downside - about publicly funded campaigns, you leapt to the conclusion I agree with the SC - which is just dumb, and a product of your piety.
Everyone should take a look at a political cartoon called "Bosses of the Senate" (1889). Drawn during the era of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, etc. Even after 121 years later, that cartoon still hit the nail on the head. ( maybe we're closer to the situation depicted in the cartoon today than when it is drawn).
Your country is so funkedup..frikin weird..first you attack medicare,you bailout the banks and than let the rich dictate you elections by mind numbing advertisements and money...you guys gotta fight back.
real simple, corporations, industry, religion, and special interest groups have been ruling this country and just about every western nation since ancient rome.
i'm not saying corporations are great and perfect, nor are they individuals. but they and all these other forces mentioned really run the show and make our world, be it good or bad. you and i, the lonely citizen voters do not matter other than on a local level at best. if you think otherwise, you being Rockwell delusional
A bit simplistic - McCain Feingold only helped the insiders and elites. - after it past, just look at the statistics, it became even harder to oust a sitting Congressman. Also, Obama's lawyer argued that the gov't had the power to ban books that support/endorse a candidate. How can you support that?
Don't be a fool! unions are groups of people organized specifically to protect human rights. corporations are groups of people organized to create a monetary gain, NOTHING ELSE. Corporations don't give a damn about you as a person. they will do whatever is necessary to promote growth.
The courts should've just increased limits on personal donations, then totally canned donations from corporations, PACs, organizations and unions. Only citizens should be allowed to donate to political causes.
Bill of Rights applies to American citizens not Corps that can be owned by Foreigners. You are so worried about Unions that represent American Workers that you sold America.
@icecoldbeerr..you overlooked back to prior to 1999...
There was a reason this bill was passed by bi-partisan support. Back then corps made big profits, but nothing compared to todays corporations. Also corps are more Global in nature compared to back then.
this is not a rollback, this is a major setback to middle ages. Where Aristocracies ruled everything and good luck getting the real story.
The liberals are just pissed because Soros will no longer have a monopoly on this. What's the difference between a tycoon donating to Obama through PAC's and any corporation doing it? They lobby anyways.
This is one issue that both republicans and democrats should be coming together on. Unless you're very wealthy or in the board of directors at "we fuck you over inc" this is not a good thing for any of us.
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
Supreme Court Decision
NO Supreme Court ever restricted corporate political speech prior to 1990. That one ruling, a direct assault on free speech, is what was correctly overturned by this bold decision.
All of the media are owned by corporations who use their unlimited resources to sway voters. Now everyone gets that same chance.
I hate when I am looking it to something and I find one of these videos with terrible commentary. Please stop making these lame videos. Its not that I disagree with you so pleas no terrible response, I just think this content is terrible.
but is that definition, of foreign corporations, truly meaningful when a large percentage of the bosses of said companies are foreign? the definition is hardly 'pure', right?
We already had corporate oligarchy in the 19th Century. The American people rebelled and fought the National Guard and private Pinkerton armies (ex., National Strike of 1877, Battle of Homestead, etc.), which led to the Progressive reforms of the early 20th Century. Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.
can we similarly ban political mailers, newspaper ads, cold calls, etc? can we make it so that people will actually have to get off their fat asses and go research issues? or make it so that if a candidate want to communicate ideas to the people, they actually have to interact with them more directly?
can anyone think of a reason why simply banning all political advertisements on the airwaves would be harmful? is there a way can can restructure how campaigns happen altogether? insofar as the media itself can be corporate (ie, NBC - GE), can we use the FCC to enfore some kind of fairness laws ensuring balanced, even coverage? can we require candidates to partake of certain more informative forums , or to answer with more time more citizens' questions?
i'm perfectly willing to consider that idea, which sounds promising - but among other issues, one problem i've heard with that idea, is that you would then be giving the government even more power to decide who can and can not then be a candidate. it's already incredibly hard for third parties to get on ballots - what you propose could make it even worse.
Sorry if you think I was "talking down" to you - I am very passionate about this issue - and very upset with the SCOTUS right now.
Actually, in publicly funded elections we would get a much broader number of candidates. You want third party? How about 8 or 10? If ANYONE can run, by simply getting the required number of signatures to qualify - as it's SUPPOSED to work now - we would All get more choices, and anyone who qualifies, would get a capped amount of cash with which to do it.
When corporations DIE and do not foist their influence over MULTIPLE GENERATIONS and COUNTRIES ... then they might "qualify" as citizens!
We need PUBLICLY FUNDED elections - so we can GET some Representation at Congress!
Granny "D" from New Hampshire, who walked across America for Campaign Finance Reform had the right idea, sweep the corporate prostitutes from Washington! Choke off the corp. cash!
"We need PUBLICLY FUNDED elections - so we can GET some Representation at Congress!"
SO granny, why do you suppose your super hero, Barack Hussein Obama, rejected public funds during his campaign????,..and accept help from that super progressive cocksucker, George Soros??
now the cynical prick is outraged that others can influence elections
one reason why Obama is slipping is that he totally contradicts his statements made to win the presidency! Americans are seeing through the prick
They should NEVER have been afforded the same STATUS as Citizens!
Should corporations also have the Right to Bear Arms? They may as well HAVE it, because NOW we will have Govt' for the corporations, by the corporations and FOR the corporations - OUTRIGHT!
Corporations are often referred to as "Corporate Citizens"!
why should we discriminate between corporations?? a media corporation can spew all sorts of biased crap like MSNBC always does to influence votes but no other corporation should have the same abilities?? BS!!
Shall we ALSO give corporations the right to bear arms?
Here's a better one - How 'bout we make it LEGAL for U.S. Citizens to hide their incomes "offshore" so they don't have to pay taxes?
Hey, when Corps are automatically "disbanded" at age 62, so that their "influence" doesn't span multiple generations of CITIZENS' lives, maybe I'll think they're "citizens."
The REAL Tea Party was spawned by a bankrupt Trading Co. (East India) imposing a Tax via gov't sanction.
actually, you are wrong. the tea party was NOT about the tax on tea. it was about price dumping. the tea was taxed upon arrival at britains ports...and then it was brought to the states, it was sold as super cheap prices, in order to drive out of business illegal dutch importers...it also caused harm to local merchants.
you should really quit talking to people like you're such hot shit when you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
Yeah, the Brits cornered the market (from the Dutch) and bolstered a FAILING corporation (East India Trading) by giving them exclusive rights to trade with the colonies - then SLAMMED the colonials with the Stamp Act on TEA.
Which is why Americans NOW drink COFFEE.
Do some homework. You could start here, with 1st hand accounts from those who were AT the wharf on 12/16/1773.
And yes, I know all about it. The Tea Party was a response to the Tea Act, which cut the usual export taxes away, allowing the DEI company to sell tea very cheaply to the colonies - cheaper than the smugglers- yet retained was the taxes from the Townsned Act. And though there was a brief uptick of coffee consumption at the time of the revolution, it was very small, and very brief. didn't really surge till much later.
OK so I'm the moron and I stand corrected. The Townshend Act placed the original tax on tea (the Stamp Act placed one on colonial legal documents). But it was superceded by the TEA ACT, in 1773, which sparked the Tea Party.
And yes, in effect it forced the American Colonials to BUY British tea, over Dutch products by enforcing a monopoly. The British also tried to sell the old tea that had been molding, unsold - which the colonists knew as vile "Bohea."
The Townshend Act - with links to the Tea and Stamp Acts - succinctly.
socialstudiesforkidsDOTcom / ww ww/u s / townshend acts defDOT htm
The lore of Boston's Green Dragon Tavern (where Revere's Masonic/Sons of Liberty met), it was said that Tory sympathizers were known by the fact they would order tea, and Patriots would order coffee.
yes. the 'patriots' would order coffee - a tiny, tiny portion of the american population. i actually found a research study on this before i posted by rebuttal to you - like me to find it again? it's a common myth to believe americans became big coffee drinkers at the time as you think - but average consumption was still at a fraction of a pound per person, per year. then it returned to previous levels. upticked again when the Brits embargoed tea to the colonies in the war of 1812...
the Tea Act eliminated the normal export tax - on tea. But it retained the tax placed on it from the Twnsend Act. The Tea Act imposed NO NEW TAXES - instead it just set up a situation where an ailing Dutch East India company could sell its product for cheaper than the smugglers. The monopoply, in terms of legalities, was already in place - the competition was all technically illegal ALREADY.
goto USHISTORY - do ORG, and stop using kiddie site for your information.
Townsend act duties were still attached to the tea, and this was a big part of what ticked of the rebels.
You just don't have it right. You already made one obvious error - isn't it probable, therefore, you also are wrong in this little point?
I've checked at least 10 different versions of the events online thus far...including the actual text of the tea act (incredibly difficult to translate into modern american english).
You should take a look at a political cartoon called "Bosses of the Senate" (1889). Drawn during the era of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, etc. Even after 121 years later, that cartoon still hit the nail on the head. ( maybe we're closer to the situation depicted in the cartoon today than when it is drawn).
Please note that this cartoon was published BEFORE Teddy Roosevelt enacted the FIRST laws in this country to try and reign in Corporate money "buying" politicians.
The Supreme Court just erased those Roosevelt measures!
Please See video at my channel page by Wisconsin TV entitled: "Supreme Court's Campaign Finance Ruling"
I participated in 2 "bombs" in Ron Paul's campaign - BUT NEVER AGAIN!
Why should I made my small contribution when some outfit like WalMart can spend $100 Million on ads for the opponent on the week of the election?
97% of Ron Paul contributions came from individuals but those days are over - CORPORATIONS HAVE GAINED COMPLETELY CONTROL NOW -- YOU ARE BUT A RAT IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS.
just because a conservative supreme court made such a stupid decision doesnt mean that all conservative like this! its like that not all democrats like the idea that the pharma and insurance industry wrote the health care bill.
Only morons actually believe this moronic TYT vlogger. LMAO
The fact is obama already gave banks guarantees up to $23.7 TRILLION over the past year. Google it.
Regulations will just make US companies less competitive internationally. Thus, US companies will just relocate overseas.
Health insurance is expensive because of govn't regulations that limit competition. You cannot get insurance from one of the 50 states and use it in your own state.
What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." don't liberals understand? I'm glad to see the Court overturn previous bad law. I wish they would do it more often. Free speech is free speech regardless if it comes from individuals or groups.
I don't like fear mongering. I'm no partisan, but I don't think its gonna matter much.
I like to think that people aren't that dumb that they'll vote for whatever has more airtime. And there's also the Electoral college to protect us...omg; I can't believe I just said the electoral college will save us.
See that's part of the problem. They can buy ads for the candidate that they like, but they can also run attack ads against the ones that they don't. As well as running political issue ads til the day of the election.
the electoral college is a tool of control? that's paranoid modern nonsensical hype. it exists to preserve the voice of smaller states, and as a bulwark against corrosive factionalism. the people you hear whining about it today - you, a perfect example - are just bitter that it worked to prevent them from getting what they wanted.
it's part of why we are a Republic, by design, and not a true Democracy - which was seen as downright dangerous...mob rule... 'two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'.
there's no alternative that isn't also flawed. stop whining.
Perhaps when it was first instituted... but in today's age of computer ballot tallying, it is not just antiquated, but a "tool" of political factions.
The founders set up a system of 1 man 1 vote -
but the Presidential elections are now decided by voting districts, that are chronically manipulated by the parties to give them advantages.
For instance, my district sweeps north to include a small peninsula 2 counties away!
"The founders set up a system of 1 man 1 vote". No. The founders specifically did not. Who do you think set up the electoral college? That's right - the founders. Go read the Federalist Papers - it'll straighten this all out for you. 1 man 1 vote is pure democracy, which they saw an a very, very dangerous thing. It is in essence mob rule, and leads to tyranny of the majority.
shifting districts is called gerrymandering, and is fixable without abandoning federalist principles.
Why should it matter where people Live in a National Election? The vote is supposed to reflect the "people's choice." We've suffered 4 who did not win the popular vote.
There is a movement for a national popular vote, which five states have already ratified.
If your gonna attack me for disagreeing with u with no facts to base your argument on, u might wanna say it to me. U believe in marxism obviously. U wanna punish ppl who make more money than u. Just bc they worked harder and had better ideas than u to get where they're at now doesnt mean there rights should be taken away. The progressives class warfare technique is working on ppl like u. Just bc they make more money than u doesnt mean they should be punished and have there freedoms taken away.
Oh and by the way, corporations are run by "living breathing people". If u think there freedom of speech rights should be taken away then we should just get rid of the entire media bc they're all run by big corporations. They all are apart of corporations. Olbermann, Beck, Couric all are apart of corporations. Should there rights be limited as well? Like i said, just bc Bill Gates had a great idea one day to invent microsoft doesnt mean he should be punished for it.
Good bye USA - hello China II. Won't be long before the Chinese banks which are all owned by the Chinese Government start wanting their tens of billions of dollars back and guess where they are going to spend it. The epitaph upon the United States' tomb shall be: Here Lies Freedom.
I agree with you on banning any foreigner from influencing our elections, which would have to include baring illegal aliens from donating money to a candidate. Would you also ban PAC's? And if so, then how will my voice be heard? Can I afford a TV add? No, so you will have blocked my speech. The Court is not "right wing" they are just interpreting the Constitution as they see it. As Roberts stated "stare decisis cannot be seen as an "inexorable command." (Or there would be no minimum wage)
Finally my voice will be heard, information will now be available for us to hear before an election. It's funny how the person on this video insults the intelligence of all of us in the first two minutes by saying that we are too stupid to do research on our own on who to vote for, like we are all a bunch of idiots. President Bush's greatest legacy will be his appointments of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court; they have, and will continue to fight for our freedom. Thank you Bush.
rich people have always had the right to spend unlimited amounts of money it the corperations than can now spend all they want and as aggrigates of capital they have an unfair advantage
The constitution was written to limit government power. Not to "give" rights to people.
The first Amendment is a control on government power. It states quite clearly "congress shall pass no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
How could limitations on what can aired be anything other than an abridgment of speech?
This has been flagged as spam show
Politics was never meant to be a profession. Like diapers, they should be changed often & for the same reasons.
If U don't get it the first time. ... U don't learn nuth'en getting kicked by a mule twice.
onstageagain 6 months ago
None of those jerks on the court are conservative. They are bought.
Squirelbutt 9 months ago
A corporation is considered a legal fiction of a person.
The plural of person is people.
We, the people, then has a broader meaning.
There was a US Federal court decision that gave lots of rights to the person of a corporation that it could not be killed / destroyed / harmed.
To fight all of the ills of fascism that resulted from that court decision, it must be overturned & soon. If the Federal courts are corrupt, then this will not happen--go back to sleep.
Remember corporations are immortal.
oldspammer 1 year ago
@oldspammer Some of this information is available in a video.
YouTube video search >the corporation part 23 machbar<
It is a 23 part series. Start with part 1 and work your way through it.
A legal fiction is not living because it is on paper. A person fiction is represented by government issue identification with name given in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS--mot mort (dead words). A live being is called a human. A human can be tricked into taking responsibility for the liabilities of the legal fiction.
oldspammer 1 year ago
@oldspammer The main thing that complicates matters is that virtually all statutes are enforced by commercial laws known as UCC maritime law enforced by corporate rule enforcement officers and UCC commerce / maritime contracts courts who are given jurisdiction by the governed individual voluntarily by submission to it / standing under its authority (understanding it or what their corporate rule enforcement officers say to the human responsible for the legal fiction / person / the accused).
oldspammer 1 year ago
i hope they pass a new law like this, which some more resistutions, and a more liberal count upholds it, which reverse this decision, just like brown vs, board did for segragation.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
Turks - you are simply wrong. Have you not studied American Constitutional Law?
ApologiaTV 1 year ago
IF ,Big IF, they disclose who donated what to who. And that information is clearly displayed and highly available. It might be a good way to tell who to vote for. Just a thought.
hockeyjester12 1 year ago
Danm the Supreme Court is making Treason legal for U.S. Politicians buy buy Miss American Pie The Oil is the devil and the ocean has died
Useyno 1 year ago
One question, Mr President-Didn't you go back on your promise to use public financing to run for President, so in essence, you could outspend your opponent without limit? President Obama if you research your campaign contributions, most of them were from these huge corporations! Simply because you know your policies, President Obama, are bad for the American dream & that every big donor is now turning on you, does not mean it is bad for America.
BlackRepublican2010 1 year ago
@BlackRepublican2010 I have a feeling Obama thinks his policies are good for America. Bush probably thought lying us into a war was good for America and Clinton probably thought sleeping with an intern--well, maybe he wasn't thinking about America right then.
GafKergh 9 months ago
And one last question, how low of an opinion of the American Peoples' intelligence do you have if you believe they can be influenced by corporate commercials instead of your Hollywood Socialist thugs? VOTE REPUBLICAN! PROUD BLACK REPUBLICAN!
BlackRepublican2010 1 year ago
To all the TeaBaggers who continually cry out about their freedoms being taken away and yet they will support this outrageous high court decision. FOX News wins again. MSNBC has condemned this as bad for average working class American citizen.
Townclownsunite 1 year ago
Notice the ads that accompany these videos and other liberal sided issues. You won't find them around TeaBagger videos. Is YouTube really "Fair and Balanced?"
Townclownsunite 1 year ago
I never liked the supreme court, and now i hate it even more. this country is going down the toilet no matter what kind of government we have. One type was a crook, and the other is incompetent at getting anything done with majorities in both house and senate.
LetsBringPeace 1 year ago
Corporations want big government, they love government intervention, especially corporate welfare.
Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, Lockheed, all these companies have sponged taxpayers money, and they and their cohorts want even more of your money.
Large corporations will (and already do) use their political influence to rig the market so any potential rivals are smashed. Monopolies and cartels will become entrenched, there will be no "free market", as you will have no choice.
Relugus 1 year ago 2
This really STINKS!!!! Sounds like the Supreme Court is corporate-owned.
jpr422 2 years ago
@jpr422 The Supreme Court stooges are all APPOINTED by these very same Corporate Criminal Elitists! Conspiracy right before your very own eyes!
luvmyctd 1 year ago
Nation, down for the count.
FrozenNephilim 2 years ago
This was not a "conservative" court decision. This is a Corporate Fascist Court decision. And whereas Corporate "speach" is money, Corporations today can "speak" more loudly than the people. The people owe no loyalty to Corporate Courts. Americans owe fielty ONLY to a constitutional court. The Corporate Fiction is anathema to the American constitutional republic. The Corporation is waging war against the people.
Eliezer18 2 years ago 7
I'm speechless. Just when you thought they could stoop no lower. They are just adding flames to the fire. It will burn out eventually.
This isn't a conservative move. It's not a liberal move. It's not a moderate move. This is radical extremism at it's best. It's a radical move.
We'll reverse the ruling when they are impeached. They just forced us to impeach them. I've been calling for impeachments since they installed a puppet president in 2001. Impeach the radicals. No to tyranny.
HostileNegotiator 2 years ago
Your logic is not very good. You say since only US citizens have the right to vote, and corporations don't, they sould not have the right to speak. Wrong. prior to 1920 women did not have the vote, but they had their First Amendment rights. The right to political speech serves to inform the public and is independent of the right to vote.
albertvenndicey 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Radical Progressive Left has their panties in a knot because THEIR corporate media just LOST its monopoly on political speech.
Finally ALL corporations (not just MSNBC, CNBC, FOX, PBS, ABC, NBC) have equal access to air time!
As long as the advertising is correct and not a lie, then we can NEVER have too much information!
BTW, there are all kinds of laws on the books to prevent Defamation which is any wrongful injury to the reputation of a person or entity.
yakyakyak69 2 years ago
It saddens me how uneducated liberals are. In 1907, sentor Tillman proposed legislation so that corporations have donation limits. This is what everyone cites as the rule thats been in place for 100 years,. What idiot libs dont know is that senator Tillman enacted this law because republicn corporations were favorable to blacks and he didn't like that and thus wanted the businesses regulated. Go read Clarence Thomas's NY times article on drudgereport explaining this. Libs are so ignorant.
Exposethefrauds 2 years ago
For anyone interested in checking this out, it is not "Clarence Thomas's NY Times Article." It is Adam Liptak's article, "Justice Defends Ruling on Finance" in the Politics section of the NY Times. But if you really want to know "what they were thinking," google 08-205 Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n (01/21/10).
MMS747 2 years ago
So what.. just because you were able to google the history of the judgment doesn't make everyone else ignorant. This isn't about partisanship and Obama's criticism of the judgment doesn't have anything to do with the reasons of the original ruling in 1907; rather, he (and most people should be) concerned with the consequences of overturning it, i.e. the unmitigated influence of corporate entities on elections
aroyal641 2 years ago 3
If Corporations have no free speech then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech. Congress could regulate what the Times can write, what Chris Mathews can say and what we can write.
If Congress is so corrupt that they can be bought off with favorable campaign adds, then surely we do not want to give them the power to control all corporate speech in this country!
meadbert 2 years ago
He didn't say what you had to do with them once you had bought them though did he?
Lets all muck in together and buy a few.
NowisEvollovetion 2 years ago
During the election Obama took in $747 million dollars and McCain $351 million while $100s of millions were donated to Obama over the internet that could not be tracked but much of that money came from foreigners, then Obama flipped flop on public campaign financing despite McCain calling for it. Now Obama tells lies about the Supreme Court because now all the groups he has been demonizing can fight back. This admin is the most ill prepared, juvenile, propagandist, lying government ever seen.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
@MissingGWdotcom
Your user name automatically makes you an idiot and anything you say not to be taken seriously. Thanks for playing.
Shadowlit001 2 years ago
Hay it is ok, since you cant debate with facts you just insult, it is the far left lib way these days so I understand. We see it from your idealistic leader, to the lib nuts on the street to people like you on youtube.
But when you debate with people that think like idealistic children it is expected.
The good news for me is the far left lying socialist nuts have been exposed and it only took a year.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
@MissingGWdotcom - The issue is the Supreme Courts BAD decision, not Obama or McCain. Your prejudice is showing.
Townclownsunite 1 year ago
Comment removed
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@Townclownsunite Right you do not agree with ther nuts so you are a racists, far left way that is not working. Hay I thought the one good thing was for Obama to bring the races together, but instead he has made it worse than ever.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Unfortunately our laws here in the US do treat corporations as human citizens. Everyone should watch the documentary "The Corporation" by Mark Achbar.
Also, I think Sweden, Denmark, and France should pool their corporate money together for the 2012 election and try to get someone elected here who is Socialist, unlike Barrack Obama.
DRok112 2 years ago
Many GOP support this decision.
Wouldn't be IRONIC if Japan, Britain, Taiwan, France, Sweden, Gernany, and Sweden form Corps and donate to support reform. Especially since GOP think they are all Liberals or Socialists.
lewislwood 2 years ago
Write your congressman if you want to see some protective legislation to combat the negative aspects of the S.Ct. decision, such as prohibiting any corporation that is unable to file a declaration that it has no foreign business nor foreign assets, from contributing to any political campaign or promoting legislation and regulating their activities as a foreign person.
AmericansWakeUp 2 years ago
What a rediculous U.S. legal system.
These "Supreme" court judges should take some constitutional law lessions from civil law countries (i.e. Germany or Switzerland). I guess they have never heard of things like "practical concordance of constitutional values" etc..
BeNNzuFG 2 years ago
Last night I read the entire 183 pages of the ruling on both sides AND the majority is correct! Freedom of Speech is only to be abridged when necessary for the whole and should be limited in scope. The 2 main reasons to limit such speech at issue would be to 1. protect shareholders that do not agree with such speech by the corp and 2. quid pro quo issues.You cannot suppress speech to protect the shareholder can vote to remove the director/officer and such SH should have the economic interest..
KiheiLawyer 2 years ago
@KiheiLawyer of the company to profit from its actions. If an elected official does quid pro quo, then impeach them or don't re-elect them. The bottom line is that is the public is going to vote for someone based upon a fancy ad on TV then SHAME on the electorate. You should not suppress speech to protect morons or lazy people from understanding who they should vote for. Today, unlike 1907, there is tons of media sources and millions of companies. There is no need to limit speech here..
KiheiLawyer 2 years ago
@KiheiLawyer Yes, they overturned 100 years of law, but the court has been controlled by democrats, white and men during that time. All the same thinkers, all appointed by Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, etc. The Burger and Wanrer courts could not have been more liberal. We had over 100 years of slavery, women not voting, etc. The Supreme Court was wrong on those issues and took Amendments to the Const. to change how wrong they were. This was a very good decision.
KiheiLawyer 2 years ago
Nice job, KiheiLawyer. I gave you a thumbs up just for taking the initiative of checking it out for yourself at the source!!
MMS747 2 years ago
KiheiLawyer
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" Edward R. Marrow
Our government has been hi-jacked , when reading your nonsense it is no wonder our democracy is on life-support,.
One morning YOU will wakeup and discover the whole rotten system YOU love has collapsed.
And all your crazy talk about "tons of media" was just corporate progaganda to keep YOU asleep and stupid and uninformed.
Democracy is just an illusion. thanks to uninformed "morons" like YOU!
nan3663 2 years ago 2
The Constitution says "We the people"
"We the people" are screwed!!!
atomikmindfu 2 years ago 7
@biocapsule oh one more thing. They can ammend the constitution to specify that corporations are not living beings. But that takes 2/3 majority in the house and the senate. And you can tell by the republican response right now that this might be much more difficult.
PoliticalSkeptic 2 years ago
Yelling fire in a crowded theater in which there is no fire is a weak analogy. Political ads are clearly understood as opinions by anyone that sees them, and citing facts that are incorrect make you just as liable to defamation, slander, and lible. And the provisions requiring them to identify themselves in the ad were not removed.
henry770 2 years ago
You're out of touch with reality.
enice482 2 years ago
@enice482 And you haven't read the slip opinion of the Court, or the opinions of the cases overturned, likely know nothing about strict scrutiny vs. closely drawn, or stare decisis... and you're just repeating what you've been told by authorities you happen to like or trust. You're going to have to use a stronger argument than an ad hominem attack to really address the points I made, if you're even interested in doing that.
henry770 2 years ago
I wasn't interested in doing that. This is F'n youtube! By the way, the yelling fire in a crowded theater analogy is pretty effective.
enice482 2 years ago
@enice482 I never said it wasn't effective. I think it's very effective in the propagandistic way, to convince people of something that it's necessarily true. But the same could be said for any weak analogy. You people are acting as if the Court just legalized lying...
henry770 2 years ago
I'd write something back of importance but I don't think you would stop replying. Have a nice day!
enice482 2 years ago
@enice482 Thanks a convenient response when you have nothing substantive to say. Thank-you, drive through. =)
henry770 2 years ago
I'm done. Sorry I have plenty that I COULD say but again this is youtube and it's not worth arguing on here. I'll just redirect you to this video of McCain explaining exactly how I feel...
watch?v=vKOsTXnL1aU&feature=related
enice482 2 years ago
@enice482 Have some pancakes.
watch?v=hgWOLERSDrg
henry770 2 years ago
Actually, the truth is that corporations always had this power because they could set up PAC's. Even under McCain Feingold. The provisions that were struck were also banning the poltical speech of issues organizations run and funded by ordinary people. The Supreme Court only makes electioneering a little less complicated for corporations, not any more possible. But it also enables more political speech from average people. It's a GOOD decision.
henry770 2 years ago
Faux News is already selling this as a freedom issue. MSNBC and CNN are not talking because they want the ad revenue during election time.
stewart0312 2 years ago 2
It's official we are witnessing the birth of the newest 3rd world country. America is doomed.
SkreetGil 2 years ago
Why are we so beholden to the stupid decisions of our ancestors? Corporations are not people. Just bc a court decided that a century ago doesn't make it true. Yet here we are. We refuse to learn from past mistakes so instead of fixing them we compound them. This American experiment in Democracy is failing yet so few seem to notice or care. Depressing.
doctender77 2 years ago
JOHN DOE HALLIBURTON 2012 !
I hope the Mayans are right and we implode in 2012 : (
dullsvillain 2 years ago
Sounds like a statement that could be said for almost anything.
Mortello 2 years ago
Okay, what idiot was the tie breaker for this vote?
veronicafan2000 2 years ago
5 conservatives to 4 Democrats
MInuhanyouM 2 years ago
Anthony Kennedy
Xendinthian 2 years ago
Chief Justice Roberts no doubt is the last to vote and break the tie. Too bad he didn't break his neck.
protester 2 years ago
Some justify this craziness for FEAR of Unions. That is ridiculous.
Unions discourage Income Disparity and in fact over 40 years it has increased.
Unions donate to Dems, over past 40 years Repubs have been in power.
So tell me why the sudden fear of Unions you think it is right to sell America?
Every Global Corp and Country will setup Satellite offices and undermine our democracy.
All Hail "Lord North Korea, Duke Russia Oil, etc."
lewislwood 2 years ago
Oh and by the way, you don't think that people on the other side of the political asile are liars and obsessed with money and power also? Like I said WISE UP!
MYCONSERVATIVENATION 2 years ago
Looks like you're the one who could use a nose powdering. We know the GOP is the party of Greed, Hate and Stupidity.
protester 2 years ago
I support a limited government. Unfortunately this administration and the last administration as well found it necessary to increase it's size dramatically! I'm a conservative not a republican. I will raise the bullshit flag on whichever party I see doing dishonest and shady things!
MYCONSERVATIVENATION 2 years ago
@MYCONSERVATIVENATION There's no way you support limited government when you believe that Corporations should get away with corrupting the political process as much as they please on the basis of free speech.
If anything, you support incredibly big government.
eternallord 2 years ago
@eternallord....The Constitution trumps all my friend! Ever hear the statement Congress shall make no law.....
Funny how that's a recurring theme in the Constitution. Come on! Trying to link me to a 'big government' argument because of free speech? PLEASE! Why don't you take a brief look at my page! And by the way all publically traded corperations are beholden to their shareholders! Do your homework..
MYCONSERVATIVENATION 2 years ago
Saying you support big government is a perfectly fair statement when you support the rights of enormous amounts of capital to be flooded into the politic process by artificial persons, which can lead to effectively drowning out voices that actually need to be heard.
Also, corporations receive public money quite commonly, and they are certainly not accountable to us - What this means, is that your beloved big business uses your money, steers along elections, and you have no say in any of it.
eternallord 2 years ago
I'm not a Republican ya twit. Maybe you should take a look at my page!
MYCONSERVATIVENATION 2 years ago
StopScialism:
which issue are you referencing?
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
And I wouldn't bother busting your tits over it so much if you hadn't been such an arrogant blowhard to begin with, stompign around with your ALL CAPS harangues at people like you're some kind of morally superior being.
you needed to be humbled, and you should just let it be so.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
Unfortunately, you tube does not allow fonts for emphasis, such as italics; and since I have actively worked in the field of Campaign Finance Reform, it is a highly emotional subject for me - mea culpa for letting those emotions momentarily trump manners.
As for acting morally superior - got a mirror?
I work with pompous court appointed devil's advocates.
Holy See, indeed!
MzProgressive 2 years ago
i only talk like this to people who deserve it. and playing devil's advocate has zero to do with being a loudmouth asshole who preaches at people - it's about arguing the opposite position for the sake of balance. and it's healthy, insofar as it keep us from cleaving too hard to a side of an issue, such that we abandon reason.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
I have worked with some of the best on this issue for more than ten years. If, after such consideration, I cleave "too hard" for your "taste" -that's simply your opinion. (Based on what? Five posts with caps?)
On its face, I see the "logic" of the SCOTUS Opinion, but it seems to me the Decision was politically motivated, and will be a danger to the Republic.
This "democracy" is already drowning in corporate influence and SC just opened the floodgates.
But then, why should you care?
MzProgressive 2 years ago
you're so busy bloviating you haven't stopped to consider (or read where I posted) that I also abhor this decision.
you just want to argue- grandstand-pretend like you're the world champion of giving a shit.
makes no difference who you've worked with.
just because I posted a caution - a possible downside - about publicly funded campaigns, you leapt to the conclusion I agree with the SC - which is just dumb, and a product of your piety.
get over yourself.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
@StarvingForTruth
So? I missed your "original" post and your insulted? Poor baby!
MzProgressive 2 years ago
@MzProgressive
er, that should have been "you're insulted?"
MzProgressive 2 years ago
Nice attitude about being rude to people.
Trust me - I'm not crying buckets. Just thought you needed a 'correction' - and I like doing it.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
You obviously like being rude - review your own comments.
MzProgressive 2 years ago
Since when BRIBERY becomes legal?
TheMia168 2 years ago
A group of old douchebags, who sat in the seats of Suprem Court for life doing evil, a group of communists.
TheMia168 2 years ago
Sign congressman Grayson's online petition!
dullsvillain 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone should take a look at a political cartoon called "Bosses of the Senate" (1889). Drawn during the era of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, etc. Even after 121 years later, that cartoon still hit the nail on the head. ( maybe we're closer to the situation depicted in the cartoon today than when it is drawn).
DeJiKo06 2 years ago
Enjoy your pseudo-democracy while it lasts. :-(
Zendrig 2 years ago
Your country is so funkedup..frikin weird..first you attack medicare,you bailout the banks and than let the rich dictate you elections by mind numbing advertisements and money...you guys gotta fight back.
humaner 2 years ago 2
fight back is right!
enice482 2 years ago
What Cenk pretty much said is that we now have a facist government.
supercoolsunday 2 years ago
real simple, corporations, industry, religion, and special interest groups have been ruling this country and just about every western nation since ancient rome.
i'm not saying corporations are great and perfect, nor are they individuals. but they and all these other forces mentioned really run the show and make our world, be it good or bad. you and i, the lonely citizen voters do not matter other than on a local level at best. if you think otherwise, you being Rockwell delusional
gje313 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As long as Mexicans and Muslims can shit and piss and walk on American flags and call it "freedom of speech".
This law was unconstitutional.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
A bit simplistic - McCain Feingold only helped the insiders and elites. - after it past, just look at the statistics, it became even harder to oust a sitting Congressman. Also, Obama's lawyer argued that the gov't had the power to ban books that support/endorse a candidate. How can you support that?
radiofriendly 2 years ago
Corporations are "people" too, not just unions!
Minuteman9112012 2 years ago
Don't be a fool! unions are groups of people organized specifically to protect human rights. corporations are groups of people organized to create a monetary gain, NOTHING ELSE. Corporations don't give a damn about you as a person. they will do whatever is necessary to promote growth.
bigncornfed 2 years ago 2
lol.
dude, unions are greedy sheisters.
The courts should've just increased limits on personal donations, then totally canned donations from corporations, PACs, organizations and unions. Only citizens should be allowed to donate to political causes.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
the stamp act was long dead before the tea party.
this is why you shouldn't be so frickin arrogant and talk down to people, MzNutter.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
All Hail "King Mercedes, King Hundai, Duke of Pepsi, King Saudi Oil, etc.."
Think we spend too much and have too much debt, good luck that does not benefit foreign corps.
American Servitude will soon follow, only working class will be left.
lewislwood 2 years ago
Ye have little faith.
This actually levels the playing field between corporations that own a media outlet, unions and all other corporations...
This is a good thing!
Minuteman9112012 2 years ago
@Minuteman9112012.. levels playing field with unions...
Union leaders are elected yearly by American employees, thus representative democracy.
Big Corps have no Employee interest in mind when politicizing. Stock holders are a select few and many not even Americans.
You are making a deal with devil just to push your agenda, selling America lock stock and barrel.
lewislwood 2 years ago 2
ONE union donated 60 million to Obama alone in 2008.
Now, everyone else can speak as well!
It's only right and it was the first amendment, in the Bill of Rights!
Minuteman9112012 2 years ago
Bill of Rights applies to American citizens not Corps that can be owned by Foreigners. You are so worried about Unions that represent American Workers that you sold America.
lewislwood 2 years ago
What about the 14th amendment? It gives corporations the same EXACT rights as human citizens!
bigncornfed 2 years ago
You overlook the fact this puts things back to how they were before 1990. How is it we still exist if this is the end of us now?
icecoldbeerr 2 years ago
@icecoldbeerr..you overlooked back to prior to 1999...
There was a reason this bill was passed by bi-partisan support. Back then corps made big profits, but nothing compared to todays corporations. Also corps are more Global in nature compared to back then.
this is not a rollback, this is a major setback to middle ages. Where Aristocracies ruled everything and good luck getting the real story.
lewislwood 2 years ago
Freedom has awakened from a 100 year comma!!
In case you haven't noticed, GE and NBC are "corporations" as well.
This re-expands the first amendment back to where it belongs and there's not a damn thing Obama can do about it!
Minuteman9112012 2 years ago
This horrible decision causes me to join the Tea Party Movement.
WE MUST TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!
DillonX 2 years ago
The liberals are just pissed because Soros will no longer have a monopoly on this. What's the difference between a tycoon donating to Obama through PAC's and any corporation doing it? They lobby anyways.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
This is one issue that both republicans and democrats should be coming together on. Unless you're very wealthy or in the board of directors at "we fuck you over inc" this is not a good thing for any of us.
mites7 2 years ago
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
Supreme Court Decision
NO Supreme Court ever restricted corporate political speech prior to 1990. That one ruling, a direct assault on free speech, is what was correctly overturned by this bold decision.
All of the media are owned by corporations who use their unlimited resources to sway voters. Now everyone gets that same chance.
ajmjw4 2 years ago
I hate when I am looking it to something and I find one of these videos with terrible commentary. Please stop making these lame videos. Its not that I disagree with you so pleas no terrible response, I just think this content is terrible.
lukerhale 2 years ago
waaaaaa waaaaaaaaa
Now unions don't hold the monopoly they did before...
GET
OVER
IT
SecretCreed 2 years ago
The ruling excludes spending by foriegn corporations.
yocanbanconit 2 years ago
but is that definition, of foreign corporations, truly meaningful when a large percentage of the bosses of said companies are foreign? the definition is hardly 'pure', right?
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
@StarvingForTruth, you're right. I didn't think about foreign subsidiaries. I don't know how they'll deal with that.
yocanbanconit 2 years ago
@yocanbanconit
i don't know either, yocan. this whole thing is just awful
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
We already had corporate oligarchy in the 19th Century. The American people rebelled and fought the National Guard and private Pinkerton armies (ex., National Strike of 1877, Battle of Homestead, etc.), which led to the Progressive reforms of the early 20th Century. Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.
yocanbanconit 2 years ago
can we similarly ban political mailers, newspaper ads, cold calls, etc? can we make it so that people will actually have to get off their fat asses and go research issues? or make it so that if a candidate want to communicate ideas to the people, they actually have to interact with them more directly?
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
can anyone think of a reason why simply banning all political advertisements on the airwaves would be harmful? is there a way can can restructure how campaigns happen altogether? insofar as the media itself can be corporate (ie, NBC - GE), can we use the FCC to enfore some kind of fairness laws ensuring balanced, even coverage? can we require candidates to partake of certain more informative forums , or to answer with more time more citizens' questions?
there has to be some way to do this.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS - with RESULTING spending limits!
Think for a moment who winds up with all this political cash? ....
Then you all wonder why our Press is so bastardized?
MzProgressive 2 years ago 2
don't talk down to me, lady.
i'm perfectly willing to consider that idea, which sounds promising - but among other issues, one problem i've heard with that idea, is that you would then be giving the government even more power to decide who can and can not then be a candidate. it's already incredibly hard for third parties to get on ballots - what you propose could make it even worse.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
Sorry if you think I was "talking down" to you - I am very passionate about this issue - and very upset with the SCOTUS right now.
Actually, in publicly funded elections we would get a much broader number of candidates. You want third party? How about 8 or 10? If ANYONE can run, by simply getting the required number of signatures to qualify - as it's SUPPOSED to work now - we would All get more choices, and anyone who qualifies, would get a capped amount of cash with which to do it.
MzProgressive 2 years ago
Money is not Speech - it is INFLUENCE.
When corporations DIE and do not foist their influence over MULTIPLE GENERATIONS and COUNTRIES ... then they might "qualify" as citizens!
We need PUBLICLY FUNDED elections - so we can GET some Representation at Congress!
Granny "D" from New Hampshire, who walked across America for Campaign Finance Reform had the right idea, sweep the corporate prostitutes from Washington! Choke off the corp. cash!
See esp. her speeches at grannyddotcom
MzProgressive 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"We need PUBLICLY FUNDED elections - so we can GET some Representation at Congress!"
SO granny, why do you suppose your super hero, Barack Hussein Obama, rejected public funds during his campaign????,..and accept help from that super progressive cocksucker, George Soros??
now the cynical prick is outraged that others can influence elections
one reason why Obama is slipping is that he totally contradicts his statements made to win the presidency! Americans are seeing through the prick
genie0390 2 years ago
GE using MSNBC to provide wrong information to the American people is OK, but any other non-media company providing information is wrong?
get real
companies are not illegal so why restrict their freedoms of speech??
genie0390 2 years ago
Because they are NOT CITIZENS!
They should NEVER have been afforded the same STATUS as Citizens!
Should corporations also have the Right to Bear Arms? They may as well HAVE it, because NOW we will have Govt' for the corporations, by the corporations and FOR the corporations - OUTRIGHT!
MzProgressive 2 years ago 4
Corporations are often referred to as "Corporate Citizens"!
why should we discriminate between corporations?? a media corporation can spew all sorts of biased crap like MSNBC always does to influence votes but no other corporation should have the same abilities?? BS!!
genie0390 2 years ago
Shall we ALSO give corporations the right to bear arms?
Here's a better one - How 'bout we make it LEGAL for U.S. Citizens to hide their incomes "offshore" so they don't have to pay taxes?
Hey, when Corps are automatically "disbanded" at age 62, so that their "influence" doesn't span multiple generations of CITIZENS' lives, maybe I'll think they're "citizens."
The REAL Tea Party was spawned by a bankrupt Trading Co. (East India) imposing a Tax via gov't sanction.
Spell FASCISM!
MzProgressive 2 years ago
actually, you are wrong. the tea party was NOT about the tax on tea. it was about price dumping. the tea was taxed upon arrival at britains ports...and then it was brought to the states, it was sold as super cheap prices, in order to drive out of business illegal dutch importers...it also caused harm to local merchants.
you should really quit talking to people like you're such hot shit when you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
Ever hear of the STAMP ACT moron?
Yeah, the Brits cornered the market (from the Dutch) and bolstered a FAILING corporation (East India Trading) by giving them exclusive rights to trade with the colonies - then SLAMMED the colonials with the Stamp Act on TEA.
Which is why Americans NOW drink COFFEE.
Do some homework. You could start here, with 1st hand accounts from those who were AT the wharf on 12/16/1773.
gutenbergDOTorg/files/24321/24321-h/24321-hDOThtm
MzProgressive 2 years ago
i think you mean Townsend act.
And yes, I know all about it. The Tea Party was a response to the Tea Act, which cut the usual export taxes away, allowing the DEI company to sell tea very cheaply to the colonies - cheaper than the smugglers- yet retained was the taxes from the Townsned Act. And though there was a brief uptick of coffee consumption at the time of the revolution, it was very small, and very brief. didn't really surge till much later.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
OK so I'm the moron and I stand corrected. The Townshend Act placed the original tax on tea (the Stamp Act placed one on colonial legal documents). But it was superceded by the TEA ACT, in 1773, which sparked the Tea Party.
And yes, in effect it forced the American Colonials to BUY British tea, over Dutch products by enforcing a monopoly. The British also tried to sell the old tea that had been molding, unsold - which the colonists knew as vile "Bohea."
MzProgressive 2 years ago
The Townshend Act - with links to the Tea and Stamp Acts - succinctly.
socialstudiesforkidsDOTcom / ww ww/u s / townshend acts defDOT htm
The lore of Boston's Green Dragon Tavern (where Revere's Masonic/Sons of Liberty met), it was said that Tory sympathizers were known by the fact they would order tea, and Patriots would order coffee.
MzProgressive 2 years ago
yes. the 'patriots' would order coffee - a tiny, tiny portion of the american population. i actually found a research study on this before i posted by rebuttal to you - like me to find it again? it's a common myth to believe americans became big coffee drinkers at the time as you think - but average consumption was still at a fraction of a pound per person, per year. then it returned to previous levels. upticked again when the Brits embargoed tea to the colonies in the war of 1812...
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
but even THEN, you don't see the numbers truly rise until later in the 19th century.
if you need me to find the paper on it again, I could try... but you really want to suffer that? it's dreadfully dry.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
but it didn't REALLY take off until prohibition.
the end.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
the Tea Act eliminated the normal export tax - on tea. But it retained the tax placed on it from the Twnsend Act. The Tea Act imposed NO NEW TAXES - instead it just set up a situation where an ailing Dutch East India company could sell its product for cheaper than the smugglers. The monopoply, in terms of legalities, was already in place - the competition was all technically illegal ALREADY.
goto USHISTORY - do ORG, and stop using kiddie site for your information.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
Just tryin' to put it in terms you might grasp using the "kiddie" site. :)
MzProgressive 2 years ago
and yet, you still got it wrong.
fascinating.
Townsend act duties were still attached to the tea, and this was a big part of what ticked of the rebels.
You just don't have it right. You already made one obvious error - isn't it probable, therefore, you also are wrong in this little point?
I've checked at least 10 different versions of the events online thus far...including the actual text of the tea act (incredibly difficult to translate into modern american english).
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
You should take a look at a political cartoon called "Bosses of the Senate" (1889). Drawn during the era of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, etc. Even after 121 years later, that cartoon still hit the nail on the head. ( maybe we're closer to the situation depicted in the cartoon today than when it is drawn).
DeJiKo06 2 years ago
Yup! Here it is at the U.S. Senate website.
senateDOTgov/artandhistory/art/common/image/Ga_cartoon_38_00392DOT htm
Please note that this cartoon was published BEFORE Teddy Roosevelt enacted the FIRST laws in this country to try and reign in Corporate money "buying" politicians.
The Supreme Court just erased those Roosevelt measures!
Please See video at my channel page by Wisconsin TV entitled: "Supreme Court's Campaign Finance Ruling"
MzProgressive 2 years ago
I participated in 2 "bombs" in Ron Paul's campaign - BUT NEVER AGAIN!
Why should I made my small contribution when some outfit like WalMart can spend $100 Million on ads for the opponent on the week of the election?
97% of Ron Paul contributions came from individuals but those days are over - CORPORATIONS HAVE GAINED COMPLETELY CONTROL NOW -- YOU ARE BUT A RAT IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS.
DillonX 2 years ago 2
just because a conservative supreme court made such a stupid decision doesnt mean that all conservative like this! its like that not all democrats like the idea that the pharma and insurance industry wrote the health care bill.
wdcsucks1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only morons actually believe this moronic TYT vlogger. LMAO
The fact is obama already gave banks guarantees up to $23.7 TRILLION over the past year. Google it.
Regulations will just make US companies less competitive internationally. Thus, US companies will just relocate overseas.
Health insurance is expensive because of govn't regulations that limit competition. You cannot get insurance from one of the 50 states and use it in your own state.
Competition will reduce prices for consumers.
YouSmellLikePOOO 2 years ago
What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." don't liberals understand? I'm glad to see the Court overturn previous bad law. I wish they would do it more often. Free speech is free speech regardless if it comes from individuals or groups.
66605 2 years ago
So to you a corporation is a person? Is a school one as well? How about a just school bus?
occhamsrazor 2 years ago
LOL!!!
MzProgressive 2 years ago
I don't like fear mongering. I'm no partisan, but I don't think its gonna matter much.
I like to think that people aren't that dumb that they'll vote for whatever has more airtime. And there's also the Electoral college to protect us...omg; I can't believe I just said the electoral college will save us.
I don't know; I guess I'm just naive.
correasm91352 2 years ago
See that's part of the problem. They can buy ads for the candidate that they like, but they can also run attack ads against the ones that they don't. As well as running political issue ads til the day of the election.
occhamsrazor 2 years ago
You don't think the SwiftBoat lies about Kerry didn't hurt him?
The Electoral College is just another tool of CONTROL and should be abolished!
MzProgressive 2 years ago
the electoral college is a tool of control? that's paranoid modern nonsensical hype. it exists to preserve the voice of smaller states, and as a bulwark against corrosive factionalism. the people you hear whining about it today - you, a perfect example - are just bitter that it worked to prevent them from getting what they wanted.
waaaaah!
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
it's part of why we are a Republic, by design, and not a true Democracy - which was seen as downright dangerous...mob rule... 'two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'.
there's no alternative that isn't also flawed. stop whining.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
@StarvingForTruth
Perhaps when it was first instituted... but in today's age of computer ballot tallying, it is not just antiquated, but a "tool" of political factions.
The founders set up a system of 1 man 1 vote -
but the Presidential elections are now decided by voting districts, that are chronically manipulated by the parties to give them advantages.
For instance, my district sweeps north to include a small peninsula 2 counties away!
The popular vote would restore parity!
MzProgressive 2 years ago
"The founders set up a system of 1 man 1 vote". No. The founders specifically did not. Who do you think set up the electoral college? That's right - the founders. Go read the Federalist Papers - it'll straighten this all out for you. 1 man 1 vote is pure democracy, which they saw an a very, very dangerous thing. It is in essence mob rule, and leads to tyranny of the majority.
shifting districts is called gerrymandering, and is fixable without abandoning federalist principles.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
computer balloting? how on earth does that balance out large states/urban centers from dominating the outcome of elections?
irrelevant- shows you don't understand why the system was put there from the very start.
StarvingForTruth 2 years ago
@StarvingForTruth
Why should it matter where people Live in a National Election? The vote is supposed to reflect the "people's choice." We've suffered 4 who did not win the popular vote.
There is a movement for a national popular vote, which five states have already ratified.
fairvoteDOTorg/bay-state-paper-electoral-college-an-insult-to-logic-pass-npv
Gerrymandering is rampant, and a direct manipulation of the electoral college.
MzProgressive 2 years ago
i cant believe people are a stupid as this brizzle2009100 guy
how thinks that a corporation is a living, breathing person. what a moron.
thesparitan 2 years ago 2
If your gonna attack me for disagreeing with u with no facts to base your argument on, u might wanna say it to me. U believe in marxism obviously. U wanna punish ppl who make more money than u. Just bc they worked harder and had better ideas than u to get where they're at now doesnt mean there rights should be taken away. The progressives class warfare technique is working on ppl like u. Just bc they make more money than u doesnt mean they should be punished and have there freedoms taken away.
bRizzle2009100 2 years ago
Oh and by the way, corporations are run by "living breathing people". If u think there freedom of speech rights should be taken away then we should just get rid of the entire media bc they're all run by big corporations. They all are apart of corporations. Olbermann, Beck, Couric all are apart of corporations. Should there rights be limited as well? Like i said, just bc Bill Gates had a great idea one day to invent microsoft doesnt mean he should be punished for it.
bRizzle2009100 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good bye USA - hello China II. Won't be long before the Chinese banks which are all owned by the Chinese Government start wanting their tens of billions of dollars back and guess where they are going to spend it. The epitaph upon the United States' tomb shall be: Here Lies Freedom.
MsBLiP 2 years ago
I agree with you on banning any foreigner from influencing our elections, which would have to include baring illegal aliens from donating money to a candidate. Would you also ban PAC's? And if so, then how will my voice be heard? Can I afford a TV add? No, so you will have blocked my speech. The Court is not "right wing" they are just interpreting the Constitution as they see it. As Roberts stated "stare decisis cannot be seen as an "inexorable command." (Or there would be no minimum wage)
jbranstetter04 2 years ago
Finally my voice will be heard, information will now be available for us to hear before an election. It's funny how the person on this video insults the intelligence of all of us in the first two minutes by saying that we are too stupid to do research on our own on who to vote for, like we are all a bunch of idiots. President Bush's greatest legacy will be his appointments of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court; they have, and will continue to fight for our freedom. Thank you Bush.
jbranstetter04 2 years ago
rich people have always had the right to spend unlimited amounts of money it the corperations than can now spend all they want and as aggrigates of capital they have an unfair advantage
steve852011 2 years ago
The constitution was written to limit government power. Not to "give" rights to people.
The first Amendment is a control on government power. It states quite clearly "congress shall pass no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
How could limitations on what can aired be anything other than an abridgment of speech?
caltrop69 2 years ago