102

Look up the etymology of the word.

Maybe if Clintonistas hadn’t tried to violate the 1st Amendment, Citizens wouldn’t have happened.

I guess you feeeel Dems are taking advantage of the ruling.

“Correct”? Of course it was the “correct” decision.

103

Did not think you could just answer yes or no.

The correct answer is no.

We fought for our independence over crap like this.

Neoliberals support your stance.

1 Like
104

Read your post. “Yes or No” was at the end, not the beginning. Not that it matters, you don’t get to put stipulations on me, prog.

That doesn’t even work for you at home, why would you think it would work with a grown-assed man in public?

105

More rambling…its ok…I know where you stand.

1 Like
106

Addressing your issues. I’m a giver.

The SCOTUS decided Citizens the only way it could in accordance with the case and the law.

107

Here is a shocker…I disagree.

In the court’s opin­ion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limit­ing “inde­pend­ent polit­ical spend­ing” from corpor­a­tions and other groups viol­ates the First Amend­ment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the major­ity assumed that inde­pend­ent spend­ing cannot be corrupt and that the spend­ing would be trans­par­ent, but both assump­tions have proven to be incor­rect.

With its decision, the Supreme Court over­turned elec­tion spend­ing restric­tions that date back more than 100 years. Previ­ously, the court had upheld certain spend­ing restric­tions, arguing that the govern­ment had a role in prevent­ing corrup­tion. But in Citizens United, a bare major­ity of the justices held that “inde­pend­ent polit­ical spend­ing” did not present a substant­ive threat of corrup­tion, provided it was not coordin­ated with a candid­ate’s campaign.

As a result, corpor­a­tions can now spend unlim­ited funds on campaign advert­ising if they are not form­ally “coordin­at­ing” with a candid­ate or polit­ical party.

108

Ironically, the left has taken just as much, if not more advantage of Citizens than the right.

2 Likes
109

Really?
Of course both sides are doing it…the real losers are the average American voter, and democracy in general.

Where are you getting your numbers, to make that claim?

According to Open Secrets, 70% of super PACS, support conservatives.
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S

110

Case closed. :smile:

3 Likes
111

Not quite…

I will not argue the facts…yes, liberal groups raised and spent more in the dark money category.

The big difference, liberals are also trying to change these laws. and court decisions…they know this only corrupts the system. Conservatives defend these laws and court decisions.

It would be amazing, if liberals raise and spend enough, to gain enough power, to then, change the laws, that make dark money a thing of the past. Of course would take a SCOTUS decision…and since the court is very conservative, that is not likely.

More info here as well…

112

Wrong. It has a significant effect. But the enforcement has to be stringent and consistent.

113

China has other ways to control their population, ways that are unconstitutional in this country.

115

Yes, they do. Take the CCP out of the equation and put progs in charge and see what happens with crime.

As if because we have a high rate of incarceration we are all on the same playing field.

Take some of the thugs out of this country and see how long they last in China or elsewhere. :woman_shrugging:

116

You don’t understand law.

117

:rofl::+1:t4:

118

Complete and utter horse dung.

119

I think the better defense is that libs are playing within the established field. Nobody is challenging citizens United.
@Safiel blew my mind a little but it’s not surprising.

120

There are many that are challenging the CU decision. they have not gained much traction…but people are tring.

Here is an Org that is trying.

https://www.movetoamend.org/

And here is a congress person that tried…

Citizens United | U.S. House of Representatives.

121

Change the channel.

122

Don’t know about that. 1.7 million in their regular prison system and another 1-3 million Ughers in concentration camps. Unless you don’t count concentration camps as imprisonment.

1 Like