Taken from JRE #1214: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igc_1TPfK9Y
Video Source
34 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Taken from JRE #1214: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igc_1TPfK9Y
Video Source
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The question for the Court in Citizens was whether or not corporations are people, and if so, do they have a right to free speech. It takes more than a soundbite to understand Court opinions, so while I disagree with the outcome of the Court, I agree with the ruling. This guy is right in stating that a separate case must be brought to answer the question of PAC's. The role of the judicial is often so misunderstood; it's often conflated the role of the legislative: to make the laws.
Too many people talk down Citizens United to make it seem nefarious. The Supreme Court affirmed Corporations have ~legal rights~ not "human rights" which is how leftists always (falsely) portray the SC ruling.
A corporation exists as an extension of the property rights of it's owners. The owner's of a corporation may not themselves be the best people to act as executives for the corporation and it's common practice for the owners to hire executives to run it (a corporate board). Corporate executives (and all employees) have a fiduciary duty to make decisions in the best interest of the corporation. An essential part of that fiduciary duty is funding political campaigns on issues which directly impact their business. This is why oil companies create super pacs to oppose carbon tax initiatives. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG OR IMMORAL FOR CORPORATIONS TO SPEND MONEY OPPOSING LEGISLATION DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR BUSINESS. The corporation is spending the money with the consent of it's owners (shareholders). It's no different than if the individual shareholders collectively pooled their private donations to fund a super pac on those specific issues…. but they don't need to do that because the corporation itself is already a vehicle for spending their money in the best interests of their collective interests. In other words what's best for the owners of the corporation is what's best for the corporation itself. Thus corporations are AUTHORIZED to spend CORPORATE MONEY by the consent of it'a shareholders. To deny corporations the right to spend money on political campaigns is essentially no different than BANNING individual shareholders from spending money on political campaigns. The corporation is simply the apparatus for which they most effectively do this. When ExxonMobil spends money on ads opposing carbon tax legislation it'a no different than all the shareholders of ExxonMobil funding those ads. But would it be legal to ban individuals from spending money for those ads? No….it wouldn't. That"s the crux of the Supreme Court's ruling…. spending money on political campaigns is an exercise of free speech. To ban campaign spending is to ban political speech.
All that money did fuck all for Hilary. LOL
But tell me how cocaine Mitch is "uniquely evil"
Give me a fucking break
Corporations are not people.
Money is not speech.
Corruption is not Democracy.
Citizens United is just another GOP assault on the Constitution. The GOP REWROTE THE 2ND AMENDMENT in 2008 and erased the first half of it. Now the GOP has 5 MORE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ready to go right now.
Yup, the GOP are real patriots. 😈