Lessig on Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision: Change Congress Video

Get Involved:
http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/scotusdecvid

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC gives corporations free rein to pour unprecedented amounts of money into elections. From this day forward, when Congress acts, who can say it wasn't because of the money? Watch Lawrence Lessig's response to Citizens United, share his call to action with friends, and sign up for updates.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• change
• congress
• larry
• lessig
• lawrence
• campaign
• finance
• fundraising
• corruption
• elections
• supreme
• court
• scotus
• citizens
• united
• corporate
• money
• politics

[barrybrookens]

Fix the root of the problem and the rest will fall into place!

[aseohosting]

awesome video .. love it!! great talent =)

[qigong1001]

Only idiots think this is a partisan issue. Your speech has been sequestered in favor of multinationals. Nor is this a corporate issue. Most corporations will not benefit. Only the most powerful. THe argument that "they have all the power anyway" is a fail. If they had it, they wouldn't have fought so hard to get this passed. Sorry, to the next generation...you have been enslaved.

[JohananRaatz]

Citizen's United vs. FEC was a good thing! Thank you Roberts Court!

Class-baiting Dems are now obsolete: watch?v=wlzmMIIHudw

[qigong1001]

@meadbert McCAIN WAS A WAR HERO. He gave up a good portion of his life and health for what he believed. Even though I disagree with him on certain issues; it is wrong for you to suggest he supported protecting corrupt politicians. He is responsible for one of the most important legislations in our nations history to preserve our free speech over corporations. It was squashed by corporate. leaning justices. Justices who care more about corporations than its citizens.

[meadbert]

@qigong1001

McCain/Feingold did not ban chaos, force or stealing money from banks.

McCain/Feingold banned the criticism of corrupt politicians during political campaigns.

[qigong1001]

@meadbert Hitler influenced elections by chaos and force and stealing money from banks and others. Is that an appropriate foreigner to influence OUR politics? Would starting a corporation make that legitimate?

Re: Marx You can't answer the question. Name one campaign that he was trying to influence directly near a primary?

Re: Darwin? You didn't answer. You cant.

You are against a corrupt congress, but you feel its appropriate to provide unlimited funds on their behalf. Ha ha.

[meadbert]

@qigong1001

Hitler was trying to influence German elections which he did.

Regarding Marx: Which elections was he not trying to influence? He was trying to convert the whole world to his political view and largely succeeded.

Threatening to criticize or vote against corrupt politicians that pursue policies counter to your interests is not corruption. It is THE appropriate ways to influence politics in a democracy.

Allowing a corrupt congress to censor dissent is corruption.

[qigong1001]

You need to see the entire perspective. The lawyer who argued on behalf of Fascists United also argued on behalf of lifting soft money contribution limits to political parties. One can now see the motives of these individuals, hiding behind the veil of "corporations". It did not get thru this time; but eventually it will. Do you think you will benefit?

[qigong1001]

@meadbert Would you like to explain which specific campaign, Marx, Darwin, Hitler were trying to influence the vote on? There is a difference between spending money on theories and direct campaigning for or against an individual. Is congress corrupt? Of course. So why would you want to encourage that with unlimited funding by corporations?