This is a blatant example of wishful thinking. If it walks like a dog, barks like a dog and has a tail like a dog.....then it's a dog. People are waking up and Citizens United is going down.
That's the strategy.. let's make legal what we could do before taking a risk. Let's make it legit and in our defense let say we could do it before so it doesnt matter! People.. it matters. We need to put a leash on corporations because they have gone wild. The corporation who takes different positions in politics do so for their benefit not for YOUR benefit. They're not people and if they were they could be compared to aristocracy who simply have more power and money. We dont want that
Yes we have the media lobbying and making donations that are paid with political favors. Do you think that this will be different.. just that instead of "hey we gonna give you money and help you win" it will be hey we gonna support you publicly and help you win! We're ADDING to the existent problem of corruption but it won't be corruption cause now it's legal, right?
Most of these points are false. Not many people read the NYT. Super Pacs use prime broadcasting hours. Romney has more speech than Newt. So newt gave his Palestinians are an invented people speech now Israels proxy corporation has backed funded Newt. Will American foreign policy now be affected by donation promises. This is new. The its being going on for a while argument doesn't mean it's good. Crimes have been going on for a while. Ironic to say lobbying is bad but election lobbying is good.
Wow, so your reasons are basically that they could already do this?
"Oh no! SOPA and PIPA are going to censor the internet!" *legislation will no longer pass* *government shuts down sites anyways* "Wait, they could already do that?"
Ughhhh Reason...I love you guys but please never open another video with the Axis of Stupid. I'm surprised I didn't get an aneurism from the pure idiocy spewed from the beginning to 0:38
This SCOTUS case is the nail in the coffin our declining country. The top 1% will have so much wealth and power that the bottom 99% will never be free again. We really don't have a democracy now. We don't even have a country anymore. It's over.
@MortimerTheClueless: Yeah, this Supreme Court judgement also made it illegal for citizens to vote and decipher the truth from political commercials. It's so sad that 99 percent can no longer vote :(
@andyissemicool Funny you should mention the right to vote b/c MortimerTheClueless supports citizens united yet also posted this video which states that citizens who disagree should be stripped of their right to vote and forced to take medication.
I thought Libertarians were apeshit over INDIVIDUAL rights, well corporations and unions are COLLECTIVE organizations which consists of big GROUPS of people with common agendas. Our Constitution guarantees us the freedom of SPEECH, not the freedom of PURCHASE.
I am all for free speech, but we must realize that speech is no longer free if it requires money to be heard!!!
Allowing any type of organization to heavily influence an election by providing ridiculous amounts of capital for its candidate of choice will ultimately lead to bought and paid for politicians who will be pressured into fulfilling the desires of said organization. Obviously, we are not without this to some degree already, but it will only get worse without campaign finance reform.
CUnited decision gets the Youtube treatment.Simplification,clever post-production,snarky dismissiveness.Comparison to newspapers endorsing candidates is laughable.He says government censored “Hillary”.It didn’t.Definition of censor (v) to delete, expurgate undesirable information.For film to be censored, government agency would review it and force creators to modify.Which didn’t happen.Talking head spoke scripted lie.Style of A.Rooney, "Ever wonder why people dont like corporations blah blah...?
If nothing else, enforcing total transparency should be our government's role in protecting our political free speech.
You can't comment almost anywhere without having to give verifiable identification, sometimes your real name. Why should we allow any entity to hide when it concerns various forms of political free speech?
Total transparency in government finance, from election campaigns to regular, thorough, cost benefit/analysis in every government department and agency.
The problem with Citizens United can be seen in the New York Times article of October 30, 2011. Karl Rove, Haley Barbor, et al, have raised well over 1/2 billion dollars to date, and it's all secret. They bought the Republican majority in the House in 2010, and they're going to continue until all of the legislators are whores, beholden to corporate interests rather than the interest of US citizens. The two are often mutually exclusive. More money = more free speech? How dangerous and sad.
@haldonrichardson1 Good. Citizens United has empowered producers to combat trial lawyers, in previous years of all industries the "legal industry" has been the largest campaign contributor, since the contribution rules favored them. Citizens United has really empowered the producers to combat Democrat parasite interest groups, who are like a legion for they are many.
Such law may already be in place, to limited extent. But many people strongly object to defining Corporations as persons. Then ruling that money is actually Constitutionally protected free speech. That's a far reach; tortured logic!
So the linguistic content of this video is null. Nice man. But wrong.
Also, no mention of the vastly negative effect of the Koch brothers billions which grease the campaigns of far right nutsos. They funded the political assassination of Alan Grayson.
@BillSalem Alan Grayson was one of the vilest, most despicable congressmen in modern history, he commited political suicide by being one of the most extreme leftist in the Congress when his district was centrist and voted for Bush in previous elections.
@teemu21 Horse hocky! Alan Grayson may seem a disagreeable person to you, you're a right winger, but hes one of the only men in Congress who refused to sellout to the far-right shadow government: Big Money banksters who bought our Congress and now rule our country illegally..
Of course the right hate Alan. They hate anybody who speaks Truth. He revealed the Repukes real plan: "Seniors hurry up and die."
Right wingers love corrupt liars. The more corrupt the more they love 'em.
@TheChuckFactor When legislators set the rules for buying and selling, the first things to be bought and sold are the legislators. Limit the power of government, and campaign financing would be irrelevant. People will be uninterested in slipping money under the table to politicians if they have no economic influence. It is too difficult to try and stop people from giving money to politicians. There are an infinite amount of channels to funnel capital through, and you can't ban free speech
@AroundSun I don't fully agree but I will say your point does make some sense. My problem is with money being = to speech. What the mafia did was illegal but corporations doing exactly the same thing is practicing free speech. The smaller government arguement fit perfectly on this topic though. Thx gave me alot to think about.
This type of propaganda is very slick. This silver-tongued tool ignores certain realities: People in corporations already have the same right to free speech that all individuals have. When speech is monetized, it is no longer free speech. More speech CAN be bad if it allows the corporate elite's speech to drown out the speech of the majority of society. Corporations "...enmeshed in the political process" is why we no longer have democracy. Lobbyists work for CORPORATIONS,NOT GOVERNMENT!
Nice propaganda you pathetic tools of Wall St. Go on waging war against the people of the U.S. You will help wake up the masses who've been sedated by the Wall St./Madison Ave. Indoctrination Machine. It'll eventually happen and when it does you and your elitist cronies will get buried by your own arrogance, hatred and greed.
If money doesn't buy results in politics, and large corporate expenditures are benign, as Gillespie asserts, why is so damn much spent on it? Just for kicks? Ayn Rand was a sociopath. Type "Bill Moyers Interviews Nick Gillespie and Lawrence Lessig" into YouTube. Lessig brilliantly pokes holes in Gillespie's arguments. And type "Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms" into YouTube to get a sense of why Gillespie has a peculiar American version of "Libertarian".
If money doesn't buy results in politics, and large corporate expenditures are benign, as Gillespie asserts, why is so damn much spent on it? Just for kicks? Ayn Rand was a sociopath. Type "Bill Moyers Interviews Nick Gillespie and Lawrence Lessig" into YouTube. Lessig brilliantly pokes holes in Gillespie's arguments. And type "Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms" into YouTube to get a sense of why Gillespie has a peculiar American version of "Libertarian".
These economic injustices and others will continue as long as wealthy contributors corrupt our political process. Many of us feel the President can and should do much more to rein in Wall Street, create jobs, and defend Medicare and Social Security. But any likely opponent would probably be far worse. Politicians in this post-Citizens United world are either limited by corporate power or prostituted to it..... (Copied from TruthOut) Great website btw!
Those Humans who are so short sighted to want this abomination called Citizens United (Corporations United) may want to be controlled by Foreign Corporations that they cannot vote out of office. I mean do they really think the Foreign Corporations/Investors/Dictators wont chip in to buy our Politicians? Do they think we will have any ability to stop them? So thanks to the Republicans they will enslave themselves and US by allowing the scum we cannot control to replace the scum we can vote out.
Please tell your Congresspersons to support House Res. 156 called the Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ESRA), which Dennis Kucinich has introduced.
The NYT doesn't have anywhere NEAR the money of Exxon Mobil. What the fuck is this guy talking about? And then, at the end, he says the real problem is corporate influence in Washington. This system puts in people who are already paid for through campaign donations. Frustrating video this is.
The way the Left constantly complains about CU, you'd THINK that our politics was 1/100TH as corrupt pre-2009 than after the decision. That our politicians were all angels who had our best interests at heart and were suddenly corrupted by unlimited 'corporate' advertising money. So WHAT if a bunch of right-wing groups can run ads! They're only as powerful as the voters are susceptible and ignorant enough to believe the likely lies in those ads. INFORM and EDUCATE voters.
Campaign finance reform advocates never make much sense. It's like talking to a brick wall. They have ZERO EVIDENCE that much of what htey say, much less the proposals they push, is/are accurate or would make things any better for our republic. They act as though money influences politics IN A VACUUM, devoid of voters and all the other forces that make it much more complex.
Politics is NOT THIS SIMPLE, CFR advocates. The CU decision is hardly the end of the world, so stop bitching.
While liberals are wasting time BITCHING about the decision and making all kinds of futile efforts to "overturn" it, right-wingers and more libertarian folks are TAKING ADVANTAGE of the decision to further their causes! Why not JOIN THEM and use this newfound freedom push your own progressive causes? It would be MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE in the long run than trying to stop the ruling. FIGHT in the marketplace of ideas, not be defeatist and sit on the sidelines.
Dressed as the everyday "Joe" this presentation leaves out the results we are now experiencing - Tax Breaks to the richest, while budget held hostage, Tea Party/ Republican corporate bought politicians pursuing death to everything from meaningful health care, to the EPA and Consumer Protection Agency. Leaves out how they COMPLETELY dominate the media with lies, & now attack Medicaid, Social Security, fair wage rights, & access to education - or how corporate money is 1000s times that of Unions.
are you guys nuts? So you are saying that because this has been going on already, that makes it ok for it to go on more? It was BAD going on as much as it was already, and its going to be MORE BAD now. This video doesn't even make sense in some parts/statements. "more free speech is better", but you are talking about corporations being able to influence the content and saturation of the info/opinions we are exposed to, about candidates the corp. is supporting/funding....conflict of interest?
I'm not quite sure how Newspapers running editorials is the same as unlimited sums of money being spent on advertising and other communications. It's a lie to pretend like this is not going to be anything new.
Oh, and this is not just about corruption, it's about "one person, one vote." Now that businesses can spend as much as they want, they will have even more leverage over our elected officials. I don't believe we should allow people with more money to have more say in how we run our gov't
@Lipkow251: That's cool, no one with a conscience should believe in one dollar, one vote. It's a seriously far fall from the American ideal. However, that means you don't agree with the commandments of Capitalism. Have the strength to stand up for your morals, too many people don't.
@tripfunkmonster I believe in the "commandments" of capitalism, whatever those are, but as applied to economics, not when it comes to how we run our government. If people in the market place are willing to sell their goods or services to the highest bidder, I'm fine with that. But I have a serious problem when politicians are willing to do the same thing. One of our fundamental ideals in this country is equal protection of the law. We don't get that by letting the monied interests have more say
@Lipkow251: There's an inherent incompatibility in your comment. In Capitalism, EVERYTHING is for sale. It's efficient, but it means elections can also be bought. Hence, no democracy or even an effective constitutional republic. You can't separate the economy and the gov't. in Capitalism. It's impossible. The Corporate Elite will always be able to buy legislation in a Capitalist society. We need to face that reality & shrink the Corporate Elite to an amount of corruption that won't strangle us.
@tripfunkmonster I disagree, I think with various reforms to the campaign finance system, lobbying reforms and by promoting diversity of ideas in the media we can achieve a good balance. Of course, you're right that this does go against the idea of capitalism, but it doesn't mean capitalism can't still exist, it just means the political system is closed off from capitalism. Nothing in the Constitution, despite what our Supreme Court says, prohibits limiting the influence of corporations
@Lipkow251: I believe that the only true campaign finance reform is ending private financing & criminalizing professional lobbying. Nothing short of this will limit the influence of corporations & prevent the Corporate Elite from buying our elections. To promote diversity of ideas, we need to undo the damage done by the consolidation of our media. That was done by deregulation & can only be repaired by bringing back regulation. Nothing can help us until we evolve past Fundamentalist Capitalism.
@andyissemicool And where do you propose we find these non-corrupt politicians? Middle earth? Narnia? Let's face it, politicians want to be re-elected. Elections cost lots of money. Any politician that stands up to Corporate America, and gets millions of dollars spent against them, will not be in office long. Few people, if any, would have the courage to oppose such powerful interests.
@Lipkow251: If you think that the gigantic majority (if not all) politicians are corrupt, then why do we even have a government? I don't get your POV: you want politicians and justices (whom you claim are all corrupt) to solve the problems of political corruption. How does that work?
@andyissemicool I'm not saying gov' t doesn't work now, I'm saying it would be more effective at serving the public interest if it didn't have to worry about campaign contributions. Gov't can work as long as we limit corrupting influences, including corporate donations. I'm not expecting corrupt politicians to solve political corruption. I'm expecting voters to do that. Only when enough people come together can they match the power of corporations and only then will we be able to achieve reform.
@andyissemicool Because my argument is based on the assumption, and I think it's a fairly reasonable one, that politicians care about getting re-elected. So if enough voters come together to demand political reforms, politicians will listen. You see, politics today serve those groups that are well organized and have a lot of money. Only problem is the groups that fight for the public don't have the same firepower as the chamber of commerce and other industry trade associations
@Lipkow251: Well, Barry himself got elected by a more or less grassroots movement made up mostly of small political groups and individual donations. How'd that work out? If you are saying that the best we can hope for is for people to form massive movements and raise a large amount of cash to exert just enough pressure onto politicians to make them have a momentary lapse into decency, then you're basically saying this country is dead and buried (something I happen to agree with, actually).
@andyissemicool Barry also had to deal with a Congress that was overrun by corporate influence. And I don't think campaign finance was or is an issue people really know or care about. When Congress' approval rating is at 9 percent, that should tell you they are not responsive to the public's interest. Our society is no longer a republic - it's a plutocracy. One person, one vote, has become one dollar, one vote thanks to our Supreme Court.
@Lipkow251 -- I'm sorry, but your "opinion" is not well thought out.
1. Editorials are the same as any form of communication that advocates one politician over another.
2. Businesses don't have "unlimited sums of money" to spend. Comparatively speaking it may seem that way to an individual, but no more so than it seems Greenpeace has unlimited fund to spew it's garbage and sway elections.
3. If you don't want businesses spending money in elections, you shouldn't want non-profits either.
@kehvan 1. Last I checked, when a Newspaper runs an editorial advocating for the election of a candidate, it does so once, and that's the end of it. When advertisements are purchased, they run repeatedly, ad naseum, until it's drilled in the minds of the electorate, at the expense of other issues/groups having their message heard.
2. I agree businesses don't have unlimited resources. I used that phrase because the Supreme Court decision gives them ability to spend as much as they want.
@Lipkow251 -- 1.) Your opinion is non-sense. A newspaper or other media outlet that backs a candidate or political party not only editorializes in favor of such, but slants news stories that way too.
2.) You simply have NO CLUE what you're talking about. The court didn't rule that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money, but that it couldn't be limited to spending zero money. The USSC found that law's prohibition of ALL independent spending by corporations and unions was invalid.
@kehvan 1) Prove it. Everyone is biased to some extent, but newspapers at least attempt to give conflicting voices a right to be heard. Besides, everyone has their own slants. You and I might read the same article and disagree as to whether it is "slanted." But if we both watch a television ad that advocates for a candidate, I don't think there would be any reasonable argument that it wasn't "slanted." TV ads, by definition are slanted, unlike newspaper articles.
@Lipkow251 -- You're a joke, right? First you ask me to prove it, then you sit there and support my argument with "Everyone is biased to some extent..." and "Besides, everyone has their own slants."
@kehvan No joke. No reasonable person can tell me a tv ad isn't biased. But when you've got a reputable newspaper, not everyone is going to perceive a slant. You can't prove to me that a particular newspaper article is biased in a particular way. Besides, you don't actually mean to tell me that an advertisement gives you the same quality of information as a legitimate, serious newspaper article. Do you?
@kehvan What do you mean by "legitimate?" I don't dispute that the information in an ad may be legitimate. But it also doesn't tell a comprehensive story in the same way a newspaper article does.
@kehvan 2) I'm pretty sure that reading the opinion gives me a clue. I'm quoting from the second paragraph here: "The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether." In other words, it cannot place expenditure limits on independent corporate expenditures. Later on in the opinion they expressly state that the government has no basis for limiting independent expenditures.
@Lipkow251 -- Then you literally don't comprehend what you're reading. The phrase "The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements" expressly means the government may create regulations that set the rules for speech from business, but couldn't completely suppress it. If you're not understanding that, then you need to go back and take remedial reading.
@kehvan Perhaps you should get a dictionary. They can set disclosure requirements, which means they can force groups to reveal their donors. They can make disclaimer requirements, meaning they can require an ad to reveal who paid for it. In no way do those requirements limit the amount of money that can be spent. My point was that the government can't set limits on their expenditures. Not that they can't regulate at all. There is no need to attack each other's intelligence. Because I'm right.
@Lipkow251 -- Actually, you're wrong... but you're a leftist, so it comes with the territory. The fact is, you've never read the FEC disclaimer and disclosure requirements, because if you had, you wouldn't have stated what you have.
Oh, btw, you first have to have some intelligence before I could attack it.
@kehvan Actually I have read their disclaimer and disclosure requirements. The FEC defines "disclaimer" and I'm quoting here, as a "statement placed on a public communication that identifies the person(s) who paid for the communication and, where applicable, the person(s) who authorized the communication." Again, as I said before, in no way does that limit expenditures. (Note - I accidentally wrote "disclosure" in a prior post. I meant to say disclaimer so I removed it and changed it.)
@kehvan Also, while they do limit contributions, the FEC does not limit expenditures. There is a difference there. I actually have studied election law extensively, so nice try thinking you can win an argument by being condescending and pretending to have knowledge that you don't have. The fact that you had to resort to personal attacks merely shows that you are intellectually inferior to me. If you really had intelligence, you'd be able to attack my argument on the merits.
@kehvan Also, to your second point, I don't really care how much Greenpeace or any other "group" spends. I care about individuals being heard based on the merit of their ideas, not based on how much money they can raise. And lastly, I don't want anyone spending money in elections. Elections should be funded by public lump sum grants.
@Lipkow251 -- If you don't care how much Greenpeace spends then why do you can how much a for profit organization spends? You shouldn't. The fact is, any organization be it for profit or not, is a group of individuals acting in concert. And you REALLY mean to tell me you want to put politicians more in control of free speech during campaigns? That's an utter ridiculous idea. POLITICIANS and their sycophants would then control campaign funding, thus access to who can run.
@kehvan You implied that I thought non-profits should be held to a different standard. My point is only that all groups should be banned, profit and non-profit alike. I don't want to put politicians in control of free speech. First, I would not characterize campaign contributions as speech. Second, a lump sum system would expand access to who can run, because now it would not matter if you can raise enough money. Every candidate would get the same amount of money.
@Lipkow251 -- Money is a exchange medium... nothing more and nothing less. If the ability to print a book is a function of free speech, then money certainly is part of the "grease" that makes that process happen. If you have a group that has numerous members that ask the group to act on the behalf of the members for a specific cause, that's a direct function of free association and free speech. The amount of money the raised by said organization is a barometer of their success in that endeavor.
@kehvan Shouldn't the barometer for success be the merit of a candidate's ideas, not the amount of money it can raise? Money would be a fine proxy for free speech if everyone had it in equal amount, but they do not. The correlation between the merit of an idea and the money it raises is distorted when you have wealthy groups spending unlimited sums.
@Lipkow251 -- It appears you don't know the definition of merit. If an idea or the ideas of a politician have merit, it attracts people and their money. The number of people and the dollar amounts they wish to give are the barometer... so no, the merit of an idea is not a barometer, because just how do you measure merit?
Wow... I was hoping to talk to someone a bit more intelligent.
@kehvan Um, I was hoping to talk to someone who would have a conversation without attacking someone else personally. I would measure merit based on the number of votes a person gets in an election. We are, after all, discussing political campaigns. Or do you think money is a better way to measure merit in a republic than votes? The point is that ideas and policies that can attract more dollars may win out over ideas and policies that can't, even though the latter may have more popular support.
@kehvan Also, maybe I didn't explain the idea well enough. Essentially, all private fundraising would be eliminated, and all candidates for office would get the same amount of money from the government to run their campaign, to spend however they see fit. How does that put politicians more in control? In fact, it takes away their right to fundraise, giving them less control of what you call "free speech." If you dislike politicians so much, you should like this idea.
@Lipkow251 -- Are you really so small minded you can't see the logical conclusions of what you're advocating? If the government is providing the money to all candidates, who gets to decide just who is a viable candidate? After all, they can't give money to every single Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to run, so a so-called "independent committee" would be formed to determine who is gets money and who does not.
Money corrupts our politicians. This problem has been going on since the days of Rome. Unlimited money means our elected leaders will do even more to represent multinational corporations and ignore what's best for the American people. We're already seeing a new breed of scumbag politicians like Scott Walker, thanks to this ruling.
But I'm not worried, this will be the wake up call for Americans too purge the traitor robber barons from power, via the ballot box or a revolution.
i will give corporations the same rights as a person as soon as they are able to get a mammogram or a colonoscopy....until then...corporations are not people.
Your video is excellently produced, but your logic is wrong.The 1886 case that implied equal protections be afforded to corporations, and perpetuated corporate entanglement, didn't explicitly grant individual rights,and was effected through scribner error by Bancroft Davis.Revealing historical accuracies to ideologues is wasted breath, and your position is predicated on argumentative fallacies.Conservatives often "argue by question", where a simple answer cannot be produced, addlepated retards.
"Based on political lobbying rather than marketplace" is exactly what this is about. That "lobbying" costs money, and corporations have a helluva lot more money to determine what our government is "based on." Justifying a broken system by saying, "those other guys are doing it" and the inference that the NYT - a HUGE corporation is somehow "against" corporations. This is about disclosure. Citizens United makes obfuscating the truth as simple as watching your right wing propaganda.
Nothing but libertarian b.s. propaganda. If corporations are legal people...I should be able to marry Goldman Sachs. In a democracy, the people rule. No where in the constitution does it say, "We the corporations" Stop the plutocrats and their crony globalist agenda! Go to move to amend dot org and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
@1MeanBean So are the shareholders, the people who own and represent the corporation, not people at all? Are they in fact just some figment of our imagination? I think you fail to understand the true composition of a corporation, which is a group of people putting their own money into a company, because they trust the corporation to use their money in a way they see fit. (cont. in next comment)
@1MeanBean Your blanket comments belie your ability to have a valid argument, when clearly the unified body or people in a corporation have as much of a right to practice politics as does the individual. So if you are going to complain about corporations, why don't you put emphasis on the unions who economically damage our education, manufacturing, and other industries they get a hold of with their special interest in Washington.
@1MeanBean ok so you are trying to say that individual people can have the right to free speech however groups of people cannot ? Isnt that kinda weird ?
@poop2poop2 Didn't know we were a Constitutional Republic. Last time I checked not a lot of our officials actually "represent" the views of the people. The Constitution protects individuals but the Constitution never stated corporations as individuals. All this time I thought we were a Plutocracy.
I say that if corporations want to think of themselves as people then fine they will have the same campaign contribution restrictions placed on them as any other citizen.No more than $5000 dollars should be able to given.Make politicians beholden to the people again!Support Campaign Finance Reform.
This yes says that corporations have freedom of speech but because a corporation isn't actually a person it has no voice so how does it speak?With MONEY.And just like with ordinary citizens you can't limit the amount of free speech a person has then you can't limit the amount of money (the free speech of a corporation) that a company gives to support its views.If this doesn't sound ludicrious to you you need to have your head examined or checked for a pulse.
it is a big issue because it also allows them to donate freely to campaigns. corporations shouldnt be allowed to donate freely because theyre not people their buisnesses and thus they dont have to face all of the consequences of their views.
is this guy a fucking moron? no biggie? wtf world does he live in? dont sweat corporations acting as individuals and raiding their banks to feed the man they want in office who is going to pass more laws to benefit corps. reasontv??? how about insanity tv......you left your brains in the toilet i see. by the way, since this vid was made before last election, how did that theory work out?? the most money spent ever in any election anywhere and it wasnt even a prez election. oh yeah...dumbass
Basically, we all know Obama's the smartest person in the world, so if he disagrees with the SCOTUS, we know he's right and their wrong! Ditto that for the Second Amendment! After all, those Founding Fathers were just a bunch of rich white lawyers, right? Not Obama! He was approved by Oprah, and he should be Dictator for Life, right, Lib--I mean, right, Leftists? And I don't need proof he's the smartest person in the world, I merely need to believe it's so, and poof! See how that works?
@HomelessOnline your an idiot nothing you said in your failed attempt at sarcastic humor was funny or even loosely rooted in reallity get off the internet.
@liberalmike1994 - No real liberal would tell somebody else to "get off the internet." You're a leftist, little lady, face it and accept it and don't be ashamed of it. It would explain a lot about your core beliefs, wouldn't it? And let us know when you learn to spell; we're all rootin' for ya!
@HomelessOnline lol wtf do you know about "real" liberals. if you werent an idiot you would know that liberal and leftist are the same thing on the political spectrum. You should probly stick to fucking your cousin and not trying to win debates on the internet when you have no understanding of the political spectrum.
Nobody cares what Obama thinks. How could they, considering that nobody knows what Obama thinks? His actions have clearly contradicted his words on a consistent basis.
This debate is about the right of corporations to buy elections outright. Some corporations act strongly against the interests of humanity, and the average voter is very susceptible to their propaganda. That's why the left (if that still exists in this country) opposes it.
I must be confused. Aren't Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Andrea Mitchell, and O'Reilly all corporate spokespieces? How is it any different for, say, Profits Galore, Inc. to have a spokespiece? (Airwaves notwithstanding.) Is the Sacramento Bee not a corporation? They are certainly clear on letting us know exactly which way they would want us to vote. How would "Enron Nightly News" be any different? Or "The Sierra Club Nightly Report?" Don't they all have their spin, propaganda, and slants?
wow your high .so the bully with the biggest mouth wins..... fuck that.. I'm from IL and I can tell you it is bull fucking shit. big biz also uses the pigs to enfoce it's will ...............I.E. THE HAYMARKET AFFAIR. you are wrong on so meny leves. your not real...lol
Why bother making a political contribution: What do you think your measly 2,000 dollars matters in a country of millions of people anyway? Your contributions are already basically meaningless already. At least this way, somebody has the possibility of challenging government power.
Put simply, more debate is always better no matter who is paying for it.
Incumbents are just looking to pervent groups of people from uniting, i.e. incorporating, to shut us up without seeming to.
Why bother making a political contribution: What do you think your measly 2,000 dollars matters in a country of millions of people anyway? Your contributions are already basically meaningless already. At least this way, somebody has the possibility of challenging government power.
Put simply, more debate is always better no matter who is paying for it.
This truly is the fall of America. It isn't going to be big corporations but non-profit special interest groups who will hide in the background while the media is staged. A conservative element can now set up a soft liberal media source to demonize and the people will be conned. This decision has doomed America and ironically will destroy the essence of the amendment it twisted to its own agenda. The essence of free speech is how you think. You will now be told what to think.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL good satire! ...what do you mean this wasn't supposed to be satire?
BTW - why would Citizens United be runnning a propaganda clip on themselves IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT THEY WERE LEGIT.
And this is a propaganda film by Citizens United (not a real group by the way, Corporate Money masquarading as a group - astro turf). Just like Teabaggers.
@KJamesB - Yeah, them "TeaBaggers," as you so kindly refer to them, are crazy with their talk of "The Constitution," "Founding Forefathers," "Taxed Enough Already"--yeah, right, they don't know how bad it can get!--and wanting to see a birth certificate! Let's make fun of them some more, and eventually anybody who takes them serious will be inclined to shut up and/or disagree! Now them union thugs shipped in from other states, that's not astro turf, right? End Free Speech, right, KJamesB?
reason 1 - omg you mean like they not only have rights but unlimited rights too? shit dawg that sucks i say we only let them speak when we want them to.
reason 2 - ya thats bullshit its only fair that new corp have an opinion not barnes & noble! cause one is like better and stuff.
reason 3 - ya ya too true like if one person speaks no big deal we can ignore him or shut him up, but if people group together theyre dangerous - no speech for groups!
Other than people trying to be deliberately misleading by using a false analogy, no one has said that "corporations are persons." What has been decided is that corporations, which are simply groups of people, have the same right to free speech as individual persons.
The only reason to oppose this ruling is belief that people are somehow imbued with nefarious intentions the moment they start gathering together and incorporate for legal purposes. Pure liberal fantasy.
Give me a break. Corporations are groups of people: They derive their rights from the agreements and the rights of the individuals who make them up. Churches incorporate: By your fucking idiotic idea, churches would be shut down after 122 years. few make it anywhere nearly that long, by the way). I know you're being sarcastic, but it's not clever sarcasm. Corporations have rights because it is a convenient way of dealing with the rights of the individuals who make it up.
By your thinking, individuals should lose their rights when they decide to form groups: That makes no fucking sense. All a corporation is is a group of individuals deciding to act together and be treated as a single unit for tax purposes. People don't lose their rights just because they decided to ban together as a group.
And saying that you "sell corporations" is to take a metaphor literally. In reality, you sell its assets: Don't be so literal minded.
@devourerofbabies I think you are unable to respond to it: And, nwrt, is a response: cocksucker.
As for limited liability, your idiotic thinking forgets that that only applies to investors. The actual decision makers still have liability. If you loan money to sommebody, and he does something stupid with that money---should you be put in prison. Yet, that is exactly what you are saying. Of course, hard to take a guy with a name like yours seriously.
@laxinthe303 First of all you are the Moron....You obviously haven't read the constitution....the 1st Amendment is FREE SPEECH....not limiting speech of those you disagree. let me know when you Libtards try to amend that!
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
This is a blatant example of wishful thinking. If it walks like a dog, barks like a dog and has a tail like a dog.....then it's a dog. People are waking up and Citizens United is going down.
Cch092775 1 week ago
That's the strategy.. let's make legal what we could do before taking a risk. Let's make it legit and in our defense let say we could do it before so it doesnt matter! People.. it matters. We need to put a leash on corporations because they have gone wild. The corporation who takes different positions in politics do so for their benefit not for YOUR benefit. They're not people and if they were they could be compared to aristocracy who simply have more power and money. We dont want that
user37818 2 weeks ago
Yes we have the media lobbying and making donations that are paid with political favors. Do you think that this will be different.. just that instead of "hey we gonna give you money and help you win" it will be hey we gonna support you publicly and help you win! We're ADDING to the existent problem of corruption but it won't be corruption cause now it's legal, right?
user37818 2 weeks ago
Most of these points are false. Not many people read the NYT. Super Pacs use prime broadcasting hours. Romney has more speech than Newt. So newt gave his Palestinians are an invented people speech now Israels proxy corporation has backed funded Newt. Will American foreign policy now be affected by donation promises. This is new. The its being going on for a while argument doesn't mean it's good. Crimes have been going on for a while. Ironic to say lobbying is bad but election lobbying is good.
TheZoonib 2 weeks ago
Wow, so your reasons are basically that they could already do this?
"Oh no! SOPA and PIPA are going to censor the internet!" *legislation will no longer pass* *government shuts down sites anyways* "Wait, they could already do that?"
I think i'm starting to see a trend here...
Keinlicht 3 weeks ago 2
Ughhhh Reason...I love you guys but please never open another video with the Axis of Stupid. I'm surprised I didn't get an aneurism from the pure idiocy spewed from the beginning to 0:38
Redeye1524 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch video AsJjlC3WaTY
Citizens united supporter wants those who disagree stripped of their right to vote and forced to take medication.
2411Hellokitty 3 weeks ago
This SCOTUS case is the nail in the coffin our declining country. The top 1% will have so much wealth and power that the bottom 99% will never be free again. We really don't have a democracy now. We don't even have a country anymore. It's over.
MortimerTheClueless 4 weeks ago
@MortimerTheClueless: Yeah, this Supreme Court judgement also made it illegal for citizens to vote and decipher the truth from political commercials. It's so sad that 99 percent can no longer vote :(
andyissemicool 3 weeks ago
@andyissemicool Funny you should mention the right to vote b/c MortimerTheClueless supports citizens united yet also posted this video which states that citizens who disagree should be stripped of their right to vote and forced to take medication.
AsJjlC3WaTY
2411Hellokitty 3 weeks ago
@2411Hellokitty: He sounds like a real standup guy.
andyissemicool 3 weeks ago
I thought Libertarians were apeshit over INDIVIDUAL rights, well corporations and unions are COLLECTIVE organizations which consists of big GROUPS of people with common agendas. Our Constitution guarantees us the freedom of SPEECH, not the freedom of PURCHASE.
wangsta25 1 month ago
@wangsta25 A group is a collection of individuals. I thought that was obvious.
666or999 1 month ago
@wangsta25 well this is funded by the kochs
httm241 3 weeks ago
Corporations are not people, and them giving money is not free speech.
cmtsoccer9 1 month ago
I am all for free speech, but we must realize that speech is no longer free if it requires money to be heard!!!
Allowing any type of organization to heavily influence an election by providing ridiculous amounts of capital for its candidate of choice will ultimately lead to bought and paid for politicians who will be pressured into fulfilling the desires of said organization. Obviously, we are not without this to some degree already, but it will only get worse without campaign finance reform.
wwwslowmotionca 1 month ago
Please stop using the word "reason" in your youtube handle if you intend to continue promoting such ill informed and half baked arguments.
JacobAlanKimbrell 1 month ago
CUnited decision gets the Youtube treatment.Simplification,clever post-production,snarky dismissiveness.Comparison to newspapers endorsing candidates is laughable.He says government censored “Hillary”.It didn’t.Definition of censor (v) to delete, expurgate undesirable information.For film to be censored, government agency would review it and force creators to modify.Which didn’t happen.Talking head spoke scripted lie.Style of A.Rooney, "Ever wonder why people dont like corporations blah blah...?
zodiaccadillac 1 month ago
You missed the point entirely. What a shame.
thomasdonaldclark 1 month ago 9
Comment removed
Lipkow251 2 months ago
If nothing else, enforcing total transparency should be our government's role in protecting our political free speech.
You can't comment almost anywhere without having to give verifiable identification, sometimes your real name. Why should we allow any entity to hide when it concerns various forms of political free speech?
Total transparency in government finance, from election campaigns to regular, thorough, cost benefit/analysis in every government department and agency.
Keep it transparent.
MrJohn7778 2 months ago 4
you stupid little corporate whore.
steppinonyoface 3 months ago
This lame ass video is just more BS to persuade American citizens to let the corporations have even more influence over our politicians.
I would love to see which billionaires and corporations finance this propaganda.
xdroog 3 months ago
See all of the videos at haldonrichardson1. Regarding Citizens United, see "Citizens United and Fat Cat Scalia"
haldonrichardson1 3 months ago
The problem with Citizens United can be seen in the New York Times article of October 30, 2011. Karl Rove, Haley Barbor, et al, have raised well over 1/2 billion dollars to date, and it's all secret. They bought the Republican majority in the House in 2010, and they're going to continue until all of the legislators are whores, beholden to corporate interests rather than the interest of US citizens. The two are often mutually exclusive. More money = more free speech? How dangerous and sad.
haldonrichardson1 3 months ago
@haldonrichardson1 Good. Citizens United has empowered producers to combat trial lawyers, in previous years of all industries the "legal industry" has been the largest campaign contributor, since the contribution rules favored them. Citizens United has really empowered the producers to combat Democrat parasite interest groups, who are like a legion for they are many.
teemu21 3 months ago
Such law may already be in place, to limited extent. But many people strongly object to defining Corporations as persons. Then ruling that money is actually Constitutionally protected free speech. That's a far reach; tortured logic!
So the linguistic content of this video is null. Nice man. But wrong.
Also, no mention of the vastly negative effect of the Koch brothers billions which grease the campaigns of far right nutsos. They funded the political assassination of Alan Grayson.
BillSalem 3 months ago
@BillSalem Alan Grayson was one of the vilest, most despicable congressmen in modern history, he commited political suicide by being one of the most extreme leftist in the Congress when his district was centrist and voted for Bush in previous elections.
teemu21 3 months ago
@teemu21 Horse hocky! Alan Grayson may seem a disagreeable person to you, you're a right winger, but hes one of the only men in Congress who refused to sellout to the far-right shadow government: Big Money banksters who bought our Congress and now rule our country illegally..
Of course the right hate Alan. They hate anybody who speaks Truth. He revealed the Repukes real plan: "Seniors hurry up and die."
Right wingers love corrupt liars. The more corrupt the more they love 'em.
BillSalem 3 months ago
see the video about Scalia at "haldonrichardson1"
haldonrichardson1 4 months ago
Video fails to mention this ruling makes campaign finance reform unconstitutional. How convenient.
TheChuckFactor 4 months ago
@TheChuckFactor When legislators set the rules for buying and selling, the first things to be bought and sold are the legislators. Limit the power of government, and campaign financing would be irrelevant. People will be uninterested in slipping money under the table to politicians if they have no economic influence. It is too difficult to try and stop people from giving money to politicians. There are an infinite amount of channels to funnel capital through, and you can't ban free speech
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun I don't fully agree but I will say your point does make some sense. My problem is with money being = to speech. What the mafia did was illegal but corporations doing exactly the same thing is practicing free speech. The smaller government arguement fit perfectly on this topic though. Thx gave me alot to think about.
TheChuckFactor 2 months ago
This type of propaganda is very slick. This silver-tongued tool ignores certain realities: People in corporations already have the same right to free speech that all individuals have. When speech is monetized, it is no longer free speech. More speech CAN be bad if it allows the corporate elite's speech to drown out the speech of the majority of society. Corporations "...enmeshed in the political process" is why we no longer have democracy. Lobbyists work for CORPORATIONS,NOT GOVERNMENT!
'
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
Nice propaganda you pathetic tools of Wall St. Go on waging war against the people of the U.S. You will help wake up the masses who've been sedated by the Wall St./Madison Ave. Indoctrination Machine. It'll eventually happen and when it does you and your elitist cronies will get buried by your own arrogance, hatred and greed.
tripfunkmonster 6 months ago
Tea Party, bought and paid for by big corporations, welcome to neo- right wing fascism.
lsdesign 6 months ago
If money doesn't buy results in politics, and large corporate expenditures are benign, as Gillespie asserts, why is so damn much spent on it? Just for kicks? Ayn Rand was a sociopath. Type "Bill Moyers Interviews Nick Gillespie and Lawrence Lessig" into YouTube. Lessig brilliantly pokes holes in Gillespie's arguments. And type "Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms" into YouTube to get a sense of why Gillespie has a peculiar American version of "Libertarian".
PeterTheis 7 months ago
If money doesn't buy results in politics, and large corporate expenditures are benign, as Gillespie asserts, why is so damn much spent on it? Just for kicks? Ayn Rand was a sociopath. Type "Bill Moyers Interviews Nick Gillespie and Lawrence Lessig" into YouTube. Lessig brilliantly pokes holes in Gillespie's arguments. And type "Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms" into YouTube to get a sense of why Gillespie has a peculiar American version of "Libertarian".
PeterTheis 7 months ago
what song is this?
jtgutie666 7 months ago
@jtgutie666 Free Bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd
Ambassad0rPineapple 7 months ago
@jtgutie666 Carmina Burana, by Carl Orff.
robsmalls 6 months ago
These economic injustices and others will continue as long as wealthy contributors corrupt our political process. Many of us feel the President can and should do much more to rein in Wall Street, create jobs, and defend Medicare and Social Security. But any likely opponent would probably be far worse. Politicians in this post-Citizens United world are either limited by corporate power or prostituted to it..... (Copied from TruthOut) Great website btw!
phillipmarch22 7 months ago
Corporate Tool
jhr4us 7 months ago
Those Humans who are so short sighted to want this abomination called Citizens United (Corporations United) may want to be controlled by Foreign Corporations that they cannot vote out of office. I mean do they really think the Foreign Corporations/Investors/Dictators wont chip in to buy our Politicians? Do they think we will have any ability to stop them? So thanks to the Republicans they will enslave themselves and US by allowing the scum we cannot control to replace the scum we can vote out.
jhr4us 7 months ago
Comment removed
jhr4us 7 months ago
Please tell your Congresspersons to support House Res. 156 called the Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ESRA), which Dennis Kucinich has introduced.
pidcockw 9 months ago
Nick Gillespie has to lie for his pay check. How does that make you feel Nick?
mathers3000 9 months ago
This video is unreasonable
dubified89 9 months ago
@dubified89 This comment is unreasonable
BlameTheFirst 8 months ago
The NYT doesn't have anywhere NEAR the money of Exxon Mobil. What the fuck is this guy talking about? And then, at the end, he says the real problem is corporate influence in Washington. This system puts in people who are already paid for through campaign donations. Frustrating video this is.
Ivanschulz 9 months ago
The way the Left constantly complains about CU, you'd THINK that our politics was 1/100TH as corrupt pre-2009 than after the decision. That our politicians were all angels who had our best interests at heart and were suddenly corrupted by unlimited 'corporate' advertising money. So WHAT if a bunch of right-wing groups can run ads! They're only as powerful as the voters are susceptible and ignorant enough to believe the likely lies in those ads. INFORM and EDUCATE voters.
whoo689 9 months ago
Campaign finance reform advocates never make much sense. It's like talking to a brick wall. They have ZERO EVIDENCE that much of what htey say, much less the proposals they push, is/are accurate or would make things any better for our republic. They act as though money influences politics IN A VACUUM, devoid of voters and all the other forces that make it much more complex.
Politics is NOT THIS SIMPLE, CFR advocates. The CU decision is hardly the end of the world, so stop bitching.
whoo689 9 months ago
While liberals are wasting time BITCHING about the decision and making all kinds of futile efforts to "overturn" it, right-wingers and more libertarian folks are TAKING ADVANTAGE of the decision to further their causes! Why not JOIN THEM and use this newfound freedom push your own progressive causes? It would be MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE in the long run than trying to stop the ruling. FIGHT in the marketplace of ideas, not be defeatist and sit on the sidelines.
whoo689 9 months ago
Dressed as the everyday "Joe" this presentation leaves out the results we are now experiencing - Tax Breaks to the richest, while budget held hostage, Tea Party/ Republican corporate bought politicians pursuing death to everything from meaningful health care, to the EPA and Consumer Protection Agency. Leaves out how they COMPLETELY dominate the media with lies, & now attack Medicaid, Social Security, fair wage rights, & access to education - or how corporate money is 1000s times that of Unions.
ProfoundImagery1 9 months ago
are you guys nuts? So you are saying that because this has been going on already, that makes it ok for it to go on more? It was BAD going on as much as it was already, and its going to be MORE BAD now. This video doesn't even make sense in some parts/statements. "more free speech is better", but you are talking about corporations being able to influence the content and saturation of the info/opinions we are exposed to, about candidates the corp. is supporting/funding....conflict of interest?
Phrost72 9 months ago
Right on nick. These statist are completely nuts. Notice how the left says nothing about public sector unions and their campaign contributions
cathrasher1974 9 months ago
I'm not quite sure how Newspapers running editorials is the same as unlimited sums of money being spent on advertising and other communications. It's a lie to pretend like this is not going to be anything new.
Oh, and this is not just about corruption, it's about "one person, one vote." Now that businesses can spend as much as they want, they will have even more leverage over our elected officials. I don't believe we should allow people with more money to have more say in how we run our gov't
Lipkow251 9 months ago 6
@Lipkow251: That's cool, no one with a conscience should believe in one dollar, one vote. It's a seriously far fall from the American ideal. However, that means you don't agree with the commandments of Capitalism. Have the strength to stand up for your morals, too many people don't.
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
@tripfunkmonster I believe in the "commandments" of capitalism, whatever those are, but as applied to economics, not when it comes to how we run our government. If people in the market place are willing to sell their goods or services to the highest bidder, I'm fine with that. But I have a serious problem when politicians are willing to do the same thing. One of our fundamental ideals in this country is equal protection of the law. We don't get that by letting the monied interests have more say
Lipkow251 5 months ago
@Lipkow251: There's an inherent incompatibility in your comment. In Capitalism, EVERYTHING is for sale. It's efficient, but it means elections can also be bought. Hence, no democracy or even an effective constitutional republic. You can't separate the economy and the gov't. in Capitalism. It's impossible. The Corporate Elite will always be able to buy legislation in a Capitalist society. We need to face that reality & shrink the Corporate Elite to an amount of corruption that won't strangle us.
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
@tripfunkmonster I disagree, I think with various reforms to the campaign finance system, lobbying reforms and by promoting diversity of ideas in the media we can achieve a good balance. Of course, you're right that this does go against the idea of capitalism, but it doesn't mean capitalism can't still exist, it just means the political system is closed off from capitalism. Nothing in the Constitution, despite what our Supreme Court says, prohibits limiting the influence of corporations
Lipkow251 5 months ago
@Lipkow251: I believe that the only true campaign finance reform is ending private financing & criminalizing professional lobbying. Nothing short of this will limit the influence of corporations & prevent the Corporate Elite from buying our elections. To promote diversity of ideas, we need to undo the damage done by the consolidation of our media. That was done by deregulation & can only be repaired by bringing back regulation. Nothing can help us until we evolve past Fundamentalist Capitalism.
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
@tripfunkmonster I completely agree, we badly need full public financing and to end excessive media consolidation.
Lipkow251 5 months ago
@Lipkow251: Glad to hear it. Not enough Americans think anymore - that's one of the reasons why we're in such a bad place right now. Peace.
tripfunkmonster 5 months ago
@Lipkow251: Then that means people will just have to stop voting for corrupt and easily corruptible politicians. What a concept.
andyissemicool 3 months ago
@andyissemicool And where do you propose we find these non-corrupt politicians? Middle earth? Narnia? Let's face it, politicians want to be re-elected. Elections cost lots of money. Any politician that stands up to Corporate America, and gets millions of dollars spent against them, will not be in office long. Few people, if any, would have the courage to oppose such powerful interests.
Lipkow251 3 months ago
@Lipkow251: If you think that the gigantic majority (if not all) politicians are corrupt, then why do we even have a government? I don't get your POV: you want politicians and justices (whom you claim are all corrupt) to solve the problems of political corruption. How does that work?
andyissemicool 3 months ago
@andyissemicool I'm not saying gov' t doesn't work now, I'm saying it would be more effective at serving the public interest if it didn't have to worry about campaign contributions. Gov't can work as long as we limit corrupting influences, including corporate donations. I'm not expecting corrupt politicians to solve political corruption. I'm expecting voters to do that. Only when enough people come together can they match the power of corporations and only then will we be able to achieve reform.
Lipkow251 3 months ago
@Lipkow251: How can voters solve political corruption if, as you say, there are no decent politicians?
andyissemicool 3 months ago
@andyissemicool Because my argument is based on the assumption, and I think it's a fairly reasonable one, that politicians care about getting re-elected. So if enough voters come together to demand political reforms, politicians will listen. You see, politics today serve those groups that are well organized and have a lot of money. Only problem is the groups that fight for the public don't have the same firepower as the chamber of commerce and other industry trade associations
Lipkow251 3 months ago
@Lipkow251: Well, Barry himself got elected by a more or less grassroots movement made up mostly of small political groups and individual donations. How'd that work out? If you are saying that the best we can hope for is for people to form massive movements and raise a large amount of cash to exert just enough pressure onto politicians to make them have a momentary lapse into decency, then you're basically saying this country is dead and buried (something I happen to agree with, actually).
andyissemicool 3 months ago
@andyissemicool Barry also had to deal with a Congress that was overrun by corporate influence. And I don't think campaign finance was or is an issue people really know or care about. When Congress' approval rating is at 9 percent, that should tell you they are not responsive to the public's interest. Our society is no longer a republic - it's a plutocracy. One person, one vote, has become one dollar, one vote thanks to our Supreme Court.
Lipkow251 3 months ago
@Lipkow251 -- I'm sorry, but your "opinion" is not well thought out.
1. Editorials are the same as any form of communication that advocates one politician over another.
2. Businesses don't have "unlimited sums of money" to spend. Comparatively speaking it may seem that way to an individual, but no more so than it seems Greenpeace has unlimited fund to spew it's garbage and sway elections.
3. If you don't want businesses spending money in elections, you shouldn't want non-profits either.
kehvan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kehvan 1. Last I checked, when a Newspaper runs an editorial advocating for the election of a candidate, it does so once, and that's the end of it. When advertisements are purchased, they run repeatedly, ad naseum, until it's drilled in the minds of the electorate, at the expense of other issues/groups having their message heard.
2. I agree businesses don't have unlimited resources. I used that phrase because the Supreme Court decision gives them ability to spend as much as they want.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@Lipkow251 -- 1.) Your opinion is non-sense. A newspaper or other media outlet that backs a candidate or political party not only editorializes in favor of such, but slants news stories that way too.
2.) You simply have NO CLUE what you're talking about. The court didn't rule that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money, but that it couldn't be limited to spending zero money. The USSC found that law's prohibition of ALL independent spending by corporations and unions was invalid.
kehvan 2 months ago
@kehvan 1) Prove it. Everyone is biased to some extent, but newspapers at least attempt to give conflicting voices a right to be heard. Besides, everyone has their own slants. You and I might read the same article and disagree as to whether it is "slanted." But if we both watch a television ad that advocates for a candidate, I don't think there would be any reasonable argument that it wasn't "slanted." TV ads, by definition are slanted, unlike newspaper articles.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@Lipkow251 -- You're a joke, right? First you ask me to prove it, then you sit there and support my argument with "Everyone is biased to some extent..." and "Besides, everyone has their own slants."
kehvan 2 months ago
@kehvan No joke. No reasonable person can tell me a tv ad isn't biased. But when you've got a reputable newspaper, not everyone is going to perceive a slant. You can't prove to me that a particular newspaper article is biased in a particular way. Besides, you don't actually mean to tell me that an advertisement gives you the same quality of information as a legitimate, serious newspaper article. Do you?
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@Lipkow251 -- Actually an ad can give more legitimate information than a newspaper article.
kehvan 2 months ago
@kehvan What do you mean by "legitimate?" I don't dispute that the information in an ad may be legitimate. But it also doesn't tell a comprehensive story in the same way a newspaper article does.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@kehvan 2) I'm pretty sure that reading the opinion gives me a clue. I'm quoting from the second paragraph here: "The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether." In other words, it cannot place expenditure limits on independent corporate expenditures. Later on in the opinion they expressly state that the government has no basis for limiting independent expenditures.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@Lipkow251 -- Then you literally don't comprehend what you're reading. The phrase "The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements" expressly means the government may create regulations that set the rules for speech from business, but couldn't completely suppress it. If you're not understanding that, then you need to go back and take remedial reading.
kehvan 2 months ago
@kehvan Perhaps you should get a dictionary. They can set disclosure requirements, which means they can force groups to reveal their donors. They can make disclaimer requirements, meaning they can require an ad to reveal who paid for it. In no way do those requirements limit the amount of money that can be spent. My point was that the government can't set limits on their expenditures. Not that they can't regulate at all. There is no need to attack each other's intelligence. Because I'm right.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@Lipkow251 -- Actually, you're wrong... but you're a leftist, so it comes with the territory. The fact is, you've never read the FEC disclaimer and disclosure requirements, because if you had, you wouldn't have stated what you have.
Oh, btw, you first have to have some intelligence before I could attack it.
kehvan 2 months ago
Comment removed
Lipkow251 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kehvan Actually I have read their disclaimer and disclosure requirements. The FEC defines "disclaimer" and I'm quoting here, as a "statement placed on a public communication that identifies the person(s) who paid for the communication and, where applicable, the person(s) who authorized the communication." Again, as I said before, in no way does that limit expenditures. (Note - I accidentally wrote "disclosure" in a prior post. I meant to say disclaimer so I removed it and changed it.)
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@kehvan Also, while they do limit contributions, the FEC does not limit expenditures. There is a difference there. I actually have studied election law extensively, so nice try thinking you can win an argument by being condescending and pretending to have knowledge that you don't have. The fact that you had to resort to personal attacks merely shows that you are intellectually inferior to me. If you really had intelligence, you'd be able to attack my argument on the merits.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@kehvan Also, to your second point, I don't really care how much Greenpeace or any other "group" spends. I care about individuals being heard based on the merit of their ideas, not based on how much money they can raise. And lastly, I don't want anyone spending money in elections. Elections should be funded by public lump sum grants.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@Lipkow251 -- If you don't care how much Greenpeace spends then why do you can how much a for profit organization spends? You shouldn't. The fact is, any organization be it for profit or not, is a group of individuals acting in concert. And you REALLY mean to tell me you want to put politicians more in control of free speech during campaigns? That's an utter ridiculous idea. POLITICIANS and their sycophants would then control campaign funding, thus access to who can run.
kehvan 2 months ago
@kehvan You implied that I thought non-profits should be held to a different standard. My point is only that all groups should be banned, profit and non-profit alike. I don't want to put politicians in control of free speech. First, I would not characterize campaign contributions as speech. Second, a lump sum system would expand access to who can run, because now it would not matter if you can raise enough money. Every candidate would get the same amount of money.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@Lipkow251 -- Money is a exchange medium... nothing more and nothing less. If the ability to print a book is a function of free speech, then money certainly is part of the "grease" that makes that process happen. If you have a group that has numerous members that ask the group to act on the behalf of the members for a specific cause, that's a direct function of free association and free speech. The amount of money the raised by said organization is a barometer of their success in that endeavor.
kehvan 2 months ago
@kehvan Shouldn't the barometer for success be the merit of a candidate's ideas, not the amount of money it can raise? Money would be a fine proxy for free speech if everyone had it in equal amount, but they do not. The correlation between the merit of an idea and the money it raises is distorted when you have wealthy groups spending unlimited sums.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@Lipkow251 -- It appears you don't know the definition of merit. If an idea or the ideas of a politician have merit, it attracts people and their money. The number of people and the dollar amounts they wish to give are the barometer... so no, the merit of an idea is not a barometer, because just how do you measure merit?
Wow... I was hoping to talk to someone a bit more intelligent.
kehvan 2 months ago
@kehvan Um, I was hoping to talk to someone who would have a conversation without attacking someone else personally. I would measure merit based on the number of votes a person gets in an election. We are, after all, discussing political campaigns. Or do you think money is a better way to measure merit in a republic than votes? The point is that ideas and policies that can attract more dollars may win out over ideas and policies that can't, even though the latter may have more popular support.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
@kehvan Also, maybe I didn't explain the idea well enough. Essentially, all private fundraising would be eliminated, and all candidates for office would get the same amount of money from the government to run their campaign, to spend however they see fit. How does that put politicians more in control? In fact, it takes away their right to fundraise, giving them less control of what you call "free speech." If you dislike politicians so much, you should like this idea.
Lipkow251 2 months ago
Comment removed
kehvan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lipkow251 -- Are you really so small minded you can't see the logical conclusions of what you're advocating? If the government is providing the money to all candidates, who gets to decide just who is a viable candidate? After all, they can't give money to every single Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to run, so a so-called "independent committee" would be formed to determine who is gets money and who does not.
kehvan 2 months ago
Your big wind-up is blame it on the lobbyists?
They're the bag men for the corporations, Sherlock.
Corporate governance is feudalism — and you're a sad little deluded peasant.
slheiden 10 months ago 2
This is one reason why I grew out of libertarianism.
ComprehendingChaos 10 months ago
@ComprehendingChaos Yeah, because the First Amendment only applies if you have less than a million dollars, amirite?
cpen22 10 months ago
The GOP seeks to buy elections. Unluckily for them, not all of us decide who to vote for after seeing propaganda commercials on TV.
"withstand" the New York Times? Fuck off, Reason. They give the info. You make up your mind.
ASSHOLES ARE BADMOUTHING READING.
No wonder the star of your party is Sarah Palin, a known moron.
GOP = we watch the teeeee veeeee.
They will tell us how to vote on Fox! Duuuuuuurrrrrrrrr.
jensen1901 10 months ago
Money corrupts our politicians. This problem has been going on since the days of Rome. Unlimited money means our elected leaders will do even more to represent multinational corporations and ignore what's best for the American people. We're already seeing a new breed of scumbag politicians like Scott Walker, thanks to this ruling.
But I'm not worried, this will be the wake up call for Americans too purge the traitor robber barons from power, via the ballot box or a revolution.
Scipio2021 11 months ago
i will give corporations the same rights as a person as soon as they are able to get a mammogram or a colonoscopy....until then...corporations are not people.
akeakami2 11 months ago
Your video is excellently produced, but your logic is wrong.The 1886 case that implied equal protections be afforded to corporations, and perpetuated corporate entanglement, didn't explicitly grant individual rights,and was effected through scribner error by Bancroft Davis.Revealing historical accuracies to ideologues is wasted breath, and your position is predicated on argumentative fallacies.Conservatives often "argue by question", where a simple answer cannot be produced, addlepated retards.
bfremming 11 months ago
Comment removed
bfremming 11 months ago
"Based on political lobbying rather than marketplace" is exactly what this is about. That "lobbying" costs money, and corporations have a helluva lot more money to determine what our government is "based on." Justifying a broken system by saying, "those other guys are doing it" and the inference that the NYT - a HUGE corporation is somehow "against" corporations. This is about disclosure. Citizens United makes obfuscating the truth as simple as watching your right wing propaganda.
guypaul 11 months ago
INCREASE free speech? FREE SPEECH is for persons, not personhoods -- how much are they paying you?
marte116 11 months ago
Nothing but libertarian b.s. propaganda. If corporations are legal people...I should be able to marry Goldman Sachs. In a democracy, the people rule. No where in the constitution does it say, "We the corporations" Stop the plutocrats and their crony globalist agenda! Go to move to amend dot org and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
1MeanBean 11 months ago
@1MeanBean Don't let the government tell you who or what you can or cannot marry.
obtree 11 months ago
@1MeanBean So are the shareholders, the people who own and represent the corporation, not people at all? Are they in fact just some figment of our imagination? I think you fail to understand the true composition of a corporation, which is a group of people putting their own money into a company, because they trust the corporation to use their money in a way they see fit. (cont. in next comment)
33meekeleeke 8 months ago
@1MeanBean Your blanket comments belie your ability to have a valid argument, when clearly the unified body or people in a corporation have as much of a right to practice politics as does the individual. So if you are going to complain about corporations, why don't you put emphasis on the unions who economically damage our education, manufacturing, and other industries they get a hold of with their special interest in Washington.
33meekeleeke 8 months ago
@1MeanBean ok so you are trying to say that individual people can have the right to free speech however groups of people cannot ? Isnt that kinda weird ?
Jigssaw1989 8 months ago
@1MeanBean Didn't know we were a democracy, all this time I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.
poop2poop2 7 months ago 11
@poop2poop2 Didn't know we were a Constitutional Republic. Last time I checked not a lot of our officials actually "represent" the views of the people. The Constitution protects individuals but the Constitution never stated corporations as individuals. All this time I thought we were a Plutocracy.
wangsta25 1 month ago
I say that if corporations want to think of themselves as people then fine they will have the same campaign contribution restrictions placed on them as any other citizen.No more than $5000 dollars should be able to given.Make politicians beholden to the people again!Support Campaign Finance Reform.
gamesmaster35 1 year ago
This yes says that corporations have freedom of speech but because a corporation isn't actually a person it has no voice so how does it speak?With MONEY.And just like with ordinary citizens you can't limit the amount of free speech a person has then you can't limit the amount of money (the free speech of a corporation) that a company gives to support its views.If this doesn't sound ludicrious to you you need to have your head examined or checked for a pulse.
gamesmaster35 1 year ago
I wo nder why " freebird " is playing in the background ? Think about it or better yet reason about it ?
hieronomy 1 year ago
The ruling basically says that you still have freedom of speech if you work for a corporation.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
Lets no sweat corporatism. Facism is no problem. Lets all say SIEG HIEL REPUBLICANS!! REASON TV MY ASS
captcrais101 1 year ago
Of course. TRUST THE CORPORATIONS, WE WILL DELIVER YOU FROM THE EVIL OF GOVERNMENT, OH YES, HE HE HE.
What a load of shit.
tattat44 1 year ago
it is a big issue because it also allows them to donate freely to campaigns. corporations shouldnt be allowed to donate freely because theyre not people their buisnesses and thus they dont have to face all of the consequences of their views.
liberalmike1994 1 year ago
is this guy a fucking moron? no biggie? wtf world does he live in? dont sweat corporations acting as individuals and raiding their banks to feed the man they want in office who is going to pass more laws to benefit corps. reasontv??? how about insanity tv......you left your brains in the toilet i see. by the way, since this vid was made before last election, how did that theory work out?? the most money spent ever in any election anywhere and it wasnt even a prez election. oh yeah...dumbass
wgschwendable 1 year ago
One dollar one vote, OH YEAH!
zoxovox 1 year ago
Basically, we all know Obama's the smartest person in the world, so if he disagrees with the SCOTUS, we know he's right and their wrong! Ditto that for the Second Amendment! After all, those Founding Fathers were just a bunch of rich white lawyers, right? Not Obama! He was approved by Oprah, and he should be Dictator for Life, right, Lib--I mean, right, Leftists? And I don't need proof he's the smartest person in the world, I merely need to believe it's so, and poof! See how that works?
HomelessOnline 1 year ago 2
@HomelessOnline your an idiot nothing you said in your failed attempt at sarcastic humor was funny or even loosely rooted in reallity get off the internet.
liberalmike1994 1 year ago
@liberalmike1994 - No real liberal would tell somebody else to "get off the internet." You're a leftist, little lady, face it and accept it and don't be ashamed of it. It would explain a lot about your core beliefs, wouldn't it? And let us know when you learn to spell; we're all rootin' for ya!
HomelessOnline 1 year ago
@HomelessOnline lol wtf do you know about "real" liberals. if you werent an idiot you would know that liberal and leftist are the same thing on the political spectrum. You should probly stick to fucking your cousin and not trying to win debates on the internet when you have no understanding of the political spectrum.
liberalmike1994 1 year ago
@HomelessOnline
Nobody cares what Obama thinks. How could they, considering that nobody knows what Obama thinks? His actions have clearly contradicted his words on a consistent basis.
This debate is about the right of corporations to buy elections outright. Some corporations act strongly against the interests of humanity, and the average voter is very susceptible to their propaganda. That's why the left (if that still exists in this country) opposes it.
ComprehendingChaos 10 months ago
I must be confused. Aren't Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Andrea Mitchell, and O'Reilly all corporate spokespieces? How is it any different for, say, Profits Galore, Inc. to have a spokespiece? (Airwaves notwithstanding.) Is the Sacramento Bee not a corporation? They are certainly clear on letting us know exactly which way they would want us to vote. How would "Enron Nightly News" be any different? Or "The Sierra Club Nightly Report?" Don't they all have their spin, propaganda, and slants?
HomelessOnline 1 year ago
wow your high .so the bully with the biggest mouth wins..... fuck that.. I'm from IL and I can tell you it is bull fucking shit. big biz also uses the pigs to enfoce it's will ...............I.E. THE HAYMARKET AFFAIR. you are wrong on so meny leves. your not real...lol
mykmmc 1 year ago
Why bother making a political contribution: What do you think your measly 2,000 dollars matters in a country of millions of people anyway? Your contributions are already basically meaningless already. At least this way, somebody has the possibility of challenging government power.
Put simply, more debate is always better no matter who is paying for it.
Incumbents are just looking to pervent groups of people from uniting, i.e. incorporating, to shut us up without seeming to.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
Why bother making a political contribution: What do you think your measly 2,000 dollars matters in a country of millions of people anyway? Your contributions are already basically meaningless already. At least this way, somebody has the possibility of challenging government power.
Put simply, more debate is always better no matter who is paying for it.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
This truly is the fall of America. It isn't going to be big corporations but non-profit special interest groups who will hide in the background while the media is staged. A conservative element can now set up a soft liberal media source to demonize and the people will be conned. This decision has doomed America and ironically will destroy the essence of the amendment it twisted to its own agenda. The essence of free speech is how you think. You will now be told what to think.
autumncathedral 1 year ago
So I guess the saying "Money talks, bullshit walks" applies here?
Corporations are persons and money is speech?
Yeah, this country is doomed.
wervasdeferens 1 year ago
i agree, this guy's argument is a joke!
DaveSolazzo 1 year ago
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL good satire! ...what do you mean this wasn't supposed to be satire?
jouvamoufette 1 year ago
Reason, you made a poor argument against the citizens united ruling. and i'm libertarian as hell.
weak argument.
tmac9938 1 year ago
BTW - why would Citizens United be runnning a propaganda clip on themselves IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT THEY WERE LEGIT.
KJamesB 1 year ago
And this is a propaganda film by Citizens United (not a real group by the way, Corporate Money masquarading as a group - astro turf). Just like Teabaggers.
KJamesB 1 year ago
@KJamesB
Reason Magazine, the progenitor of Reason tv, has been around since 1968.
ls1z28chris 1 year ago
@KJamesB - Yeah, them "TeaBaggers," as you so kindly refer to them, are crazy with their talk of "The Constitution," "Founding Forefathers," "Taxed Enough Already"--yeah, right, they don't know how bad it can get!--and wanting to see a birth certificate! Let's make fun of them some more, and eventually anybody who takes them serious will be inclined to shut up and/or disagree! Now them union thugs shipped in from other states, that's not astro turf, right? End Free Speech, right, KJamesB?
HomelessOnline 1 year ago
omg we r so screwed heaven forbid people have rights they might say something i dont agree with or worse hurt an incumbents chances of re-election!
Teflonish 1 year ago
reason 1 - unlimited amounts now allowed
reason 2 - editorials vs an exxon mobile PAC really?
reason 3 - speech for corporations? huh? This limits free speech you moron.
What a bunch of crapola. Seriously. If this helps speech why not require identification of these contributions?
mbjl1758 1 year ago
reason 1 - omg you mean like they not only have rights but unlimited rights too? shit dawg that sucks i say we only let them speak when we want them to.
reason 2 - ya thats bullshit its only fair that new corp have an opinion not barnes & noble! cause one is like better and stuff.
reason 3 - ya ya too true like if one person speaks no big deal we can ignore him or shut him up, but if people group together theyre dangerous - no speech for groups!
Teflonish 1 year ago
This is about putting the government up for sale to multinational corporations.
reallypatriotic 1 year ago
It did violate the law, that is why it was stopped.
Corporations are not persons. Money is not speech.
Persons are mortal. If they want personhood, I want the corporate death penalty.
reallypatriotic 1 year ago
@reallypatriotic I agree that corporations are persons. Therefore I propose that:
a) Corporations should have life spans limited to the maximum human life span. 122 years max.
b) Corporations should be held criminally responsible for the crimes they commit.
c) If corporations are persons, then they shouldn't be allowed to BUY and SELL each other because that's slavery.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies
Other than people trying to be deliberately misleading by using a false analogy, no one has said that "corporations are persons." What has been decided is that corporations, which are simply groups of people, have the same right to free speech as individual persons.
The only reason to oppose this ruling is belief that people are somehow imbued with nefarious intentions the moment they start gathering together and incorporate for legal purposes. Pure liberal fantasy.
ls1z28chris 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies
Give me a break. Corporations are groups of people: They derive their rights from the agreements and the rights of the individuals who make them up. Churches incorporate: By your fucking idiotic idea, churches would be shut down after 122 years. few make it anywhere nearly that long, by the way). I know you're being sarcastic, but it's not clever sarcasm. Corporations have rights because it is a convenient way of dealing with the rights of the individuals who make it up.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies
By your thinking, individuals should lose their rights when they decide to form groups: That makes no fucking sense. All a corporation is is a group of individuals deciding to act together and be treated as a single unit for tax purposes. People don't lose their rights just because they decided to ban together as a group.
And saying that you "sell corporations" is to take a metaphor literally. In reality, you sell its assets: Don't be so literal minded.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
@MetaMorphy nwrt
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies I think you are unable to respond to it: And, nwrt, is a response: cocksucker.
As for limited liability, your idiotic thinking forgets that that only applies to investors. The actual decision makers still have liability. If you loan money to sommebody, and he does something stupid with that money---should you be put in prison. Yet, that is exactly what you are saying. Of course, hard to take a guy with a name like yours seriously.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
corporations are not people thus should not have the right to free speech. the supreme court never ruled corporations were people.
1samothrace77 1 year ago
@1samothrace77 the case of Target give one way or the other is just the beginning
1samothrace77 1 year ago
wat is this sound
emolink66 1 year ago
Well said!
RecceMan90 1 year ago
Where did Gillespie go to law school? Oh he didnt? Then shut up and stop trying to play lawyer.
laxinthe303 1 year ago
@laxinthe303 Where did you get the right to tell ANY American to shut up?...OH YOU DIDN'T.
RecceMan90 1 year ago
@RecceMan90 First amendment. I realize since you think that this moron is worth a spit that you probably haven't read it.
laxinthe303 1 year ago
@laxinthe303 First of all you are the Moron....You obviously haven't read the constitution....the 1st Amendment is FREE SPEECH....not limiting speech of those you disagree. let me know when you Libtards try to amend that!
RecceMan90 1 year ago
@RecceMan90 He doesn't need the right to tell anyone to shut up, so shut the fuck up
Elasaltaculos 1 year ago
thank you
graykeller 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
---Thomas Jefferson
qigong1001 1 year ago