Keith Olbermann on on "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/keith-olbermann-citizens-united-v...

Today, the Supreme Court, of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than "Dred Scott v Sandford," declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th Century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate-beings spend their money on political advertising, are unconstitutional.

In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections.

None. They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service. ...

Brushing up on how you amend the constitution at
http://www.michaelmoore.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• olbermann
• countdown
• citizens
• united
• john
• roberts
• fec
• corporations
• campaign
• finance
• supreme
• court

[nathanlabish]

This argument is manufactured left wing authoritarian propaganda. Read the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..." The debate was not if a corporation is a person, but if congress could make a law abridging free speech.

[AMCSTORE]

@freelancer977 Government Unions are parasites. Minimum work, a lot of waste, many unnecessary employees, huge administration and pressure to increase taxes on citizens who earn much less than they do. Boeing Union, Long Shoremen and others, became arrogant, bullish, extortionists and lazy. Today's labor movement is caricature of that 100 years ago. It used to be honest and just. Not anymore. Go to the convention center as an exhibitor and you will get reality checked.

[GustafSjoblom]

This dude really is the left-wing variant of the Fox News personalities. Listening to him is just as painful.

[njrobinson95]

@nathanlabish Bullshit.The Bill of Rights and the Constitution was not meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be interpreted in the way that best serves the American people. Do you really think that CEO's of multi-billion dollar corporations will donate money to causes that benefit the public? Remember what Mark Twain said, "we have the best politicians money can buy."

[nathanlabish]

@durhamdf

Well everyone from the ACLU, to the Heritage Foundation, to the Supreme Court thinks that giving money to help an election is free speech. So if you disagree... well, I guess you should not contribute any of your money any political cause.

I think my last post covered "buying policy" and "bribery".

And if you think the law about "campaign donations.....pork" is wrong you should try to have the law changed. But don't forget you can't contribute $ to any elections. (your rules)

[durhamdf]

@nathanlabish unfortunately the law doesn't consider taking campaign donations and then rewarding those doners with pork to be bribery... though the effect is the same. Giving money is not speech. Like you said, bribery is illegal, gifts can be taxed etc... And doing the campaining FOR a candidate in effect is the same as giving directly to the candidate. Yes wealthy have the ame right to influence policy with their speech, that doesn't mean they have the right to buy policy with their wealth

[nathanlabish]

@durhamdf

The 100 year argument does not make it right. Slavery went on in this country for 92 years and it was wrong.

"Buying policy" is bribery and corruption and is illegal.

Speech (esp. public political speech) is the right way to influence policy. The wealthy have just as much a right to influence policy as the poor, the charismatic, the rhetorically gifted, unions, MADD, etc.

Discrimination is wrong. The Wealthy should not be marginalized just because they have money.

[durhamdf]

@nathanlabish True but understand that we have had this restriction on free speech for over 100 years since the tillman act. It became obvious in the early 20th century that with enough money, corporate entities and wealthy individuals could in effect buy policy undermining our democratic process. This is nothing new, but as our financial system changes so to will our campaign finance laws. That is all I'm saying.

[nathanlabish]

@durhamdf @durhamdf

1) It is not legal to "buy" people; 13th amendment.

2) "The most wealthy" have equal protection (and equal rights to free speech); 14th amendment.

3) I can not think of a more reasonable use of free speech than airtime in election season.

P.S. I will admit that you argued your point well, you almost convinced me; perhaps due to the advantage you have due to your uncommon rhetorical skills it would be reasonable for you to be limited to one post.

[durhamdf]

@nathanlabish First of all, the first amendment along with the rest of the bill of rights involve the rights of individuals. It doesn't mention anywhere that these rights are extended to coporate entities. Secondly, the government can place reasonable time, manner, place restrictions on free speech. I think anyone in their right mind would agree that preventing the most wealthy individuals and groups from simply buying politicians is a reasonable restraint on free speech!

[rbhiphopsux]

@HumbleWillis the right to work or Right to Work legislation?Everyone has the right to work,but what right does Ron Paul have to legislatively bust unions under the guise of "personal freedom"?...The "personal freedom" brough to you by the NAM and the Koch Bros.?

[HumbleWillis]

@rbhiphopsux Why is the right to work silly?