Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

[maxx]

maxx, since you don't believe in hell, I guess you don't have to worry about going there.

Now, try believing there's no such things as world poverty or man's inhumanity to man. Thanks in advance.

Prove there is such a place as hell, then we'll talk. And why would anyone who thinks they worship a loving and merciful god believe in a hell where people are tortured by fire?

Actually, corporations are people - they are their shareholders - millions of Americans who own corporations, directly or through their unions, pension funds, mutual funds and so forth.

Then those people already have a way to contribute to elections. Giving corporations the right to influence elections is multiplying those people's influence to the detriment of everyone else.

Unions have far more influence in politics than do corporations. Proof? Look at how f'ed up this country is today; both unions and major corporations are to blame but unions much more so.

They are to blame for what? I have to laugh when people talk about corporations and unions in the same breath as though they were equals. Unions represent less than 10% of the working people in the U.S. today. Thank you Ronald Reagan.

[rb336]

"Wall Street" crooks [[those bastards most of you hate so much) were among the biggest donors to the Dems.

yet, oddly enough, a much smaller % of the donations

[3WC]

Maxx, you're really off your game today. You state:

"Giving corporations the right to influence elections is multiplying those people's [[shareholders) influence to the detriment of everyone else." Think about what you're saying. A shareholder may contribute money to influence elections in many ways, two of which are, directly, and through corporations in which he owns an interest, which presumable act in the s/h's best financial interests. What's the difference? A dollar doesn't care who owns it or who donates it.

How many countless millions of member's money did the SEIU use to influence the last election? Far more than any one or group of corporations I'll bet.

rb336, you state: "....oddly enough, a much smaller percentage of the donations" [[To the Dems, by WS crooks.) Well, duh. The Dems raised and spent far more money during the last presidential election than the Republicans. The WS crooks' donations, as large as they were, would inevitable be a very small percentage of the vast sums the Dems raised and spent. What point are you trying to make?

[rb336]

rb336, you state: "....oddly enough, a much smaller percentage of the donations" [[To the Dems, by WS crooks.) Well, duh. The Dems raised and spent far more money during the last presidential election than the Republicans. The WS crooks' donations, as large as they were, would inevitable be a very small percentage of the vast sums the Dems raised and spent. What point are you trying to make?

you really have to ask? the bigger percentage of donations to the republicans came from corporate interests, as it has since the "modern" versions of the two parties emerged. If you are saying dems are bought and paid for by corp. interests - no argument there - the same goes double for republicans

[Jimaz]

Weekly Address: The Republican Corporate Power Grab

The President explains how the most dire warnings about the Citizens United case have been proven valid as Republicans in Congress have blocked legislation to fix it.

Why would Republicans block legislation restricting foreign corporations from spending unlimited money to anonymously influence U.S. elections?

Who's side are they on?!

[maxx]

Weekly Address: The Republican Corporate Power GrabWhy would Republicans block legislation restricting foreign corporations from spending unlimited money to anonymously influence U.S. elections?

Who's side are they on?!

They're on their own side. That's why they have been doing as little as possible in Congress since Obama was elected.

[maxx]

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x7556194
"...The fact is that we now live in a world of giant transnational
corporations, with allegiance to NO sovereign government, let alone
our own, sworn only to exploit the most vulnerable and desperate
workers they can find in any country of the world. How does The
Supreme Court 5 propose parsing which of these extra-national legal
artificialities should be allowed to corrupt our democratic election
process? Apparently in their minds, all of them....Because just as importantly, we are on ominous and clear notice that
there is no further outrage these 5 gangsters in black robes are not
gleefully and arrogantly capable of. Indeed, in his dissenting
opinion [[that the majority did not go far ENOUGH), Clarence Thomas
characterized the decision as only a "first step" [[Thomas opinion p.
1)..."

[oladub]

maxx, Since courts gave corporations much of their power by making them legal persons, wouldn't it be a better idea to revisit that decision than to always be two steps behind in addressing problems that that ruling caused?

[maxx]

That's hardly going to happen with the present conservative activists on the SCOTUS.

[oladub]

That's hardly going to happen with the present conservative activists on the SCOTUS.

It didn't happen with the Warren or Roosevelt's courts or any Democrat or Republican government either. I'm just saying we have to go after the cause rather than the symptoms. Otherwise, we will continue playing 'whack a mole'.

[maxx]

It didn't happen with the Warren or Roosevelt's courts or any Democrat or Republican government either.

The decision didn't endanger our democracy until now.

I'm just saying we have to go after the cause rather than the symptoms. Otherwise, we will continue playing 'whack a mole'.

I'm sure legal scholars have revisited the original case. Undoing a past Sup. Ct. decision will take something like an amendment that trumps it. Dems tried to pass a bill that would have made the money behind political ads available to the public, and I don't think that even passed.

[Jimaz]

Attachment 16289
McCain: Citizens United Worst SCOTUS Decision Ever

"Sen. John McCain [[R-Ariz.) continued his harsh criticism of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling this week, calling it the bench's "worst decision ever."

"They said money is free speech. Since when is money free speech?" McCain asked a crowd at an event put on by the Oxford Union at the University of Oxford, according to the Oxonian Globalist. "Money is money."

The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling, which allowed corporations, unions and individuals to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections through super PACs, has elicited a strong responses from McCain in the past. Earlier this year he predicted that the unfettered influx of money, often from undisclosed sources, would lead to "huge scandals" in upcoming elections.

McCain has traditionally been one of Congress' most enthusiastic supporters of campaign finance reform, and he lamented the demise of such efforts in the wake of the Citizens United decision. At times, he's appeared to act as if he's willing to accept defeat."* Steve Oh [[COO of The Young Turks) and Jimmy Dore [[The Jimmy Dore Show) break it down and explain how Super PACs effectually buy elections....

Okay, maybe it's not bribery in the letter of the law but how is it not bribery in the spirit of the law?

Why have the proponents of Citizens United not yet been tarred and feathered?