Hillary pledges to overturn citizens united

[Pangean]

I don't follow you. If, say, Apple started running ads for Hillary, then I could sell my shares.

Lawrence can explain it to you:

"People who invest in business corporations, as opposed to contributors to ideological non-profits of the sort that Citizens United itself represented, don't typically intend thereby to authorize the managers and directors of those corporations to use the money invested in their businesses to help some candidates win election to federal office or to hinder the efforts of others vying for positions of federal authority. Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other people's money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose."

[NineSpine]

No, you didn't. I asked a simple question and you started talking about corporate protections. That is a different discussion entirely. Stop dodging.

Again, can a group of people pool their money for political purposes? Yes or no?

Dude, I said yes. What the fuck more do you want? Individual persons can pool their money with other individual persons and do what they like with it for political purposes.

[Grummgug]

The government has massive amounts of control over the airwaves as a public commodity. You act like they are a private entity.

Is that the next step? The government is going to step in and stop the Koch brothers from slanting the 6' o'clock news to the right? They are going to step in and stop them from having Finding Nemo 3 be a conservative film? How do they do that, exactly? The government is going to get in the business of determining what is a fair report on a news story and what is slanted, and ban news stories they feel are biased? That's your solution?

[NineSpine]

George Soros donates more to the left than they do to the right. Just sayin...

False. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010...koch-brothers/

[Tijuana]

First of all, it requires 2/3rds, not 75%. Again, spend ten minutes on the wikipedia, at least, before you start blabbering and continue to embarrass yourself.

Second of all, it has also passed bodies in Washington, New Hampshire, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware. This includes vastly majority Republican bodies.

Big deal, it passed one body. It will never even get voted on in those red states, much less pass. Seriously, you really do not understand how modern American politics works. These people do not like each other, and Republicans have a major hard on for the constitution. It's like sure, I could get elected president on paper, but it ain't happening in reality.

[alexw]

What does this passing 5 of the most liberal legislatures in the country have to do with reaching a goal of 75% of the total, the most of which are controlled by Republicans? Great, you got it passed in 5 states. Only 33 more to go so, you are basically almost there, right?

Err what? You have said it will never pass because republicans control lots of states. Yet republicans are voting to do what you say they will never do. That means its possible for such an amendment to happen when you have said there is no chance never in a billion years for it to happen.

I'm not sure how to put it more plainly. You have said one thing and reality has show that what you have said is wrong.

[NineSpine]

Is that the next step? The government is going to step in and stop the Koch brothers from slanting the 6' o'clock news to the right? They are going to step in and stop them from having Finding Nemo 3 be a conservative film? How do they do that, exactly?

The fairness doctrine was actually fairly effective. All of this doesn't really matter though, as the primary way to solve this issue is public financing of elections, which negates instead of bans private spending.

- - - Updated - - -

Big deal, it passed one body. It will never even get voted on in those red states, much less pass. Seriously, you really do not understand how modern American politics works. These people do not like each other, and Republicans have a major hard on for the constitution. It's like sure, I could get elected president on paper, but it ain't happening in reality.

But it did get voted on and passed one of the two bodies in those states, often with sponsorships by Republicans.

[Tijuana]

False. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010...koch-brothers/

Where is the rest of the list? Both these groups have dozens of various entities they fund. And Soros invented that idea too. Your side is no different from the other.

[zorkuus]

If they don't deliver on their promises you have to make them pay.

By not re-electing them I assume?
When have rebuplicans not voted for their candidate for a second term when the promises haven't been kept?
This isn't a democrat only problem.

[NineSpine]

Where is the rest of the list? Both these groups have dozens of various entities they fund. And Soros invented that idea too. Your side is no different from the other.

I'll shit in one hand and put your speculation in the other and see which fills first.

- - - Updated - - -

By not re-electing them I assume?
When have rebuplicans not voted for their candidate for a second term when the promises haven't been kept?
This isn't a democrat only problem.

1991 is a pretty good example.

[PC2]

By not re-electing them I assume?
When have rebuplicans not voted for their candidate for a second term when the promises haven't been kept?
This isn't a democrat only problem.

No clue, you know you don't have to vote for Republicans or Democrats.

[Tijuana]

Err what? You have said it will never pass because republicans control lots of states. Yet republicans are voting to do what you say they will never do. That means its possible for such an amendment to happen when you have said there is no chance never in a billion years for it to happen.

I'm not sure how to put it more plainly. You have said one thing and reality has show that what you have said is wrong.

It has to pass both bodies. I don't know how more clear I can be. This will never happen. If you think it will, then fine, ok. I mean, I guess I really don't care what you believe that much? We can just agree to disagree because I don't think this conversation is going even as far as that amendment will.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll shit in one hand and put your speculation in the other and see which fills first.

- - - Updated - - -



1991 is a pretty good example.

I don't even know what you are on about but, ok. I mean the Soros strategy isn't exactly a secret. Also, that is fucking gross way to put it. Just sayin...

[NineSpine]

It has to pass both bodies. I don't know how more clear I can be. This will never happen. If you think it will, then fine, ok. I mean, I guess I really don't care what you believe that much? We can just agree to disagree because I don't think this conversation is going even as far as that amendment will.

So passing Republican bodies with Republican co-sponsors, after being introduced by Republican led committees, isn't enough to convince you some Republicans can get behind the idea?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't even know what you are on about but, ok. I mean the Soros strategy isn't exactly a secret. Also, that is fucking gross way to put it. Just sayin...

If it's not a secret, it really shouldn't be difficult for you to produce numbers that show the numbers I produced to be incorrect.

[Shadowferal]

I don't know why some argue in favor of having bought and paid for politicians since I'm fairly certain they themselves aren't getting paid to shill for them.

Still, we have other amendments to show that it's not impossible for more amendments to happen.

[NineSpine]

I don't know why some argue in favor of having bought and paid for politicians since I'm fairly certain they themselves aren't getting paid to shill for them.

Still, we have other amendments to show that it's not impossible for more amendments to happen.

Because authoritarians can't help but cling to existing hierarchies.

[Sargerasraider]

First of all, it requires 2/3rds, not 75%. Again, spend ten minutes on the wikipedia, at least, before you start blabbering and continue to embarrass yourself.

Second of all, it has also passed bodies in Washington, New Hampshire, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware. This includes vastly majority Republican bodies.

Thank you for answering my question.

Secondly, 2/3 of states are needed to call a constitutional convention. Actually amending the constitution still requires 3/4 of state legislatures with an amendment submitted by Congress, or 3/4 of the states present at the convention.

[Tijuana]

I don't know why some argue in favor of having bought and paid for politicians since I'm fairly certain they themselves aren't getting paid to shill for them.

Still, we have other amendments to show that it's not impossible for more amendments to happen.

Because ads are speech, and speech is unrestricted in nearly all cases. It's literally just that simple.

Adding an amendment is technically what would happen here but, in practice it would weaken the first amendment, the most beloved of them all and the one that we feel made us different than other nations in the world when it was implemented.

[Shadowferal]

Because ads are speech, and speech is unrestricted in nearly all cases. It's literally just that simple.

And it's literally just as simple to redefine "political speech" via the law.
And should that happen no one will have such a fucked up argument to stand on.

[NineSpine]

Because ads are speech, and speech is unrestricted in nearly all cases. It's literally just that simple.

Adding an amendment is technically what would happen here but, in practice it would weaken the first amendment, the most beloved of them all and the one that we feel made us different than other nations in the world when it was implemented.

The First Amendment has been weakened BY Citizens United and similar decisions. The idea that unaccountable corporations can flood the national dialogue and drown out all other voices is not in accordance with the idea that people have Freedom of Speech.

Also, this notion that corporations are people is NEW, so the idea that we were founded on that principle is absolutely bizarre.

[Tijuana]

And it's literally just as simple to redefine "political speech" via the law.
And should that happen no one will have such a fucked up argument to stand on.

Ya, just some random law that needs to be changed, right? It's just the constitution, one of the hardest documents in the world to alter. But yeah, should be a real simple thing to just weaken everyone's favorite freedom.