What You Probably Haven’t Heard About Citizens United

What You Probably Haven’t Heard About Citizens United


Should the government be able to ban books
and movies? Well, the United States government says yes. At least it did in Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission. Now youíve probably heard of Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission as the case in which the Supreme Court says that corporations
are just like people and should be able to spend as much money as they want on politics.
But the government’s position in that case was that if a corporation had any role in
producing or distributing a book or movieósay, Barnes & Noble selling a book or Disney, Pixar,
or MGM making a movieóthe government could ban it if it contained even one line of political
advocacy. Thereís a lot more to the case in this idea
of “corporate personhood” than what you might have heard.
Corporations are not people, and nobody thinks they are. The Supreme Court doesn’t think
they are. But corporations have been recognized as persons for purposes of the law for centuriesóin
the United States, at least since the 1819 Supreme Court decision in Dartmouth College
v. Woodward, but really going back quite a bit further into the common law.
So if corporations aren’t people, what are they? Well, theyíre not just office buildings,
or desks, or telephones. Corporations consist of, in fact, managers and executives and shareholders.
That’s really what a corporation is. By treating corporations as people, for legal purposes,
we create a great many advantages for our society. In fact, imagine if we didn’t treat
a corporation as a person. How would you sue a corporation? If you wanted to sue Exxon,
you’d have to find the millions of different shareholders and sue them all individually.
That doesn’t sound like a very satisfactory way to run a court system. Having corporations
recognized as people for legal purposes allows corporations to buy and sell property without
having to retitle the property every time somebody sells their stock. It enables people
to pool their resources to create great new products for us. It allows the creation of
an Apple that produces iPhones and iPads that we can use. That would probably not happen
if you didn’t have some mechanism for people to bring all their property together. So the
idea of a corporation as a person, as a legal concept, is very valuable to us.
Now, do corporations have all the rights of real people? Well no, of course they don’t.
But corporations have all the rights that we as people have when we assemble, when we
join together. So John can speak, and you have a right to speak, and I have a right
to speak, and the three of us have a right to speak together. And we have a right to
get a whole bunch of other people to join with us. And we can all go down to city hall,
and we don’t lose our rights to the First Amendment, our rights to speak and assemble
and petition, simply because we join together and simply because we might organize ourselves
as a corporation in order to handle our administrative and management affairs.
Think about what would happen if corporations didn’t have rights. The government could just
seize corporate property and leave the shareholders holding worthless pieces of stock that are
of no value whatsoeveróand they could do that with no due process and with no just
compensation. It could search office buildings of corporations, because if corporations didn’t
have rights, who would have standing to object when the government came around to do warrantless
searches? Corporations don’t have rights because they’re
people. They’re not. They have rights because we have rights as people. And we have rights
as people even when we join together with other people, and we have rights even when
we form corporations. We form corporations to help us do the things we want to do in
life, whether it’s go into business or hold property together, or even organize a nonprofit
like the Sierra Club or the ACLU. So when you say that corporations shouldn’t have rights,
you’re restricting not the rights not of some amorphous group or thing that nobody’s ever
heard of, you’re restricting the rights of real people. And when we think about the position
that the government took in Citizens United, that the government has the right to ban a
book or a movie simply because a corporation had some role in producing or distributing
it, I think we should be awfully glad that corporations have rights.
And thatís something you probably havenít heard about Citizens United.

Comments

  1. Post
    Author
  2. Post
    Author
  3. Post
    Author
  4. Post
    Author
    Koroistro

    Agreed with the points of this video (exept the argument that if corporations would not have right the government would take away all the propety of it , it wouldn't becouse this action would dmg the government itself -> no taxes) but corporations should not be able to dump endless ammount of money into lobbying or politics becouse it's just antidemocratic : their money make policy makers make policies that advantage who gives them money -> corps.

  5. Post
    Author
    balduran2003

    The problem is that corportions do not take the views of all of their shareholds into account. The majority share holder(s) has complete control over the company. In other words if you own stock, but are not part of the majority share, the majority share may take the money that would have otherwise been paid to you as a dividend, and use it to support political positions that you don't agree with, and you cannot do anything about it.

  6. Post
    Author
    06afeher

    Companies are amoral economic vehicles that have every incentive in the world to bend rules in their favor, they are not free 'association of people', as an organization of ordinary citizens that campaign for a political cause would be.

  7. Post
    Author
    PaxEmpyrean

    You can sell your stock and buy stock in a company that pays dividends instead of getting involved in politics, or which supports political positions you agree with, if you prefer.

  8. Post
    Author
    balduran2003

    The point is that giving corporations the same rights as individuals ends up giving individuals who run companies greater power than individuals who do not. Companies should have no greater rights than any other group of individuals in which each individual has his own distinct voice. Not to mention that your solution does not solve the problem it just provides a way for you to be spiteful. The company governorship has already used your money.

  9. Post
    Author
    gustinfs

    I love this video. I find it funny that the left constantly gripes about corporate personhood and it's effect on elections, but they have no problem with the strong arming of unions who are treated as persons and directly and shamelessly affect elections while taking people's money while giving them no choice to exit the union. At least with a corporation, I can sell my stock anytime I like.

  10. Post
    Author
    balduran2003

    Organizations have no natural rights of their own. They inherit the rights of their owners. However, just because corporations and other organizations have some rights, that doesn't mean they assume all rights. If I own stock in a corporation, I give that company the right to use my money to generate profits. I do not give it the right to vote for me, or speak for me, only to invest my property for me. This video is NOT a representation of Libertarian thinking, or the ideals of Liberty.

  11. Post
    Author
    Chris Davies

    Yes you can: sell your stock!

    This is EXACTLY what stock is for: to either approve of the way the company is being run, and buy stock, or to disapprove of it (for whatever reason) and sell the stock.

    Companies who act unethically, usually have their share price damaged as a result. This is a result of disapproving shareholders selling their shares.

    If you don't sell, you are implicitly approving their actions.

  12. Post
    Author
    balduran2003

    I have already responded to another person with the same view as you. see my comment to PaxEmpyrean. Additionally, the rights of corporations are derived from their owners' rights. They do not have all of the rights of their owners implictly, only those rights granted by the owners under the corporate charter. When I buy stock, I give the company the right to invest my property, not the right to speak for me, or vote for me. all organizations should be extremely limited in their scope of rights.

  13. Post
    Author
  14. Post
    Author
    octalogic102

    this is bullshit. a corporation is a business not a person.their whole reason for for existence is to make money. Do we really want something that is only here to make money to have a say in anything. Don't we already have a gov that does that? do we really want corps to be able to tell us how to live? ppl by politicians everyday now we are going to let corps do it? you can put sugar on shit it still ain't gonna make it taste better.

  15. Post
    Author
    Enida Bonghit

    I agree. But that is only one half of the issue. Big government being influenced is the other half of the problem.

  16. Post
    Author
    octalogic102

    For your info I didn't make gov bigger.I believe that we the ppl should be telling the gov what to do not them tell us what to do and how to live.But we the ppl allowed this to happen. We stop don't take responsibility for anything. We seem to like the gov telling us how to live our lives. We the ppl like being distracted by bullshit while we and others around us are getting rapped and robbed.So don't blame me I am fighting them. What are you doing?

  17. Post
    Author
    Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson

    Why are they producing this video? I've never heard a single Democrat, even the most progressive, declare that corporations shouldn't be legal persons. I’ll admit that the CU v. FEC case was ridiculous but what was the outcome of the case and of others like it? Now corporations are first-class citizens and humans have become second-class citizen. By the way I love the names these conservatives choose for their lobby groups, “Citizens United”. Will they ever be truthful, “Billionaires United”?

  18. Post
    Author
  19. Post
    Author
    Bram Claes

    Not to mention that learn liberty is a channel funded by the Koch Brothers. Not a very neutral and objective perspective if you ask me

  20. Post
    Author
    Daniel Kang

    No, the ONLY standing in that case was that corporations have the first amendment right to free speech, and that the government subsequently could not ban works by those corporations. It said nothing about "first or second class citizens".

    Also, Citizens United was a small filmmaking group who wanted to release a movie about Hillary Clinton, but was banned from doing so. You're saying that they should have been struck down?

  21. Post
    Author
    Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson

    The effects of the ruling and subsequent rulings have caused what I described in my previous post. The ruling has always been interpreted in such a way that it permits corporations (and unions) to donate unlimited sums to political campaigns. When you think about it, the idea that a corporation can’t fund a movie sounds ridiculous but the result is that now they can spend millions and billions for direct advocacy. That is one of the reasons American democracy ended and the dollarocracy was born.

  22. Post
    Author
    JohnnyWayne

    So this keeps the big bad government from trampling on individual and corporate rights. You're right, I haven't heard much about protecting rights or liberties lately. If anything, the exact opposite has been occurring recently.

  23. Post
    Author
    XZDrake

    WOW! Leave it to this channel to somehow find the way that Citizens United hurts corporations. Its very saddening that you can never care about an issue unless it somehow negatively effects a corporation.

  24. Post
    Author
    XZDrake

    It speaks volumes about your character that in any situation, you are most willing to come to the defense of the strong.

  25. Post
    Author
  26. Post
    Author
    Barskor1

    LOL this is why corporations suck No responsibility when Exon dumps all over you the asshat management is Not held accountable. Jamie Dimon rips you off for 1.6 billion dollars? Nope it was the the Corporation Silly!
    Oh you finally get a settlement from the Corporation after Years of appeals? They don't care the prices of goods and services just went up to cover the cost and NO one in management suffers jail or a dime out of their pockets.
    Get It Their Imaginary Friend Did it Oops!

  27. Post
    Author
    brainplay

    Technically the government is represented by personhood for the sake of a court case. How many times have you seen "The United States vs XXXX". Actually quite a few times. Ironically, the case discussed here was between Citizens United vs the FEC. The FEC, was recognized as a person for the sake of the court case and was filing for grievances against the lobby group Citizens United who was also recognized as a person.

  28. Post
    Author
  29. Post
    Author
    Derek Zhang

    They always say that arguments ad populum and plain out insults are classical logical arguments for certain demographics of people who can't pull together a logical position for themselves.

  30. Post
    Author
    NotAnyoneSpecial

    I find it amusing that the video throws out there if corporations didn't have rights, the government could search office buildings and do warrantless searches. Cause the US government doesn't do that already? This is beside the point, LearnLiberty ignores the simply moral hazard of a system of unaccountable black box finance and draws an illusionary barrier between corporation and government. Corporations need the government to survive and thrive, whether its eminent domain, bailouts and etc.

  31. Post
    Author
    Lunarscribe

    How about this as a logical position. I don't want Mega Corps. such as Monsanto able to line the pockets of my Reps. with bribe money to get laws passed that favor them instead of the will of the people. No Corps. are not people, and should not even be seen as such in the eyes of the law. Your office is not your personal space and your Corp. has no right to privicy it opperates within the public sector therefore it must have full disclosure.

  32. Post
    Author
    themeanmachine

    Wait a second – if a corporation "is a person" with all it`s laws this means that i.e. Monsanto or Google can pay up politicians billions od dollars to have things the way they want. Now let`s put together Microsoft, Apple, Monsanto, Google, Yahoo and few other "being person" corporations and we end up being owned by those few "persons" who have more money then rest of society put together. You catch my drift or is it too much to handle for some people?

  33. Post
    Author
    Robert Williams

    If government is limited there would be no reason to buy politicians. If government is limited they wouldn't be able to make laws that favor themselves.

    Saying a corporation is a person confuses the issue. A corporation is a contract free people enter into, so a corporation is a group of people as he said. That means they have a right to own property, and form contracts.

  34. Post
    Author
  35. Post
    Author
  36. Post
    Author
    themeanmachine

    yes, corporation is a group of people but from this group only a few of them have the power to say what this corporation is going to do. so this corporation can have 10.000 workers but only 10 people make all the decisions, and we supose to give it 10.000 of "votes"?

  37. Post
    Author
  38. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    wait, what? Corporations can't force their employees to vote a certain way. What are you getting at? Are you another low-information voter who gets his news from comedy programs? Colbert and Stewart, I mean.

  39. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    It speaks volumes about your character that you play identity politics and are never able to come to logical and rational conclusions, just tired old ''Those ASSHOLES versus us fellas'' rhethoric that has been around since the days of Hitler. ''THEY are screwing US over!''. Yawn.

  40. Post
    Author
    Luther Thompson

    Why not? If they truely believe in their message, they should stand behind it as individuals instead of forming a corporation to say it for them.

  41. Post
    Author
    Luther Thompson

    1. An assembly of people is not a corporation. It doesn't have the power of consolidated property, and it doesn't establish an entity that potentially lives forever. An assembly implies active participation of its members, very unlike the role of shareholders.
    2. Most of this video is just begging the question. He presumes that corporations have rights, then says how horrible it would be if those rights were violated. People should not be able to transfer their rights to imaginary beings.

  42. Post
    Author
  43. Post
    Author
  44. Post
    Author
    themeanmachine

    federal laws? you mean the laws that corporations just BUY to get their way? dude, did you ever checked who`s paying for presidential campaigns? it`s not the law that controls money, it`s the money that control the law. Monsanto is the best example for that.

  45. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    You've been watching too much Alex Jones again. Laws dictate that you can't force your employees to vote a certain way ever since labor unions tried enforcing that. And it's never full corporate policy to vote a certain way so it never reaches the top CEO's anyway; it's always on the local level. Do you actually know what you're talking about or are you gonna give me vague ''they control E V E R Y T H I N G maaaaaan its like, KILLUMINATI'' tier rhetoric?

  46. Post
    Author
    Luther Thompson

    That completely avoids my question. Ownership equals responsibility. Joint property dilutes that responsibility, which leads to mismanagement of resources.

    People can easily cooperate without pooling their resources. If they must pool their money, they should find someone who is willing to stake his reputation on administering that money honestly. That's the way it should work.

    A corporation is just a way to shift responsibility to a made-up system and still reap the benefits.

  47. Post
    Author
    themeanmachine

    On what fucking world you live, dude?! Do you REALLY think that "laws" actually mean anything at this point? Well, tell this to all the OWS people that the police has beat the shit of and sprayed with pepper spray. Tell it to the people being put to jail for filming a cop on duty. There is now "law" left. And i`m more then sure that at some point you`ll see it for yourself. And the way i see you right now, it`ll be like hitting a brick wall with a car.

  48. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    The OWS movement was a failure of a movement that was too progressive for its own good. If we're talking about protestors and police, there's an interesting dynamic at play, but it has fuck-all to do with corporate laws. It's funny because people being put in jail for filming cops has EVERYTHING to do with the law. They aren't breaking 'dont put in jail people filming you' laws. They are USING the law, the very thing you say doesnt exist, to JUSTIFY the jail time with 'obstruction of justice'.

  49. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    Im not saying its fair what I'm saying is that you can't say 'the US is now in a state of anarchy'' because you think the result is unfair. Laws mean everything BECAUSE they are being used to put people in jail for filming cops. You're argument would make sense if cops were ACTIVELY breaking laws or going AGAINST legal stature. Rather, they are USING the law to do that. Ergo, laws matter VERY much BECAUSE they are used to put people in jail. Is the jail-time fair? No; but it has to do with laws.

  50. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    Lastly; you're living in some sort of post-apocalyptic version of the US where protest movements, which have HISTORICALLY always been put down, are indicative of some sort of overarching new reality. You realize the freedom riders were hosed, right? Did we just enter anarchy or were we always without laws since the 1940's? Something tells me you're pretty new to politics in general and are reading too much into Alex Jones' ramblings of secret FEMA camps and martial law.

  51. Post
    Author
    themeanmachine

    As far as i know you CAN record cops on duty and they CAN`T put you to jail for that. this is the law, what cops do is AGAINST the law.

  52. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    Except that there is also a thing called 'obstruction of justice' and cops use that against people recording them. I agree; they SHOULD NOT have an issue being recorded. But what I'm telling you is that cops aren't going around going against legal stature and raping women on the streets in an anarchist state (oxymoron). Alex Jones would have you believe we are SECONDS away from a gigantic collapse. People harking about the collapse of western civilization goes back to the 1800's.

  53. Post
    Author
    themeanmachine

    I`m gonna tell you one last thing – US wants to be an "empire" and as history shows ALL empires fail sooner or later. If you know that US has "official" 17 trillion dollars of debt (unofficial numbers may exceed even 200 trillion) you should also know that US is broke and doesn`t actually even belong to Americans anymore. You my friend got fucked by your banksters and politicians that don`t give a fuck about you or some "laws". If they did obama would be in prison as a war criminal and traitor.

  54. Post
    Author
  55. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    Hmm…you're only half right. The US doesn't want to be an empire; no nation wants to rule an empire because of how expensive and inefficient they are. What the US wants to do is enact a particular order on the world stage. You know that war in Syria and how we were gonna engage in it? Because of international laws WE crafted that WE want to uphold. We don't want people using chemical weapons; so we were willing to go to war. There's a difference between empire and international order.

  56. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    I agree that the debt is high, but it's a little more nuanced than that. You do realize that what we owe right now will be a lot less in 10 years, right? Inflation actually reduces the value of debts. But I agree, it's worrisome. But China only owns 8 percent of the debt; don't be an alarmist. Japan owns most of it. And Politicians are crooked, but you're making sweeping generalizations with vague assumptions. But I agree with your GENERAL sentiment, at least.

  57. Post
    Author
    themeanmachine

    US don`t want it… but already do it. just look at how many military bases US has all over the world. and as for "international laws" – they also mean NOTHING at this point. if it wasn`t for Russia US would be already bombing Syria, even against the law, US and "international". obama said it many times that they will go in even without any kind of resolution from UNSC. there is no more law, no more justice only "just us".

  58. Post
    Author
    WHATISUTUBE

    Look up the definition of 'empire'. Military bases doesn't equate to an empire. A lot of those countries WANT our military bases there. You think the South Koreans feel safer with the US military forces holding back the North Koreans? I think they do. As for international law; there's a difference between international law and order. International laws are non-ecistant because there is no enforcing agency. There have NEVER been international laws. It's a stupid concept; take it from a lawyer.

  59. Post
    Author
    Jason Bowers

    every person is a Corporation, this is why there are traffic courts. Traffic courts deal in contracts. Nothing constitutional about them but they are there.This is why a Business can give money to politicians just like People. When you get bills in the mail everything is in CAPITAL LETTERS. There is a reason for it. Stop watch TV and learn more about your government.

  60. Post
    Author
    themeanmachine

    No m8, those countries don`t "want" it, their LEADERS want it. And those leaders are being payed by US. You should know how this works – "you support our policies and we`ll give you cash and/or military gear". Most of Japanese want US troops out of Japan, the same thing in Afghanistan. US should stop being an "world policeman" cause they make things worse in most cases, just look in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria (US supplies arms to terrorists, it`s a proven fact at this point).

  61. Post
    Author
    pawndominance1

    Citizens United made politicians accountable to money, not voters. That's my argument. You think that is a good thing, or do you think that Citizens United doesn't do that? This u'll be interesting.

  62. Post
    Author
  63. Post
    Author
    Ben Unru

    But wait, didn't citizens united make it so corporations could make large anonymous donations to politicians?  This smooth talking oil sales man forgot the most important part!  We want more clarity in politics, we want to know that if GM spent 200 million on a campaign then they were going to get a massive bailout…

  64. Post
    Author
  65. Post
    Author
    MsTavi1977

    Of course there are valid reasons to afford corps 'human rights' under the law as this man points out. BUT, does he think we are idiots? YES, he does….and most of us still are. Until we reach a critical mass of an intelligent, questioning, INFORMED, public that uses logic & reason vs. emotion & regurgitation our country will remain a Plutocracy. I stupidly hold onto hope that it can be saved. EVERY empire falls…there is a very clear progression, clear signs & 'symptoms' that lead up to the fall. We exibit MANY. Pick up a history book. There is good reason for the quote/cliché, "Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it". Until we evolve into better beings it will repeat itself time & time again.

  66. Post
    Author
    Mito Longoria

    Of course the government can't ban all books and movies, but governments can regulate them.  For example, a government can limit the sale of pornography to certain zones in a city.  Similarly, offensive language, fighting words and even bad words can be prohibited by the government in many instances.  We should still be able to limit corporate free speech when there is a compelling interest like our individual right to vote. 

  67. Post
    Author
    ashton reason

    Corporations are different than people. Even when people gather together in a large group and pour money into an election, they want something that a lot of people can agree on, or else they wouldn't gather. But when a corporation pours money into an election there end goal is always the same, not clean air, clean water, or workers rights, but MONEY. Maximizing prophets is there one and only goal! Even if those pesky american people and all their wants get in the way. 

  68. Post
    Author
    Travis Ruffolo

    I have heard people argue that corporations are people so you can't say no one says/thinks that.

    First BS point we could easily label corporations as financial entities and sue them as a group, second it would be trivial to extend due process to said entities which virtually no one would argue with as we all want due process if we start a corporation, third BS point one function of a corporation is to insulate investors from losing more than they invested in said corporation if it's just people getting together that ability is not there. Making a corporation it self is effectively additional rights.

    My stance on the issue is that corporations should not be involved in the political process. Any individual can donate, to election limits, but should never be forced or pressured to by their employer to do so. Any individual or group of individuals or group thereof can make a video, advertizement if they want but it should be a transparent process because if they slander someone or simply lie there should be legal and social consequences.

    If you disagree let me know.

  69. Post
    Author
    Oshyrath

    How about instead of seeing corporations as individuals or a group of individuals, we see them as what they are, corporations. Corporations are not people, they don't have hands, feet, or other human characteristics. They can't even speak. So why are we giving them the "right to free speech?" You don't need to be a democrat to know how much of a threat allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on politician is to democracy.

  70. Post
    Author
  71. Post
    Author
    MASTERARTGOD

    So why would you allow a corporation to give money when individuals can do that. (note I do not think any group should be able to give money. I only think individlduals can or should be able to

  72. Post
    Author
    Dave Blair

    Corporations are bound by their Articles of Incorporation, which are limited by corporate regulations and bylaws on personal obligations, rights and liabilities of stakeholders towards and within the corporation and the corporation towards the state. They're not happy-go-lucky gatherings of like-minded individuals acting under a collective name they thought up two minutes ago. The freedom of speech tack-on is a crafty unfunny-punny rhetorical spin on the corporate personhood concept intended to legalize all but the plainest forms of bribery – there can be no other reason, as corporations can normally only act in such a way as to maximize their own corporate value. Anything else would be misappropriation of corporate funds.

  73. Post
    Author
    gary morrison

    What better metaphor to represent the inexorable logic of Capitalism, from the time of its 18th century origins in the slave trade, predestined to crystalize in our own time into those gleaming corporate office towers that dominate the skylines of todays major cities? It seems absurdly disingenuous, that the liturgy of  modern corporate gospel is being scripted at what are ostensibly libertarian think tanks. This kind of sound bite formatted video bares the tell tale fingerprints of corporate media with its customary audacity, still attempting to conceal its origins while obfuscating the political agenda of its private benefactors. Very slick.

  74. Post
    Author
    duo1666

    Ok…. i can agree with everything stated in the video. But we still have a problem we need to fix. Firstly, while a corporation of people should be treated as a person in the eyes of the law, the scope of which they are seen as such should be limited based on the type of organization they are.

    For instance, being able to sue apple as a collective is good. Having apple being able to put an unbalanced amount of money towards a government opinion is not. While im sure there is a need to be able to see a corporation as an entity "person", there should obviously be limits.

    Although, a good solution would just be to get money out of politics. 99% of problems solved.

  75. Post
    Author
    hippo potamus

    What a bunch of BS! Corporations are not people! They are not breathing, living beings! This is all legalese gargon to benefit big money and further deteriorate this already decaying society.

  76. Post
    Author
  77. Post
    Author
    Gary Sanders

    So.. in order to sue a corporation you need to consider it a person? What a load of shit. 

    Corporations don't have the same freedoms as a person does despite the rule? What a load of shit. 

    Corporations can't make movies with political speech in it? Except all the movies that already was created without issues. 

    Corporations are set up as a strawman for debt and dealings with a person, its a fictitious concept created specifically NOT to be a person. 

  78. Post
    Author
    Banter Board

    This is bullshit. Notice they didn't say anything about how the Citizens United case also deemed money to equal speech. Yeah, I guess they somehow forgot to include that part . . . So if our Constitution now says that corporations are persons and their money is free speech, then how much free speech do you and I have compared to them?

    The Citizens United decision was made for the sole purpose of allowing corporations to give incredible sums of money to promote the political parties of their choice for 2012 Presidential election (the most expensive Presidential election in American history). It was not a coincidence this passed in 2010. 

    The American government is being taken over by corrupt corporate interests and propaganda like this is part of the problem. I enjoyed and agreed with a couple of videos by Learn Liberty, but after watching this I'm going to have to jump off the bandwagon. Unsubscribing. 

  79. Post
    Author
  80. Post
    Author
    Tim Weise

    Somehow I feel that a little more effort could go into defining a corporation. Major shareholders are definitely more accountable.

  81. Post
    Author
  82. Post
    Author
    Paul Gessing

    Money is one way of obtaining speech. It is not the ONLY way to speak, obviously, but it is an important one in politics. Of course, the NY Times and the media can engage in political speech regardless. How is that fair? Money will always find a way. 

  83. Post
    Author
  84. Post
    Author
    Chales Eaton

    Let's take a hypothetical example of two viable candidates making their case in a football stadium before 80,000 potential listeners. Both are entirely free to say whatever they wish. However, one is limited by the strength of his vocal chords, whereas the other has purchased the use of the public address system. Although the speech of both is "free", the ability of the second candidate to make his case is amplified many times over. It's difficult to argue that this sort of setup is either fair or desirable. But it's essentially the election system we've got.

    The point is that the basic argument over election campaigns is not really about the First Amendment; almost everyone supports the principle of free speech. Rather, it's about the distortion brought about by the ability of money to buy that greatly amplified sound system.

    It's chiefly the latter that needs fixing.

  85. Post
    Author
    Michael Giannini

    Is it okay for Corporations to buy politicians to create new laws that aid them in the deregulation of tax loop holes, that way they can make their way of  billions of dollars in taxes. Is this okay?

  86. Post
    Author
    Jordan Barnette

    They should not be considered people, they should be considered legal entities with limited rights under the law just like foreign governments and agencies. The idea that individuals coming together for the purpose of political advertising vs a corporation made up of people of varying ideological beliefs and backgrounds is somehow the same is ridiculous. It should be illegal for corporate entities to put their resources toward political ads as they possess self interests and means that are greater and can be against the will of the many poor individuals working for said corporations. And like hell the government is going to ban a Pixar movie because it makes reference to something political. Damn it where's the common sense!

  87. Post
    Author
    barneycarparts

    Public service Unions take involuntary dues from Teachers firefighters Police and nurses to the tune of 6 Billion a year. The 6 Billion is used to lobby the government for more contracts and retirement perks. Often the Members disagree with the union support of crooked politicians but can do nothing about it.

  88. Post
    Author
    Cyrus Tashakkori

    The benefits of corporate personhood notwithstanding, the unfettered ability of moneyed interests to buy influence in our political system is creating a dichotomy between what the majority of Americans want and the policies we get. That is undemocratic. Left, right, and center agre that moneyed interests should not have more of a voice than average people in a true Democracy. we are far from that ideal and further so thanks to Citizens United and a number of other moves by ideologues who are overturning a century of precedent that protects against this kind of corruption. Make a video on that.

  89. Post
    Author
    Nate Gabel

    Have you or will you make a video addressing the issue of limited liability (LLC)?

    I have no issues with corporations having the same rights as individuals, but I do have issues with government charters enforcing limited liability. That is one area where corporations assume greater rights than those of individuals.

  90. Post
    Author
  91. Post
    Author
  92. Post
    Author
    Casey Marlow

    there y'all libertarians go again! Freedom! yea nobody should have the freedom to bribe politicians it's one man one vote but now it has been skewed so that the rich and powerful have more say than the majority of Americans who want higher taxes for the rich, a green revolution, and an end to the corrupt campaign finance system. fuck your "freedom" because your view of "freedom" is what has destroyed the publics faith in the American government, and now we stand on the brink of disaster #libertarianismisbullshit #freedom2corrupt #yourideoglogyisfor10yearolds

  93. Post
    Author
  94. Post
    Author
  95. Post
    Author
  96. Post
    Author
  97. Post
    Author
    Travis Haynes

    What does this douchbag have to gain? I gotta ask myself , when people start trying to protect the "rights" of corporations there's money coming outta the common mans pocket and into the pockets of the elite %1.

  98. Post
    Author
  99. Post
    Author
    Patient Grasshopper

    He talks about it making it easier to sue, except when you sue a corporation the executives responsible aren't held accountable, because they are separate from the corporation.

  100. Post
    Author
    Balanced Stereo

    Money IS Free Speech BUT — Money IS NOT “Free AND Equal” POLITICAL Speech!! — BECAUSE at early Campaign “Stump Speeches” Abe Lincoln & the others were placed “Equally” enough apart to where Voters could move around & Freely Hear All Views Equally!! — So EVIL “Citizens United” Must be KILLED with “Freedom AND Equality” in Political Speech as the “Supreme” Legal Argument & ALL Campaign Spending Must be “Equalized” so WE can Freely Hear All Mass Media Campaign "Stump Speech" Equally!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *