the crappy decision that was Citizens United.

The incorporation papers are the long form birth certificate for corporations.

At least without divorcing first?

Then again until sex is completely taken out of the mariage equation, I guess they shouldn't be allowed at all.

and does not have thoughts or feelings.

So if Congress passed a law banning newspapers endorsing candidates in Federal elections, should that law be constitutional, or would it violate the First Amendment?

Should there be limits?

There are limits. You can be thrown in jail for breaking that limit as 7,000 arrested Occupy members can attest.

The problem lies in that there seem to be limits on individuals but no limits on corporations. Is that fair?

I see your point. But I think there's a division line which makes an obvious separation between these two areas. It's contorted logic that ever gave the notion that corporations were able to subvert our voting process in the first place.


edit- I was going to add that the problem is limits on spending support. But whether it's corporations or people, even with limits, I believe the sentiment of one person one vote should be the intent of the system.

There's no problem here.

But it would be constitutional to ban the NYT corp from publishing this endorsement in their newspaper?

Would it be constitutional for Congress to pass a law saying that all partisan political websites have to shut down within 60 days of a Federal election? Or would this violate the First Amendment?

Are you beginning to see why the ACLU supports the Citizens United decision?

I don't, in general, have a problem with corporations being able to donate money. After all, this process benefits Democrats as well as Republicans.

But full transparency should be the law of the land.

This isn't really a First Amendment problem then. It's about elections. And about how the notion of American society should be to be toward equality, and away from survival of the fittest. A whole different subject from economics, which is a sort of jungle.

I appreciate that you stepped in and mentioned the ACLU's stance on this. It's not much different than what FOX is doing. We can't legislate against the lying, but we can regulate as we did with the Fairness Doctrine.

is misleading.

"Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs."

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

They do not believe in those corporations being able to spend unlimited funds in the political arena.

The newspaper's editor is.

let's say the $1,000,000 voice of Koch, or even Soros seems to scream lounder and get so much more attention than my $20 voice. Does that mean my voice is any less important or necessary?

is to get together with a bunch of like-minded people and pool your resources so that you can make yourself heard. Let's call this collection of people a "Super PAC". Now, this Super PAC "is not human; it doesn't have thoughts and feelings", but it is what allows you and your collection of like-minded people to have a voice that can get some attention.

aren't helping

In order to equal one Koch brother, I would have to assemble a large group of like-minded people.

In other words, his voice counts for more than mine. And you support that, it seems.

Good to know where my fellow DU'ers stand on the idea of rule by plutocracy. I hope you're rich enough that your position doesn't bite you on the ass, friend.

..you would be correct.

the voter rolls, nor have I seen one attempt to vote.

Yet another legacy given us by the ruling class parasites.

Thanks for the thread, Gregorian.

But not just the wealthiest. Anyone who currently puts a penny in the market is silently condoning everything being done for their and the corporations benefit.
We know anyone who places the environment & animal life above money would never invest in the stock market. But what about the people that don't care? How can we reach them?

But most teachers do not have the option to direct where their pension invests or input on the corporate "voice".

who would prefer to see a world of beauty and wilderness over the ravages of climate change banding together to demand a change. One of the many reasons things like 401k's and pensions are so devious. Sucking many people into profiting from things that would cause them to puke if they did it with their own two hands.
One could try to live the most environmentally conscious and conservationist life possible but if they invested any in the market all that effort is mostly gone down the drain.

includes written words and images conveyed in various ways, so proving that a corporation cannot express something by producing "articulate sounds" won't help us and is just a distraction from other, more relevant points in the comment.

The intention is still valid though. And reading above that the ACLU hasn't condemned the Citizens United ruling means to me that it's the unlimited nature of the financial support that is problematic.

I had to post the quote because of the conclusion he makes. The way this unequal ability to contribute in effect distorts the election process.

the chances of ordinary citizens to be heard.

K&R!

Maybe? Those 5 SCOTUS members are inhumane??

suporting the decision?

Money is an amp that goes to 11. It's not what is said into the microphone.

It looks like they headed over to a dictionary, and copy and pasted.

I questioned whether or not to post it. But it's such an important issue, and the notion that it is pushing us in the direction of plutocracy is important enough to overlook the one glaring flaw. We could massage it, and make a better message.

nt

saying "corporations must look out for the interests of their shareholders; it's the job of the law to legislate their morality."

Rationalizing corporate misbehavior on grounds of "everybody else was doing it" or "it increases profits for the current quarter" encourages the misbehavior itself, and is something many Democrats are guilty of. If you read that correctly, Obama basically sanctioned the entire subprime scam, because he does not distinguish between long-term interests and short term interests.

we need to have laws to force them to behave well. Which seems like common sense to me.