Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Citizens United never made sense to me. They are allowed personhood for political means, but in no other way is considered or treated as a person by the law.
You're mistaken. Corporations can be charged with crimes:
Citizens United v FEC did not "allow a flood of dark money...to drown out the voice of ordinary citizens."
All Citizens United did was allow corporations to use their own money to directly campaign for/against a candidate, via broadcast medium, within 30 days of an election and without having to set up a PAC to do it for them. Anyone can do the same thing. If you have the money for the air time, you can buy that air time and broadcast pro/anti whoever messages to your heart's content.
All it has changed is allowing another set of players into the last month media free for all that is the month before any election. But corporations were bankrolling PACs to do that exact same thing before that and now they can cut out the middle man if they so choose.
That's all it did. Unions and other Dem friendly super-lobbies are just mad because now they have competition in that last month that they didn't have prior to Citizens United.
And good luck with a Constitutional Amendment. 2/3 of the House and Senate are never going to go along with it, and there's no way 38 states would ratify it even if they did. He's posturing and grandstanding, which is about all anyone in the House or Senate seems to do anymore.
Citizens United v FEC did not "allow a flood of dark money...to drown out the voice of ordinary citizens."
All Citizens United did was allow corporations to use their own money to directly campaign for/against a candidate, via broadcast medium, within 30 days of an election and without having to set up a PAC to do it for them. Anyone can do the same thing. If you have the money for the air time, you can buy that air time and broadcast pro/anti whoever messages to your heart's content.
All it has changed is allowing another set of players into the last month media free for all that is the month before any election. But corporations were bankrolling PACs to do that exact same thing before that and now they can cut out the middle man if they so choose.
That's all it did. Unions and other Dem friendly super-lobbies are just mad because now they have competition in that last month that they didn't have prior to Citizens United.
And good luck with a Constitutional Amendment. 2/3 of the House and Senate are never going to go along with it, and there's no way 38 states would ratify it even if they did. He's posturing and grandstanding, which is about all anyone in the House or Senate seems to do anymore.
The laws that Citizens United overturns specifically exempt media companies. What is a media company and why should a media company get special treatment?
Everyone with any interest in human freedom. The point of the legislation is to increase the power of the mainstream mass media, which already exerts an influence on our political landscape that is 10 times greater than everything else combined, and which (it should be pointed out) consists of corporations that are accorded the same First Amendment rights as natural persons. Did you ever think of that? Your argument against CU implies that Congress can shut down your precious media/propaganda outlets.
Do you think that you are on equal footing with the lobbyists created by all the money flowing into Washington, there are probably more lobbyists than government employees. The fear with the CU decision was the money from corporations but as it turned out its the money flowing into super pacs and you wont even know the donor.
Citizens United v FEC did not "allow a flood of dark money...to drown out the voice of ordinary citizens."
All Citizens United did was allow corporations to use their own money to directly campaign for/against a candidate, via broadcast medium, within 30 days of an election and without having to set up a PAC to do it for them. Anyone can do the same thing. If you have the money for the air time, you can buy that air time and broadcast pro/anti whoever messages to your heart's content.
All it has changed is allowing another set of players into the last month media free for all that is the month before any election. But corporations were bankrolling PACs to do that exact same thing before that and now they can cut out the middle man if they so choose.
That's all it did. Unions and other Dem friendly super-lobbies are just mad because now they have competition in that last month that they didn't have prior to Citizens United.
And good luck with a Constitutional Amendment. 2/3 of the House and Senate are never going to go along with it, and there's no way 38 states would ratify it even if they did. He's posturing and grandstanding, which is about all anyone in the House or Senate seems to do anymore.
Get real. For one thing, Citizens United prevented the FEC from regulating donations to SuperPACs which can, in turn, accept unlimited amounts of money from privately held corporations without revealing the actual source of funds.
Rep. Adam Schiff introduced a constitutional amendment on Wednesday aimed at overturning The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling. The amendment would allow Congress and the states to put limits on campaign contributions. It would also allow states to enact laws creating public financing of campaigns.
Who would be against this?
Do not think for an instant the new regs would contain enough loopholes to make zero difference.
Lawyers laugh at this nonsense. Campaigns work around the rules.
The problem is who voters elect. they have a tendency to select people as unethical as they are.
Rep. Adam Schiff introduced a constitutional amendment on Wednesday aimed at overturning The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling. The amendment would allow Congress and the states to put limits on campaign contributions. It would also allow states to enact laws creating public financing of campaigns.
Who would be against this?
Citizens United is one of the worst things that has ever happened to this country. There should be limitations on campaign contributions. And there should be a light shined on the dark money that is pervasive in both parties. It's ridiculous.
Ahh someone gets it. You either are bound by personhood or not. If so then a crime that carries jail time would require that corporation to complete that time. If that means they shutter for 2 years for a two year term, not my problem.
Its also not my problem if my Plumber goes out of business because he is locked up for tax fraud. That is personhood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
