Citizens United

[Nickman]

In the late 2000's, large corporations, and unions were granted the right to personhood. Essentially, they were allowed to be considered as voters. These entities have damn near unlimited funds. They now have the right to funnel millions each year to campaigns for political positions.

The way our Democracy is supposed to work is that elected politicians are paid by the citizens, via taxpayer dollars. They are supposed to listen to the people who pay them. The problem is that these corporations have been granted the ability to lobby. They can pay more than all the American Citizens combined. Who will politicians listen too? The taxpayers who pay a better than livable wage? Or the Corporations who can pay unlimited amounts of money?

By the time you get to vote for your Presidential candidate, they have already been selected for you. This also applies to Congress, Senate, Mayoral, Governor, you name it.

You get to select between a couple of chumps who are receiving corporate donations and who answer to those corporations. Unless corporations are not even interested.

We feel that our vote counts, but do they? When the candidates were given huge campaign donations?

In the old days, anyone could run for President. It may have costed, but donations came from everday citizens, not corporations. This made politicians for the very citizens who are rooting for them, and paying for them. The person with the most support wins! Yay for Democracy. Today, however, everyday citizens cannot compete with Walmart, Big Oil companies, Import companies, Banks, and the like.

What say you?

[McCulloch]

I feel that contributions to politicians should only be allowed to come from eligible voters. Corporations cannot vote, therefore they should not be allowed to contribute. Owners of corporations should be allowed to contribute from their own personal funds but not from the funds of the corporation which, by law, belong to the shareholders.

Is that too simplistic a view?

Furthermore, I believe that all contributions to politicians should be public information and fully disclosed.

[bluethread]

I feel that contributions to politicians should only be allowed to come from eligible voters. Corporations cannot vote, therefore they should not be allowed to contribute. Owners of corporations should be allowed to contribute from their own personal funds but not from the funds of the corporation which, by law, belong to the shareholders.

Is that too simplistic a view?

Furthermore, I believe that all contributions to politicians should be public information and fully disclosed.

I agree with your final statement. However, the problem with this is other organizations that are allowed to be part of political campaigns, ie unions and churches.

The church issue is really interesting. "Black" churches that support democrats seem to get a free pass, while other religious organizations are examined with a fine toothed comb. If we limit the free political speech of corporations, what about other groups of two or more.

[McCulloch]

I believe that all contributions to politicians should be public information and fully disclosed.

I agree with your final statement.

It seems so self-evident to borrow a phrase from Jefferson.

However, the problem with this is other organizations that are allowed to be part of political campaigns, ie unions and churches.

Re-read what I said. I feel that contributions to politicians should only be allowed to come from eligible voters. Corporations cannot vote, therefore they should not be allowed to contribute. Unions cannot vote, therefore unions should not be allowed to contribute. Churches and clubs are not allowed to vote, therefore should not be allowed to contribute. It seems to me to be a simple principle to apply. Only if you are allowed to vote should you be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

Is that too simplistic a view?

I might add some limits to the size of any single person's contribution in order to avoid plutocracy, and allow corporations, unions, associations and churches to participate in the electoral process by contributing to a fund which would then be used to support all major political parties equally.

[Darias]

1)

In the late 2000's, large corporations, and unions were granted the right to personhood. Essentially, they were allowed to be considered as voters. These entities have damn near unlimited funds. They now have the right to funnel millions each year to campaigns for political positions.

It makes perfect sense that self-interested people with connections will want to benefit each other. The leaders of corporations will donate to the future leaders of nations in the interests of having state laws and handouts that will benefit their company at the expense of their competition. The political leaders who find themselves with careers after elections that were made possible by their corporate friends will make sure they do everything within their power to return the favor in the interest of securing future campaign financing.

Keep in mind that corporations also have limited liability, so the CEOs don't take the hit out of pocket when they invest poorly in candidates who backstab them for a larger paycheck by another corporation, or when they make risky financial decisions in the business world.

Corporations, unions, churches, and any large body can also lobby to benefit themselves at everyone else's expense. People will go for the gun in the room every time. It doesn't matter if you have people and corporations that are willing to restrict themselves well behind the outer limits of legality for the sake of PR, the greater incentive will always be to utilize the wider net to their advantage.

The same is true for politicians who think they are making smart moves to preserve their image in the eyes of the public by, say voting against the continuation of PRISM (not to say that those votes weren't influenced by money as well). There will always be a majority of politicians who are self interested and follow the dollar because human beings tend to chase after what they want and need to live and live well -- and they will be rewarded handsomely for passing laws that no one really cares about enough to do anything much more than a forum post or a retweet. #realitycheck

[center][yt][/yt]
[yt][/yt][/center]

Given that you can't get people to care about the theft of their money, and given that everyone has already accepted PRISM -- what makes you think a petition on whitehouse.org or Wolf-PAC is going to do a damn thing? Cenk from The Young Turks ain't kidding when he says, "yes, we believe!" because all he has to offer is blind faith.

The heart of the problem isn't the symptom. Pointing out the evils of corporatism and ending there is like being outraged at the evils that criminals do, but silent about the failure of parenting that creates them. Without the state the corporation as a legal entity would not exist. It follows therefore that business owners would not benefit from their enormous salaries created when the taxpayer mitigates their risks for them. The same would be true for all artificial, neverending monopolies created and sustained by the state, whether they are government monopolies or corporate monopolies, both of which drive up prices at the expense of consumers and drive down salaries at the expense of employees -- all the result of the utter absence of competition which forces the opposite to occur. Currently, the little man and his small business cannot compete in this environment. The little man and his small business cannot entice politicians. The little man and his small business cannot hide behind limited liability.



2)

The way our Democracy is supposed to work is that elected politicians are paid by the citizens, via taxpayer dollars. They are supposed to listen to the people who pay them.

What makes you think democracy worked prior to the 2000s? What on earth makes you think self-interested politicians trying to win an election with or without corporate help, will be honest and accountable to you? Politicians will receive and live on your taxes whether you vote for them or not and whether you vote at all. Politicians do not know who votes for them; they have not entered into a legal contract with you to ensure you will get what you want. They will promise you the moon, hell, they will promise you a moon base, but that is in the interest of their careers and they have no intention of keeping any promises that don't benefit them and their friends as well.

[center]
[/center]



3)

By the time you get to vote for your Presidential candidate, they have already been selected for you. This also applies to Congress, Senate, Mayoral, Governor, you name it.

You get to select between a couple of chumps who are receiving corporate donations and who answer to those corporations. Unless corporations are not even interested.

This is true without corporations as well. In Iran the religious scholars who won popular votes vet the presidential candidates for the masses to choose between. In America, the masses, whose financial support is critical to win elections and keep one from being impeached via popular demand once in office, do the same thing that CEOs do. It's called tyranny of the majority. A practical example of this is when North Carolinians who want to make sure society conforms to their beliefs get to vote to ban civil unions. The minority loses and the politicians who need the majority to win and hold office don't care.

This is democracy.

[center][/center]



4)

We feel that our vote counts, but do they? When the candidates were given huge campaign donations?

You cannot arrive to the truth via intuition. It feels like the sun is spinning around the earth. The earth feels flat. The truth is altogether different.

Your vote is statistically irrelevant. You have a far greater chance of dying in an automobile accident on your way to the polls than determining the outcome of an election. No one knows this fact better than people who voted for 3rd party candidates, progressive or libertarian. Winning less than 1 percentage point of the vote tells you that political reform by way of politics is impossible.

It is by no coincidence that both parties sound the same. Both have to appeal to the middle to win a majority of the vote. The two party system which is in effect one single party -- a distinction without a difference -- beholden to their own bases and their own corporate friends is here to stay so long as people continue to participate in the farce that is voting.

I think voting is immoral because it validates a system that is inherently violent. But even if you think your vote is self-defense, it is utterly pointless whether you cast it or not, just as it was for the Union soldier on the front lines to fire his gun -- he was going to die anyway because he was conscripted to fight a war not of his choosing. Why participate in violence at all? I feel sorry for the Australians who are legally required to vote. Because mandating that all people vote whether or not they care about policies or are the least bit informed is the best way to ensure a fabulous governing body.

[center]
[/center]



5)

In the old days, anyone could run for President. It may have costed, but donations came from everday citizens, not corporations. This made politicians for the very citizens who are rooting for them, and paying for them. The person with the most support wins! Yay for Democracy. Today, however, everyday citizens cannot compete with Walmart, Big Oil companies, Import companies, Banks, and the like.

What say you?

The person with the most money at his disposal for campaign awareness wins; what's changed?

Tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority is still tyranny either way. To praise one as good and label the other as bad just because you're a member of the group is hypocrisy. Violence is violence. Theft is theft. The state puts an end to your rights at the expense of your income while benefiting corporations, politicians, and special interests. Let's not make special exceptions for anyone.

Democracy and the campaign financing that inevitably comes with it ultimately results from society's belief that violence is okay if someone benefits from it, especially if it's them or the people they like -- even more-so if you describe the process with pleasant euphemisms to hide the truth of the matter.

The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes—a large class, no doubt—each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,� a “sovereign�; that this is “a free government�; “a government of equal rights,� “the best government on earth,� and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

-

[Nickman]

I feel that contributions to politicians should only be allowed to come from eligible voters. Corporations cannot vote, therefore they should not be allowed to contribute. Owners of corporations should be allowed to contribute from their own personal funds but not from the funds of the corporation which, by law, belong to the shareholders.

Is that too simplistic a view?

Furthermore, I believe that all contributions to politicians should be public information and fully disclosed.

That's pretty straightforward. I agree that only voters should be allowed to make contributions. I wonder, though, how the average Joe could get the contributions needed to run. Publicity is obviously needed to winning an election. Couldn't a politician get a donation as a charitable expense from a Corporation long before an election? Before they even sign up?

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 5 by Darias]

Are you saying there is nothing we can do? The citizens hold the majority, but as the man said in the second video, they would be hard pressed to make a change even if every citizen joined forces. Do you not think that a state convention can help? If we enact an amendment that overrides federal law concerning Corporate involvement in politics, don't you think have a shot? What is you opinion on how to fix the corruption?

[WinePusher]

In the late 2000's, large corporations, and unions were granted the right to personhood. Essentially, they were allowed to be considered as voters. These entities have damn near unlimited funds. They now have the right to funnel millions each year to campaigns for political positions.

First, the Citizens United case did not establish the concept of corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is a completely separate issue and it isn't relevant to this case at all.

Second, the Citizens United case simply says that the government cannot restrict the number of political advertisements that a corporation can run. Citizens United is basically a reversal of McCain Feingold (which was clearly an unconstitutional law) and I really doubt it will have any effect on the way our democracy functions. You are likely to get an even amount of Democratic and Republican advertisements which will essentially cancel each other out and the government has no right limiting political speech to begin with.

The problem is that these corporations have been granted the ability to lobby. They can pay more than all the American Citizens combined. Who will politicians listen too? The taxpayers who pay a better than livable wage? Or the Corporations who can pay unlimited amounts of money?

The only reason why corporations pour huge sums of money into elections is because they know that the government is able to dish out things like subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory favors, etc. If the economy were more free market oriented then corporations would have no interest in elections because the government wouldn't be able to enact policies that benefited them. If you take away the government influence and intervention in the economy then corporations wouldn't dump millions of dollars into elections and campaigns.

We feel that our vote counts, but do they? When the candidates were given huge campaign donations?

What you don't seem to understand is that the purpose of political advertisements is to influence and change the way we will vote. Even with Citizens United everybody will still get one vote.

What say you?

I think that we should be able to do without big money in politics. It seems very wasteful to me, and I would like to shrink the amount of money spent on elections. But having said this, I don't have a problem with Citizens United cause I actually understand the details of the case. Citizens United overturned McCain Feingold and forbids the government from limiting political speech. In addition, now that corporations are able to run unlimited advertisements there will be an even amount of Democratic and Republican ads that will cancel each other out.

To me, it seems completely anti American for the government to place an upper limit on the amount of soft money a candidate can raise. If people and/or corporations want to pour huge amounts of soft money into a race then they should have every right to. Yes, it's obviously wasteful and I think the money could be better spent by I really doubt it messes up our democratic system.

[Nickman]

First, the Citizens United case did not establish the concept of corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is a completely separate issue and it isn't relevant to this case at all.

Never said it did.

Second, the Citizens United case simply says that the government cannot restrict the number of political advertisements that a corporation can run. Citizens United is basically a reversal of McCain Feingold (which was clearly an unconstitutional law) and I really doubt it will have any effect on the way our democracy functions. You are likely to get an even amount of Democratic and Republican advertisements which will essentially cancel each other out and the government has no right limiting political speech to begin with.

So you are ok with Corporations acting as a person and funneling large amounts of money into politics?

The only reason why corporations pour huge sums of money into elections is because they know that the government is able to dish out things like subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory favors, etc. If the economy were more free market oriented then corporations would have no interest in elections because the government wouldn't be able to enact policies that benefited them. If you take away the government influence and intervention in the economy then corporations wouldn't dump millions of dollars into elections and campaigns.

Are you saying that big corporations need subsidies? Even though they already make billions and pay their employees minimum wage? Did you know that a Walmart in Ohio has a food drive for their employees for Thanksgiving because the employees are not paid enough? Why in the blue hell would Walmart need a subsidy? When the poor get subsidies it is a big deal, but when billionaire companies get millions in subsidies that they don't need, it is ok. Great logic.

Its not about government involvement in the economy. It is about corporations buying government officials so that they vote in their favor.

What you don't seem to understand is that the purpose of political advertisements is to influence and change the way we will vote. Even with Citizens United everybody will still get one vote.

And what you don't understand is that your vote means absolutely nothing. If a politician receives contributions from a corporation, they own them. They are not gonna give two poops about what you want, or your vote.

I think that we should be able to do without big money in politics. It seems very wasteful to me, and I would like to shrink the amount of money spent on elections. But having said this, I don't have a problem with Citizens United cause I actually understand the details of the case. Citizens United overturned McCain Feingold and forbids the government from limiting political speech. In addition, now that corporations are able to run unlimited advertisements there will be an even amount of Democratic and Republican ads that will cancel each other out.

You seem to think that it stops at elections. You are making no sense. How does CU make things even? How were they one sided prior? You seem to be saying that CU created a fair balance of advertisement. This makes no sense at all. Money in or money out of politics, advertisement would be equal. Just less for each party.

You again speak arrogantly as you have done towards me many times.

"I don't have a problem with Citizens United cause I actually understand the details of the case."

Well aren't you so smug. But your posts show me you know very little other than a mainstream media understanding on the subject.

Citizens United has nothing to do with citizens. It is a group of corporations that feed off of each others needs and invest their money into politicians who will vote in their favor. "EPA says that our product is environmentally unsafe, lets just buy Senators Joe Shmo, Johnny Blo, and Tommy Cho and have them turn the vote in our favor."

"oh, people are suing because our products are unsafe and have caused deaths, let us buy politicians and Supreme Court members and create caps for "frivolous lawsuits. Let's take away all responsibility we have for our products, yeah. All in favor!"

To me, it seems completely anti American for the government to place an upper limit on the amount of soft money a candidate can raise. If people and/or corporations want to pour huge amounts of soft money into a race then they should have every right to. Yes, it's obviously wasteful and I think the money could be better spent by I really doubt it messes up our democratic system.

It is anti-American to allow corporations with 47% of Americas wealth to be involved in the political system. You are all about free market, but seem against the consumer, of which you are one.

Taxpayers pay politicians. That is where a good portion of our money goes. It is used to pay the salaries of our "elected officials." If a corporation pays them more, who will the politician listen to? Especially if they want a second or third term and need that corporate money. You seem oblivious to the problem. No disrespect.

[WinePusher]

First, the Citizens United case did not establish the concept of corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is a completely separate issue and it isn't relevant to this case at all.

Never said it did.

You wrote: In the late 2000's, large corporations, and unions were granted the right to personhood. There is a huge misconception amount liberal circles about this and I was just pointing it out.

Second, the Citizens United case simply says that the government cannot restrict the number of political advertisements that a corporation can run. Citizens United is basically a reversal of McCain Feingold (which was clearly an unconstitutional law) and I really doubt it will have any effect on the way our democracy functions. You are likely to get an even amount of Democratic and Republican advertisements which will essentially cancel each other out and the government has no right limiting political speech to begin with.

So you are ok with Corporations acting as a person and funneling large amounts of money into politics?

I'm ok with the Citizens United ruling because I actually know what it does. It simply forbids the government from placing limits on the number of political advertisements a corporation can run and it removes the cap on soft money contributions.

The only reason why corporations pour huge sums of money into elections is because they know that the government is able to dish out things like subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory favors, etc. If the economy were more free market oriented then corporations would have no interest in elections because the government wouldn't be able to enact policies that benefited them. If you take away the government influence and intervention in the economy then corporations wouldn't dump millions of dollars into elections and campaigns.

Are you saying that big corporations need subsidies? Even though they already make billions and pay their employees minimum wage? Did you know that a Walmart in Ohio has a food drive for their employees for Thanksgiving because the employees are not paid enough? Why in the blue hell would Walmart need a subsidy? When the poor get subsidies it is a big deal, but when billionaire companies get millions in subsidies that they don't need, it is ok. Great logic.

I never said big corporations needed subsidizes. Honestly, I feel like you're just caricaturing my arguments and you don't even seem to be making an effort to address the point. What I said was that if you take away government influence and intervention then corporations will have no incentive to pour money into elections. If you want big business out of the government then you must first start by taking the government out of the economy.

Its not about government involvement in the economy. It is about corporations buying government officials so that they vote in their favor.

The only reason why corporations try buying government officials is because they know that the government has influence over the economy. If you take away this influence then corporations will have no incentive to use their money to finance campaigns.

I think that we should be able to do without big money in politics. It seems very wasteful to me, and I would like to shrink the amount of money spent on elections. But having said this, I don't have a problem with Citizens United cause I actually understand the details of the case. Citizens United overturned McCain Feingold and forbids the government from limiting political speech. In addition, now that corporations are able to run unlimited advertisements there will be an even amount of Democratic and Republican ads that will cancel each other out.

You seem to think that it stops at elections. You are making no sense. How does CU make things even? How were they one sided prior? You seem to be saying that CU created a fair balance of advertisement. This makes no sense at all. Money in or money out of politics, advertisement would be equal. Just less for each party.

No, I'm saying that Citizens United won't destroy our democratic system (contrary to what people on the left are saying) because there will likely be an equal amount of democratic and republican ads that will effectively neutralize each other. Apparently you agree with this, so what's the problem?

You again speak arrogantly as you have done towards me many times.

"I don't have a problem with Citizens United cause I actually understand the details of the case."

Well aren't you so smug. But your posts show me you know very little other than a mainstream media understanding on the subject.

First of all, I think it's pretty funny how you assume that this quote was directly solely at you. For the record, it wasn't. It was directed towards all the people on the left who are in an uproar about this case for all the wrong reasons. Yes, I agree that big money in politics is a problem. No, I don't think overturning Citizens United (and reinstating McCain Feingold) is the correct way to go about fixing this.

Second of all, I would rather get my information from the mainstream media than the young turks.

To me, it seems completely anti American for the government to place an upper limit on the amount of soft money a candidate can raise. If people and/or corporations want to pour huge amounts of soft money into a race then they should have every right to. Yes, it's obviously wasteful and I think the money could be better spent by I really doubt it messes up our democratic system.

It is anti-American to allow corporations with 47% of Americas wealth to be involved in the political system. You are all about free market, but seem against the consumer, of which you are one.

Taxpayers pay politicians. That is where a good portion of our money goes. It is used to pay the salaries of our "elected officials." If a corporation pays them more, who will the politician listen to? Especially if they want a second or third term and need that corporate money. You seem oblivious to the problem. No disrespect.

No disrespect, but you don't even seem to understand what I'm saying. All you seem interested in doing is misrepresenting my arguments. I have said MANY times that the amount of big money in elections is wasteful and it is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. I've outlined how we can effectively remove big money and big business our of the political system, by stripping the government of it's control and influence over the economy. As a result, corporations will have no incentive to donate to politicians.