The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 15    Average: 2.1/5]
29 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 3857
Rating: 2.1
Category:
Date: 11/06/12 11:06 AM

29 Responses to Citizens United Explained!

  1. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:07 am
    Link: Citizens United Explained! - Many I-A-Bers have displayed amazing ignorance of what CU was all about, edumicate y`self, I-A-B!
  2. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6728 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:17 am
    "Corporations are not people and nobody thinks they are"

    Might want to tell the guy running for president.

    http://tinyurl.com/3cal99d
  3. Profile photo of elderban99
    elderban99 Male 40-49
    180 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:24 am
    While corporations may be considered "people" when it comes to the law, they certainly do hide behind the "corporate veil" when it comes to breaking them.
  4. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:26 am
    Right to peacfully assemble, 1st amendment.
  5. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:31 am
    What the f*ck is this bile 5Cats? I`m not going to bite. You obviously just want everyone to yell at you. And you wonder why you are depressed?
  6. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:40 am
    Blah, blah, blah if corporations aren`t treated as people the government could just come in and take your shares. What tripe. CU is state-sanctioned crony capitalism. This video equates CU with corporate personhood as if the two terms are synonymous. Without CU corporations can still enjoy many benefits of personhood that allow them to operate in society. This stinks of false dichotomy: Either CU is good, or corporations have no rights. What a load of garbage.
  7. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:49 am
    Bull. Corporations have MORE rights than you and I, because as an entity they cannot be punished by the law in the same way as an individual. A corporation doesn`t have to weigh a moral issue in the same way as us. They can commit immoral acts if the cost of getting caught isn`t more than the financial gain they receive.
  8. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:59 am
    And you wonder why you are depressed?
    @markust: I am depressed because of A) genetics B) environment C) brain damage (possibly)

    >>Please keep "your punches above the belt" eh? Marqius Of Queensbury Rules and all that...

    @FP: did you even BOTHER to LOOK at the video?

    @HG: OBAMA wanted to BAN BOOKS and MOVIES based soley on "political content" WITHOUT due process and this doesn`t bother you AT ALL? (within 60 days of an election = LOLZ!)

    @patchy: CU upholds legal principles going back 200 years+ ! It does MORE to hold them accountable than NOT having it, as this video explains.
    Want to sue McDonalds? You have to supoena EVERY SINGLE SHAREHOLDER individually...

    Bottom Line: A citizen doesn`t LOSE his rights by joining a group of other citizens...
  9. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    They can commit immoral acts if the cost of getting caught isn`t more than the financial gain they receive.
    Exactly @FP, how exactly would one hold a corporation criminally responsible for something? It`s interesting that this video claims that corporations have the same rights as people assembling, but that could work both ways. What if, for example, a corporation dumps toxic waste which then leaches into the groundwater and kills a few people in a town? If we are to treat the corporation as a group of people organizing, then shouldn`t we hold everyone in that corporation criminally responsible? If not, how exactly would one find the guilty party? Who is more guilty than the rest? Should shareholders be held responsible too? Since the CEO and board members technically work for the shareholders, wouldn`t the buck stop there?
  10. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 12:05 pm
    Want to sue McDonalds? You have to supoena EVERY SINGLE SHAREHOLDER individually...
    Again with your false dichotomy. You could sue the corporation McDonald`s loooong before CU. So your argument is meaningless. CU had specifically to do with political advertising, don`t make it into some William Wallace shouting "Freedom!" because it isn`t.

    It does MORE to hold them accountable than NOT having it, as this video explains.
    I didn`t see this video clearly explain how it makes them more accountable, all it does is say how without CU corporations would have no rights, which is bull.
  11. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 1:23 pm
    @patchy: You`re forgetting that CU wanted to KEEP current laws, and the Obama Admin wanter to CHANGE the laws...
    So saying "well, before CU..." means you SUPPORT CU, not the other way, eh?

    Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 1989: Exxon paid somwhwere between 1 billion to 2 billion in actual and punative damages, plus about 3 billion in clean-up and compensation (minus what was covered by insurance).
    So says Wiki, but the article is tough to follow!

    Anyhow, the point is: It was possible to sue before CU, and CU DEFENDED that!

    Wiki Says This About CU

    "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." - Justice Kennedy.
  12. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    Criminal Responsibility =/= Constitutional Rights...

    #1 Those are entirely seperate issues.
    #2 The Gov`t restrictions had NOTHING to do with criminal responsibility, ONLY freedom of expression... and the prohibition thereof...
  13. Profile photo of DingDingDong
    DingDingDong Male 30-39
    1511 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    This video is so logical. I couldn`t imagine how anyone could argue with it. But then I read the comments.
    This whole issue started with the left completely twisting the meaning of this supreme court ruling. Where "corporations are now people" came from makes no sense to me.

    This all started when the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act tried to limit free (political) speech. It definitely did limit speech and was rightly gutted for that. It`s that simple. Then the left yells "corporations are now people!" What?!? That doesn`t even make any sense!
  14. Profile photo of DingDingDong
    DingDingDong Male 30-39
    1511 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 2:00 pm
    Corporations are run by a board of directors and managers. If they decide to be criminal, they (yes the actual people) on the board and managers can be convicted and giving prison sentences. It happens all the time. Before CU and after. Why are you debating that? It has nothing to do with this free speech case.
  15. Profile photo of elderban99
    elderban99 Male 40-49
    180 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    @DingDingDong: It goes back a little further than that. Corporate Personhood has been around since 1819.

    "Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons."
  16. Profile photo of elderban99
    elderban99 Male 40-49
    180 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 2:06 pm
    The root problem is not profit or corporations per se, its size and influence. In America, big money buys big favors, and, big favors tilt the economic playing-field toward the already large and wealthy. If you’re not big and rich enough to buy special favors, you lose.

    Big banks get bailed out, but small businesses go belly up.

    Wall Street criminals get a free pass for crashing the economy but homeowners get foreclosure.

    Cash-strapped small businesses can’t get a loan, but in 2006 the federal government gave $92 billion in corporate welfare to the likes of GE, IBM, Dow Chemical and Boeing.

    Meanwhile, giant companies like GE pay no taxes and often get tax rebates, while workers, small businesses and the middle class pay a higher percentage than the rich.

    All of these things are brought to us by high paid lobbyists, campaign donations and other PAC`s like "Citizens United", which, incidentally,
  17. Profile photo of elderban99
    elderban99 Male 40-49
    180 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 2:08 pm
    *Which, incidentally, have nothing to do with "citizens" and everything to do with big business.
  18. Profile photo of DingDingDong
    DingDingDong Male 30-39
    1511 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    @elderban99 I agree with you about the root of the problem being big money from Corps and Unions influencing the elections. But the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act was unconstitutional. They need to find a constitutional way to fix the problem. Citizen`s United wanted to make a movie about Hillary Clinton. They were shut down by the government because it was political. How do you make a movie without assembling people in a non-profit or corporation of some kind?
  19. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    small businesses and the middle class pay a higher percentage than the rich
    Please, sir look at this chart:

    Higher percentage of WHAT exactly?
  20. Profile photo of Nageki
    Nageki Male 30-39
    110 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 4:43 pm
    The this this doesn`t mention at all is that it made money=speech... Money does not equal speech no matter how you look at it.
  21. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 7:50 pm
    @Nageki: Any free citizen can buy a advertising spot and put up a political advert.
    Money = speech.
    The US Gov`t claimed that if you and your buddy pooled your money to buy that advert? YOU cannot do so, it`s ILLEGAL.

    Slightly oversimplified, but the principle remains the same: COMPLETE Government control over books, movies and advertising: You Like it? Think it`s fine? No? Then YOU support CU, NOT the Gov`t on this issue.

    Theres more to the whole affair, but if you can`t get past that? You`ll likely not understand the rest either.

    @Cajun: That remains a most excellent chart!
  22. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Bull poo
  23. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 10:21 pm
    CU means the government has to obey the 1st Amendment.
  24. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 7, 2012 at 6:18 am
    How do you make a movie without assembling people in a non-profit or corporation of some kind?

    The problem was that they were airing the movie too close to an election, which was considered illegal.

    You`re forgetting that CU wanted to KEEP current laws, and the Obama Admin wanter to CHANGE the laws
    Can you source your claim? Because all I have seen is that CU wanted to run a documentary within 60 days of an election. Lots of republicans denounced the CU ruling as well, I don`t know where you`re getting this notion that it affirms the last 100 years of corporate personhood, because it doesn`t. All it does is give corps and unions another avenue to engage in cronyism.
  25. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 7, 2012 at 6:21 am
    Slightly oversimplified, but the principle remains the same: COMPLETE Government control over books, movies and advertising: You Like it? Think it`s fine? No? Then YOU support CU, NOT the Gov`t on this issue.
    Are you smoking crack @5cats? Since when is prohibiting political advertising 60 days before a general election considered "COMPLETE Government control" over books, films etc.?
  26. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    November 7, 2012 at 7:28 am
    The problem was that they were airing the movie too close to an election, which was considered illegal.

    Why should it be illegal?
  27. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    November 7, 2012 at 7:29 am
    All it does is give corps and unions another avenue to engage in cronyism.

    How so?
  28. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    November 7, 2012 at 8:55 am
    The problem was that they were airing the movie too close to an election, which was considered illegal.
    @patchy: That`s correct: they passed a Law, CU claimed it was UN-constitutional, they were correct and the BAD LAW was tossed out... mostly.

    Here`s a Law: All Jews must register with the Gov`t, wear an Armband, and mark their homes and businesses with a Star Of David. It`s the LAW! Go obey it!



  29. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    November 7, 2012 at 9:05 am
    CU wanted to KEEP current laws
    Obviously: OTHER THAN the laws they were trying to overturn, eh?
    Lots of republicans denounced the CU ruling as well
    Of course! More Gov`t power = good for them! Or so they imagine, greedy little pigs...

    All it does is give corps and unions another avenue to engage in cronyism.
    Huh? Whaaat? McCain-Finegold CLOSED avenues for LEGAL expression, you don`t think those people with money and an axe to grind are just going to give up and go home!! They`ll resort to illegal stuff like bribes (which is why both parties LIKED M-F! More bribes hooray!)

    Since when is prohibiting... Gov`t control?"

    Um, since ANY movie or video, on TV OR in the theaters, which the Gov`t decides "IS POLITICAL" is BANNED! ALL of them! EVERYTHING must pass "Gov`t Approval" 60 days before ANY election = That.
    Smells like fascism to me!

Leave a Reply