A 28th Amendment to overturn Citizens United is within our reach, and Hillary Clinton could make it a reality

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I think what killed the government's case was that the Feds were going to use the law to ban books with the name of a candidate in them.


Otherwise, I'd support overturning it. I think there should be instant disclosure of all donations.

I agree - and every government contract and purchase order should be online for everyone to see.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I don't have a problem with groups endorsing a candidate. However, I'd be totally ok with keeping unions and professional PACs from contributing.

I'm curious who actually thinks Citizens United was a good idea and why.

If a corporation honestly and ethically earned their money, they should be free to advocate ideas that are legally permissible in these Non United States of Amerika.

If they cannot give to candidates, neither should their adversaries in the unions.

I would go farther and make all charitable contributions not tax deductible.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by DSK

If a corporation honestly and ethically earned their money, they should be free to advocate ideas that are legally permissible in these Non United States of Amerika.

If they cannot give to candidates, neither should their adversaries in the unions.

I would go farther and make all charitable contributions not tax deductible.

Television and the media has a lot of influence on the public. Mainstream media can, literally, be brainwashing. Fox News is biased toward the right wing. CNN used to be more that way, less so recently. Thanks to wireless television, which is what I watch now, more and more people watch less mainstream media. That's the main reason the public wants big money out of politics. The more money a candidate has, the easier it is to "buy an election".

[Revenant]

Originally Posted by SassySue

No, the Koch Brothers are disgusting by thinking they can continue to buy elections for the GOP and win over the American public by twisting facts.

Their definition of democracy is the total opposite of true democracy!

You don't get to define what "true" democracy is any more than a conservative does, you ignorant skank.

And the Democrats "twist" the facts just as much as the GOP. Why can't you accept election losses with grace instead of accusing the other side of cheating?

Originally Posted by SassySue

Here is their website and definition of Citizens United. By the way, "corporations are not people". Better get that through your head!

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/

In the eyes of the law, corporations are people. They can own land and buildings -just like people. They can be taxed like people. They can sue or be sued like people. They can be fined like people. So, why is it so incomprehensible to imagine that they can contribute money to campaigns?

And just as money donated to one party by an actual person can be counter-acted by money donated to an opposing party by another actual person, so too can the political spending by one corporation be offset by the spending of an opposing corporation.

So what is the difference?

Originally Posted by SassySue

Hillary Clinton will have Supreme Court Justices elected under her watch and this unfair, undemocratic law will be overturned in a heartbeat. You betcha!!!

Supreme Court Justices aren't elected you ignorant skank.

[CuteOldGuy]

CNN is completely in the bag for Hillary. They should be embarrassed. Fox should be, too. But they all report to the same group, so you can't expect truth from any of them.

I favor no restrictions on contributions to politicians from individuals, in exchange for real time, public disclosure.


The Koch's don't like Trump. I don't think they're buying this election for him. Soros is doing all he can for Hillary, however. Is it ok for Soros to buy elections, but not the Koch's?

[dilbert firestorm]

here's the history of corporate person hood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

[dilbert firestorm]

don't think a constitutional admendment is need for that.

just change the law defining the term of the corporation.

interesting note. Chief Justice Rehnquist was against corporations being callled "person" as per 14th admendment.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Revenant

You don't get to define what "true" democracy is any more than a conservative does, you ignorant skank.

And the Democrats "twist" the facts just as much as the GOP. Why can't you accept election losses with grace instead of accusing the other side of cheating?


In the eyes of the law, corporations are people. They can own land and buildings -just like people. They can be taxed like people. They can sue or be sued like people. They can be fined like people. So, why is it so incomprehensible to imagine that they can contribute money to campaigns?

And just as money donated to one party by an actual person can be counter-acted by money donated to an opposing party by another actual person, so too can the political spending by one corporation be offset by the spending of an opposing corporation.

So what is the difference?


Supreme Court Justices aren't elected you ignorant skank.

good post

a corporation is but an association of people in furtherance of some lawful purpose

everything boils down to two things, people and money.

a corporation isn't some alternate independent source of interference, unchained from and detached from humans although in regard to rights, some rights are viewed as only applying to individuals. but equal protection is applied

the personhood of a corporation is seen as the combined or corporate (the forming of one body) of the incorporators

what is the difference between a corporation and a pac in this regard? nothing

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

good post

a corporation is but an association of people in furtherance of some lawful purpose

everything boils down to two things, people and money.

a corporation isn't some alternate independent source of interference, unchained from and detached from humans although in regard to rights, some rights are viewed as only applying to individuals. but equal protection is applied

the personhood of a corporation is seen as the combined or corporate (the forming of one body) of the incorporators

what is the difference between a corporation and a pac in this regard? nothing

Because corporations are not individuals under the law. They are an organized group of people. They have much more influence on an election than just one person. Corporations should never be considered a person under the law. Anyone who believes that is not being logical, in my opinion. They must be part of a corporation and therefore rooting for that corporation. Citizens United was started by Koch Brothers, who have always influenced elections to further their interests and policies through their enormous donations to various representatives and justices in the White House. They have had justices change the law in their favor! They are trying to buy the United States Government! Watch this video:

https://youtu.be/2N8y2SVerW8?list=PL...2eDcZlj9PLd2dK

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Because corporations are not individuals under the law. They are an organized group of people. They have much more influence on an election than just one person. Corporations should never be considered a person under the law. Anyone who believes that is not being logical, in my opinion. They must be part of a corporation and therefore rooting for that corporation. Citizens United was started by Koch Brothers, who have always influenced elections to further their interests and policies through their enormous donations to various representatives and justices in the White House. They have had justices change the law in their favor! They are trying to buy the United States Government! Watch this video:

https://youtu.be/2N8y2SVerW8?list=PL...2eDcZlj9PLd2dK

FYI, the "SEIU" is an "organized group of people", and that organization has been passing millions of dollars to dim-retard candidates long before the Citizens United ruling, Silly Suzy Simpleton, but you're too ignorant to see that the playing field has now been properly leveled.

[Guest123018-4]

Sad thing is, so many union members are not democrats and do not want any of their money going to the Democrat party yet they have no choice in the matter in many areas because they are forced to be in the union in order to work.
Seems we have other problems that should be resolved first such as forcing people to pay money to unions they do not want to be a part.

[SassySue]

The Koch Brothers were the ones who created and organized Citizens United. They created it in an effort to "buy elections". Once their representatives were elected, their elected justices would change policies and laws to further their own interests, no matter how it effected the public, and without the knowledge of the public. It's all about their insatiable need for power and wealth. Citizen Koch is literally trying to buy the government. They need to be stopped. Even republicans are against this law.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Sad thing is, so many union members are not democrats and do not want any of their money going to the Democrat party yet they have no choice in the matter in many areas because they are forced to be in the union in order to work.
Seems we have other problems that should be resolved first such as forcing people to pay money to unions they do not want to be a part.

Hillary receives a lot of this money also. Everyone knows it. The people want to have this law overturned because they want to get "big money" out of politics. It does influence elections. Take Bernie Sanders, for example. If he had had more money and finances available, he he may have one the nomination for President.

[dilbert firestorm]

the thing here with the corporation is with the definition of it and how its used.

the courts have defined the corporation as a person (singular) for contract & tax rulings.

corporations are people but it is not "a person" (singular).

now that said, there needs to be a law requiring unions & corporations to prohibit the use of funds for political campaigns with out permission of shareholders & union members.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the thing here with the corporation is with the definition of it and how its used.

the courts have defined the corporation as a person (singular) for contract & tax rulings.

corporations are people but it is not "a person" (singular).

now that said, there needs to be a law requiring unions & corporations to prohibit the use of funds for political campaigns with out permission of shareholders & union members.

Silly Suzy Simpleton has been banned.